Students should be focused on gaining the specialist skills they need for their chosen profession.

-Students should be allowed to focus upon subjects and activities that will help them towards their chosen career. Most specialist professions still provide a range of career opportunities, without any need to compromise academic education by over-emphasis on non-academic activities. There are concerns that schools do not focus enough on core subjects: 'School-leavers and even graduates lack basic literacy and numeracy skills, according to a survey of big employers'.1 In most aspects of life skills specific to an individual job are more important than whether they are "well-rounded". In addition, changes in career are possible but not necessarily desirable. For example, athletes who have been injured in mishaps can continue their career in the same field but just in a different post. No longer could they play, but they could still coach or even give sports science lectures to aspiring super stars. And if someone does wish to radically switch career in mid-life, there are plenty of evening classes and continuing education opportunities to allow them to retrain. Extra-curricular activities are prohibitively expensive for schools. -Giving a greater place in education to the extra-curriculum means that many more clubs and activities will have to be organised for students. This will be very expensive as it will require more staff and more resources to be paid for. This explains why most schools that currently offer a large extra-curriculum are well-funded fee-paying institutions. Most ordinary schools, dependent on state-funding, will never be able to match this spending and could not aim to offer an ambitious extra-curriculum.1 If they try, it will be at the expense of more important academic activities. Academic qualifications are the most important for the future. -Higher Education institutions place a greater importance on the curriculum than the extracurriculum when selecting students, and so do employers. University admissions tutors are not interested in whether a student applying for medicine for example is able to play a musical instrument. Nick Collins in The Telegraph says that 'the suggestion that nonacademic pursuits could make any difference to pupils' applications is a myth, according to Mike Nicholson, director of undergraduate admissions at Oxford.'1 Extra-curricular activities are fun, but they have never been shown to actually play a vital role in a student's life. Making extra-curricular activities compulsory makes them less attractive to the student. -Making extra-curricular activity compulsory will take the fun out of it and strip it of its benefits. 'In the end, the key is fun.'1 Successful extra-curricular groups work precisely because the students have voluntarily chosen to be there. If some were forced to take part, they would be less enthusiastic and spoil the activity for the rest. And the more the activity is like ordinary school, the less attractive it will be to young people. Most of the personal development benefits associated with extra-curricular commitments such as altruistic service, initiative-taking, and leadership skills come from the voluntary nature of the activity. If that voluntary aspect is removed, then the benefits are lost too.