It is a contentious long-term issue under intense discussion and extensive concerns to become either generalists or specialists. As Jess Mcmullin said, credibility relies on deep expertise, but generalists are more powerful regarding the mounting work in intersections of subjects. From my own perspective, I deem it is a more sensible decision to specialize in one specific subject. Among countless factors two conspicuous aspects are ability to earn more money and opportunity to be elites in one field.

Admittedly, the generalist is more flexible, having numerous options in the job market. Hence, they are less likely to face unemployment in the fast dynamic changing society. However, the specializing needs to spend more time to study, and the positions are narrowly defined. As a result, specialists are hard to come by, and they are usually more valuable and indispensable to companies. According to the data of social research, generalists are more supposable to be cut when the company is appearing corporate lay-off. Moreover, the specialist usually performs a thorough insight towards tasks and advises thought-provoking reports to managers. Therefore, the salaries of specialists tend to be higher, even at the starting point.

Another reason for my propensity is that specialists are more likely to be true thought leaders in an industry. It is said that knowledge is infinite, but life is limited. In addition, people can make full use of limited life to concentrate on a specific field. Moreover, a main subject can have many sub-subjects or divisions. For instance, the science of journalism can include theories and histories of journalism, interview courses and editorials writing. It does mean a number of works to do even if people merely specialize in one subject. Thus, it is more auspicious to concentrate on one specific subject.

To summarize, I incline to support specializing is more suitable. It not only satisfies the intense demand of employers, but also promotes people to achieve a higher achievement.