Some people argue that physical education is best way to train students, while some believe studying arts will help more. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Arguably, taking lessons in physical or artistic school courses represents the varying schools of thought with respect to which is the most effective. While there are advantages and drawbacks to both options, I believe that physical education is more productive for learners. On the one hand, the learning of artistic programmes is good as they help pupils to be expressive.

Such

learners;

however

, have a tendency to think up impractical concepts and ideas because most artists tend to be dreamy. To illustrate, Leonardo da Vinci was a celebrated artist and inventor;

however

, most of his designs were not useful because his focus was on the aesthetic presentation of the machines he visualised rather than their actual workability.

On the other hand

, science-based tutoring has led to very many useful inventions for mankind.

Although

it may be perceived to be a more rigorous task, scientists and engineers who went through tutoring in physical studies have developed a myriad of simple and complex tools that have made life on earth more comfortable. Examples of these creations include cars that help us move around faster as well as computers that enable us to perform complex calculations in split seconds. To recapitulate, the choice between getting training in tangible programmes or art-based courses is often up for debate. My belief is that

although

being artsy helps you visualise beautiful things like paintings, it,

however

, does not encourage the development of usable tools for humans while tangible science-based programmes; while being generally more difficult, are more rewarding to learn and lead to the production of devices that are more useful to the well-being of man's life on earth.