Pros Cons
Co-curricular activities prepare students
practically for the future. The normal
curriculum can only go so far as to teach and
educate students about academic theories. But
students whose only experience of school or
college is one of rigid academic study may not
be able to apply what they have learned in
practice. If the co-curriculum was given an
equal footing in student life there will be an
improvement in the student ability to grasp
things as a whole, because students will have
received a more rounded education. Co-
curricular activities are particularly good at
providing opportunities for students to work in
teams, to exercise leadership, and to take the
initiative themselves. These experiences make
students more attractive to universities and to
potential employers.
Most co-curricular activities are physically
active, getting the student out from behind their
desk and making them try new things. This is
healthy and ensures that students are exposed to
practical tasks, not just what is taught in class.
The outcome of giving the co-curriculum the
same status as the curriculum will therefore be
well balanced individuals. Future politicians,
for example, will not only thrive on law or
social studies, but will also become fluent in
multiple languages, learn to tango and perform
several calculus operations simultaneously,
while also experiencing service through
community work. Such are the more profound
benefits of the co-curriculum being integrated
into the syllabus.
Having a wide range of experiences prepares
people better for the future, especially in
today’s uncertain world. The broad education
that the co-curriculum can provide is better
preparation for life in a society where an
individual may change career several times in
their life. Students must therefore have a
fundamental grasp of multiple skills. For
The academic curriculum is really much more
important and must continue to be given more
status in schools and colleges than the co-
curriculum. Students are meant to be receiving
an education and gaining recognised
qualifications. Higher Education institutions
place a greater importance on the curriculum
than the co-curriculum when selecting students,
and so do employers. Co-curricular activities
are nice, but they have never been shown to
actually play a vital role in a student’s life. And
if they distract students from focusing on their
academic qualifications, then they could be
actually harmful.
There is no obvious logic in having super
talented individuals, instead society should lean
itself towards making specialised individuals in
their selected fields. Most modern careers
require expert knowledge and skills, which can
take years to acquire. We should not distract a
student from developing skills in whatever
selected field he or she has chosen to specialise
in. After all, when you see a doctor or employ
an engineer, you are not interested in how
“well-rounded” they are, just in whether they
are good at their job. And the Prime Minister
does not play soccer or tango in the House of
the Commons, therefore they do not require
such skills as part of their formal education.
Most specialist professions still provide a range
of career opportunities, without any need to
compromise academic education by over-
emphasis on non-academic activities. 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
instance, athletes who had their career cut short
due to mishaps might venture into business,
having had co-curricular experience of
entrepreneurship as part of their education.
Students have a right to a broad education. Why
should a science student have to give up music,
or a social studies major not get opportunities
for sport? Many children have talents in all
sorts of different areas, and it is wrong to force
them to specialise too early. A career is not the
only part of an adult’s life – school needs to
make sure they have interests and skills that
will help them in their family and leisure lives
too. Through equal balancing of academic and
co-curriculum, however, the students have the
chance to exercise their rights and the
opportunity to be multi-talented. Lopsided
individuals are not the key to the future, instead
by recognising each individual by their talents
there exists a higher possibility for young
people to learn and to grow in their studies.
Many students do not take advantage of the
extra-curricular opportunities they are currently
offered. They may instead waste their time
lazing around, or maybe even making trouble.
These young people do not know what they are
missing; if they could be made to try other
activities they would surely enjoy them and
gain a lot of benefit. If the co-curriculum was
given formal importance, with students required
to undertake at least one activity, then more
people would try new things, and discover they
like them.
An ambitious co-curricular programme is quite
affordable for schools and colleges of all kinds.
State schools in Singapore and many public
universities in the USA are able to offer strong
co-curriculums, and elsewhere many state-
funded institutions have thriving extra-
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.
Choice works two ways. If co-curricular
activities are so good, then students should have
right to choose whether they wish to pursue
them, rather than forcing them to give equal
importance to something they do not wish to
do. Through equalising the demands of
academic and co-curriculums there exists the
possibility that a student may drop out because
he or she may not be able to cope with the
demands of both sets of activities. The right to
an education is best exercised by giving
students the choice to decide what field their
lives would like to be based on, and about how
to pursue these aims.
Making extra-curricular activity compulsory
will take the fun out of it and strip it of its
benefits. 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.
Giving a greater place in education to the co-
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
curricular activities. Most co-curricular pursuits
are not expensive to run, and those activities
that might be more expensive, such as military
cadet groups and science clubs, can often apply
to outside agencies for funding. Staff often
given their time free, because they believe the
activities are worthwhile for the students and
enjoyable for themselves to run, and many
groups can also be supported by unpaid
volunteers from the wider community.
Many towns today do not have a strong civil
society, and in more rural areas there may be no
groups at all for young people to join outside
school. If schools and colleges do not provide
opportunities for youngsters to broaden their
experiences, then students will not get them at
all. Boosting the place of the co-curriculum in
schools is one way of addressing this weakness
in modern society, as it will equip young people
with the civic spirit, initiative and organising
skills to set up their own clubs, teams and
activity groups when they leave education.
Finally, a successful co-curriculum often
depends on building links between the school
and the wider community, bringing local
enthusiasts in to work with students, and
sending students out to work on community
projects, help in primary schools, perform for
local audiences, etc.
offer a large co-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 co-curriculum. If they try, it
will be at the expense of more important
academic activities.
Giving co-curricular activities greater
importance in education can be harmful to civil
society as a whole. There are many clubs, teams
and groups available for young people already
in most areas – e.g. Scouts, religious work,
music, drama, sport, voluntary work in the
community, etc. Why should these be ignored
and only those done in school given academic
credit of some kind? Often pursuits offered by
schools end up replicating those already
available in the wider community. For example,
a school hockey team may deprive the local
town’s hockey club of young players, while
school adventure activities might weaken the
community’s Scouting and Guiding groups. So
a strong co-curriculum may have the effect of
killing off lots of worthwhile community-based
activities because they do not receive school
credit. This would be a shame as a strong civil
society is vital to a thriving democratic culture,
but also because groups that involve people of
all ages possess great social and educational
value.