Do all students have to study history?

Question

Some people believe that all students have to study history. Others they think they should learn other subjects insted. Do you agree or disagree?

Studying history has become an essential part of everyday student life. There are those who vehemently believe that every student must study history, however others thinks that they do not have to. I somewhat agree with the opinion that every students must study history for reasons I will outline below.

From an overall perspective, there are two primary reasons why I feel that all students have to study history. Conceiveably, the most compelling reason why I am in favour of this idea is that students can learn fundamental mistakes from the past. A good illustration of this is that studying the World War Two can make a student acutely aware of the high number people killed during that war. As a result, he knows that a war can cost lives a lot and realises that the best solution to avoiding a conflict is probably through mediation. A further point in favour of this notion is that a student can learn the great achievements with limited resources. For example, Alber Einstein who proposed relativity theory in the dim and distant past formulated this theory with simple experiement tools. As a result, a student might want to develop even a more sophisticated theory with the current cutting edge technology laboratory at his school.

Despite these logically convincing arguments, there is also a case for the idea that students should learn other subjects. Perhaps the cogent reason why I vehemently agree with this idea is because other subjects are equally critically important to effectively deal with the thorny conflicts and the great achievements. For example, biology can be used to reduce famine and mathematics could be used to formulate a new technique to build a bridge.

In conclusion, studying history is obviously relevant to moden students. Overall, I would have to say all students must study history at minimum.

Please correct my essay and happy mew year 2019!

Poster2 · Accepted Answer

Some people believe that all students should have to study history. Others they think they should learn other subjects insted. Do you agree or disagree?

Studying history has become an essential part of everyday student life. ['Students' suggests either university or college level, or secondary school, less frequently primary children. Which level is under discussion here? History is often an optional subject at secondary school and definitely at university; so how is it a core subject in general? ] There are those who vehemently believe that every student must study history, however others thinks that they do not have to. [This adds little to your argument.] I somewhat agree with the opinion that every students ['every' and 'each' take a singular noun] must study history for reasons I will outline below . [This phrase tells us nothing: we expect that anyway]

From an overall perspective, there are two primary reasons why I feel that all students have to study history. Conceiveably, [No idea what you mean by 'conceivably' in this context: you must know what you believe and there is no reason to doubt] the most compelling reason why I am in favour of this idea is that students can learn fundamental mistakes from the past [This sounds as if the students need to learn how to make mistakes.]. A good illustration of this is that studying ~~the~~ World War Two [In principle, proper names do not need articles, unless they contain 'united' or 'republic'.] can make a student acutely aware of the high number people killed during that war. As a result, he knows that a war can cost lives a lot ['a lot' is informal; use much/many] and realises that the best solution to avoiding a conflict is probably through mediation. A further point in favour of this notion is that a student can learn ~~the~~ of great achievements with limited resources. For example, Alber Einstein who proposed relativity theory in the dim and distant past ['dim and distant'; he died about sixty years ago; I suppose that would make me dim and distant too. Yet I am still here. ] formulated this theory with simple experiement ['experimental' is the adjective]tools. As a result,[Repetition: consequently] a student might want to develop even a more sophisticated theory with the current cutting edge technology laboratory at his school.[I doubt any school can afford a 'cutting edge' lab.]

Despite these logically convincing arguments, [Well they did not convince me at all. ] there is also a case for the idea that students should learn other subjects. Perhaps the cogent reason why I vehemently agree with this idea [Inserting pre-prepared portable phrases does not improve your vocabulary score much: examiners are assessing your topic vocabulary as this is the best guide to your real level. Of course, there is a lot more work involved in learning vocabulary for each and every possible IELTS topic.] is because other subjects are equally critically important to effectively deal with the thorny conflicts [Which thorny conflicts? Using 'the' implies the reader will already be aware which specific conflicts are being referred to.] and the great achievements. For example, biology can be used to reduce famine and mathematics could be used to formulate a new technique to build a bridge.

In conclusion, studying history is obviously [No, not to me: it is up to you to prove it in this essay.] relevant to moden students. Overall, I would have to say all students must study history at minimum. [What, all the time? At which stage of their education?]

Significant number of spelling mistakes will reduce your score.

It is often argued that if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past then we are doomed to repeat them. However this has not stopped repeated wars. So either our learning is faulty, or the theory is wrong, or we are by nature 'warsome' creatures and unable to overcome this trait. It should also be noted that the past is not necessarily a guide to the future, and entirely new issues may crop up, as is currently the case with greenhouse gas and plastic pollution.

There is another reason for studying history: there are often multiple versions of events, with 'history' usually written by the victors. The truth is a matter of assessing the evidence: this is a portable skill, used throughout science and by police detectives and intelligence analysts. A good skill for every student to acquire.

In the end, education is not just about passing on a body of knowledge or skills. It is about our view of what lies ahead in the future: if civilization is doomed, then we need to teach survival skills for a different world. If pollution is the overriding issue, then that must have priority. Our Weltanschauung or worldview dictates the educational syllabus.

Do all students have to study history?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions