Source: ETS pool



My Essay (written under timed conditions, without any spell-checking/edits after completion):



Many countries around the world have a variety of schools, each of which offer multiple curricula, some of which are nationally mandated, while some follow an international standard like the International Bacclaureate (IB) curriculum. There are some nations that force its citizens to study the same national curriculum until university, but in my opinion, this is an ultimately detrimental idea, for three primary reasons which will be elaborated as follows.

To begin with, having a homogenous nationally mandated curriculum for all students disregards the individual interests of students completely. For instance, if a scientifically-inclined student is forced to learn the name of every river in the country, he would most likely develop a loathing for geography, as well as the education system as a whole. The lack of interest in such subjects would result in a drop in his grades, which would ultimately hinder him from being accepted into his top university. Should a student with a strong interest in astrophysics be denied entry into some of the best astrophysics univeristy programs in the country simply because he could not memorize the names of some rivers? Furthermore, a student forced into a mandatory national curriculum would simply end up wasting so much of time laboring over knowledge that is irrelevant to his life. If a country does not impose this homogenity in curriculum for all high-school students, they would be more free to pursue their interests and might even be happier and less stressed.

Another problem with having all students of a country study the same material until college is the potential to misuse this type of education. Since the national curriculum would be the students' primary source of knowledge, it is very easy to spread propaganda or biased political opinions through the education system. This phenomenon has been happening in China (People's Republic of China) for half a century. With a few exceptions, every Chinese citizen is required to sit the Gaokao examination which is based on a nationally mandated curriculum, which paints the Communist Party in a good light by highlighting its achievements, while convenienty ignoring the atrocities commited by the Party. For instance, the brutal Tiananmen Square massacre, which is widely regarded around the world as a terrible act against democracy, is absent from all of the country's textbooks. When there is no alternative, it is ridiculously easy for a country to inculcate unfailing hypernationalism in its citizens by misusing the education system, which is something that would be unlikely to happen if its students are given a choice as to what national curriculum to follow.

Although some might argue that having the same curriculum for every student in a nation might bridge economic and opportunity gaps, by preventing more economically privileged children from seeking better opportunities through private schools with curricula of higher quality, this view is blind to the underlying problems with the counrty's education system. If a student has to pay extra to receive better quality education, perhaps the true problem is a lacking national curriculum, rather than economic inequality. In conclusion, I strongly disagree that a country's citizens must be forced to study the same national curriculum until college.