Some modifications have been made in this reply.

Students nowadays are prone to be utilitarian when selecting their focus of study. Therefore, institutions have actively developed profitable STEM, business, and jurisprudence majors to attract potential students. Though emphasizing these majors could valorize the schools, schools should not myopically compel students to study in pragmatic fields in bigot.

First and foremost, propelling students to study in fanciful fields could not guarantee a promising career. In contrast, extravagantly concentrating on remunerative jobs may encumber students’ self-fulfillment. Admittedly, some students possessing genius in business communication, scientific frontier research, and jury are just right to target students of these faculties. Nevertheless, it is unwilling to redirect potential students in other fields to these mundanely accepted realms. For instance, Ch’ien Chung-shu, a 20th century virtuoso of Chinese classics, behaved poorly on math when attending Peking University’s entrance exam. Though youngsters were encouraged to study science, Ch’ien won’t be prolific if he followed suit. Therefore, compulsively encouraging students to learn in unsuitable fields yields no fruitful return. It may even deteriorate students’ being prodigious in other areas.

Moreover, it is unwise of an institution to focus on a constrictive range of studies. Indeed, to dig out students’ real potentials, prestigious universities underscore the fluidity of students’ transferring of their majors. Take Chicago University as an analogy; students enrolled in its school of social sciences are bestowed the right to redirect to another parallel program. To instantiate, history students could transfer to the economy department, while the registry is not reluctant to approve applications like this. Having implemented this for long, the school has cultured cohorts of outstanding students, which outnumbers schools whose concepts are rigid. Therefore, institutions that provide students with a variety of courses can foster brilliant students more probably. From this perspective, institutions should also perfect themselves to satisfy the multifaceted demands of students, which help realize the institution’s prestige.

I contend that triggering students to study in economically profitable fields is of practical consideration. However, students pay different costs due to the variation led by their endowments when working on the same program. The discrepancy among the students denies the rough proclaim that students should forthrightly have a homogenous target. Moreover, despite that inputting all resources on particular studies could make the institution strengthened in some area, insufficient construction of other parts are likely to drag the institution backward as an integral.

In a nutshell, educational institutions should not one-sidedly encourage their students to study in promising fields concerning salaries. They should also consider the long-run fulfillment of students, as well as institutions themselves. Therefore, the biased argument should be modified and be less utilitarian.