Educational institutes are expected to help a student in their personal development and
growth. Harsh truths and putting occasional bouts of pressure are one of the ways these
institutes operate to push people toward success. Schools and colleges, on paper at least, are
there to help students live and enjoy the real world and be active members of society.The
prompt states that these institutions should be responsible and prevent students from pursuing
fields of study in which they are most likely won't succeed. I mostly disagree with the idea of
the prompt. Initially, i state why I mostly disagree with this prompt. Educational institutions
can't dictate a student's passion and career trajectory in the long term. While they may think
they know what's best, in most cases they do not. Even though I mostly disagree, I do see a
certain point in dissuading students from careers in which they may fail badly.


The first reason I disagree with this prompt is that educational institutes can't predict a
student's life and career. Their opinion of what's best for someone may not be true. It's not
worth encouraging students to stop pursuing fields they may enjoy. Especially just because
these institutes feel that the student may not succeed. One can look at this reasoning from a
different angle too. If you push students to pursue fields or areas of study which is financially
lucrative, the student, albeit rich, will be miserable for a major portion of their life. In India,
schools and parents often discourage their kids from studying Arts or Liberal Studies due to the
fear of unemployment later in life.These kids, who are still around 15-16 years old , are sent to
institutes that prepare them for entry into "technical" colleges. This is done with the hope that
the kids a few years down the line will be earning a huge salary. This is in addition to the high
pressure of school studies. There have been frequent reports of hundreds if not thousands of
suicide in a single year in these institutes. Studying hours a day, an area or field which they
have a deep disdain for makes them take the worst possible route. Educational institutes can
only influence a student's decision to a certain extent. Asking them to stop studying the subjects
they love or enjoy so that they have a "stable" career does more harm than good. No one
controls the job markets. Especially these institutions. Choosing to throw students in fields that
a group of people think may benefit the student is a accident waiting to happen.


Another reason for my disagreement is how can faculties and institutes be completely sure of
their persuasion or dissuasion when they pressurise students. These institues ,even if they
somehow dissuade a student to leave a field of study, wont take responsibility of the students
career later in life. They usually think short term. Lets say that the faculty of a college decided
that the an academically brilliant kid is to study math and computer. They are asked to stop
studying Classic literature on the pretext that they do not have a creative mind. They are
constanly poked at to leave a "boring" literature studies and focus on"money-making" math and
computer. Even if the student listens and leaves their liking and do what these institues wish of
them. Will they be happy to attend coding classes? Will they wake up with the same passion or
zeal that they had while studying literature? There is a good chance they may not score well in
their subjects just because they find no incentive to be good at them. They may find it sleepy or
boring. Thereby as these institues can't control what happens after their "succesful" desuasion,
they shouldnt think of discouraging in the first place. Its easier for a student to fail and then
stand up in a field they have a passion for.


However, I can also understand the reasoning behind this prompt. Most people develop their
expertise in a particular field in their 20s. If an institution feels that a student may have tried and
failed in an area of their liking, it may be time to rethink their area of study. Passion can only
take someone so far. Its better that someone takes a step and gives students a reality check that
what they like is not necessarily that field for them. Maybe its the lack of discipline or an instict
towards a particular field. If someone fails repeatedly its better that they be asked to go towards
a field for which they migh have something to contribute. Institues indirectly already do that.
For example if you want to pursue undergraduate studies in Economics, most schools will ask
for A if not A+ grade in mathematics scores in your high school. A person maybe super
passionate for economics but if they arent good in maths, colleges wont be willing to accept or
even review their application. Their insistence on studying their favourites subject may not be
enough to compensate the high mathematical requirements of economics.

In such a situation, its better the student be encouarged to move on from their passion and
look at options which may also practically suit their skills and intellect. The mere desire for
something is not sufficient a sufficient reason to have it.

However despite mostly disagreeing with the prompt, i also acknowledge that this remains a
complex issue. These students in some point of their life will need to show some degree of
success. Constant failure may make it hard for them to find their footing in the
hypercompetetive world. At the same time, the definition of success is not as singular and
definitive as education establihsments define. People at the end of the day define success
differenlty. Assuming that all students define success by cushy jobs or immediate monetary
gains is very myopic view. If two failures and a single success makes a student happy studying
what they love, establishments should not discourage them.