University students always focus on one specialist subject, but some people think universities should encourage their students to study a range of subjects in addition to their own subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

　　Before elaborating my perspective about whether universities should teach students to be vertically or horizontally developed, I feel necessary to categorize higher education into two spans: the one for Associate or Bachelor Degree, and the one for Master as well as Ph.D.

　　As to the first one, the institutions of higher education, I consider, are more suggested to structure a teaching package covering a wide range of curricula. It is quite common that the generality of students in this stage are not sure about the professions they are genuinely curious about or talented in. Therefore, more choices of disciplines should be given to them for comparison and selection.

　　However, as for the second, by mentioning which I mean the postgraduate period, trainees ought to be guided to study limited areas. On one hand, a trainee in this stage has been academically mature and he, taking a mathematical expert for example, would know which subject is his life-long pursuance, topology or discreet. Thus, it would be a waste of their time and energy if teaching staff still attempt to make them weird versatile creatures arbitrarily. On the other hand, students in this phase are able to have their understanding about certain professions promptly deepened in that their interest has been fixed precisely, on the precondition that they are provided with definitely-chosen courses.

　　In conclusion, intensive and extensive ways of teaching do not stand against. Therefore, they must be carefully selected for the students in different spans for the purposes of firstly making trainees the men of common sense and then the men learnt afterward.

　　University students always focus on one specialist subject, but some people think universities should encourage their students to study a range of subjects in addition to their own subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

　　Before elaborating my perspective about whether universities should teach students to be vertically or horizontally developed, I feel necessary to categorize higher education into two spans: the one for Associate or Bachelor Degree, and the one for Master as well as Ph.D.

　　As to the first one, the institutions of higher education, I consider, are more suggested to structure a teaching package covering a wide range of curricula. It is quite common that the generality of students in this stage are not sure about the professions they are genuinely curious about or talented in. Therefore, more choices of disciplines should be given to them for comparison and selection.

　　However, as for the second, by mentioning which I mean the postgraduate period, trainees ought to be guided to study limited areas. On one hand, a trainee in this stage has been academically mature and he, taking a mathematical expert for example, would know which subject is his life-long pursuance, topology or discreet. Thus, it would be a waste of their time and energy if teaching staff still attempt to make them weird versatile creatures arbitrarily. On the other hand, students in this phase are able to have their understanding about certain professions promptly deepened in that their interest has been fixed precisely, on the precondition that they are provided with definitely-chosen courses.

　　In conclusion, intensive and extensive ways of teaching do not stand against. Therefore, they must be carefully selected for the students in different spans for the purposes of firstly making trainees the men of common sense and then the men learnt afterward.