Subjects such as Art, Sport and Music are being dropped from the

school curriculum for subjects such as Information Technology.

Many people children suffer as a result of these changes. To what
extent would you support or reject the idea of moving these
esubjects from school curriculum?
In recent times there has been much debate about which subjects should be
included on the school curriculum. One particular issue is whether the
introduction of more modern subjects such as IT for more traditional subjects
such as art and music disadvantages the pupils. I believe this is a difficult
question and different solutions need to be found for primary and secondary
schools.
There is one major argument in favour of replacing art, music and sport on the
curriculum with subjects like IT. This is that the purpose of school is to
prepare children for their working life after school, so the subjects on the
curriculum should be relevant to their potential careers. this point of view, IT
is much relevant to schoolchildren as they need to be computer literate if they
want to survive in the workplace. For example, it is easy to see that word
processing and programming skills will impress employers more than the
ability to run fast or draw well.
There are also, however, strong arguments for retaining the more traditional
subjects as part of the curriculum. One significant counter-argument is that
the purpose of education is not just to prepare children for later careers, but
also to develop their all round culture. It is important that children leave
school with some knowledge of art, music and sport as all these are all help
develop aspects of young peoples personalities.
My own personal point of view is that there is merit in both sides of the debate
and that all children should study some IT, art music and sport at least at
primary school. At secondary school, however, children should be offered a
choice between these subjects so that they can continue to study them if they
wish.

2. eryone should stay in school until the age of eighteen. To what

extent do you agree or disagree?
It is often said that if you want to succeed in life, you need a proper education.
While there may be arguments for making school compulsory until the age of
18 , I disagree this should apply to everyone.
Perhaps the strongest reason for not leaving school early is that it prepares
you for your working career. If you leave school early with only a basic
education, you are unlikely to be able to find any skilled work. Indeed, the
education you receive between the ages of 16 and 18 is crucial for anyone who
does not want a lifetime of unskilled work in a factory.
Another compelling reason for remaining in school until 18 is that school
provides moral and social education too. This is particularly important for
people between 16 and 18 who have many temptations and benefit from the
organised framework that school provides. Young people who stay in school
until the age of 18 tend to be more responsible and help build a stronger
society.
There are, however, equally strong arguments against making school
compulsory until the age of 18. One such argument is that not everyone is
academic and that some people benefit more from vocational training. For
instance, someone who wants to become a car mechanic may find better
training and more satisfaction in an apprentice scheme. Another related
argument is that, in todays world, young people are maturing ever more
quickly and are able to make their own life decisions by the age of 16.
To my mind, everyone should be encouraged to stay in school until 18 both for
social and career reasons. However, I believe it would be a mistake to make
this compulsory bearing in mind that different people have different needs
and abilities and the possibilities of other forms of vocational training.

Some people believe that exams are an inappropriate way of

measuring students performance and should be replaced by
continuous assessment. Do you agree or disagree this view?
There is some dispute whether the best method of assessing students is to use
examinations or some form of continuous assessment. This is a complex issue
and my belief is that there is probably no one method that applies to all
educational systems.
There are three major arguments in favour of retaining exams. One is that
they provide a clear and objective measure of what students have learned,
whereas any form of continuous assessment is probably going to be far more
subjective. An additional point is that testing tends to be an excellent way of
motivating learners to study harder and to reward the students who do best.
Likewise, examinations test the ability of students to work under pressure,
and this is a vital life skill for their later careers.
On the other hand, there are still occasions when it can be better to relieve the
students of exam pressure and to measure their abilities through continuous
assessment. This is particularly the case in lower age groups where young
children can be affected negatively by stress and under-perform in exams. It
can also be argued that continuous assessment is a more effective way of
testing some subjects such as design and technology, which are more creative
and less academic. A further point is that often continuous assessment can
allow teachers to reward students who work hard, but who may be less able
and not do well in more formal testing.
In conclusion, while continuous assessment may be fairer in some contexts,
there are still times when traditional exams may be more appropriate.
A possible compromise would be to use both forms of testing together,
allowing teachers to reward both ability and hard work.

In many countries schools have severe problems

with student behavior.
What do you think are the causes of this?
What solutions can you suggest?
Aggressive student behaviour is a major cause of concern in many countries. This article
addresses the reasons behind such behaviour and the measures that can be taken to prevent it.

