Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order for a country to develop and progress. To what extent do you agree or disagree? hay nhất giúp bạn có thêm tài liệu tham khảo để viết bài luận bằng Tiếng Anh hay hơn.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 1

People have different views on the subjects that the government should invest in and prioritise, to achieve what is termed economic development. Some believe that a larger portion of government funds should be dedicated to teaching science-related. In my opinion, although science plays a large role, other subjects hold merit in their own right in contributing to, and in driving, economic progress and therefore, deserve equal government investment and funding.

On the one hand, public funding in science education subjects is important in driving the development of a country in many areas, such as engineering and medicine. For example, developed countries such as Japan has emphasised the science education of their citizens. This strong focus has led to science learning, knowledge, and scientific research achievement fosters innovation and increases productivity, which directly contributes to the national economic growth of the nation. Therefore, investment in the teaching of science education is crucial for a country’s economic progress.

On the other hand, the management of the nation also determines its state of development and economic progress. As such, it can be argued that curriculum subjects such as social sciences and law require as much attention and investment. For example, developing economies such as Indonesia and Cambodia have long experienced a history of political and social unrests and conflicts. We can largely attribute this to instability and poor management of legal, social and governmental systems. This is in contrast to their Asian counterparts such as Singapore and Korea, where well-established and stable civil law and political institutions can be observed.

In conclusion, subjects related to the management of a nation’s economy such as social sciences have as much impact and significance on the development and progress of one’s nation and deserve as much government investment as science subjects.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 2

How to allocate government expenditure has long been a highly charged issue. While 1 accept that there should be an increase in state funds for imparting science-related knowledge, 1 would argue that other subjects are of similar significance in the progression of a nation.

On the one hand, placing a premium on science subjects like mathematics and physics is conducive to the growth of a nation. It stands to reason that the more researchers or engineers a country has, the greater is their contribution to the prosperity of a society. To illustrate, with billions of dollars spent for scientific researches and relevant leaching activities, America has accomplished a number of breakthroughs in road networks, biotechnology and space exploration. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that stressing the role of science subjects in the education system would have a far-reaching long-term impact on a nation.

On the other hand, I believe that liberal arts education including literature and law has an equally important role to play in the sustainable growth of a nation. It is widely acknowledged that a society characterized by citizens well-cultivated and knowledgeable in literature or arts tend to enjoy a higher moral standard and social stability. Specifically, law-abiding and productive citizens tend to adopt decent code of conduct and commit fewer crimes, leading to better social security and improved living standards. As an expected outcome, government funding on social sciences would help individuals alter their intrinsic values and do their utmost to become productive members of society.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 3

In recent years, there has been talk of prioritising science over other subjects for the sake of national progress. Although science is important, I argue that humanities subjects should also be included in the curriculum.

Science could be said to have been a revolutionising force in improving the material conditions of humanity and thus can be argued to rightfully be prioritised within any learning program. Scientific breakthroughs allow production processes to become more efficient, improving both the quality and quantities of goods. These goods can either be exported to the international market, improving a country’s prosperity, or used by the domestic population to improve their lives. It was through improving its scientific research that the United States, for example, is at the forefront of technology and leads in economic and military prowess.

However, one might also argue that arts and humanities should be taught as well, for they create leaders that can effectively guide science to its most socially beneficial conclusions. Science could be said to be a tool, and like other tools, require a direction that it can be used towards. More specifically, there are many ethical problems with using scientific technology such as gene editing that requires those who can consider the potential social consequences. Without arts and humanities, science might not serve the benefit of mankind and might lead us towards a very dark path.

Therefore, I believe that although science is important, it cannot be left on its own. As such, along with a new generation of scientists, governments should also invest in bringing up a generation of philosophers and politicians.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 4

The advancement of science, and its application in a wide range of areas, has improved the lives of almost everyone around the world. As a result, it is essential that governments should devote additional funds to teaching science, although other subjects still have their importance.

