I disagree because it doesn’t seem fair to other students that don’t get into the field of study that they want to get into. Students usually work hard to get to where they want to go or do and to reject them just because of the estimated number of openings …show more content…
in each profession doesn’t seem right. Students should still be trained for the profession they want because that’s what they want to do, that’s their goal.The argument states that “no more people are trained than will be needed to fill the estimated number of openings in each profession” i think that shouldn’t matter even though there is an estimated number of openings, students should still be allowed to be trained no matter what.
Two years ago i signed up to take a independent living class with Mr.Case at AVC and at first i didn’t get in because there was a limited number of kids admitted.
When i found out that i wasn’t going to be able to take that class i wasn’t happy because i really wanted to take it and it was even worse because my brother got in and i didn’t. My brother didn’t even care about the class he was taking because i was going to take it , so i did all i can to get and i talked to Mr.Case and eventaully he put me in. My point is that there may be students in a field of study that they don’t really care about and just taking up space, and those who don’t get in aren’t happy because now they have to do something else.
Students should have the opportunity to study in any field without worrying about being rejected because of the limited space. It wouldn’t be fair for other student not to get in ,if that’s the profession they want to carry out they should be allowed to even if there is a number of opening in that profession.Training students in the profession they want would help them if they decide to move to somewhere else where there are opening in their field of study after they have completed the training.So i disagree with Stein’s argument because it would be unfair to
others.