Many people believe that more money should be allocated to teaching science than any other subject in order for a country to progress, to what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It is argued that more fund should be directed to science education than any other material for country progression, I personally agree with this statement because science plays a crucial role in development and this trend would encourage more children to study science. This will be analysed briefly.
Firstly, science is the back bone of nationprogression. The more projects and reasreach are achieved, the more development of a community. This can be seen clearly in advances of technology, such as, smart phones, wireless internet, discoveries of new medicine and developments of transportation. These advances supported by paying big amount of money in teaching science. Furthermore, it is clear in the case of the United States of America as being the most developed country all over the world, due to the huge investments in science education. Hence, the link between technological development and the budget of science education is obvious.
Secondly, if authorities allocate more financial resources to teach science ,this attracts children to science. By introducing scientific expirements, competitions and fairs, youngsters grow to be scientists in the foreseeable future. Because of availability of resources, schools could plan field trips to various labs and technology companies which promote sceience education. For this reason, educational experts advise to concentrate on learning science in early years school curriculum. Thus, these children will grow up with more intereist in it.
In conclusion, I believe that more money should be directed towards science education. As studying scientific materials is the precursor of progression
task 2 please evalute
-
David.IELTS.Examiner
- IELTS Examiner
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 4:34 am
Re: task 2 please evalute
Hello!
Not bad. You do raise good points, but you tend to make 'jumps' in thinking/logic, e.g. you do not explain why school trips WILL (= for sure) make children more interested in science.
When you say that the USA is the most developed country in the world, what do you mean exactly? (Again, this is more about development of your point.) Does the US spend more on science education per child than any other country? (Considering the recent influence of 'creationism' ...)
Th range of grammatical structures is limited and meaning is sometimes not very clear. Vocabulary is reasonable, but not used with precision.
All the best,
David
Not bad. You do raise good points, but you tend to make 'jumps' in thinking/logic, e.g. you do not explain why school trips WILL (= for sure) make children more interested in science.
When you say that the USA is the most developed country in the world, what do you mean exactly? (Again, this is more about development of your point.) Does the US spend more on science education per child than any other country? (Considering the recent influence of 'creationism' ...)
Th range of grammatical structures is limited and meaning is sometimes not very clear. Vocabulary is reasonable, but not used with precision.
All the best,
David