Government Should Invest More Money in Science Education Rather than Other Subjects IELTS Writing Task 2

Government Should Invest More Money in Science Education Rather than Other Subjects IELTS Writing Task 2 consists of three sample answers provided below. The task requires the candidates to provide a tentative and argumentative answer to the question. The sample answers comprise two parts: Introduction and body. The introduction is a brief description of the topic. The body contains argumentative statements and tentative answers to support the test-taker's perspective. The candidate must put forward their point of view.
IELTS writing task 2 evaluates candidates based on the knowledge and views they have expressed. The areas that candidates are assessed on are grammar, vocabulary, and style. IELTS writing score is marked based on band scores. The band scores range from 0 to 9. Since the topics are very diverse, candidates must go through IELTS Writing practice papers to become familiar with a lot of topics.

Check: Get 10 Free Sample Papers
Check: Register for IELTS Coaching - Join for Free Trial Class Now

Topic: 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?

Model Answer 1:

Education financing, which is critical to a country's development, is a major source of worry in modern society. People have differing opinions on whether or not the government should fund science disciplines more than others for the country's sake. To some extent, I agree that science education is desirable; but I also feel that non-scientific disciplines must be included.

The upside of funding science is it has a lot to offer. To begin with, emphasis on science results in creation of a highly skilled intellectual workforce, which will bring about great changes in a country’s growth and development. Second, science education is required for a variety of occupations, including physicist, medical scientist, and others. People cannot acquire these kinds of positions without a science-based understanding, which helps produce greater economic value. Finally, consider what the current world would be like if science didn't exist. The response is emphatically 'no.' since it is possible that its products, like computers or computerised machinery, may not be created in the future.

Non-scientific topics, on the other hand, are, in my opinion, just as essential as science education. The first argument is that topics like arts and history are critical in assisting pupils in gaining a broad understanding of the world and developing into well-rounded individuals. For example, arts encourage students to be more creative and confident in their expression, which cannot be achieved just via math and science. In addition to the reasons stated above, I feel that ignoring these issues may result in an imbalance in the distribution of the nation's labour. A country cannot progress only on the basis of science while the other aspects are neglected. As a result, in order to avoid a scarcity of art-related occupations, such as journalist or artist, people should stress them as well.

To summarise, while the government must financially support science education, I do not believe that a nation's economy can be improved if the other components are ignored. It is necessary for equitable growth, that the government looks into all the aspects for the nation to prosper.

Read More IELTS Writing Related Articles

Check: IELTS Actual Test ebooks Combo

Model Answer 2:

One of the contentious concerns is that the government should invest more in coaching sciences than in other courses in order for the land to improve and progress. Some may believe that the programme should focus on imparting skills to help the individual develop. From my standpoint, I do not believe that investing money on application approaches is a waste of time for certain people.

It is commonly considered that paying more for scientific education than for other subjects like math and English aids in the development of a pleasant environment and helps to future well-paid employment. That may be true, but if the government invests in a variety of courses for students who dislike school, there are more benefits than taking a class in a subject they don't care about. Furthermore, students' learning in other classes makes them visually stunning for the survey.

As a result, according to scientific studies, some pupils may dislike learning, which may lead to poor educational achievements. As a result, students will squander time on a major that they do not want to study, slowing down their progress on the business that they have agreed to study. For example, if a student wants to be a lawyer, they should study about legal issues since it will help them grow as a professional because they might be a wonderful lawyer. Furthermore, a bucolic might benefit from learning in terms of digital and technology rather than talent, because technology is becoming increasingly important and widespread in the wild environment.

In conclusion, on the one hand, the government should pay for science education, which is required for the development of a rural area. On the other hand, Congress should assist those who are content to be educated in other subjects. Nowadays, there are numerous courses to develop the rustic, in my opinion. Science is an integral part of all lives but it is definitely not the most important one. Overall developments can only be achieved if equal importance is given to all subjects. It is vital the government changes the education curriculum to the interests of students.

Model Answer 3:

There are differing viewpoints on whether governments should only focus on science education to aid their countries' development. While I agree that focusing on certain areas has advantages, I believe it is more important not to overlook other subjects.

I believe that focusing on science-related disciplines helps a country grow for a multitude of reasons. To begin with, many scientific advances rely largely on a thorough understanding of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. For example, experts in the area of medicine require a strong understanding of chemistry in order to conduct research and develop new medications. As a result, the teaching quality of these courses should be continually enhanced. Second, when students study science topics, they are required to solve a variety of issues, which might stimulate their creativity and inventiveness. Such talents are critical for developing technical advancements, which enable a country to acquire a competitive advantage over other countries. Advancement in science not just benefits the existing generation, it is for the greater good. Medicine is a field that has grown leaps and bounds which has helped solve a lot of medical issues. In India, the best study to show would be how science helped eradicate polio. Science has forever proven to be better than the best.

Despite the foregoing considerations, I believe that students should focus on other topics as well. International commerce contributes considerably to a country's growth in the age of globalisation. When there are linguistic hurdles, business with other countries becomes almost impossible. This means that the government should engage in foreign language education. In Singapore, for example, most people can speak English effectively since the school curriculum is heavily focused on the topic. Because Singaporeans are able to collaborate with individuals from all around the world, the country draws a lot of foreign investment. Business studies could help bring in a new generation of entrepreneurs. IIMs have an incubation centre that helps create business ideas. Science, however brilliant a subject, all the others are equally important.

To summarise, while I agree that government expenditure on science education aids a country's growth, I also feel that teaching topics such as foreign languages and business studies are essential.