Should UCLA mandate a Physical Education requirement as part of its GE curriculum? Why or why not? Consider counterarguments but choose one side and advocate.
The purpose of education is to produce happy, talented, productive, and fulfilled individuals, capable of contributing to and enriching society. Though education is a lifelong pursuit, as curiosity and a desire to learn, are long-time companions of the successful individual; the time spent in formal education tends to be fixed. Temporally an individual in the contemporary western world, will spend between 12-18 years in education (depending on whether one completes just a high school diploma, or also college and/or a masters degree). The number of hours, curriculum, and breaks, in the
…show more content…
Ask anyone whether physical exercise is important, and the response will be a uniform and emphatic yes. This is a pointless question, because individuals in an organized society do not make decisions in a vacuum; instead, they distribute time and resources in order of priority. Better questions would include: how important is physical exercise relative to understanding science, or is it worthwhile to sacrifice an hour of math for an hour in the gym? This is where the issue becomes contentious. Ask many scientists and they themselves will argue that physical education is just as important as mental work . Many of students themselves would agree, when given the chance to include regular exercise in their life . However, ask a university official which one is more important, and you get answers like, "You don’t necessarily have to require students to take a volleyball course or a tennis course to generate their involvement". Simply put physical education does not garner the same level respect as mental education, among academics, in the contemporary United States. Ask the same official, whether students should be aloud to opt out of math, and the answer is likely to be that a student’s “involvement”, in math is both required and