Recently, the system of education has been subjected to a lot of discussions and poring of ideas in almost every part of the world. There have also been commensurate discussions on the curriculum the students are required to follow as well, with some wanting a more diverse curriculum, while some wanting a specialized curriculum and some wanting a more uniform curriculum. The prompt here also addresses a part of such discussions by claiming that a nation should make it compulsory for all of its students to study the same curriculum before they reach the college level. I, however, mostly disagree with this claim for several reasons. But, I do concede that in certain scenarios similarly designed curriculum for all the students may hold some merit.

Firstly, no two students in this big world are same by every means. So no two students will have an exact same need. When a same curriculum is provided to the two students with very different capabilities, their flourishment cannot be as proper as desired. For example, there may be a student who is very interested to the matters of geography, the location, climate, environment, etc. of different places and there may be another student who is a physics prodigy, and has published several papers on quantam mechanics. Now, imagine both of them taking a same curriculum that mostly focuses on politics, or maybe even geography. There is a very high probability that the talent of one of them or even both of them is going to remain severely underutilized. Perhaps one of the students is a great soccer prospect, but there's no sports class and only the physics classes. Think of how he is going to be judged for not prospering in the physics classes.

Furthermore, not only on the ability of students themselves, the curriculum must be flexible depending upon the topography, culture and tradition the student belongs to. A civil engineer who is based mostly on the hilly part of the country may have to be more equipped on building bridges, whereas the ones in the plain may sustain with less focus on bridges. Likewise, it is possible that the student in Nepal near Tibet border will have to learn Tibetan to make his day-to-day life easier while the one near India border will have to learn Hindi. It will be a blatant error if someone studying in the plains near India border is forced to learn Tibetan just because the curriculum is required to be the same throughout the country.

However, there may be some particular cases when the uniform curriculum could seem to be a better option. Particulary in the cases when you are required to judge the academics of students, inconsistent curriculum can pose a serious difficulty. For example, when there's a job opening in the capital of the country and there are applications from all over the country, it would be really hard to judge the academic qualifications of the applicants when the curriculum is not really same. There is a probability that some curriculums have been designed so as to be easier to get higher grades whereras some are comparitvely tougher. In such case the consistent curriculum could have been helpful. We can also look at the higher studies in USA, where the students coming from diffferent curriculums apply for the same position. The judgement is really tough and the universities have to take help from the ETS which takes GRE tests with a uniorm curriculum to everyone participating.

All in all, although the prompt has made a ponderable clai, and there are some cases supporting the claim, I could not agree on the claim that the entire nation should have the same curriculum to all the students of different economical, geographical, political, and cultural backgrounds as different places have different academic requirements.