Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fie

[iantris]

Issue: Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.

 

Educational institutions bear the promise to develop and promote growth among students. Concerns about students’ later life success, however, suggest that institutions also bear the responsibility to direct their students from fields of study with little likelihood for the students’ later life success. While this is a genuine concern, educational institutions, in most cases, should not try to dissuade students from pursuing the fields they are unlikely to succeed in.

 

The argument for the idea that students should be dissuade from the fields where they are unlikely to succeed maybe the perception that the goal of education is post-graduation success. A proponent of such an idea may reason that since educational institutions serve as the providers of education, they also should act as the catalyst of their students’ post-graduation success. If a student with profound musical talent struggles in his study to become an accountant, the institution should dissuade the musical genius from the wrong path, lest it would rob the world of a prolific musician, in addition to ruining his life with the lack of success.

 

While such an argument is not without merit, the chief reason against such premature dissuasion is that no prediction is ever certain. In other words, it is imponderable whether a student will find success with her field of study in the future, regardless of her performance today. Albert Einstein was a gifted violinist, and although he was known to play violin in his later life, he was not known for incredible violin chops. Simply put, one would not deem Einstein a successful violinist. The same Einstein, who did not display particular academic gift early in his childhood, went on to be one of the preeminent academics in the history of mankind. Like Einstein’s unforeseeable success (or the lack thereof in another field), a student’s future success depends on a multitude of factors, the entirety of which can be comprehended and controlled by neither the student nor her educational institution. Dissuading a student from her field of study, therefore, has little ground for success.

 

In addition, by dissuading students from a field of study with which they struggle, the educational institution risks robbing them of their very chance to grow and develop to become a successful person. A successful career is often, if not most of the time, cultivated from overcoming challenges. Bill Gates, considered by many as the most successful business leader in the world, did not begin his career flush with smooth success. He dropped out of college and struggled to provide for himself for a prolonged period before his business, Microsoft, even became a recognizable trademark. Likewise, a struggling student who wants to be an accomplished mathematician might not – and in many cases should not – experience easy success with the field of mathematics. Oftentimes, it may be the challenge and the struggle that harden the work ethics, sharpen the mind, and intensify the desire for self-improvement. By preventing students from being challenged to their limit, the educational institution would, in a sense, renege on its promise to develop better persons.

 

While there is certain merit to the argument for dissuading students from fields with little likelihood for their success, such an act, in all practicality, has little ground. First, it is difficult to predict the likelihood of eventual success based on current performance. Also, it might be the struggle the students are experiencing that might have a positive influence on their later success.