IELTS Writing Recent Actual Test in February 2017 & Sample Answer
Government should invest more money in science education rather than other subjects to develop the country. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? OR
The government should allocate more funding to teaching science rather than other subjects in order for a country to develop and progress. To what extent do you agree?
People have different views on the subjects that the government should invest in and prioritise, to achieve what is termed economic development. Some believe that a larger portion of government funds should be dedicated to teaching science-related. In my opinion, although science plays a large role, other subjects hold merit in their own right in contributing to, and in driving, economic progress and therefore, deserve equal government investment and funding.
On the one hand, public funding in science education subjects is important in driving the development of a country in many areas, such as engineering and medicine. For example, developed countries such as Japan has emphasised the science education of their citizens. This strong focus has led to science learning, knowledge, and scientific research achievement fosters innovation and increases productivity, which directly contributes to the national economic growth of the nation. Therefore, investment in the teaching of science education is crucial for a country’s economic progress.
On the other hand, the management of the nation also determines its state of development and economic progress. As such, it can be argued that curriculum subjects such as social sciences and law require as much attention and investment. For example, developing economies such as Indonesia and Cambodia have long experienced a history of political and social unrests and conflicts. We can largely attribute this to instability and poor management of legal, social and governmental systems. This is in contrast to their Asian counterparts such as Singapore and Korea, where well-established and stable civil law and political institutions can be observed.
In conclusion, subjects related to the management of a nation’s economy such as social sciences have as much impact and significance on the development and progress of one’s nation and deserve as much government investment as science subjects.
How to allocate government’s expenditure has long been a highly charged issue. While 1 accept that there should be an increase in state funds for imparting science-related knowledge, 1 would argue that other subjects are of similar significance in the progression of a nation.
On the one hand, placing a premium on science subjects like mathematics and physics is conducive to the growth of a nation. It stands to reason that the more researchers or engineers a country has, the greater is their contribution to the prosperity of a society. To illustrate, with billions of dollars spent for scientific researches and relevant leaching activities, America has accomplished a number of breakthroughs in road networks, biotechnology and space exploration. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that stressing the role of science subjects in the education system would have a far-reaching long-term impact on a nation.
On the other hand, I believe that liberal arts education including literature and law has an equally important role to play in the sustainable growth of a nation. It is widely acknowledged that a society characterized by citizens well-cultivated and knowledgeable in literature or arts tend to enjoy a higher moral standard and social stability. Specifically, law-abiding and productive citizens tend to adopt decent code of conduct and commit fewer crimes, leading to better social security and improved living standards. As an expected outcome, government funding on social sciences would help individuals alter their intrinsic values and do their utmost to become productive members of society.
Also check :