The best curriculum is not one based on a static body of knowledge but one which teaches student to cope with change. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is said that it would be better to educate students how to face off and get over switches rather than bombard them with a volume of tough information. In my opinion, I partly agree with the statement.

On the one hand, knowledge should be the main focus of any training curriculum for several reasons. Firstly, basic information about the world is fundamental for kids whose basement is not fully grown. These instructions will gradually form an accurate awareness on children, which is beneficial for their later academic performance. Secondly, the curriculums which are applied by schools are well-structured and organized by levels. If transmitted and explained correctly by appropriate methods, they would supply students a wide range of general and intensive knowledge more effectively.

On the other hand, there are some reasons why people think that students should be equipped with more skills than just static knowledge. The first one is that when moving up to higher levels of education, students have to grab tons of information with which could make them fall out. Furthermore, they have to digest knowledge of fields which they are not keen on and not suitable with their interests. On top of that, life is always changed quickly, so young people would be depressed if they are not well-trained to cope with. For example, learning at school and university is radically different, students could easily feel shock if they were not diligent and to pay much effort.

In conclusion, from my perspective, the most optimal curriculum should be the sensible mixture between knowledge and skills, and it should seem students as the central point of education.