'To meet the demands of modern society, schools should stop teaching arts and humanities such as music and history and focus on science and technology, which are more useful in the modern age.' To what extent do you agree with this view?
A.I. Score
Each colour is one skill. Tap a colour to hide it. Tap it again to show it.
Many argue that schooling should prioritise science and technology to satisfy economic pressures, relegating arts and humanities as obsolete. I strongly disagree with this view. While scientific literacy is essential, removing music, history and related subjects would undermine the broader educational mission of schools and weaken the very skills modern societies require.
Firstly, arts and humanities cultivate critical thinking, cultural awareness and communication, which are indispensable in scientific and technological fields. For example, engineers who understand history and ethics design solutions that are socially responsible and publicly acceptable. Eliminating these disciplines risks producing technically competent graduates who struggle to interpret human needs or collaborate effectively.
Admittedly, science and technology drive innovation and employment, and schools must strengthen these areas to remain relevant. However, focusing exclusively on utilitarian subjects narrows education to short-term labour demands. In rapidly changing economies, creativity, adaptability and ethical judgement, fostered by the humanities, enable workers to retrain and innovate sustainably.
In conclusion, prioritising science and technology at the expense of arts and humanities is misguided. A balanced curriculum better serves modern society by combining technical expertise with human insight. Schools should integrate, rather than replace, disciplines so students are prepared not only for current jobs but for thoughtful participation in a complex future.
- Fully addresses the prompt in depth, showing full command of the argument by reformulating the issue in the writer's own words and expanding important points with specificity.
- The argument is supported convincingly with subsidiary points and relevant examples throughout the response.
- Has an effective logical structure, flows smoothly, and can be followed with ease.
- The argument is clear and cohesive and developed systematically at length; a well-developed introduction and conclusion are present, and ideas are organised cohesively into clear, logically sequenced paragraphs.
- Uses a variety of connective devices effectively and consistently to convey relationships between ideas.
- A variety of expressions and vocabulary are used appropriately to formulate ideas with ease and precision throughout the response.
- No signs of limitations restricting what can be communicated.
- Errors in language use, if present, are rare and minor, and meaning is completely clear.
- Shows consistent grammatical control of complex language. Errors are rare and difficult to spot.
- Good command of a broad lexical repertoire, idiomatic expressions and collocations.
- Correct spelling.
- Length is within the required 200 to 300 words.