Not implementing a nationwide curriculum makes success less attainable.

I'm going to get straight to the point by exploiting my opponent's arguments biggest flaws. "Some key factors that play a role in landing said job include: networking, a degree from a prestigious university, an impressive resume with relevant work experience and/or internships and good timing (applying at the right place at the right time)." *My main problem with this is the segment stating that you need, "a degree from a prestigious university". Usually to obtain success, by monetary means, this is true. HOWEVER, prestigious universities usually require certain classes. Some schools are so poor, that they can't even offer a foreign language. Therefore, a certain curriculum does play a huge role in landing a solid job. I'm not sure what she meant by "in landing SAID job include". Maybe she was referring to the job that was "said" or discussed. "Second, I'd like to point out that people throughout history have attained success not only without a nationwide curriculum, but without attending formal school in general. Some examples include George Washington, Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, etc. What helped these men succeed was an innate intelligence and desire to learn, their ability to invest in their goals (sometimes with the help of others), lucky opportunities, etc. These same qualities help people achieve success today along with a slew of other traits, such as having a big personality (for show business), a knack for creativity (entrepreneurs and inventors), talent (the arts), good looks (modeling or acting) etc. Again, all of these things are relevant to one's success - a nationwide curriculum is not." *I'd like to point out this whole idea. This paragraph is directed towards saying that, as the first sentence tells us, a nationwide curriculum is not necessary only because people have obtained success before, without this curriculum, or any formal schooling whatsoever. I'm trying to keep brevity in mind here, so I would like to point out just one the examples given: 1. Thomas Edison - Thomas Edison was not successful in terms of monetary matters. Thomas Edison died poor. Perhaps attending a formal school that taught money management skills would've spared him from poverty. "So let's discuss the Pros of implementing a nationwide curriculum. The only one I can think of is that people assume students from everywhere in the country will have access to the same type education, therefore giving people the same opportunities to succeed. That's it. However, I've already proven that determinants of success extend far beyond the classroom. I'd also like to point out that implementing a nationwide curriculum in which students all learn the same thing is not feasible. For one, it would mandate that private, trade and parochial schools teach the same thing as regular public schools. If every school offered the exact same courses, there would be no need or market for specialized schools or industries. It would also require those who are home-schooled to learn the same material. This is not copacetic with the standards we have today; non-public institutions are free to teach whatever they'd like because they do not receive funds from the State." *Again, I would like to point out this whole paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph proves that success is attained just as easily without this nationwide curriculum. And, "The only one I can think of is that people assume students from everywhere in the country will have access to the same type education, therefore giving people the same opportunities to succeed." proves my point. Note the ending. THEREFORE GIVING PEOPLE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES TO SUCCEED, so we can infer that without this, success IS in fact, less attainable. **I have no quote from the next paragraph, but this next paragraph is completely irrelevant to my main point.. "Another contention I have is that many times what one learns in grade school (where the nationwide curriculum would be implemented) is irrelevant to their career." *This is completely untrue. Colleges require certain classes to enter, you cannot just walk into whichever college you choose with no knowledge. College has everything to do with your CAREER. Therefore, what you learn in grade school is absolutely imperative. "Further, I'd like to point out another one of Pro's mistakes: If more people were given the opportunity to succeed, it would DECREASE the chance of success for others. More competition = less chance of success." *This is my final point. "If more people were given the opportunity to succeed". In this case, EVERYBODY would be able to succeed. And by saying this, you're saying that everybody does NOT have the opportunity to succeed as the curriculum is, and the only way that this proves anything, is if you believe that by implementing a nationwide curriculum more people WOULD succeed. In any other case, relevant to your argument, more people wouldn't succeed, so this argument is irrelevant. I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting debate. I know this debate may be rather hard to understand if you aren't actually in grade school, but I'm asking you to try your hardest to do so before you vote. Thanks again to the viewers/voters for taking the time to read this, and to the Con for taking this debate. I strongly urge a Pro vote. :)