Violent student behaviour can be attributed to a bad family atmosphere, a competitive school
environment and lifestyle/dietary habits. A students behaviour in society depends upon the
atmosphere at his/her home. If the parents of student don not devote enough time for him/her, the
adolescent mind goes wayward. Research and study have shown that major acts of violence were
committed by people who have had abusive mother or father in their childhood. Another factor that
influences student behaviour is the environment at school. A competitive and comparison-based
education structure adds fuel to fire. The last but less acknowledged factor in violent behaviour is
their lifestyle/dietary habits. Excess meat consumption and lack of adequate physical exercise
results in an unhealthy body and mind which leads to violent acts.

The behaviour of a student reflects the society we live in. Although violent student behaviour is a
matter of grave concern, there are adequate and simple measures to prevent it. Parents and
teachers must devote enough time for the student and understand his/her strengths and
weaknesses. They must never compare one student with another. A great deal of emphasis must
be placed by schools in physical activities like swimming, running and other sports. These help to
channelize the great energy of the students in a better manner. Students should also be
encouraged to take up activities like gardening and caring for domestic animals. These help in
providing opportunities for them to appreciate nature and the other living creatures in this planet.

Violent student behaviour, although on the rise, can be purged at the grass-root level if proper
preventive measures are taken. The youth are the future of our society and it is our solemn duty to
guide and make them compassionate human beings.

In the past lectures were the traditional method of teaching large

numbers of students. Nowadays new technology is increasingly
being used to teach students. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of this new approach?
As we move into the twenty-first century, technology is affecting many
different areas of life and education is no exception. Indeed, in some
institutions traditional forms of education have been revolutionised by new
technology to the extent that the lecture is no longer the main method of
delivery. While there are a variety of benefits to this new approach, there are
also significant drawbacks.
Perhaps the greatest bonus of the introduction of technology is the flexibility it
offers. This is evident in two different ways. Firstly, it is now no longer
essential for students to be present in the lecture theatre for their courses.
This means that part-time courses for adults who are in employment
and distance learning courses for people in other countries are now much
more practical. Another area of flexibility is of course that the lecturer and
tutor are able to use Moodles, interactive whiteboards and other tools to
deliver their courses in a more stimulating way to large numbers of students.
Not everything, however, about the introduction of this new technology into
education is positive. One major problem is that not all students are
comfortable with using technology, even if they are part of the digital
native generation. This is a serious issue as they may suffer from their lack
of technological skills. Another related issue is that education is a human
activity and it works best with as much human interaction as possible.
Impersonal technology cannot replace the human contact found in
traditional face-to-face tutorials and seminars.
As we have seen, there are major benefits to the introduction of technology
into education, not least because it enables modern forms of education such
as distance learning courses. This is balanced, however, by the fact that it can
be too impersonal for some and disadvantages others for their lack of
technological skills.

Many universities charge higher fees for foreign

students. Why do they do this? Do you believe
that it is fair?
Model Answer 1:
Universities are the best place students always choose after their tertiary schooling. Most of the
students prefer to study in a good university. In my point of view, universities take a large amount
of money from foreign students because they have to keep their standard and I think it is fair to
take more money from the foreign students.
Firstly, universities carry out a particular standard and reputation. When students choose a
selected university to study, it increases their productivity as well as overall development. The
university charges huge fees for outside students so that they can have qualified and experienced
lecturers to teach and mould them. There will be many facilities for the students to access like
library, laboratories, multi-purpose halls and so on. Universities offer accommodation and food to
the students. Students can achieve their dream by studying in a reputed university with excellent
professional background.

Secondly, it is fair to take high fees from the foreign students because if they are getting the quality
education and facilities it is worth to get the money from them. They have many options in subjects
and it satisfies them by choosing the best university to study. On the other hand, universities do
not take much payment from the citizens, they always try to care and protect their citizens by
giving good quality education. Moreover, many universities prefer more opportunities for the
students to grow as an individual and to get a good job in the future by giving the very good
education. Many universities have a different policy for foreign students and they usually take a
higher fee from them. The citizens of a country already pay a large amount of tax to the
government and thus government ensures the education for their children and grand children. So it
is totally justified that local students should pay less.

