In some countries, secondary schools aim to provide a general education across a range of subjects. In others, children focus on a narrow range of subjects related to a particular career. Which do you think is appropriate in today’s world?

There are two popular education models of secondary schools around the world: general education and professional education. While the specialized model may develop students’ particular skills soon, the general one can help socialize them better.

Most of these young people would either go to college or go to work. The former may achieve good grades in college courses if they have learned various subjects before. Today’s university disciplines are becoming more mixed and complicated. Students have to understand this knowledge with universal wisdom. For example, to learn anthropology well in a college, learners should grasp some fundamental concepts on history, linguistics, philosophy and biology. While general education can cover the above pre-knowledge, the narrow model aiming for a specific career cannot. Students who have learned the limited scope of knowledge may hardly fit in the modern academic life in college.

General-educated students can also perform well in their future jobs than those educated with a specific purpose. Technologies have been rapidly reshaping professions in different ways. When graduating, secondary school students, with extensive schooling, can apply diverse subjects they learned in schools to these dynamic situations. For example, the car making industry has already put automation technologies into practice. Workers with various knowledge background can understand novel technology-enabled skills easily. However, those educated with narrow subjects may find it challenging to handle these latest because of their lack of insight into new fields.

In conclusion, compared with education targeting for a specific field, general education can help secondary students to fit in this age whatever paths they choose in the future.

In secondary schools, some students are under general education, and others are professional-educated. I would argue that the students under the general model can adapt to modern society better.

The narrow-educated may fail to master the changes in the world. In the modern age, a job demanding a single capability in the old days usually requires many skills. Let’s take translation as an example. Translators once only need to grasp expertise in the language. Now they also need to have an academic background of computer science to use the computer-aided translation system in their work. If they have only learned subjects on languages, they may feel confused when their past professional experience does not work. They have not learned how to cope with new situations and find it challenging to fit in the world.

General education allows secondary school students to fit in this age. The general-educated has acquired a wide range of disciplines. They can be well-rounded to cope with all kinds of changes in their jobs. Take accounting as an example. Accountants need to master their accounting expertise. But they still have to improve their writing to finish their financial report. Besides, the general-educated can recognize fake news in today’s social media. They have accepted extensive subjects such as philosophy, mathematics, literature, physics, and history. This basic knowledge can improve young people’s critical thinking, which gives them the tools to sift through a sea of information.

In conclusion, general education brings universal wisdom and critical thinking to secondary school students. These mind tools allow young people to fit in today’s world.