A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

I would like (Always speak in third person not in first) to disagree that a nation should require the students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.We would not have Freddie mercury,probably the greatest vocalist of our time if he would have been taking classes and gaining credits on the subjects of physics or chemistry.Although there are certain benefits to having a single curriculum of study,the cons outweigh the pros of it and thus a nation would be better of having different curriculum.

There are different students with different qualities capable of succeeding in different fields in which they know that they are good at. (convoluted question and not clear in its unfolding with TWO subjects - They)A musician should not be studying the elements of physics and learning the formulas of integration and differentiation just because it is in the national curriculum (opinable assessment.).He/she should be learning to play the notes better and other classes which might improve his skill in the field of music.A field runner should not be forced to spend time in the classes learning about ancient history and french language.He/She should spend time in the gym and at the race tracks to improve on his timings of his/her race.Therefore following a strict curriculum would seriously curb the ability of a lot of talented people who have the potential to become legends in their field.

In case of India, there are different educational boards following different curriculum.These hold certain advantages over a country which follows only one national curriculum of study.First of all it provides an option for the student to choose the type of curriculum he feels he can succeed in.Different students have different capabilities and thus measuring them against a same metric would be rather unfair.You cannot judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree.It allows for some flexibility in the educational structure where students have a choice to make a selection on the type of curriculum they want to study in.

For all the advantages this flexible structure of education holds, there are certain cons to this type of education.A student might not know what his main strengths are and he/she might be prone to choosing a wrong career in which he/she might not succeed.Thus following a strict curriculum might give him/her the idea of every field as a result of which he/she will make an informed choice on which career to choose. Another advantage that a single national curriculum provides is that the job of the universities in selecting the students becomes easier.The students graduating from high schools are tested on a level field and there can be no place for excuses for the students if they don't get into the college of their choice (redundant: the students....the students).As a result there can be no discrepancies in the admission process.

For all the advantages that a single curriculum of education holds,it does not take into consideration the qualities of a student and ability of him/her succeeding in a field which does not conform to the rules set by the institutions.Thus a nation should have various curriculum for the students to succeed in life.