The primary reason for this view is that scientific education teaches critical thinking. Science is based on asking questions about the world that can be tested in order to find answers that anyone can find for themselves. Without a sound scientific education, the average person is more likely to believe superstition, old wives’ tales, and the beliefs of their ignorant ancestors, which makes it easier for them to be deceived and taken advantage of by governments and other people in their daily lives. The fact is that developed societies have high levels of scientific knowledge, while less developed ones do not.

Of course, it is also necessary for students to study other subjects so that they can become well-rounded individuals. Science helps us to explain the world, but we also have to live in it. Being able to appreciate art, music, and literature helps us to understand each other and lead more satisfying lives. An advanced society needs both science to progress and art to make life worth living.

In summary, science helps a nation to advance by allowing its citizens to think independently and make decisions that are supported by evidence. Without a basic understanding of science, the world would be – and was – a much worse place.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 5

It is said that government funding for education should give preference to science-based subjects over others, in an attempt to help boost a countries future development and progress. Although an increase in scientific developments can have many benefits to national progress, this essay disagrees that science is the primary contributor.

There is no question that the advent of modern science has brought with it a number of improvements to the way that countries and societies function. For example, increases in electrical and computer-based technologies have led to much more streamlined and efficient workplaces. Computers and computerized machinery can now do the work of what would have previously been carried out by humans, allowing greater efficiency and higher productivity output. Another benefit that modern science has granted is the development of renewable energy. Sources of renewable energy, such as solar and wind generated power, are beginning to help ease the planet’s reliance on fossil fuels.

That being said, an increase in scientific education and development must not be the main measure of a country’s progress. It can be seen that the study of many other disciplines of education can also contribute to a country’s progress. Take for example, the Arts and Humanities. Subjects such as History and Philosophy have allowed us to gain a better understanding of humanity and can help us to gain more insight into how we can move forward as a race. Other subjects such as the Arts, allow societies and individuals to express themselves creatively through mediums such as music, film and other art forms. It can be argued that this can also help to improve the quality of people’s lives and therefore help a country’s overall development.

In conclusion, although developments in science have led to many beneficial advantages for most countries, science alone is not the key contributor to a country’s progress. In my opinion, most countries would benefit more greatly from a more well-rounded education, with emphasis on all disciplines, not only that of science.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 6

There are different views about whether governments should only focus on the teaching of science subjects to help their countries develop. While I accept that concentrating on these subjects brings about benefits, I would argue that it is better not to neglect other subjects.

For a variety of reasons, I agree that the focus on teaching science-related subjects helps a country progress. Firstly, many of the scientific breakthroughs rely heavily on knowledge of mathematics, physics and chemistry. For example, in the field of medicine, scientists need great knowledge of chemistry to do research and invent new drugs. The teaching quality of these subjects should therefore be continuously improved. Secondly, when students study science subjects, they need to find solutions to a wide range of different problems, which can encourage their creativity and imagination. Such capabilities play an important role in coming up with technological innovations, and these advances help a country gain a competitive edge over other nations.

Despite the above arguments, it seems to me that students should also pay attention to other subjects. In the era of globalization, international trade significantly contributes to the development of a country. It is nearly impossible to engage in trading activities with other countries if language barriers exist. This means that the government needs to invest in the teaching of foreign languages. In Vietnam, for instance, most people can speak English fluently because the school curriculum focuses largely on this subject. Since Vietnamese people are able to work with foreigners, the country attracts many investments from other parts of the world.

In conclusion, while I agree that government spending on teaching science subjects helps a country progress, I believe that teaching subjects such as foreign languages is also necessary.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 7

Education financing, which is critical to a country's development, is a major source of worry in modern society. People have differing opinions on whether or not the government should fund science disciplines more than others for the country's sake. To some extent, I agree that science education is desirable; but I also feel that non-scientific disciplines must be included.

