before they enter the workforce and society. Some
argued that it is a waste of time for students to learn too many subjects while others believe that the
could be useful for children's future. In my opinion, I believe that both arguments make sense .
On the one hand, I agree with the idea that students waste a massive amount of time studying too many subjects because they can rarely be provided with opportunities to apply all the
acquired in their lives. It is apparent that the different functions and equations taught in maths class will not be used when
go grocery shopping.
, children may find some courses boring and useless when they compete for a job position.
, for a child who chooses to be a professional sports player when he or she grows up, learning chemistry or history at
would not benefit the child's career prospects.
On the other hand
, I believe that everything taught at
may be useful.
is a place where children develop the ability of literacy and numeracy, and
they are taught about maths and languages, even though they do not have the need to become a mathematician or a language professor when they choose their career path.
curricula are designed to teach
basic theory in order to make them prepare for the future.
, history and physics are courses that help to develop the skills of analytical thinking and the common sense of nature.
, other curricula like sports can have a beneficial effect on students to develop physical strength.
In conclusion, I believe that there are justifications for both sides. The
is useful in the future, and
Change the form of the verb
required to take different subjects does not waste children’s time.