IELTS task 2 - extra classes outside school or play after school [closed]

Question

 Task 2: Some people believe that it is important for children to attend extra classes outside school, while others believe that they should be allowed to play after school.

 Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

In some parts of the world, children are forced to go to cram schools and attend other extracurricular learning, apart from going to school. It is true that whether to attend extra classes or only go to school and enjoy their free time remains a controversial topic in the field of education. While there are some benefits to going to cram schools, I believe children should be able to play after school.

  In Asian countries, for example Viet Nam, most children are made to go to an array of cram schools outside regular school hours. By making children attend supplementary lessons, parents were hoping to give their child a better future because it helps the child to learn more. Thus, it gives them additional academic advantages needed to secure better universities and jobs in the future. These enrichment lessons boost children’s academic performance, as well as the advantages over their peers, while children who do not attend those classes are often found way behind others and might have comparatively poor grades.

  However, whist this may result in better academic performance, it would not benefit children’s mental health. Countries such as South Korea or Japan, where many children struggled as a result of heavy academic burden, have the highest suicidal rates among their young populations. Those children are ill-equipped to spend hours per day in classrooms studying. They should be allowed to enjoy life, to go home and spend time with family and friends. They should be able to choose to study instead of being forced to study, trained to repeat what they are told.

  In conclusion, although both views certainly have some validity, it seems to me that it is better if children are given the freedom to play and socialize outside school hours.

  

Answer 1

There is a lack of regard for conciseness and preciseness throughout the essay. Take some sentences for example:        

"In some parts of the world, children are forced to go to cram schools and attend other extracurricular learning, apart from going to school."

"Cram schools" are also schools, and it did not make sense when you added the extra information "apart from going to school". Consider leaving it out.

The worse sentence just came later:

"It is true that whether to attend extra classes or only go to school and enjoy their free time remains a controversial topic in the field of education."

First, you need to stick to the structure "whether to...or to...". Second, "remain" is an intransitive verb and thus does not need an object following. Third, you should think of another way to convey the same meaning with fewer words. There is a point in doing so because you are more likely to place grammar under control, and people are more willing to read your essay. For example, you can simply say:

"It is true that whether to attend extra classes or to play after school remains controversial"           

Clearly, you were talking about a topic of education, and the part "in the field of education" was redundant .

Some other examples would be:

"In Asian countries, for example Vietnam, most children are made to go to an array of cram schools outside regular school hours."

When someone makes you do something, you may have to do it, but you are not made to do it. Consider using active voice wherever possible. Likewise, think of another way to convey the intended meaning with fewer words, for example:

"In Viet Nam, for example, most children have to go to cram schools outside regular school hours"

Or :

"In Asian countries, for example, most children have to go to cram schools outside regular school hours"

With one key word in each sentence, your line of reasoning will be easier to follow.

Last:

"By making children attend supplementary lessons, parents were hoping to give their child a better future because it helps the child to learn more."

This sentence is rather confusing and wordy. Why was "the past continuous tense" used ? Again, the part "it helps the child to learn more" was redundant because the part "attending supplementary lessons" perfectly indicated that. In addition, it was not logical to change "children" into "child" while referring to one subject and it would be logical while simplifying the expression. For example, you can merely say:

"By attending supplementary lessons, children are expected to have a better future"