Question

Some educationalists argue that non-exam, art-based subjects, such as music, drama, art and craft, should be compulsory in the secondary-school curriculum. They believe that activities such as these can improve overall academic performance. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Model Answer

Many schools are cutting funding for art-based subjects in order to prioritise subjects that are considered more valuable to employers. I feel that this is a mistake because artistic subjects not only enhance learning outcomes, but also help students explore their creativity. However, I would not go as far as saying such subjects should be mandatory as individuals should be able to choose which subjects they want to study.

I believe that doing non-academic subjects can lead to improved exam results in other subjects. Academic subjects involve a lot of time alone cramming information or solving complex equations. This can lead to mental fatigue. Interspersing periods of intense study with more artistic pursuits can provide a refreshing change of pace and can prevent students from burning out.

While I accept that artistic subjects can help improve exam results, I do not think this is sufficient cause for them to be mandatory. Subjects which allow students to be creative are valuable in their own right, and should not be viewed only as a means of achieving higher grades in other areas. There are a number of benefits to learning a performing art. One of the most important is that it can allow less academic children to excel at school. Nonetheless, not every student enjoys taking part in such activities and therefore participation should be optional.

Overall, I feel that it is wrong to value artistic subjects only inasmuch as they improve other academic results. Students should be able to choose from a range of academic and non-academic subjects, judging each one on its own merits.

(267 words)