The upside of funding science is it has a lot to offer. To begin with, emphasis on science results in the creation of a highly skilled intellectual workforce, which will bring about great changes in a country’s growth and development. Second, science education is required for a variety of occupations, including physicist, medical scientist, and others. People cannot acquire these kinds of positions without a science-based understanding, which helps produce greater economic value. Finally, consider what the current world would be like if science didn't exist. The response is emphatically 'no.' since it is possible that its products, like computers or computerised machinery, may not be created in the future.

Non-scientific topics, on the other hand, are, in my opinion, just as essential as science education. The first argument is that topics like arts and history are critical in assisting pupils in gaining a broad understanding of the world and developing into well-rounded individuals. For example, arts encourage students to be more creative and confident in their expression, which cannot be achieved just via math and science. In addition to the reasons stated above, I feel that ignoring these issues may result in an imbalance in the distribution of the nation's labour. A country cannot progress only on the basis of science while the other aspects are neglected. As a result, in order to avoid a scarcity of art-related occupations, such as journalist or artist, people should stress them as well.

To summarise, while the government must financially support science education, I do not believe that a nation's economy can be improved if the other components are ignored. It is necessary for equitable growth, that the government looks into all the aspects for the nation to prosper.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 8

One of the contentious concerns is that the government should invest more in coaching sciences than in other courses in order for the land to improve and progress. Some may believe that the programme should focus on imparting skills to help the individual develop. From my standpoint, I do not believe that investing money on application approaches is a waste of time for certain people.

It is commonly considered that paying more for scientific education than for other subjects like math and English aids in the development of a pleasant environment and helps to future well-paid employment. That may be true, but if the government invests in a variety of courses for students who dislike school, there are more benefits than taking a class in a subject they don't care about. Furthermore, students' learning in other classes makes them visually stunning for the survey.

As a result, according to scientific studies, some pupils may dislike learning, which may lead to poor educational achievements. As a result, students will squander time on a major that they do not want to study, slowing down their progress on the business that they have agreed to study. For example, if a student wants to be a lawyer, they should study about legal issues since it will help them grow as a professional because they might be a wonderful lawyer. Furthermore, a bucolic might benefit from learning in terms of digital and technology rather than talent, because technology is becoming increasingly important and widespread in the wild environment.

In conclusion, on the one hand, the government should pay for science education, which is required for the development of a rural area. On the other hand, Congress should assist those who are content to be educated in other subjects. Nowadays, there are numerous courses to develop the rustic, in my opinion. Science is an integral part of all lives, but it is definitely not the most important one. Overall developments can only be achieved if equal importance is given to all subjects. It is vital the government changes the education curriculum to the interests of students.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 9

There are differing viewpoints on whether governments should only focus on science education to aid their countries' development. While I agree that focusing on certain areas has advantages, I believe it is more important not to overlook other subjects.

I believe that focusing on science-related disciplines helps a country grow for a multitude of reasons. To begin with, many scientific advances rely largely on a thorough understanding of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. For example, experts in the area of medicine require a strong understanding of chemistry in order to conduct research and develop new medications. As a result, the teaching quality of these courses should be continually enhanced. Second, when students study science topics, they are required to solve a variety of issues, which might stimulate their creativity and inventiveness. Such talents are critical for developing technical advancements, which enable a country to acquire a competitive advantage over other countries. Advancement in science not just benefits the existing generation, it is for the greater good. Medicine is a field that has grown leaps and bounds which has helped solve a lot of medical issues. In India, the best study to show would be how science helped eradicate polio. Science has forever proven to be better than the best.

Despite the foregoing considerations, I believe that students should focus on other topics as well. International commerce contributes considerably to a country's growth in the age of globalisation. When there are linguistic hurdles, business with other countries becomes almost impossible. This means that the government should engage in foreign language education. In Singapore, for example, most people can speak English effectively since the school curriculum is heavily focused on the topic. Because Singaporeans are able to collaborate with individuals from all around the world, the country draws a lot of foreign investment. Business studies could help bring in a new generation of entrepreneurs. IIMs have an incubation centre that helps create business ideas. Science, however brilliant a subject, all the others are equally important.

