第六篇

If this advice were taken, the benefits would be obvious. Offering students proper general education,according to the national curriculum including both science and arts, before they enter colleges would broaden their vision and help them to choose majors more informed for the fact that they are aware of what really interests them. Therefore the phenomenon, widely existed in some countries which applied the system of divided curriculums, that students majoring arts lack the fundamental science knowledge while science students do not have the necessary humanistic literacy would be expected to be drastically reduced. Furthermore, the one same curriculum might help shape the shared value system and codes of conducts among the population of a nation. Thus the society would be more stable.

However, if we take more reality into consideration, we could find some tricky problems of this suggestion. For one thing, apparently not all students can achieve high grades in both science and arts. Since academic performance weighs a lot in

the evaluation for college enrollment, it would inevitably affect some students whose GPA is not shining but who have great gift in certain fields. Because of failing to reach standards of some subjects they might not be able to get in a good university and get an appropriate education which could enhance their ability to use their gift. It would certainly be a waste of their talents.

For another, we also need to consider the distribution of education recourse and other conditions of different regions, especially in some developing countries. For example, assume School A is located in a wealthy neighborhood in a major city, parents and teachers of the students in this school all have relatively high educational level, and the teaching equipment of this school is state-of-art. School B lies in an impoverished village cut off from civilization by the high mountains. Parents of the students in this school are nearly all illiterate and the only teacher of this school just graduate from high school. Students of this school usually need to help their parents to farm after school. If they use the same curriculum, then it is entirely possible that students in School A find it too easy while students in School B feel just the opposite. In addition, it would be unfair for students of School B if colleges use a single

academic performance standard in enrollment according to the solitary curriculum.

Finally, we can see that this one-curriculum system may work well in a developed nation-state while in some multi-ethnic and multi-religious countries it may cause problems much more serious than education inequality. For instance, religious freedom is an inherent part of freedom as one of the essential human rights we all believe in, and the theory of evolution is of great importance in modern biology. Thus if we use one same national curriculum,we would be in a dilemma because neither can we force devout catholic students to learn the theory of evolution, nor just delete this part in the curriculum which would definitelyarouse protest among other students and their parents. Besides, different languages among races could be another obstacle to implementing this one-national-curriculum system. These problems, if not handled properly, could give rise to conflicts among races and religious communities or even riots.

In sum, instead of using a whole national curriculum that all students must learn, it might be better to just work out the

frame of the national curriculum including some of the key courses which can be widely accepted and leave the rest of the curriculum to regions or schools and students so that they can choose different courses according to their respectively conditions.