Model Essay 18: Science Subjects or the Arts

There is a long-running argument about whether schools should prioritise science and technology or give the arts equal weight. In my view the choice is a false one, at least while pupils are still at school.

The case for science is practical. Countries need engineers, doctors and technicians, shortages in these fields are real, and the qualifications lead reliably to employment. A government paying for education can reasonably ask what the country gets in return, and scientific training produces an answer that is easy to see.

The case for the arts is easy to state badly, so it is worth stating properly. Studying literature, history or music teaches a pupil to interpret, to judge evidence and to express an idea so that another person understands it, and those abilities are needed in any career, including scientific ones. The arts also underpin industries that employ large numbers of people, from design and publishing to film, which are rarely counted when the economic argument is made.

My own view rests on the age of the pupils. A child of fifteen choosing between these paths knows very little about either, and a school system that forces the choice early will lose good scientists who were never taught properly and good writers who were told the subject was worthless. Specialisation belongs at university, when the student knows more.

In conclusion, science and the arts are both necessary, and the sensible arrangement is breadth at school followed by depth afterwards. A country that neglects either ends up short of something it needs.