Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. [Specific Task Instruction: Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.]

Generally speaking, I agree with the author that educational institutions are responsible for dissuading students from pursuing fields which are not helpful for their career success. I think this policy is a win-win recommendation for both students and institutions.
First and foremost, the implementation of such policy will be helpful for students. As we all know, education is somewhat a investment for the future of students. Thus, students, when enrolling an institution, are looking for their success after their graduation. At the same time, the institution, of course, should do all they can do to help students to achieve their goals, including offering guidance of career development. Some opponents may propose that students are grown-up, and the university should let them to make decisions themselves; a college should not do anything to compromise students individuality. However, as youngsters, some students may lack knowledge or experience to make appropriate decisions; or they may be too shortsighted to avoid the potential future risk.For example, a student who does not have any talent or potential for finance, simply lured by the high salary of such field, decides to choose financial engineering as his major. In this case, I think a responsible institution can, and should, help these students, disabusing their unpromising plans. This basically does little harm on the students' individuality, and , in fact, can help them to take responsibility for their own lives.
Moreover, such policy conforms the benefit of institutions, too. A commonsense informs me that a institution must earn its revenue and reputation to survive. What could be more helpful for an institution to increase its reputation, and enrollment, than the high employment rate, and/or the high average salary of its graduate? Thus, an institution is, for sure, responsible to pursued its students to choose their fields of study more wisely, because it is vital for them to get better job after graduate. Someone would challenge my point by arguing that such policy may compromise the institution's reputation on the other hand, making it too "pragmatic". But I don't consider this as a problem. Though success doesn't necessarily depend on "a good job" or "high salary", the latter are, for most, if not all students, indispensable, to make a happy and good life. Besides, it doesn't means the institutions should "cheat" or "take all means" to make sure the students earn money or something; I just recommend institution try to help students out from potential failure. Will an institution be more successful if it is "idealistic" and respectful to students dreams, but refuse to do anything to prevent them from possible career failure? I don't think this is what we want.
All in all, I agree with the author's point. An institution can be successful only after making its students successful. Thus, for its own success and students success, it is responsible to make sure students not take wrong ways.