Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed

Education, as defined by John Dewey, is the process of facilitating learning and acquiring knowledge, skills, ideas, values and habits. The fundamental objective of any educational institute is to facilitate this very process of learning and knowledge acquisition irrespective of the materialistic considerations and consequences. The proposition that these institutes should actively encourage their students to pursue fields of study based on lucrative career prospects, instead of interest and aptitude, undermines this very objective of these varsities.

First of all, what are the criteria for evaluating the lucrativeness of any field and its future prospects? The demand for jobs in any particular area varies with time. Any discipline which seems lucrative now may not be the same say after a certain period. For example, with the invention of integrated circuits, there was a job boom for this electronic graduate in second-half of the twentieth century which now has died down. The early 2000s was said to be the year of information technology which now has been taken over by areas such as, AI, data science, machine learning, etc. Any such step by the institutes might prove to be futile given the obsolescent nature of market requirements.

Moreover, every student is a unique combination of traits, qualities and aptitude. It is this intrinsic natural talent that can be decisive in his success in any endeavor which ultimately fetches him/her a lucrative job. A person with a perspicacious mind can be a good lawyer; curiosity is the key to be a scientist; aesthetic abilities are crucial for an artist; physical prowess is elemental for an athlete and so on. This is further corroborated by the Gardener’s theory of multiple intelligences that classifies skill-sets of children into different categories such as word-smart, Maths-smart, sound-smart, etc. A student who has cultivated interest in an area from beginning and has the latent potential for the same can never be a match for someone who is pursuing that field to just get a fat salary. Completely using future job security, instead of intrinsic talent and interest, as the basis will cause a mismatch between students’ abilities and job requirements leading to a stream of unskilled, unenthusiastic laymen with bleak future irrespective of the demand of their profession.

Proponents of the argument may argue that not every student is fortunate enough to have interest and passion for areas that can give him/her a secure future. Furthermore, increasing student loans and financial family background impedes many students to freely select careers they like and forces them to study just to get a decent salaried job. While the students must have the freedom to choose between passion and pragmatism, and for occupational education it is justifiable for them to consider career prospects, the educational institutes, however, must refrain to influence his/her decision either by encouragement or discouragement by instilling ideas without their notice, as this is beyond their role and entrusted objectives.

In conclusion, the role of educational institutes is to strive to make skilled and educated professionals able to make significant contributions in their professional ventures. Encouraging or dissuading students from pursuing any academic offering would not only be a deviation from this responsibility but also a violation of their fundamentals. However, they must set up career and placement cells to help and guide students to decide about their field of study and secure a dependable employment.