[Waterluvian]

Given the modern division of labour, people are more often than not an expert at whatever they do for a living.

It makes me think that high school is still too generalized. I think I only got to pick about half my courses and even those had to fit into certain bins. Couldn’t do too many tech courses. Had to have an arts course each year. Stuff like that.

If students have _any_ personal inclination towards any course we should enable them to take it without any bureaucracy. One of the most precious and fleeting resources is when a teen is self-motivated over education.

[zelos]

I'm not sure I agree. In the UK we kind of have that: 16-18 you can drop all but 3-4 subjects, with no restrictions. But as university courses often have specific requirements, that means you're pretty much deciding on your degree area at 16. That's a lot to decide so young.

[Waterluvian]

Indeed! It’s important to push kids outside their comfort zones so they experience a broader menu of life and learning.

I’m not sure I feel too strongly about either of these perspectives.

Perhaps if we optimize this, we will just end up near where schools are today: a balance of freedom of choice and a mandatory exposure to many domains.

[omermikhailk]

I sort of disagree there, since you don't necessarily have to decide on a career field as young as 16.

If someone takes Math, one science and two humanities, they can apply for virtually any degree program they want (maybe with the exception of medicine, since I think that's a little stricter).

Sure, your application to a competitive degree program at a top-tier university won't be as strong compared to someone who's picked subjects showing a higher level of commitment/resolve to whatever they're applying for, but it's fine for most cases I'd say.

[Izkata]

Some of us decided younger than that. As long as there's no "you have to decide" push I don't see the harm in allowing it.

[youssefabdelm]

Couldn't agree more. Last line you wrote is * chef's kiss *