In today's job market it is far more important to have practical skills than theoretical knowledge. In the future, job applicants may not need any formal qualifications. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

When a college graduate enters the job market, he or she may find it surprising how highly valued practical skills

such

as familiarity with Microsoft Office are in comparison with what is taught in class. Based on

this

situation, some people came to the conclusion that future job applications will no longer require academic qualifications. In

this

essay, I will refute

this

argument from two aspects.

To begin

with, the premise itself is questionable, because the deep and systematic knowledge taught in higher education is in fact the basics of all the hands-on practices.

For instance

, behind the Microsoft toolkit is the sophisticated informational science; the popular and effective interpersonal skills contain a large number of psychological rules, and the leadership power can be categorised as a core research object of sociology and economics. All these down-to-earth abilities cannot do without sound support from the academic world.

Furthermore

, the functionality of the society is guaranteed with the expertise of certain professionals in certain sectors, which certainly needs accountable proving.

For example

, accountants need years of training to manage a balance sheet; doctors must pass the test of medical schools before they are competent to operate on a human body; architects

also

have to master physics and engineering in order to design a building

that is

safe to use. In fact, the world will end up in a mess if there’s no way of verifying the mastery required for

such

occupations. To sum up, it is irrational to rule out the fundamental role that academic training plays in workplaces. Nor is it appropriate to discharge the need for official qualifications in the selection of reliable employees, as doing so can have irreversible damage on the wellbeing of the public.