There has been a debate about the range of subjects students are encouraged to learn. While some people advocate a curriculum covering a wide variety of subjects, others propose a more concentrating way of study. Some people argue that students should be engaged into a broad range of curriculum and their most convincing reason is the possible scope of knowledge and horizon that students can expand during their learning process. It is true that such students would be exposed to various disciplines which allow them to understand the world and society from a variety of perspectives. Whats more, these diverse areas of knowledge are connected with each other directly or indirectly, facilitating students to better and more deeply understand each subject and inspiring their curiosity to their world. However, not everyone gets developed in balance. While some students are excellent at language and weak at mathematics, some are talented in science and challenged by history. In these cases, coercing school children to study the subjects that they find difficult is very likely to end up with students getting tired of study altogether which is certainly the last thing that educators and parents would want to see. The other side of the argument is also reasonable. Teenagers focusing on a few subjects tend to be able to perform well because they concentrate their limited time and energy on a narrow range of school work. The increased efficiency and academic results in turn enhance their confidence in their academic ability and sense of achievement. Allowing students to select a small number of subjects also gives them the opportunity to be only immersed in their favourite classes or what they are good at instead of those they have no clue about at all. This is crucial for individuals and society as well because it means that everyone can be an able and useful person as everyone has his/her strength. My personal view about this controversy is that both sides are based on good sense, and they can be reconciled with each other. In the primary stage of education, children should be encouraged to get involved in as many areas of knowledge as possible so as to have more chances to experience the world. As for the secondary school, adolescents basically have identified their tendency in academic and career terms, so they should be allowed to narrow down their study to a particular domain related to their future career.
已经有一个关于受试学生的学习范围的讨论。虽然有些人主张课程涵盖各种各样的科目，其他人提出了一个更专注的学习方式。有些人认为学生应该从事广泛的课程，他们最有说服力的原因是学生在学习过程中能扩大知识和视野的可能范围。这是真实的，这样的学生会接触到不同的学科，让他们了解世界和社会的各种观点。更为不同的是，这些不同领域的知识直接或间接地联系在一起，促进学生更好、更深入地理解每一个主题，激发他们对他们的好奇心。然而，并不是每个人都得到平衡发展。虽然一些学生在语言和数学方面都很优秀，但有些学生在科学方面却很有天赋，而且受到历史的挑战。在这些情况下，强迫学龄儿童研究的受试者，他们发现很难是很可能结束学生厌倦了研究共肯定是最后一件事，教育工作者和家长都希望看到的。另一边的说法也合理。青少年集中在少数受试者往往能表现好，因为他们专注于他们的时间和精力在一个狭窄的范围内的学校工作。提高效率和学术成果，提高他们的学习能力和成就感的信心。让学生选择一个小数量的受试者也给他们机会只是沉浸在自己喜欢的课程或他们所擅长的而不是那些他们有没有线索关于。这对个人和社会都是非常重要的，因为这意味着每个人都可以成为一个有能力的人，因为每个人都有自己的力量。我个人的观点是，双方都是以良好的意识为基础的，他们可以互相协调。在教育的初级阶段，应该鼓励孩子尽可能多地参与知识的教育，这样才能有更多的机会去体验世界。至于中学，青少年基本上已经确定了他们的倾向，在学术和职业方面，因此，他们应该被允许缩小到一个特定的领域相关的未来的职业生涯。