Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Universities Should Require Every Student To Take A Variety Of Courses - With A Free Essay Review
Universities Should Require Every Student To Take A Variety Of Courses Outside The Student’s Major Field Of Study. Reason: Acquiring Knowledge Of Various Academic Disciplines Is The Best Way To Become Truly Educated.
The aim of education is to make us better human beings and not merely to impart knowledge. Universities are places where students specialize in their areas of interest. Specialization is the main aim of higher education; however all round growth is even more important. To ensure this the students of universities need to be well aware of their subject of choice and also other subjects, so that they have whole sum education.
If we take the example of any subject, say physics, this subject alone cannot be studied without knowing a little about mathematics. In order to understand the various theorems and to understand their derivation we need mathematics. Then again if we see closely the theorems in physics are related to our daily lives and various phenomena around us. In fact certain biological phenomena can be explained by physics. The dynamics of various chemical reactions follow laws of physics. Various biological processes are nothing but complex chemical reactions. Hence we can see that the basic branches of science, which have been divided into major subjects, are all interconnected. The practical applications of each field are based on its use in our daily lives. Now, if students only learn one subject and don’t learn anything about the other then they will not be able to connect their discoveries with their use and will only have theoretical knowledge. For example, in the discovery of drugs we need scientists who have a good grip of chemistry and biology, plus we need them to be good with calculations too as the doses need meticulous calculations.
Similarly, in case of arts too, suppose we consider fine arts, a student who knows how to sing and dance will have be a better performer than one who has restricted himself to only dance or singing. Also, many musicians and artists are also good scientists, for example it helps to know anatomy really well if an art student wants to become a good portrait artist. Musicians who understand the laws of acoustics are better with their instruments and can modify them easily as they know the basic principle behind its function. Basically have interdisciplinary knowledge removes the blind areas of our field and makes us more confident and efficient.
Also the overall growth of an individual is gauged by his emotional, cultural as well as academic growth. When students are encouraged to take courses outside their field of study then they can use it for their all round development. Taking part in extracurricular activities may not always be possible for university students, but if these are included in the curricula then it becomes easier.
Finally the use of universities is the betterment of our societies. This can be only achieved by having more educated and enlightened individuals, who can take rational decisions and who can contribute for the betterment of the society. Restricted knowledge cannot make anyone educated, they will only be learned and due to the lack of complete education they will not be able to use their knowledge to the fullest. Everything in life is interdependent; we cannot seclude ourselves in one area and expect our minds to grow. Hence, it is necessary to study beyond our major field of study, to gain knowledge about other subjects and to grow as educated individuals.
The opening paragraph could be stronger. The first sentence is vague; it's not clear what you mean by the phrase "make us better human beings," although obviously you must mean something other than "make us better by making us more knowledgeable." The reference to "all round growth," in the third sentence is also vague. Moreover, saying that "all round growth" is more important than specialization, having said that specialization "is the main aim of higher education" seems a bit odd to me. One could say that "all round growth" is more important in general, but you seem to want to say, to judge by the context, that such growth is more important than specialization precisely in a university. In any case, your essay doesn't really focus on something like "all round growth," so the opening paragraph does not effectively introduce your essay's argument.
Your first argument concerns not general "growth" but the need to study, in the sciences, more than one subject for the sake of being able to apply theoretical knowledge in practical settings. I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. I suspect there are many examples of biologists and chemists who do well enough in the real world without having taken a variety of course outside those disciplines. Note that if you made your argument a little weaker it would likely be more compelling. Claiming that students who only study within their own field "will not be able to connect their discoveries with their use" is a strong claim, and so much more difficult to prove than saying that such students who do study outside their own field "may be better able to connect etc." The argument of the paragraph as a whole also addresses only the case of obviously useful interdisciplinarity. Studying mathematics could never be a matter of choice for aspiring physicists; you cannot do physics without mathematics. The real question here is whether the engineers or the mathematicians or the physicists should be required to take courses in literature or history or philosophy, since that is presumably what taking a variety of courses would entail.
Now in your next paragraph you do consider favorably the possibility of a musician studying the laws of acoustics, or of an artist studying anatomy. Here too, however, you are only concerned with useful interdisciplinarity. One could well imagine a course in music including an introduction to acoustics, and courses in basic anatomy I would assume are an essential part of the training of artists. The point I'm making here is not that your argument is wrong, but that it is obviously right; you're not really addressing an arguable claim, and you should interpret the prompt as presenting you with an arguable claim.
You turn then to the argument about "overall growth." The phrase remains very vague here. If you want to make this argument, you need to explain what you mean by such growth, why it’s important, what its value is, and then why a university should be concerned with the task of fostering it.