Sample IELTS Task 2 essay: should students study what they like

Nowadays, there is a debate about what subjects students should study at university. Some people think students should study whatever they like, but other people believe they should only study useful subjects like science and technology. In this essay, I will discuss both views and give my opinion.

On the one hand, many people think students should be free to choose any subject. The main reason is that when students study what they like, they are more motivated and they work harder. For example, a student who loves history will spend many hours reading books about it, and so he will get good results. Also, subjects like art and music are important for society and culture, so we should not stop people from studying them.

On the other hand, other people think students should study subjects that are useful for the future. They say that science and technology can help the country to develop and can give students good jobs. For example, engineers and doctors are always needed, so students who study these subjects will not have problems finding work. This is a strong argument because everybody wants a stable job.

In my opinion, I think students should be able to study what they like, but they should also think about the future. Both things are important. If a student only studies for money, he may become unhappy, but if he ignores jobs completely, he may have problems later.

In conclusion, although useful subjects like science are important, I believe students should mostly study what they are interested in, because motivation is the key to success.

When it comes to higher education, opinions diverge sharply over whether undergraduates should pursue any field that appeals to them or restrict themselves to practical disciplines such as science and technology. While both positions have merit, I believe genuine interest should ultimately guide a student's choice.

Those who advocate complete freedom argue, persuasively, that intrinsic motivation is the strongest predictor of academic success. A student who is captivated by literature or philosophy is far more likely to read widely, think critically and persevere through difficult material than one studying engineering purely out of obligation. Moreover, society benefits from diversity of expertise; without graduates in the humanities and arts, we would lack the writers, historians and designers who enrich our cultural life and challenge prevailing assumptions.

The opposing camp, however, contends that universities should equip young people with skills the economy actually demands. Given persistent shortages in medicine, computing and engineering, channelling students towards these fields arguably benefits both the individual, who gains secure employment, and the nation, which depends on technological innovation to remain competitive. There is undeniable force in this pragmatic reasoning, particularly in developing economies.

In my view, the two perspectives need not be mutually exclusive. Forcing reluctant students into laboratories rarely produces excellent scientists, whereas allowing passion to dictate study tends to yield motivated, capable graduates who can adapt to shifting job markets. A sensible compromise would be to encourage students to follow their interests while ensuring they acquire transferable skills, such as data literacy and communication.

In conclusion, although economically useful subjects are clearly valuable, I am convinced that personal interest should remain the primary factor, since engagement, not coercion, breeds real achievement.