Many educational institutions give greater importance to subjects related to science

You should spend about 40 minutes on IELTS writing task 2.

Many educational institutions give greater importance to subjects related to science and ignore subjects such as drama and literature. Is this a positive or a negative development?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. You should write at least 250 words.

Sample Answer 1

It is becoming increasingly common for schools across the globe to concentrate on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) to the detriment of the humanities. I believe that it is a logically motivated decision and overall leaves a negative trend on people. In the next few paragraphs, I will be highlighting my point of view.

One of the negative aspects of this scenario is that STEM-oriented fields get overvalued. This enhances pressure on those who are looking forward to developing a career in a completely different domain. Moreover, this over-emphasis on science, somehow, translates into less art in the world. It is evident that from a rigidly utilitarian perception, resources must get allocated to a field that has the most economic value.

However, life is way more than somebody’s potential of earning a higher amount. If the proportion of those excelling in humanities falls, the world will have fewer musicians, writers, filmmakers, sculptors, painters, and other such artists. Science can, undoubtedly, create a convenient life. But art helps people lead a fulfilling, satisfying life. The results of such a decline may not be apparent for generations, but if the funding gets slashed for arts programs, the world will turn culturally poor and will die down under the burden of technology.

While STEM subjects, undoubtedly, allow people to grab high-paying jobs, concentrating completely on these subjects could be a great loss to society.

In conclusion, the jobs available for science majors explain their dominance but if looked at from a universal point of view, this trend will create a world devoid of great artists. Therefore, it is important to balance the funding.

Structure of the essay

You were given an opinion essay which means you had to pick a side. So,

• Do you agree that educational institutions give greater importance to subjects related to science and ignore subjects such as drama and literature?

(or)

• Do you disagree with the fact that educational institutions give greater importance to subjects related to science and ignore subjects such as drama and literature?

Once you pick a side, you can start planning your essay and then writing it.

Don’t forget to state your opinion on it.

Question Paraphrased – It is becoming increasingly common for schools across the globe to concentrate on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) to the detriment of the humanities.

Opinion – I believe that it is a logically motivated decision and overall leaves a negative trend on people.

A thesis statement – In the next few paragraphs, I will be highlighting my point of view.

Body Paragraph 1:

Topic: The negative effects

Supporting points:

• Jobs getting overvalued
• Puts more pressure on those with a different career path
• Less art in the world

Body Paragraph 2:

Topic: Over emphasis on science translates into less art in the world

Supporting points:

• Life is more than the potential of earning high
• Art helps people lead a fulfilling life

Conclusion:

Reiterating that the jobs available for science majors explain their dominance but if looked at from a universal point of view, this trend will create a world devoid of great artists and support the side taken in the introduction.

Sample Answer 2

It is becoming increasingly common for schools around the world to emphasise STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) to the detriment of the humanities. This is a logically motivated decision and is negative overall.

The main reason for this shift is a realisation of the value of jobs in scientific fields. New inventions and medicines push forward human progress and generate billions of dollars in revenue across a wide spectrum of industries. It, therefore, follows there are high-paying jobs available in private and public sectors for engineers, researchers, scientists, and mathematicians. At the very least, someone who majors in a STEM-related subject will be able to find a quality teaching position. This guarantees a minimum level of success and the possibility of a much greater career motivate parents, institutions and students themselves to prioritise and pursue scientific careers.

This over-emphasis on science will translate to less art in the world. It is true that from a strictly utilitarian point of view, resources ought to be allocated to fields with the most economic value. Life is, however, more than the sum of everyone’s earning potential. If the proportion of humanities majors falls, there will be fewer painters, sculptors, filmmakers, writers, and musicians. Science may create modern conveniences but the arts are more important for a fulfilling and enjoyable life. The results of this decline might not become apparent for generations, but if funding is slashed for arts programs, the world will become culturally poorer and the art that has enriched and elevated humanity will give way to a tranquil, technocratic future.

In conclusion, the jobs available to science majors explain their dominance but taken as a whole this trend will result in a world bereft of great artists. It is therefore important to balance funding to a defensible degree.

Analysis

1. It is becoming increasingly common for schools around the world to emphasise STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) to the detriment of the humanities. 2. This is a logically motivated decision and is negative overall.

1. Paraphrase the overall essay.
2. Answer each question directly.

1. The main reason for this shift is a realisation of the value of jobs in scientific fields. 2. New inventions and medicines push forward human progress and generate billions of dollars in revenue across a wide spectrum of industries. 3. It, therefore, follows there are high-paying jobs available in private and public sectors for engineers, researchers, scientists, and mathematicians. 4. At the very least, someone who majors in a STEM-related subject will be able to find a quality teaching position. 5. This guarantees of a minimum level of success and the possibility of a much greater career motivate parents, institutions and students themselves to prioritise and pursue scientific careers.

1. Write a clear topic sentence with your main idea at the end.
2. Explain your main idea.
3. Develop it.
4. Continue to develop the same main idea.
5. State the furthest possible result.

1. This over-emphasis on science will translate to less art in the world. 2. It is true that from a strictly utilitarian point of view, resources ought to be allocated to fields with the most economic value. 3. Life is, however, more than the sum of everyone’s earning potential. 4. If the proportion of humanities majors falls, there will be fewer painters, sculptors, filmmakers, writers, and musicians. 5. Science may create modern conveniences but the arts are more important for a fulfilling and enjoyable life. 6. The results of this decline might not become apparent for generations, but if funding is slashed for arts programs, the world will become culturally poorer and the art that has enriched and elevated humanity will give way to a tranquil, technocratic future.

1. Write a new topic sentence with another main idea at the end.
2. Explain your new main idea.
3. State any exceptions.
4. Develop your main idea with specific instances.
5. Continue developing.
6. Vary long and short sentences.

1. In conclusion, the jobs available to science majors explain their dominance but taken as a whole this trend will result in a world bereft of great artists. 2. It is therefore important to balance funding to a defensible degree.

1. Repeat your answers and summarise your ideas.
2. Add a final thought.

Vocab Highlight

increasingly common ubiquitous

emphasise focus on

to the detriment of hurting

humanities arts

logically motivated decision makes sense

main reason chief justification

shift change

realisation know

value importance

scientific fields engineering, chemistry, math, etc.

push forward drive

human progress advances in civilisation

generate make

revenue money

across a wide spectrum of industries in many fields

follows naturally, logically

high-paying jobs available jobs with good salaries

private and public sectors companies and governments

at the very least at the minimum

majors fields to study

STEM related subject related to science, technology, engineering and math

quality teaching position good job as a teacher

guarantees makes sure of

minimum level lowest amount

possibility chance

much greater career better job

motivates encourages

institutions schools

prioritise focus on

pursue scientific careers get a job in science

over-emphasis focus too much on

translate to means

strictly utilitarian point of view only caring about the end value of

allocated to given to

most economic value helps make the most money

sum total

earning potential how much money you can make

proportion ratio

modern conveniences phones, computers, TVs, etc.

fulfilling satisfying

decline decrease

apparent appears to be

generations many years

funding money, resources

slashed cut

culturally poorer weak in terms of the arts

enriched made stronger

elevated lifted up

give way sacrifice for

tranquil calm

technocratic future controlled by technology, efficiency

jobs available to jobs you can get

explain justify

dominance being in control

taken as a whole overall

trend pattern

result in consequence

bereft lacking

balance funding give equal resources

defensible degree justifiable extent