To summarise, while I agree that government expenditure on science education aids a country's growth, I also feel that teaching topics such as foreign languages and business studies are essential.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 10

Many people believe that science education should be the core focus of government investments rather than other educational content. Most of the reasoning lies in the fact that scientific developments are considered to be the basis of all economic advancement. Though I agree with this opinion on the importance of science, I think all subjects should be treated as equals in the plans of the government.

It is understandable why science is held in such high regards by society as all industrial revolutions since the dawn of man have been the direct results of scientific breakthroughs. In each of these revolutions, humankind’s productivity has exponentially increased, leading to favourable economic booms. For example, the steam engine allowed people and goods to be transported further distances while electricity forever changed the manufacturing world. As a result, the demand for human resources in scientific fields has always been soaring. The private sector alone cannot satisfy this need, and the government must lend a helping hand in funding for the proliferation of science subjects in schools and universities.

However, it is wrong to assume that science has been the sole underlying source of progress. Aside from scientists, people from all backgrounds such as designers, marketers, and behavioural experts work together to turn an idea into reality. For example, although smartphone technologies were already developed in the 1990s, it is not until the late 2000s that smartphones’ sales exploded, all thanks to better and better designs. Therefore, the corresponding studies of designs, psychology, and other non-science subjects are no less critical to economic improvements. Furthermore, trained artists such as actors, singers, and musicians are vital in creating entertainment values that can satiate the society’s needs for happiness, avoiding depressions that can hamper growth. For a country to advance sustainably, the government cannot neglect the values of non-science fields.

In conclusion, both science and arts, when adequately invested, are the essential driving forces behind a well-developed country. The government should aggressively spend on the education of all subjects to maintain an all-rounded high-quality workforce, ready to tackle any challenges in the economy.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 11

Some people believe that more national funding should be allocated to the teaching of science subjects rather than other subjects because these disciplines could facilitate the growth of a country. This essay strongly disagrees with this opinion, asserting that a strong and flourishing country results from a combination of both humanities and science subjects.

There are valid reasons why some advocate for prioritizing science education. In the current technological landscape, science has paved the way for numerous breakthroughs that drive a country's development. For instance, America is renowned as a technological powerhouse, home to numerous tech giants such as Apple and Google. Such achievements are largely the result of massive investments in science and technology within their educational system. Similarly, countries such as China and Germany have also experienced remarkable growth due to similar investments in these fields. Therefore, it is undeniable that science significantly contributes to national development.

However, for a country to experience holistic development and long-term prosperity, humanities should also be invested in, with history being a prime example. When citizens are knowledgeable about their homeland’s origins and the endeavors of previous generations to unify the country, they develop a sense of patriotism. This patriotism is the foundation of the desire and effort to build and develop a country. Conversely, when people are ignorant about their country's history and have little gratitude towards the past, it is challenging for them to devote themselves to their homeland, potentially leading to issues like brain drain. Moreover, teaching international historical events is equally crucial. Insights into world wars or conflicts occurring in other parts of the world help people, especially the young generations, understand the value of peace, which is another essential groundwork for a developed and united country. Such knowledge can bolster people’s faith in their home country and encourage them to dedicate themselves to its development and protection. Humanities subjects like literature and philosophy also play a vital role in fostering critical thinking, empathy, and ethical reasoning, all of which are essential for well-rounded citizens.

In conclusion, while it is true that science and technology are vital for a country's progress, this essay argues that educational funding should not be disproportionately channeled into these fields at the expense of the humanities. A balanced approach that values both scientific and social subjects is crucial for fostering patriotism, critical thinking, and a comprehensive understanding of the world, which collectively form the foundation of a country's growth.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 12

There has been a growing debate about the importance of science education in comparison to other subjects. Some people argue that the government should invest more in the teaching of science, as it is vital for building a country’s prosperous future. While I agree that science education is essential, I believe that other subjects also play a significant role in a country's progress, so I disagree that government investment should go to science subjects more than others.

