Empowering Academic Path Choices
Views on the Policy and Reasoning for the Position
Educational institutions provide grounds where students unleash their potential in various fields of study. As such, students find equal rights to mold themselves and venture into study areas in which they feel passionate. In this regard, I disagree with the policy that educational institutions should dissuade students from pursuing specific fields. Every student joins learning institutions with defined goals to achieve, and hence they should expect support from the institutions in pursuing them. Further, students eye at the professors for moral support in their studies, and as a result, discouragements may only poise as a harmful vice in their academics. Considerably, it is almost impossible to predict the future of a student, regardless of their present abilities (Hogan, 2016). As such, students should be allowed to decide the career paths they want to pursue. However, the institutions should be cautious about providing information regarding various fields of study, their past, and present, as well as opportunities for growth, to allow students to make informed decisions (Bensimon et al., 2019). Molding the student’s career and expounding on the universal curriculum to aid them in finding their predilections is the responsibility of an institution. However, this does not mean that they should ultimately choose their career paths. In any case, students have different passions and abilities and deciding anything different from their interests may even kill their motivation for learning. Therefore, institutions should invest more in nurturing students to develop outstandingly in the field studies of their choices.
Possible Consequences of Implementing the Policy and How They Shape My Position
Dissuading students from pursuing some fields poses discrimination of certain career paths and may sire negative consequences. In this regard, if this policy is implemented, the impacts may be more harmful than beneficial. For instance, although institutions aid in expounding on students’ paths to various fields, deciding their career paths has negative consequences. Firstly, such a policy presents an exponential increase in specific areas than others, which poses biased competition in the job market. Such is evidenced in the field of technology and humanities, where currently, more students pursue the former than the latter, leading to job dissatisfaction, guilt, and frustration in career development (Hogan, 2016).
Additionally, deciding on which career paths students should venture in, only deprives their freedom to choose for themselves. Such presents discouragements and a feeling of demotivation in the academic field to students. For instance, if a student develops a passion for a certain field and chooses to advance in it, whereby professors dissuade him from pursuing it, his dreams are cut short.
Essentially, if a student is guided to a particular field of study which he has no interest in, he may end up wasting time by not working hard since passion plays a role in academics. Eventually, the student’s time and resources will get wasted and remain to blame the institution. Importantly to note, success in a field of study entails the incorporation of multiple factors such as motivation, hard work, determination, and enthusiastic attitude, among others. In this regard, it is hard to assess one’s probability to succeed in the initial stages, and hence, institutions should not invade students’ space in career path decisions (Hogan, 2016). Further, success relies on an individual’s perseverance even when things fall out of order. Therefore, while institutions shape a student’s academic life, the decision to pursue a particular field should solely be an individual matter. The professors should bolster and guide the students to excel in areas of studies of their choice, but not dissuade them that they are unlikely to succeed.