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

First, forced attendance is a waste of resources, from space to energy to students’ valuable time. As mentioned above, 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 discussion and self-studying. Aside from wasting space, more attendees also 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 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 interested in history in the first place. Unfortunately, in class s/he was surrounded by many students who deemed their time there completely meaningless. In their view anyone who is paying attention to the class seems ridiculous. they might have little talks, eat snacks or 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”.

To conclude, although learning history sounds beneficial to anyone, the policy makers should still weigh the pros and cons when trying to compel all students to have the class.

Please read this version. I’ve modified a bit more.

Recently, there is a heated debate over whether all university students should be required to take history courses regardless of their fields of study. In my opinion, I believe making history classes mandatory could be unjustified, since it costs extra resources and reduces students’ learning effect.

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 should force students to take the class. That is because not every student deems it useful or appealing. According to a campus survey, nearly half of college students describe their history course as nothing but a waste of their time. They would rather bring other assignments to the class than listening to teachers preaching.

First of all, forced attendance is a waste of resources, whether tangible or intangible. As mentioned above, people 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 and self-studying. And a two-hour class is a major source of electric consumption with all the lighting, air conditioning and computers going on. Besides, for the unwilling, it can be time-consuming. They 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. We all tend to have classes with those who entertain same passion with us. Under certain circumstances, however, we might couldn’t help being affected. For one thing, we have to put up with 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 comes to compelling students to have it.