Some systems require students to specialize in a limited range of subjects from the age of fifteen. Other systems require students to study a wide range of subjects until they leave school. What are the benefits of these two education systems and which is better?

In some high schools,

students

are demanded to study a range of specific related

subjects

after a certain grade.

On the other hand

, other schools don'

t

regard

this

as a necessity and

students

study the same general

subjects

without the need to specialize later on.There are plenty of reasons to support and criticize both systems. I will discuss both views and provide my opinion towards the end of my essay. The main reason why some schools require a general area of studies is to make sure that when a student graduates he or she is knowledgeable in all

subjects

and

therefore

is better prepared for higher education.

However

, what

this

system

lacks is practicality; general

knowledge

of a wide array of topics isn'

t

going to get you far in life. Being well-informed isn'

t

gonna benefit you in the future unless you specialize in a college or a university. The latter

system

provides a solution to

this

problem.

Instead

of studying the same

subjects

in your

last

couple of years acquiring higher

knowledge

which is most likely not in the least beneficial later on,

students

can enrol in specific areas of study.

This

is very helpful since

students

will be more prepared and familiar especially if they decide to enrol in a college or university. A common argument brought against

this

system

is the lack of other aspects of

knowledge

if a student ignores other

subjects

at an early age.

This

is true but not the case here since 2 or 3 years won'

t

largely affect someone's general

knowledge

. In conclusion, both systems have their pros and cons,but,in my opinion,a

system

with a more limited range of

subjects

at a higher grade is definitely better at preparing

students

for life.