The author states that a universal national curriculum for pre-college education is

necessary. I agree that if the government planned out a fixed curriculum, it would
be more beneficial to society.

Applying the same curriculum to elementary school through high school can set a
clear path for children and teenagers to follow, and help them acquire the
necessary skills to apply later in life. It is the government's duty to determine
what kind of material they should put in the nation-wide curriculum.

A universal curriculum can also help children in rural areas to have a better
chance to compete with those that live in the city. For example, in Taiwan, there
is a standardized university entrance exam, those who live in areas with fewer
resources can have a chance to turn their life around by studying very hard on the
exam and get in a good university.

On the contrary, if there is no universal curriculum and schools have to come up

with a set of curriculums on their own, it might lead to chaos in the competition
among school for standing out as the one with the "best" curriculum. Rural areas
which have fewer resources might have no clue on how to proceed to operate their
school, and might give their students a disadvantage. The wealthy grows stronger,
and the poor live in despair.

Setting a national curriculum can provide the same opportunities for every child in
the nation and can benefit the nation as a whole.