IELTS Writing Task 2: Bài mẫu Band 7 về Giáo dục
Đề bài
"Nowadays, not enough students choose science subjects in university in many countries. What are the reasons for this problem? What are the effects on society?"
Bài viết gốc
Nhấp vào văn bản được đánh dấu để xem gợi ý
It is a serious problem that there is an inadequate number of students who tend to select science as their major subject in universities in many countries. In my view, students may think that studying science has not a good career path. Also, this issue may deeply affect the international state of a country. The main reason why people do not think to study science is that they may see science as something unpractical, and potentially, they are hard to find a job when they graduate. Students are generally afraid that there is no employment opportunity after they graduate from university. Unlike engineering and business management, in which fields employers provide plenty of vocational positions for graduated students because there are lots of companies activating in these fields and universities may provide some practical training courses and internships. Students studying science have a relatively narrow way to walk, and may just be scientists. Moreover, although a successful scientist can get a massive bonus from some prizes, it is too hard to accomplish and is more likely to fail. Therefore, Students will avoid taking those risks and choose other subjects that are relatively stable and easy to find a job. This trend will eventually decrease the state of a country. Developing science can provide a strong and firm foundation for a country to establish a healthy and prosperous community. If there are not enough scientists, the whole scientific ability will decrease. Not only will the government pay extra money to other foreign countries to buy the required technology such as military equipment, but the public needs to spend more time and pay more effort to maintain the international standard production rate of a country. It is extremely dangerous that a nation easily suffers from a financial crisis and, finally, it influences the living standard of its citizens and causes damage to its financial systems. In summary, while science is regarded as a "useless" subject because of its narrow career path and low success rate, it is vital that the economic systems would be affected if a country develop without scientists.
Đánh giá từ Nomad English
Trả lời đề bài
7.5
Tính liên kết và mạch lạc
7
Vốn từ vựng
7
Ngữ pháp và độ chính xác
6.5
Nhận xét từ giám khảo
Đây là một bài viết có năng lực, đề cập cả hai phần của câu hỏi với các ý tưởng liên quan. Bài viết được tổ chức tốt với việc chia đoạn rõ ràng cho nguyên nhân và hệ quả. Vốn từ vựng thể hiện phạm vi tốt ('inadequate', 'vocational', 'prosperous') dù một số lựa chọn từ thiếu chính xác ('unpractical' thay vì 'impractical', 'decrease the state'). Ngữ pháp thể hiện sự kết hợp giữa cấu trúc phức tạp và đơn giản, nhưng có lỗi về trật tự từ ('has not a good career path'), cấu trúc chủ-vị, và một câu không hoàn chỉnh bắt đầu bằng 'Unlike'. Kết luận có thể mạnh hơn—nó đưa ra cấu trúc điều kiện không hoàn toàn mạch lạc. Nhìn chung, một bài viết Band 7 vững chắc với dư địa cải thiện về độ chính xác.
Bài viết mẫu Band 9
Đây là cách một bài viết Band 9 trả lời cùng một câu hỏi:
Science departments in universities around the world are watching their enrolment numbers shrink, a pattern that reflects deep misalignments between how scientific careers are structured and what students need from a degree. Perception sits at the heart of the problem. Most eighteen-year-olds choose a university subject with at least one eye on what comes afterward, and science—particularly pure science—offers a career narrative that feels uncomfortably vague. An engineering graduate can point to a specific job title; a biology or physics graduate often cannot. The training pipeline reinforces this anxiety. Building a career in research typically demands a doctorate, followed by a string of fixed-term postdoctoral positions with no guarantee of a permanent role. Students who compare this uncertain trajectory with the structured graduate schemes offered in consulting, technology, or finance will understandably gravitate toward the latter. Cultural messaging plays a role too: when media coverage celebrates tech entrepreneurs and investment bankers far more than bench scientists, the implicit hierarchy of prestige becomes hard to ignore. The societal cost of this migration away from science is substantial and compounding. Medical breakthroughs depend on trained biochemists and molecular biologists; fewer graduates entering those fields means slower progress on treatments for diseases that affect millions. National infrastructure—clean water systems, power grids, transport networks—requires engineers grounded in scientific principles, and countries that cannot train enough of them become reliant on foreign expertise at considerable expense. Perhaps most critically, the capacity to respond to novel crises (pandemics, climate disruption, food insecurity) rests on having a large, well-funded scientific workforce ready to mobilise. Without one, governments are left reacting rather than anticipating. Closing this gap means making science careers structurally competitive, not just rhetorically valued. Funded doctoral programmes, clear tenure pathways, and industry partnerships that create non-academic roles for science graduates would collectively reshape the decision facing incoming university students—and with it, a country's long-term capacity to solve its hardest problems.
Nhận phản hồi ngay cho bài viết của bạn
Hệ thống AI của chúng tôi chấm bài IELTS trong vài giây — với chỉnh sửa chi tiết như trên.
Dùng thử miễn phí