At first glance, guiding students toward fields with strong job prospects seems like simple prudence, particularly when graduates in many countries face unemployment and heavy debt. Yet the claim that universities should "actively steer" students rests on two questionable assumptions: that the job market of the future can be predicted reliably, and that employability is the only purpose of higher education. I agree that universities have a duty to inform students about career prospects, but I disagree that they should push students toward particular fields.

The first difficulty is that labour markets change faster than degrees are completed. A student who begins a four-year programme chooses on the basis of today's demand, but enters a market shaped by technologies and economic shifts that may not yet exist. In the early two-thousands, for example, many students were encouraged into law in the United States, only to graduate into a saturated market after the 2008 financial crisis; meanwhile, data science, now one of the most sought-after fields, barely existed as a defined discipline. Steering students according to current shortages risks creating the surpluses of the future.

Second, the statement treats a student's field of study as if it determined their entire career. In reality, many employers value transferable abilities — analytical reasoning, clear writing, the capacity to learn quickly — which can be developed in history or philosophy as well as in engineering. Graduates frequently work outside their original discipline, and a student who is genuinely motivated by a subject is more likely to excel in it, building precisely the skills that make them employable.

Admittedly, there are situations in which stronger guidance is justified. When public funds pay much of the cost of a degree, as in many state-funded systems, governments may reasonably expect some alignment between the number of places offered and national needs, such as doctors and teachers. Similarly, students from families without university experience may lack the information that wealthier peers take for granted, and honest advice about outcomes can protect them from costly mistakes.

These considerations, however, support transparency rather than coercion. Universities should publish clear data on graduate employment and earnings by programme, offer career counselling early, and help every student build practical skills. Having done so, they should allow students to make an informed choice. Education that serves only the predicted demands of the job market may fail both the student and the economy it claims to serve.

I partly agree with the statement. Universities should give students information about which fields have good job opportunities, but I do not think they should force students into those fields.

On one hand, many graduates cannot find jobs after spending a lot of money and time on their degrees. If universities told students more about the job market, fewer students would end up unemployed. For example, fields like computer science and nursing currently have many jobs available.

On the other hand, the job market changes quickly, so a field with many jobs today might not have as many in five years. Also, students who study something they enjoy usually work harder and do better, and many employers care more about general skills such as communication and problem-solving than about the exact subject a person studied.

In conclusion, universities should guide students by giving them clear information, but the final choice should belong to the student, because interest and general skills matter as much as job demand.

I disagree with this statement because students should choose what they want to study.

If universities make students study only subjects with jobs then students will not be happy and maybe they will not study hard.

Also jobs can change in the future so it is not good to choose only because of jobs now.

In conclusion universities should not steer students because students should have freedom to choose.