A very good morning to the English language teacher, Puan Vijaya and the respected invigilator. Today ,we shall converse on the pros and cons of integrating co-curriculum into the syllabus in schools.
Neo:Good morning Jonathan. How are you today?
John:I am fine thank you.
Neo:I have been thinking about the importance of co-curriculum and I believe it should be integrated into our syllabus in school. John:I doubt that would be necessary,besides what makes you think co-curriculum should be integrated into the syllabus?
Neo:Well it's because most co-curricular activities are physically active, getting the student out from behind their desk and making them try new things. This is healthy and ensures that students are exposed to practical tasks, not just what is taught in class. We would not want students to become couch potatoes. The outcome of giving the co-curriculum the same status as the curriculum will therefore be well balanced individuals. Future politicians, for example, will not only thrive on law or social studies, but will also become fluent in multiple languages,and perform several calculus operations simultaneously, while also experiencing service through community work. Such are the more profound benefits of the co-curriculum being integrated into the syllabus. Do you see my point John?
John:I for one have to disagree with that. There is no obvious logic in having super talented individuals, instead society should lean itself towards making specialised individuals in their selected fields. Most modern careers require expert knowledge and skills in their respective fields, which can take years to acquire. We should not hinder a student from developing skills in whatever selected field he or she has chosen to specialise in. After all, when you see a doctor or employ an engineer, you are not interested in how “well-rounded” they are, just in whether they are good at their job. And the Prime Minister does not play soccer nor does he perform calculus in Putrajaya, therefore they do not require such extraneous skills as part of their formal education
Neo:An interesting point but you should know that having a wide range of experiences prepares people better for the future, especially in today’s uncertain world. The broad education that the co-curriculum can provide is better preparation for life in a society where an individual may change career several times in their life. Students must therefore have a fundamental grasp of multiple skills. For instance, athletes who had their career cut short due to mishaps might venture into business, having had co-curricular experience of entrepreneurship as part of their education. Speech and debate clubs might give a doctor or engineer the communication skills to move into broadcasting, teaching, or even politics. Placing more emphasis on the co-curriculum thus ensures a variety of possibilities for young people to choose from instead of being sidelined .
John:Quite the contrary. Most specialist professions still provide a range of career opportunities, without any need to compromise academic education by over-emphasis on non-academic activities. For example, athletes who have been injured in mishaps can continue their career in the same field but just in a different post. No longer could they play, but they could still coach or even give sports science lectures to aspiring super stars. And if someone does wish to radically switch career in mid-life, there are plenty of evening classes and continuing education opportunities to allow them to retrain. Therefore it is quite pointless to be a jack of all trades but a master of none.
Neo:My dear friend,that statement is not quite accurate. Students have a right to a broad education. Why should a science student have to give up music, or a social studies major not get opportunities for sport? Many children have talents in all...