As science and technology contribute most to the development of society, science students should get more financial support from government than students in other fields (eg. business, language, etc.). To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Never in history was science and technology so emphasized as in modern society. One is most likely to get a scholarship for graduate study overseas if he or she majors in science or technology. However, this lopsided emphasis seems ungrounded.
It is quite debatable that science and technology contribute more to human progress. Notwithstanding the achivements and miracles made possible by science, numerous issues cannot be solved by science or technology. Social issues such as juvenile delinquency, racial discrimination and moral degradation are all beyond the scope of science. Modern people are more often plagued by problems of the heart, instead of the body. The material wealth generated by science and technology often pales against the peace of mind brought by art or literature.
Besides, the amount of financial aid should be based on the students' academic performance. How much financial support a student is to receive should be determined on an individual basis. Grants or scholarship should not be lavished upon those without real interest in or dedication to a scholarly pursuit. Whereas those with real potential should be offered adequate financial support lest they get distracted by working part time to pay for their education. No matter what major they are in, the foremost criteria for receiving financial aid should be their academic potential. Thus, it is not justified to favor science majors more than other students.
In a larger sense, all subjects are vital to human progress. It will be a hopeless attempt to compare the importance of each subject. Financial support should be granted to those with real potential.
Reference:
剑桥雅思写作高分范文
在京东购买：剑桥雅思写作高分范文
在亚马逊购买：剑桥雅思写作真题范文百篇