All university students should be required to take history courses no matter what their field of study is.

All university students should be required to take history courses no matter what their field of study is.

Recently, there is [ grammatical error ] a heated debate [ factual inconsistency ]over whether (all university students should be required to take history courses regardless of their fields of study)[ duplicating prompt – use your words to rewrite ]. (In my opinion, I believe)[ repetition ] making history classes mandatory could be [ is ]unjustified, [punctuation error  ]since it [ unclear pronoun ]costs extra resources and reduces students’ learning effect[ absolute statement – change to conditional writing ].

Admittedly, the merit of learning history is widely acknowledged. As an old saying goes, histories make men wise. However, this doesn’t mean that we[ inappropriate pronoun ] should force students to take (the class)[unclear  ]. That is because not every student deems it[ unclear pronoun ] useful or appealing. According to a campus survey, nearly half of college students[ specify context ] describe[wrong verb  ] their history course as nothing but a waste of their time. (They would rather bring other assignments to the class)[ unclear ] than listening to teachers[word form error  ] preaching.

First of all[ inappropriate transitory phrase ], forced attendance is a waste of resources, whether tangible or intangible[ unclear ]. As mentioned above, people[ students ] with no interest in history account for a large proportion of the whole class. Extra students occupy extra classrooms, which instead can be used for group discussions[ word form error ] and self-studying. And [grammatical error with coordinating conjunction  ]a( two-hour class is a major source of electric consumption with all the lighting, air conditioning and computers going on)[ wordy/unclear ]. Besides, for the unwilling[unclear  ], it[  ]unclear pronoun can be time-consuming. They[ unclear pronoun ] can but sit in the very back of the classroom scanning through their social media feeds or even nap until the bell rings.

Moreover, for those history enthusiasts, this move may jeopardize (their efficiency)[ unclear ]. We[shift of person  ] all tend to have classes[word form error  ] with those (who entertain same passion with us)[unclear  ]. Under certain circumstances, however, we might couldn’t [grammatical error  ]help being affected[unclear  ]. For one thing, we have to (put up with)[ replace with one verb ] people around doing unrelated things, such as murmuring. For another, we are also likely to join them for fear of missing out.

To conclude, although learning history sounds beneficial to anyone, we should still weigh the pros and cons when it[unclear pronoun  ] comes to compelling students to have it[unclear pronoun  ].

All university students should be required to take history courses no matter what their field of study is.

Learning history benefits almost everyone and, including college students. But does this mean that all undergraduates nowadays should be forced to attend history class[ passive – change to active  ]? In my opinion, making history courses mandatory is unjustified since doing so costs extra resources and may [ unparalleled: costs….and DOES… ]reduce students’ learning effect.

First, forced attendance (is a waste of)[ change to active verb  ] resources, [ranging   ]from space to energy[ , and  ] to students’ valuable time. As mentioned above, [  Since in many universities ]students with no[/little   ] interest in history account for a large proportion of the whole class. Extra [ , offering unnecessary history coursework involves  ]students occupy extra classrooms, which instead can be used for group discussion and self-studying. Aside from wasting space, [  Additionally, ]more attendees also [ mean a higher utility bill resulted from electricity consumption.   ]consume a bunch of energy, such as the electricity supplying air conditioners and projectors. Besides, for those unwilling to learn history, a nearly two-hour class can be intolerable. They can but [ Perhaps they would  ]sit in the very back of the classroom scanning through their social media feeds or even nap until the bell rings.

Moreover, those history enthusiasts could encounter some inevitable distractions. For one thing, they may have to endure people around doing unrelated things, such as murmuring. For another, they are also likely to join them for fear of missing out. Imagine a student who was[ grammatical error  ] interested in history in the first place. Unfortunately, in class s/he was[he or she is   ] surrounded by many students who deemed[ grammatical error  ] their time there completely meaningless. In their view [punctuation   ]anyone who is paying attention to the class seems ridiculous. [ lack transitory word  ]they[ spelling error  ] might have little talks, eat snacks or[ punctuation error  ] even mock him/her. Over time, the original history-loving student may either get annoyed or be compromised as a member of the group of “bad student”[ group  ].

To conclude, although learning history sounds beneficial to anyone, the policy makers [ spelling/article errors  ]should still weigh the pros and cons when trying to compel [ before making rules requesting  ]all students to have the class.

Learning history benefits almost everyone. But does this mean that all undergraduates should attend history class? In my opinion, making history courses mandatory is unjustified since doing so costs extra resources and reduces students’ learning effect.

First, forced attendance wastes resources, ranging from space to energy, and to students’ valuable time. Since in many universities [university  ]students with little [lack  ]interest in history account for a large proportion, offering unnecessary history [  classes]coursework involves extra classrooms, which instead [could waste classroom space that  ]can [otherwise  ]be used for group discussion and[/or  ] self-studying. Additionally, more attendees also mean a higher utility bill resulted from electricity consumption. Besides,[ On top of these, ] for those unwilling to learn history, a nearly two-hour class can be intolerable[to uninterested students  ]. Perhaps they would sit in the very back of the classroom scanning through their social media feeds or even nap until the bell rings.

Moreover, those history enthusiasts could [would  ]encounter some inevitable distractions [if history class became compulsory to all  ]. For one thing, they may have to endure people around doing unrelated things, such as murmuring. For another, they are also likely to join them[ unclear pronoun ] for fear of missing out. Imagine a student who is interested in history in the first place. Unfortunately, in class he or she is surrounded by many students who deem their time there completely meaningless. In their view, anyone who is paying attention to the class seems ridiculous. Hence, they might have little talks, eat snacks, or even mock him/her. Over time, the history-loving student may either get annoyed or be compromised as a member of the “bad student” group.

To conclude, although learning history sounds beneficial to anyone, policymakers[educational administrators  ] should still weigh the pros and cons before making rules requesting all students to have the class.