To sum up, universities can charge huge fees from the students and the university should make
sure that they are giving the best education to the students according to their wish.
Most university graduates earn more money than less
well educated people. Some people argue that this
means they should pay the full cost of their
education.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Write at least 250 words.

Sample Answer:
Unemployment is a painful dilemma of current time. We have fewer
opportunities to work in a well-established company and for Government
job as well. Each and every field now has higher criteria for a job regarding
strong academic records and excellent qualification. No one can deny that
the university degree holders have more bright future regarding professional
field rather than less educated persons and I quite agree that university
degree holders earn a great more money than that of without university
degrees or certifications.
First, many research have been conducted on this phenomenon, which
highly support the fact that university graduated get not only good
opportunities for securing good jobs but also they also have good income
packages as well. University education teaches problem solving skills for
different contexts. It also makes them enable to learn and imply new
knowledge and enhance their critical thinking by theory and practical work.
They can quickly and easily adopt themselves for the new job positions and
they bring many innovation. They also learn multitasking approach, and can
control any situation with the similar context by applying similar techniques.
All these attributes distinguish them from less educated person, and they
find better job options.

Now the question arises should a student pay full cost of university
education? and the answer to the question is, it should not be in state owned
universities. For example the competition among university students has
increased to a higher level as the top scorers and gold medalists find
prestigious jobs quickly rather than average students. There are some
university degree holders who are still unemployed and waiting for the
fortune to open its door for them. I believe education, be it in university
level, is a fundamental right of people and the government should make sure
the country is offering quality education to the most deserving candidates. If
education becomes all about money, talented students would not be able to
finish university education as rich kids will get admission with their fathers
money. However, private universities have a different scenario as they have
to support all the financial factors of a university, students in private
universities should be pay.

In summary, university education is important in the long run for

development of a nation. Each and every person of a country should be
educated, and there is no denying that university graduates earn more money
than less educated employees. Finally education is a basic need and should
be free unless they are not funded privately.

All education (primary, secondary and further

education) should be free to all people and paid
and managed by the government. (Gn giong vs
bi 10)
Model Answer 2:
The opinion that every citizen should have the right to study at school or university for free is very
controversial one. Those, who disagree, refer to enormous expenditures of government in case of
establishing such laws. Although, I hold the viewpoint that not charging people for education could
become very beneficial for a country and its economy.
First, young people from poor families could be very smart. Looking back to history and
biographies of distinguished people, raised in poverty can illustrate this best. Making schooling
available only for fortunate is not fair. Moreover, the state well-being could also be affected,
because there would be a lack of talented specialists, whose skills was not discovered and
developed by proper training.

Another advantage of making education free of charge is the happiness of the nation. An
individual's inability to collect the amount of money he needs to pay school or university fee cause
stress and anxiety in the middle-class society, which can even keep them from having children.
Nowadays we can see that the lowest birthrate is in countries where prices of enrollment to highest
education institutions are very high. This clearly indicates the fact that citizens of rich countries do
not feel able to provide their future offspring proper education.

Finally, nothing seems to be more beneficial to a country's economy than an educated and
intelligent nation. Free courses and study programs can prepare excellent specialists, who would
work to bring profit themselves and hence their country. That would surely compensate most
expenses of state budget caused by education of no charge.

To sum up, even though making all schools free can be very expensive for a state's economy,
advantages are invaluable. After several years such improvements would bring fruits of happy,
intelligent nation confident about its future.