Science education is undoubtedly important as it provides students with the necessary skills and knowledge to tackle real-world problems. Firstly, science education is essential for innovation and technological advancement. It provides the necessary knowledge and skills for students to develop new technologies and products, which can lead to economic growth and improve the quality of life for citizens. Secondly, the challenges faced by humanity today require a strong foundation in scientific knowledge. Issues such as climate change, pandemics, and energy security require scientific expertise to address. By investing in science education, a country can equip its citizens with the necessary skills to tackle these challenges effectively.

However, I also believe that other subjects, such as humanities, social sciences, and languages, are equally important for a country's progress. These subjects help students develop critical thinking skills, creativity, and empathy, which are essential for success in many fields. For example, literature encourages creativity by exposing readers to new and imaginative ideas, concepts, and perspectives. This is essential in fields such as advertising, marketing, and entrepreneurship, where the ability to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions is highly valued. Moreover, these subjects help students understand different cultures, languages, and perspectives, which can be invaluable in a globalized world. Additionally, history, geography, and languages can help students understand different cultures, traditions, and ways of life.

In conclusion, while I agree that science education is vital for a country's development and progress, I disagree that government funding should be prioritized for this subject over other subjects. Government investment should, therefore, be spread across a range of subjects to give a broad education to strengthen a country’s future development and progress.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 13

It is sometimes asserted that governments should prioritize investment in scientific disciplines over other subjects to foster their countries’ prosperity. I mostly agree with this assertion due to the significant impact of technological advancements on the economy and social development, although the economic benefits of other industries should not be underestimated.

The foremost rationale why I support increased government funding for the teaching of science subjects is the potential for economic gain. Specifically, tech giants are the primary drivers of wealth in the world’s most powerful economies. For instance, the top ten largest corporations in the United States predominantly comprise major technology companies like Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon. Therefore, governments should prioritize investment in science education to produce more engineers and scientists, who are essential for the establishment and growth of tech enterprises.

Another reason I support government funding for science education is the social impact of technological breakthroughs. In other words, the application of cutting-edge technology can effectively address issues that were once deemed unsolvable. A compelling example of this is China’s success in eradicating poverty in various rural areas. Technical organizations in China have provided low-cost internet connection devices to thousands of villages, enabling numerous farmers to sell their products on live-streaming platforms like Taobao, thereby lifting them out of poverty.

However, I acknowledge the contributions of non-technical fields. It is not uncommon for countries to achieve prosperity without relying solely on tech organizations. Thailand is an excellent example, as the country has invested heavily in educating students about their cultural heritage and the principles of sustainable tourism. This has led to a tourism boom in recent decades, significantly contributing to Thailand becoming the second wealthiest nation in Southeast Asia.

In conclusion, I largely support the idea of governments prioritizing the teaching of scientific subjects, as technological advancements can not only drive economic growth but also foster positive social change despite the economic contributions of other educational fields.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 14

A widely held perspective suggests that national governments should channel more resources into the teaching of science disciplines to bolster national development and advancement. While I acknowledge the crucial role that scientific education plays in societal progress, I contend that the significance of other academic fields should not be overlooked.

Undeniably, subjects such as physics, chemistry, and biology are fundamental to the evolution of a nation. These areas of study are instrumental in fostering innovative technologies, improving healthcare systems, and addressing pressing societal issues, such as climate change and public health crises. For example, countries that have made substantial investments in scientific education often witness remarkable technological breakthroughs and economic growth. This correlation illustrates that the enhancement of science education is vital for nurturing national progress and resilience.

However, it is crucial to recognize the value of other academic disciplines. Fields such as history, literature, and the arts play a significant role in developing critical thinking, creativity, and effective communication skills among students. These competencies are essential for understanding societal dynamics and appreciating human culture. For instance, the study of history not only teaches individuals to analyze past mistakes but also cultivates an awareness of civic responsibility. Meanwhile, literature encourages self-expression and fosters empathy, both of which are necessary for active citizenship. A well-rounded educational framework must cultivate a diverse workforce that includes not only scientists and engineers but also artists, historians, and philosophical thinkers.

