IELTS Essay: Educational Institutions

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

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 of a minimum level of success and the
possibility of a much greater career motivates 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. Read more about introductions here.

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 motivates 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. Read more about conclusions here.

Vocabulary
What do the words in bold below mean?
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 of a minimum level of success and
the possibility of a much greater career motivates 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.
Answers
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

Pronunciation
ɪnˈkriːsɪŋli ˈkɒmən
ˈɛmfəsaɪz
tuː ðə ˈdɛtrɪmənt ɒv
hju(ː)ˈmænɪtiz
ˈlɒʤɪkəli ˈməʊtɪveɪtɪd dɪˈsɪʒən
meɪn ˈriːzn
ʃɪft
ˌrɪəlaɪˈzeɪʃən
ˈvæljuː
ˌsaɪənˈtɪfɪk fiːldz
pʊʃ ˈfɔːwəd
ˈhjuːmən ˈprəʊgrəs
ˈʤɛnəreɪt
ˈrɛvɪnjuː
əˈkrɒs ə waɪd ˈspɛktrəm ɒv ˈɪndəstriz
ˈfɒləʊz
haɪ-ˈpeɪɪŋ ʤɒbz əˈveɪləbl
ˈpraɪvɪt ænd ˈpʌblɪk ˈsɛktəz
æt ðə ˈvɛri liːst
ˈmeɪʤəz
stɛm rɪˈleɪtɪd ˈsʌbʤɪkt
ˈkwɒlɪti ˈtiːʧɪŋ pəˈzɪʃən
ˌgærənˈtiːz
ˈmɪnɪməm ˈlɛvl
ˌpɒsəˈbɪlɪti
mʌʧ ˈgreɪtə kəˈrɪə
ˈməʊtɪveɪts
ˌɪnstɪˈtjuːʃənz
praɪˈɒrɪˌtaɪz
pəˈsjuː ˌsaɪənˈtɪfɪk kəˈrɪəz
ˈəʊvər-ˈɛmfəsɪs
trænsˈleɪt tuː
ˈstrɪktli ˌjuːtɪlɪˈteərɪən pɔɪnt ɒv vjuː
ˈæləʊkeɪtɪd tuː
məʊst ˌiːkəˈnɒmɪk ˈvæljuː
sʌm
ˈɜːnɪŋ pəʊˈtɛnʃəl
prəˈpɔːʃən
ˈmɒdən kənˈviːniənsɪz
fʊlˈfɪlɪŋ
dɪˈklaɪn
əˈpærənt
ˌʤɛnəˈreɪʃənz
ˈfʌndɪŋ
slæʃt
ˈkʌlʧərəli ˈpʊərə
ɪnˈrɪʧt
ˈɛlɪveɪtɪd
gɪv weɪ
ˈtræŋkwɪl
tɛkˈnɒkrætɪt ˈfjuːʧə
ʤɒbz əˈveɪləbl tuː
ɪksˈpleɪn
ˈdɒmɪnəns
ˈteɪkən æz ə həʊl
trɛnd
rɪˈzʌlt ɪn
bɪˈrɛft
ˈbæləns ˈfʌndɪŋ

Vocabulary Practice
Remember and fill in the blanks:
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 of a minimum level of success and
the possibility of a much greater career motivates 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.

Listening Practice
Listen more about this topic and practice with the ideas in this post:
https://youtu.be/FnsX7jzO8fE

Reading Practice
Read more and practice with these activities:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2020/09/teaching-art-teaching-writing/616045/

Speaking Practice
Practice with the following speaking questions from the real IELTS speaking exam:
Science
1. Do you like science?
2. Did you learn about science in primary school?
3. How often do you read about science?
4. Why is science important to learn about?
Writing Practice
Write about this related topic and check with my sample answer below:
The government should lower the budget on the arts in order to allocate more money to
education.
To what extent do you agree?