Some people think that schools have to be more entertaining, while others think that their

sole purpose is to educate. Which do you agree with? Use specific reasons and examples to
support your opinion.

Educational reform is a contentious issue with various trends coming and going over the last
few decades. While many people believe that schools should focus on more enjoyable activities
in order to maintain student engagement, I strongly advocate to maintain a traditional approach
so as to maintain order. This essay will review both sides and use examples from a survey
performed in the UK and an academic report from a prominent university.

Learners who are required to absorb information via conventional academic methods often
experience problems with focus and attention. More specifically, repeatedly performing the same
memory-based task throughout one’s school career is likely to cause boredom and ultimately
result in student disengagement.

In several schools in the UK, to take an example, it has been shown via survey that a
considerable number of young people fail to remember crucial information simply because it
was uninteresting. Adhering strictly to rote learning is therefore harmful to those students who
require further assistance to remember key details.

Although there is a case for more entertainment in schools, and even interactive media, the
appearance of such possible distractions in the classroom, cannot be overstated. This is largely
because of two reasons, firstly teachers would have to be re-trained to use such media and this
could lead to considerably increasing education expenses.

Secondly, for a more fun class to happen the teacher has to be firmly in control of the classroom
or disobedience and unruly behaviour could ensue. This was proven in a recent study by Oxford
University that showed that over 91% of teachers who implemented an entertainment-oriented
curriculum stated that they quickly lost control of the students. Thus, it is possible to state
beyond doubt that more entertainment in the classroom will not only increase costs but even
augment poor behaviour.

To conclude, from the arguments and examples given I firmly believe that although more
entertaining education can lead to fully inclusive classes, the risk for a teacher losing control of
the class is too high a price to pay. Discipline must be maintained or zero education will
happen. It is predicted that traditional teaching methods that incorporate total classroom
control will continue to grow in importance.

Most schools are planning to replace sport and exercise classes with more academic
sessions. How will this change affect children’s lives in your view?
The debate between where to allocate valuable teaching resources probably started with the first
educational institutions. In present-day society the conflict continues and rightly so. In my
opinion converting sports classes to more traditional subjects has two significant advantages.
Firstly, it is a more effective use of a student’s time. Secondly, in the future, academic skills are
more useful.

Switching time spent on sport in a school to time spent on more academic activities is a wise and
cost-effective solution. Firstly, academic studies are inherently less expensive to perform when
compared to physical education.

For example, to play almost any sport one has to invest in the appropriate equipment, ranging
from shorts, t-shirts to rackets and balls. Furthermore, excess time is spent in the changing
rooms or washing afterwards. In more traditional subjects, students merely enter the classroom
and are learning within minutes.

Secondly, sport can be argued as an activity practised naturally by children, especially boys. In
every school at break time many children engage in energetic activities, whereas hardly any are
studying algebra, biology or physics. Because these subjects are less popular more resources
should be allocated to teaching them.

In addition, academic skills could be argued as more important due to the small number of
people in society currently using sport skills in a work environment. Thus, focussing on skills
demanded by the labour market would benefit students’ lives dramatically in the future.

To conclude, young learners going through school would finish much better prepared for life
avoiding sport tuition. Furthermore, they would have taken full advantage of their school years
through more time spent learning.

Should education and healthcare be free of charge and funded by the government, or
should it be the responsibility of the people to pay for these services? Discuss the above and
give your opinion using examples.

A healthy and educated society is the backbone of any successful society; however, deciding
who is to provide this is a sensitive topic. I strongly believe the government should be held
responsible to provide these services for two reasons. Firstly, the entire society benefits, and
secondly the whole population is currently paying for the services. However, if one prefers extra
services, they should be prepared to pay for it themselves.

Sample Answer
Firstly, education is largely considered a basic right. A population unable to calculate, read, write
or even learn would be doomed in such a competitive global economy. Globalisation has
increased competition and shifted the emphasis to knowledge, information and science. A state
education should, therefore, be freely available to everybody. However, if people wish to
purchase private education, this should also be allowed or even encouraged. Private education
reduces the strain on public services and provides a source of tax revenue for the government, in
effect, subsidising state education.

Secondly, health services must undoubtedly be available to all because the entire nation is paying
taxes and, therefore, should not be excluded from any service. Take the NHS in the UK, for
example; this organisation caters for the entire population, and no private medical insurance is
needed. Unfortunately waiting lists can be long and service is occasionally slow; therefore, some
purchase private medical insurance for a faster service. This reduces the workload of the public
sector.

To conclude, I believe both healthcare and education are basic fundamental rights, necessary for
any advanced society, and, therefore, the responsibility should lie with the government.
Nevertheless, if individuals require more than the standard level, then they should be prepared to
pay for it.

Should humans adapt to technology or should technology be adapted to us? Is technology

making us intellectually weaker or more intelligent?

Whether the development of modern technology should be permitted to advance unhindered, or

improved only with specific regard to human need, is a contentious issue. Since learning to use
new technologies strengthens intellect, I believe that new devices should be developed without
limits in order to challenge people.

The achievements of humanity over the last century have only been made possible by the
development of modern technology. Driven by the need to discover, people have created
countless innovations in fields such as electronics, medicine and engineering which have
improved the lives of billions.

Additionally, many key discoveries throughout history were made while investigating something
else entirely, such as with penicillin or the microwave oven. Establishing controls over what may
or may not be investigated could therefore severely limit new discoveries.

This style of innovation also provides intellectual benefits for both the inventor and the
consumer, since both must work hard in order to either create or use the new device. A constant
flow of new discoveries maintains mental stimulation amongst those who choose to make use of
them.

The computer, for example, has enabled humans to achieve remarkable things, but only after we
adapted our behaviour and learned to use it fully. Also, those people who have maintained a
good degree of computer literacy are now able to seek the best professional opportunities, which
is further known to be intellectually beneficial.

In conclusion, I believe that technology should be allowed to develop freely and that humans
should adapt their behaviour to emerging discoveries. This will keep us intellectually strong and
ensure that the maximum good can come from scientific endeavour.