Moreover, it is important to consider that not all students exhibit a preference for scientific subjects. Many individuals may possess a stronger affinity for disciplines such as music, sports, or entrepreneurial studies. If governments were to focus solely on science education, these students would likely experience a subpar educational experience that does not cater to their unique abilities and ambitions. Such a narrow educational approach could ultimately impede progress across various fields that are vital for a comprehensive strategy for national development.

In conclusion, while it is clear that science subjects hold significant importance for a country’s advancement, other fields of study equally deserve recognition and investment. National governments should aim to promote a balanced approach by allocating resources to all academic disciplines, thereby ensuring that students acquire a diverse skill set that contributes to holistic growth and development across multiple sectors of society.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 15

Some argue that governments should allocate more resources to teaching science-based subjects rather than other disciplines to ensure national development and progress. However, I firmly believe that prioritizing science education over other subjects is not the most effective approach.

Firstly, focusing solely on science subjects could lead to a narrow-minded educational system that neglects the holistic development of students. Science and technology are undoubtedly crucial for economic growth and innovation, but subjects like literature, history, and the arts play an equally important role in fostering creativity, critical thinking, and cultural awareness. For instance, countries like Japan, which has a well-rounded education system, have managed to achieve technological advancements while also preserving their rich cultural heritage. This demonstrates that a balanced approach to education, where science and humanities coexist, is more beneficial for a country’s overall progress.

Secondly, interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for addressing complex global challenges, which often require a blend of scientific knowledge and insights from social sciences, ethics, and policy studies. For example, tackling climate change not only involves understanding scientific data but also requires economic strategies, ethical considerations, and public policy initiatives. By investing in a diverse range of subjects, governments can equip students with the necessary skills to approach problems from multiple perspectives, leading to more comprehensive and sustainable solutions.

In conclusion, I completely disagree with the notion that governments should prioritize science education over other subjects. A well-rounded education that includes both science and non-science subjects is vital for fostering creativity, critical thinking, and interdisciplinary collaboration, all of which are necessary for a nation’s development and progress.

Some people think the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects in order - mẫu 16

Some people hold a belief that governments should spend more money on teaching science topics than other subjects. In my opinion, I will change this school of thought.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that undeveloped and developing countries need scientific inventions to enhance their development. One example of these countries is Viet Nam, whose economy has grown significantly by applying mechanization to its agriculture. This is because farmers can boost their productivity and harvest a better crop, which helps them earn more money by using mechanical engines. Moreover, in the age of science and technology, people can quickly get a well-paid job both in their region and overseas if they have been trained in good technological skills in their school. Undoubtedly, with the economic growth and the increase in GDP, the residents will have a thorough life, and the governments will have an opportunity to develop other things.

On the other hand, unlike the nations above, which depend on the available machines, developed nations depend mostly on innovations to expand their development. This puts a force on schools to teach students other subjects to stimulate students' creativity. One example of this type of education is America's education, where pupils can choose the subjects attached to their ability. As a result, this country achieved numerous scientific achievements and innovations, which were devoted to improving other subjects. In conclusion, the aforementioned analyses make me conclude that it is wiser action for undeveloped countries and developing countries to allocate funds for science education than developed countries.

Xem thêm các bài luận Tiếng Anh hay khác:

• Some people believe that sports competitions are a source of emotional stress for young people. Therefore, youth should be banned from participating in sports competitions. Do you agree or disagree?

• Some people think that the main purpose of school is to turn children into good citizens and workers, rather than to benefit them as individuals. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

• Some people think that robots are very important to human’s future development, while others think that they are dangerous and have negative effects on society. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

• Spoken communication is more powerful than written communication. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

• Some people believe that reading stories from a book is better than watching TV or playing computer games for children. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

• Hơn 20.000 câu trắc nghiệm Toán,Văn, Anh lớp 9 có đáp án

---