As a complex issue with far-reaching implications, there are worthwhile arguments on both sides of the issue of whether or not nations should require all students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. Proponents of such a policy might be swayed by arguments that it creates an even playing field for all students and allows for enhanced curriculum design by college faculty. While these are both good points, it is also true that not instituting such a policy provides a nation with more diversity in education, which is the best way to ensure the continued success of a nation. Thus, I disagree with the statement that a nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
　　A key piece of evidence against the statement is that such a policy, if enacted, would limit the development of a nation’s talent. Certainly, everyone can agree that all students are not alike: every student has individual interests, talents, and abilities. With this fact in mind, the effectiveness of any policy supporting the uniform education of students becomes highly dubious. When every student is provided with the same education, there is little opportunity for students to excel in areas of individual strength, because in order to accommodate everyone it becomes necessary that there are fewer advanced courses and fewer opportunities for furthering knowledge of specific areas. Clearly, in order to best nurture the differing talents and abilities of a nation’s students, differing curriculums must be provided to match those differences.
　　Another undeniable argument against the statement is that a uniform curriculum would guarantee the loss of significant amounts of regional knowledge and culture. If national curriculums were made uniform, it would mean the elimination of education in regional languages and history, which would mean that huge swaths of knowledge would be in danger of being forever lost by nations enacting such policies. An example of the value in encouraging diverse education in order to preserve diverse knowledge and culture can be found in the use of Navajo code talkers by the United States military during the Second World War. At the time of World War II, because native Americans had retained a high degree of autonomy in their lifestyles and education, they also retained the ability to speak the language of their heritage. This fact proved very valuable for the United States during the war, as the military, by employing Navajo code-talkers, was able to freely transmit messages in the little known Navajo language. With examples like this, it is undeniable that in order to be at its best a nation must preserve regional identities, and for this reason policies as outlined in the statement should not be supported in light of the homogenizing effects they produce on a nation’s knowledge and culture.
　　While supporters of the statement may point out that enacting a uniform national curriculum ensures fairness to all students, this view is short-sighted because in many ways it is actually unfair to students. As mentioned above, uniform curriculums rob students of the opportunity to excel in areas of personal interest, talent, or ability. Surely, everyone would agree that removing the opportunity for student to excel is by no means fair. By denying all students this critical opportunity, a policy of uniform national curriculum actually ensures that all students are treated unfairly.
　　A second argument in favor of the statement is that a uniform national curriculum would allow college faculty to better design courses for entering students. While I concede this point it is also true that for this small bonus in efficiency the ability of students to excel in their fields of study would suffer as a result. In short, while correct, all this argument points out is that each student would be on the same level when entering college, thus, there would be nobody lagging behind, but also there would be no advanced students. Unless a nation seeks to purge itself of future thinkers and leaders, it must not follow a policy detrimental to the nurturing of its best students.
　　In conclusion, though at first glance it seems that a national curriculum is advantageous, when the evidence is considered it becomes clear that such a policy would only ensure that academic excellences as well as regional knowledge suffer as a result. Therefore, the best course of action for any nation is to allow for a variety of curricula to match the variety of students’ and regions’ natural strengths.