Arts vs Science Funding: Discuss Both Views Essay (Band 9)
Band-9 discuss essay on funding arts versus sciences, with balanced reasoning, criteria breakdown, and culture-policy vocabulary.
Some people think governments should fund the arts, while others believe science deserves more funding. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
A Band-9 model answer
Public money split between laboratories and concert halls reveals what societies value — survival or soul — and partisans of each make compelling cases. I believe both deserve funding, with science taking the larger share and art protected as essential rather than ornamental.
Science's claim rests on returns. Medical research extends lives; agricultural science feeds billions; clean-energy breakthroughs may decide civilization's future. These are measurable, compounding benefits no other spending matches. When budgets tighten, funding the lab over the gallery looks like moral arithmetic: cures before concerts.
Yet art's defenders rightly reject the premise that value must be measurable. Music, film, literature, and festivals generate billions in creative-industry revenue and tourism — hard economics behind the soft image. Deeper still, art sustains the meaning that prosperity is for: hospital wards hang paintings because beauty heals; nations fund orchestras because identity needs expression. A society that cures every disease but sings no songs has survived without living.
My position is proportional: roughly seventy percent science, thirty percent arts, with neither zeroed. Science expands what humans can do; art remembers why it matters. Governments should fund survival generously and soul deliberately — laboratories to extend life, and music to make the extension worthwhile.
(251 words)
Examiner notes: why Band 9
Task Response (9): Both funding cases argued at full strength — science's measurable returns, art's economic plus existential value — with a quantified synthesis (70/30) that is specific enough to be brave.
Coherence & Cohesion (9): "Survival or soul" frames the whole essay; each paragraph returns to the frame. The closing couplet resolves rather than repeats.
Lexical Resource (9): Culture-policy blend: "moral arithmetic," "creative-industry revenue," "compounding benefits," "ornamental." Register shifts handled smoothly.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy (9): Colon-led theses, semicolon balances, parallel closes ("extend life / make worthwhile"). Exact.
High-scoring phrases
- survival or soul — funding debate in three words
- moral arithmetic — ethical calculation framing
- cures before concerts — priority alliteration
- survived without living — existence vs meaning contrast
- soul deliberately — intentional culture funding
- extend life; make it worthwhile — parallel purpose close
Quick answers
How do I value art without sounding impractical?
Price the unpriceable: tourism revenue, creative-industry jobs, mental-health savings. Economic arguments for art disarm practicality objections.
Can science funding also be questioned?
Yes, briefly: diminishing returns, military skew, neglected basics. One honest concession about your favored side shows intellectual integrity.
Master every essay type in the Task 2 samples library.