I'm not sure about school nowadays, but during my Secondary 1 and 2 (1980-1981), we had to take 10 subjects.
Looking back, it was the best of times since I had to learn everything - English, Chinese, Math, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geography, History, Literature, and Art.
I think that's a great approach if one is starting out on their nascent investing/trading journeys.
Start broad and specialise when we know our interests and aptitude.
Lawyers and doctors follow a similar path.
But that's not how most retail investors/traders approach investing/trading...
I think most students (and KPI centric educators) are glad they don't have to take Art for their O' levels.
If Literature is hard to score distinctions, what more about Art?
I on the other hand love Art classes; I never failed.
Don't get the wrong impression. I could not paint or draw even if my life depended on it.
And the funny thing is, some of my poster paintings have been held up by my Art teachers to the class as "creative" and very "interesting"!
That's the beauty of Art! Its all about interpretations!
Now looking back, I understood what my Art teachers tried to convey - there are no such thing as rules, boundaries, or conventions in Art.
There are only expressions.
How can anyone fail me when I am merely expressing my interpretations?
No, I'm not saying Art is "easy" either.
Yes, you may want to view the markets as "Art" instead of treating them as "Science".
Singapore Man of Leisure (welcome to my blog; just google it!)
