The debate on whether university students should be allowed to study subjects of their choice or be restricted to specific fields that promise future utility, such as science and technology, is a complex one. Both perspectives offer valid arguments, and a balanced approach might be the most beneficial.

On one hand, allowing students to choose their own courses can foster a sense of autonomy and motivation. When students are passionate about what they are studying, they are more likely to excel in their courses, contribute creatively, and innovate within their fields. For instance, students who are deeply interested in the arts or humanities may produce groundbreaking work that enriches culture and society. Moreover, a diverse range of studies can cultivate critical thinking and a well-rounded education, equipping students with the adaptability needed in a rapidly changing job market.

Conversely, focusing solely on subjects deemed useful for the future, such as those in science and technology, can address the demand for skilled professionals in crucial sectors. In today's digital age, proficiency in these areas is increasingly essential, and by guiding students towards these fields, universities can help fill skill gaps in the economy. This approach can lead to higher employment rates and economic growth, as graduates are better prepared for roles in high-demand industries.

In my opinion, a hybrid approach should be adopted. Universities should encourage students to pursue their passions while also ensuring that they have the opportunity to gain practical skills relevant to the job market. This can be achieved through comprehensive programs that integrate liberal arts with science and technology, offering students both personal fulfillment and career preparedness. By doing so, institutions can produce graduates who are not only experts in their chosen fields but also possess a broad set of skills applicable to various challenges.