Do u agree or disagree with the statement that government should invest more money in
science education rather than other subjects to develop the country?
Historically, scientific breakthroughs have been at the core of the development of modern
society. Some argue that in order to perpetuate this progress, governments ought to focus
more resources on teaching science in schools. However, I strongly believe that additional
investments in science education would be futile, and that there exist other academic fields
where this funding would be of better use.
People who advocate the idea of allocating more public funds to science courses may argue
that this governmental support could be used to cover the costs of new laboratories and
equipment. By making these facilities more accessible to students, educators hope to kindle
an interest in science among students and encourage them to become scientists in the
future. However, I believe this argument is flawed; there is no guarantee that students
would grow fonder of science if more efforts were put into teaching it. This is because
academic pursuits are influenced to a great extent by aptitudes and preferences, and not
everybody is suited to study science.
Furthermore, an extra supply of scientists in the future does not necessarily benefit all
societies. In fact, people who conduct scientific researches would be of little value in
developing nations where hunger and poverty are more pressing matters at hand. These
social ills are arguably better addressed by experts in management and economics.
Therefore, it seems more apt to dedicate public funds to these academic domains instead of
science.
While technological advancements can result in improved productivity in other sectors and
bolster economic growth, they are not achieved only by having more people studying
science. As technology transfer is made possible thanks to globalization, nations can
purchase the latest innovations from others. For example, Vietnam has adopted Israeli
farming methods to increase crop yields and farming efficiency. It was able to gain access to
advanced agricultural technologies without having to increase spending on teaching science
in schools.
In conclusion, little benefit would accrue to a country from extra subsidies for science
education. I firmly believe that taxpayers’ money would be better expended on social
subjects as well as direct investments in science.
Establishing an appropriate national framework of education curriculums is of paramount
importance to the development of the country. It is often believed that science subjects
should attract more investment than other disciplines. However, I strongly disagree with
this belief, because there are many subjects that are equally or even more important than
science.
I contend that language education plays no lesser role in developing a nation than science
does. While science education is meant for scientists, language education may help a nation
to develop a strong labour force in almost every field. This is because thanks to language
education, students have access to a wealth of knowledge written in other languages, and
may become future experts in a variety of areas.
History is also more significant than science studies. I believe in this because history may
instill a sense of patriotism in all students, and as a result they will be more willing to
contribute to the country in the future. In sharp contrast to this, many developing nations
have witnessed a vast number of scientists who choose to migrate to more developed
nations for better living and working conditions. If the history subject had been prioritized,
this brain-drain phenomenon would not have occurred because these would have felt more
compelled to remain in their homeland and contribute to society.
Finally, I would argue that the significance of management and economics far outweighs
that of science studies. In the today’s world, it is a common practice that one country
purchases one another’s technology and inventions. Therefore, the national advantages
that derive from the advances of science are not as significant as they once were before
globalization. By contrast, nowadays, there is an urgent need for management experts and
economists who are the driving force behind economic and societal development. It is these
people, not scientists, who deserve the prioritization in education investment.
From the issues outlined above, one may conclude that the government should not grant
any financial privileges to science education.