Some people think that there could be more benefits to society if more people study business than history. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In an era shaped by entrepreneurship, global trade, and rapid technological innovation, it is understandable that many people regard business as a more practical field of study than history. Business education appears to offer immediate economic value: it prepares students to manage companies, create jobs, and participate in competitive markets. However, while I accept that business studies can bring substantial benefits to society, I disagree with the idea that it is necessarily more valuable than history. A healthy society needs not only economic competence but also historical awareness, civic judgment, and moral perspective. There is no denying the social value of business education. Students who study business often acquire practical knowledge of finance, marketing, management, negotiation, and organizational strategy. These skills can help them build companies, improve workplace efficiency, and contribute to economic growth. In developing economies, for example, a greater number of business-trained graduates may support small enterprises, attract investment, and reduce unemployment. Even in advanced economies, business education can foster innovation by teaching people how to turn ideas into sustainable products or services. From this perspective, encouraging more students to study business may produce measurable economic benefits. However, it would be reductive to evaluate education solely according to its immediate market value. History develops a different but equally important set of capacities. By studying past events, students learn how societies rise, decline, reform, and repeat mistakes. They gain insight into war, colonization, revolution, inequality, migration, and political power. These are not abstract academic concerns; they shape public policy, international relations, and social identity. Citizens who lack historical understanding may be more vulnerable to propaganda, simplistic nationalism, or distorted accounts of the past. In this sense, history education protects society against intellectual shallowness and collective amnesia. Moreover, business itself can become dangerous when separated from historical and ethical awareness. A manager who understands profit but not labour exploitation, environmental damage, or the historical consequences of unchecked corporate power may make decisions that are efficient in the short term but harmful in the long run. What society needs is not a narrow preference for business over history, but a more integrated education. Business students should understand historical context, while history students should be given opportunities to develop practical and transferable skills. In conclusion, although business education can clearly benefit society by supporting economic development and innovation, I do not agree that it is more important than history. The former teaches people how to build and manage systems, but the latter helps them understand why those systems matter and how they can fail. A society that values only business may become prosperous, but not necessarily wise.