Some people think that students should study only subjects that will be useful in the future, while others believe they should study a wide range of subjects. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Concentrating on subjects with clear career relevance, such as mathematics, computer science or vocational training, equips students with the specific, marketable skills that employers actively seek, thereby easing their transition from the classroom into the workforce. A graduate who has studied programming or engineering, for instance, typically secures employment more readily than one whose curriculum lacked any practical application, since specialised knowledge directly signals competence and reduces the amount of on-the-job training a company must provide. Given that school and university years are inherently limited, this focused approach ensures that the time available is spent building expertise that will translate directly into future employability and long-term financial security.

Nevertheless, a wide-ranging curriculum offers advantages that narrow specialisation cannot replicate. Subjects such as history, art and literature cultivate critical thinking, cultural awareness and adaptability, qualities that are becoming increasingly valuable as automation and artificial intelligence reshape the job market and render many of today's 'useful' technical skills obsolete within a decade. Moreover, teenagers rarely know with certainty which career they will eventually pursue, so restricting their studies prematurely to a narrow set of subjects risks closing off options and interests they might later wish to explore, potentially trapping them in a field for which they are ultimately unsuited.

In conclusion, while I largely favour a curriculum weighted towards subjects with clear future practical use, a meaningful degree of breadth remains essential to develop adaptable, well-rounded individuals who are capable of responding to an unpredictable and rapidly evolving job market and society.