Not implementing a nationwide curriculum makes success less attainable.

Without further adieu, I'd like to contest my opponent's main argument: That implementing a nationwide curriculum would give every student the same opportunity to achieve their goals, therefore giving everybody the same chance at success (the attainment of wealth, honors, etc. ). First and foremost, it is impossible for every student to have the same opportunity to achieve success regardless of school curriculum. In terms of monetary success, we would assume that one achieves the goal of wealth by landing a god job with a high salary. 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). You'll note that a school curriculum is 100% irrelevant to all of these factors. So, even if a nationwide curriculum were implemented, there would still be no "equal opportunity. " If you don't know a lot of people in the right field, if you don't have access to a good college (due to poor grades, no desire to attend or a lack of financial aid) or if you simply have bad luck/timing, then again your grade school curriculum is completely irrelevant to your success. This is especially true considering the current economy and the effect that the entire market has on one's success. 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. 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. That brings me to my next point: What right does the State have to determine what students ought to learn and ought not to learn? I do not recall that aspect being a part of the role description of government. Currently we have a public school system run by individual districts, which is a much preferable option to a socialized standard where the federal government mandates a nationwide curriculum instead of letting individual districts determine the type of courses that public schools offer. Leaving the school monitoring to the individual districts ensures more attention and cooperation between teachers, administrators and parents. 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. Most times people fine tune their education in college, trade school, internships or on-hand work experience. In other words, if Pro and I both wanted to be accountants but his grade school mandated he take biology and mine didn't, there's no reason to assume that Pro would be a better accountant than me or have a better chance of getting the job if we both applied for the same one. My opponent has the burden of proving that not implementing a nationwide curriculum makes success less attainable. So far Pro has only offered the idea of "equal opportunity" which I quickly dismantled. Plus, Pro notes that his biggest concern is "the bigger schools end up getting more courses, most of the time leaving smaller schools without some of the courses required for certain career goals. " This is far too broad to serve as a cohesive argument. Bigger schools = more courses = greater chance of success for students who attend, thereby already negating Pro's resolution. I'm assuming he implies that those who attend small schools = less courses = less chance of success. However again, the factors I outlined which determine one's success prove that this is irrelevant. 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. For instance, if Pro and I were both equally qualified for a job, my chance of getting the job would decrease than if Pro had less qualifications than me (in which my chance of success would be higher). This is proven in eduction as well; SAT scores declined during the 1970s and 1980s because more students aspired to go to college and took the tests, not because of performance factors [1]. So, now that I've negated the resolution, I'll send the debate back over to Pro. Thanks again and good luck! [1] . http://www.ernweb.com...