What we are discussing is topic about whether or not educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.  I, in this discussion, tend to claim that educational institutions have the responsibility to persuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are likely to succeed.  My tendency is derived primarily from evaluation over what is responsibility of educational institutions, how we define the field someone likely to succeed and does this obey the social values.
 
Educational institutions' responsibility is to provide a platform for all pupils on which they have a broad prospective to disciplines, to ignite their interests and finally to find what is their lifelong career.  In another words, if an educational institution serves only for a narrow industry or certain professional ability, institution itself stifles sprite of schooling.  Having defined what an education institution responds for, I emphasize my view that universities should dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they do not have the possibility to succeed.  Some may argue that whether or not the students are likely to be successful if they pursue certain job-orientation fields, the university should not dissuade them because they have paid tuitions for their education.  In the view of consumers, they have the right to choose majors which seem to have a bright future, although it will obey his or her talent; furthermore, it seems plausible to have a good vocation to recycle their education cost.  However, being similar to nonprofit organizations, educational institutions have profound function to a society.  By providing various prospective of schooling, it enables students to find their potential on which field, finally finding a fit job based on their preference.    The existence of education institutions is a kind of labor forth preallocation, in that it maintains an equilibrium between labor supply and labor demand.    On the other hand, some psychologists oppose that it will produce a negative impact because they will be fed up with study if they have been dissuaded.  Rather than ignoring their potential, being blind to seek those they are unlikely to grasp and do not have enthusiasm on, the hardness and perplex produced by above in the future life is being much more terrible comparing with the temporal negative attitude.  Therefore, these institutions have the responsibility to educate student to pursue fit field.
 
It does not allows people to pursue the field of academic in which they are likely to succeed without imagination, gift, enduring passion and persistence.   Because every possible field that we are exploring develops towards to deepth, if the explorers are not enthusiastic about their academic field, how could they overcome obstacle.  In order to avoid the young waste too much time on the field in which they could not pay enduring enthusiasm and energy, I maintain that it is a win-win strategy for both if the institutions dissuade the students.  Every great success bases on passion, as it does in the case of Kobe Bryant. He once said to a reporter that he have often seen the scene of LA at 4am because he start training at that time which is the reason he achieve success.  If Kobe persue the fields which Warren Buffett has passion on, I promise that Kobe would not get up such early.  The same senario also involves  business area, just as the book ' Only the Paranoid Survive'  written by Andy Grove who is the former CEO of Intel said.  One example is Steve Jobs who shake the world through his amazing Iphone, Ipad and so on.  Some debate that he drop out.  Notwithstanding, it is the permission that ensure he has the freedom to pursue what he is really crazy about.
 
The value of equality and freedom necessitates that an educational institution dissuade teenagers to pursue the field of study in which they are unlikely to succeed, instead it should persuade to pursue the field which  they are willing to strive for lifelong.  Some claim that to dissuade students from pursuing the field of study in which they do not possible to achieve success is contradict to my assertion.  However, equality means every social member have a equal oppotunity to contest, if and only if someone fully developes his advantages can he stand on an advantagous side.  If he persue the hot but unlikely success  major, this would lead to a disadvantage for him at the stream of contest.  Thus, since equality is the building block of a society, it requires the educational policy a function of instruction.  Merely by maginifing one's advantage can this equality come true.  Similarly, if students select fields they are unsuccess, which seems as freedom, they will face many obstacles in their life and career, in that for any freedom must based upon competence.