The principle of our school has decided that all students need to participate in at least one extracurricular activity. Their decision was announced on the morning news not too long ago. This news got some varying reactions. Some students support the principle's decision, while others don't. I think students should not be forced into doing at least one extra curricular activity for three main reasons.

My first reason for disagreeing with the principle is that I believe students should not be forced into doing things they are not passionate about. For example, a student could have no interest in any of the clubs, so they randomly choose Robotics. Due to them having no passion for this club, they are more likely to do poorly in this club, compared to the people who actually have interest in making robots. They are also more likely to develop a dislike for robotics, due to them being practically forced into doing something they have no passion for. They could also start developing a dread for going to this club because they are absolutely bored-out-of-their-mind while attending this club. And that wraps up my first reason for opposing the principle's decision.

My next reason for disagreeing with the principle's decision is that some students may be too busy to participate in extracurricular activities. For example, a student could be taking all A.P. classes and could have enough homework to last them a lifetime. Other students could also be attending a part-time job, ultimately pushing out time for an extracurricular activity. Or some students could simply think the stress of being in school and having a bunch of homework is enough for them, and would like to only focus on their academic studies at school. There could also be tons of other reasons for students being too busy to participate in extracurricular activities, but those are only a small fraction of them.

My final reason for disagreeing with the principle's decision is that the extracurricular activity could cause them stress. It could also cause them to do poorly in regular school activities. To demonstrate how an extracurricular activity can cause stress, I will circle back to my example involving Robotics. In Robotics, there is a competition element. The competition element requires students to "battle"/compete against other robots. Therefore the robot has to be built to be in its best shape possible. Students also receive minimal guidance on building robots from the experienced adults around them, due to the fact the that the robot's design must be came up with only the student's mind. This could cause inexperienced robot builders to stress over how to build a robot outside of the Robotics Club (like during school). And due to them focusing on primarily Robotics and not school, they could end up losing focus on school and start lacking academically. This is caused by the student driving all of their effort into Robotics instead of their classes. This example may seem far-fetched, but it must be true in some cases.

Those three reasons are why I disagree with the principle's decision. Forcing all students into doing at least one extracurricular activity isn't a plausible idea because some students could have no passion for any of the activities, others may simply not have time for it, and could cause stress to some students and ultimately lead them to do poorly in school. Now, what do you think about the principle's decision about forcing all students to take part in at least one extracurricular activity? Will you stand against it with me? Or will you stand with his implausible decision, and ultimately against the needs of some of the students?