Some people think that children under 18 years old should receive full-time education. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

although

some individuals are of the notion that full-time studying can be beneficial for the youngster under 18 years old,in my point of view,its detrimental dimensions triumph,

however

, both sides are explained here. one of the most highlighted merits regarding full-time education system is about restricting the temptations that mislead the juveniles if they are exposed with,as a vivid case, the majority of the adolescent delinquencies stems from wrong relations that usually have taken place in underprivileged parts of cities,where pupils are attracted to studying less than their classmates from better vicinities.

furthermore

,not only their times are not squandered on worthless activities but

also

they flourish in the future if the opportunities are utilised fruitfully,whereas their talents would be distinguished by the elderly,which may soften the routs of their prosperities.

on the other hand

,psychological disorders should not be ignored,the situation that let students neither become successful in their curriculums nor in other aspects,

such

as sport,which plays a critical role in both children health and

similarly

their confidence that can assist them to conquer the syllabus obstacles.

moreover

,the potential of subsequent problems as an offspring of lack of social interacting abilities would increase if their ratios are allocated to lessons of schooles,

in other words

,the people,who have not had the chance of communicating with others would suffer from isolation in their adulthood. to recapitulate,while some favourable alternations can be experienced if students are concentrated on full-time educating,the associated drawbacks would shadow the positive footprints if other essential parts of life are underestimated.