Some people think that teenagers should do unpaid work to help

society because this will help them to be better individuals and also
improve the society as a whole. To what extent do you agree or
disagree this proposal?
While there are grounds to argue that it would benefit society and young
people themselves if teenagers were made to do unpaid work in the
community, it can equally be argued this would be an infringement of their
rights. In this essay, I shall examine the merits of both sides of the argument.
One argument in favour of making teenagers to do voluntary work in the
community is that it would benefit society. It is certainly true that there is a
shortage of labour in many parts of the public sector and if young people
worked, then many public services would improve. For example, it would be
quite possible for teenagers to do part-time jobs in the health such as working
as hospital porters. This would have the effect of ensuring patients got better
care and would allow trained professionals to concentrate on more skilled
tasks something that would benefit society as a whole.
A second argument is that teenagers would mature as individuals if they went
out to work, especially if it was in the voluntary sector. Currently, many
teenagers have little sense of social responsibility and spend much of their free
time plying basketball or computer games. If, however, they were given real
life tasks to do, they would learn important life skills such as responsibility,
teamwork and leadership. These skills would almost certainly benefit them in
their later careers.
Despite these arguments, there is an equally strong case to be made that it
would be morally wrong to force teenagers to go out to work, particularly if
they did not earn a salary. This can be explained by the fact that in recent
years, there has been a global movement to stop the practice of child labour.
The main philosophy this movement is that childhood, including the teenage
years, should be a time for education and growth, not work. It would not just
send the wrong message out if teenagers were made to do voluntary work,
there is also the real danger that young people would be exploited in the
workplace.
In conclusion, I believe that while there are real merits on both sides of the
argument, the moral case againstforcing young people to work slightly
outweighs any benefit to society or to teenagers as individuals. This is
reinforced by belief in the principle that childhood is a time for education and
fear of the danger of exploitation.

Some people believe that studying at university or

college is the best route to a successful career,
while others believe that it is better to get a job
straight after school.
Graduates of high school often face a dilemma of whether to seek a job or to enroll in universities
or colleges to pursue higher education. This essay will analyze both views and will provide an
opinion at the end of the essay.

The option to start work right after high school is appealing for several reasons. Many young
people want to become independent and prefer their own source of income rather than relying on
parents or guardian to meet their living expenses. They believe that learning skills while at work is
far better than attending a college. For instance, Memon Community in Karachi prefers their
children to help them in expanding their family business after school; seeking higher education for
them is a waste of money and time. Often youth of middle class families opt for jobs straight after
school to share the burden of family expenses due to ever growing inflation.

On the other hand, many teenagers prefer to seek admission in higher academic institutes like
engineering, medical and business schools. They believe that bachelor's degree or diploma will
help then attain a perfect job leading to a promising career. They argue that due to rising
competition in the job market, seeking higher education is mandatory. Universities help them in
enlightening their vision, expand their domain, polish their skills and prepare them to face real
world challenges. For instance, Financial Industry in Pakistan favor commerce graduates over high
school graduates because of their knowledge and skills which they acquired by studying at
business schools and colleges. Moreover, a degree makes you more competitive and helps you
earn at a better rate.

To conclude, the above provides solid evidences on both views. However, in my opinion, every
teenager should opt for higher education rather than working after school right away. Skills and
knowledge which students acquire at university is un-matched and unparalleled.

15 Some people think that parents have the greatest

influence.. however others say teachers../ discuss both
sides and give your opinion

The topic of whether parents or media has a greater influence on

children is of concern for many people. Some believe that the
children ae more easily affected by their family members while
some others disagree. As for me, I strongly agree the former.

Those who think parents provide the primary impacts on young kids
hold the following reasons. Firstly, the children have direct contacts
with their parents every day, their behaviours and living habits are
shaped by what they see. As most of the children spend stay with
parents for the largest part of their daily lives, parents are the
people they see the most and imitate the most. All the simple
values of life, such as love, goodness, sympathy, respect for others
are basically learned from ones parents. Secondly, it is undeniable
that the natural bonding plays a vital role in childrens lifestyles. It is
common to find that many children have the similar characteristics
and personalities as their parents because they share the same
genes. Therefore, children tend to adopt their parents behaviours
and values as due to the genetic inheritance.

However, no on account should we ignore the influence of media. To

start with, some advertisements which target to children instil them
with different social values. Produced with amusing characters and
eye-catching colours, these advertisements can easily draw
peoples attentions and exacerbate their desire for material things.
Thus, children are lured by material possessions and physical
comfort. Besides, media can be widely accessed by a large numbers
of audiences nowadays, allowing children to learn international
affairs and current news. For example, some teachers encourage
students to watch news programme outside the school time, which
makes children learn more from mass media. In this way, children
will consider TV is a study tool and believe the information that is
delivered from it.

To sum up, I think that parents are more influential to their children.
I will recommend that every parent should pay more attention to the
kid and teach them the correct values.