The government should allocate more funding to teaching sciences rather than other sunbjects in order for a country to develop and progress. To what extent do you agree?

There is a conflicting view on whether

sciences

should be the sole focus of government finance compared to other

subjects

because of their role in developing a nation. In my opinion, I completely disagree with the argument because other disciplines have crucial roles in developing a

child

's education and the economy might suffer in an imbalanced job market. Despite the importance of

sciences

, other

subjects

such

as mathematics, arts and more contribute to the holistic education of a

child

.

This

is because lessening the attention to other

subjects

will not lead to understanding more the

sciences

although

it is the backbone of all other disciplines.

For instance

, the complexity of math help improves critical thinking and problem-solving skills

while

arts aim to preserve the history and cultural identity of a nation. Each subject has a significant role in developing a

child

to become an asset and contributor to the betterment of society. Another reason is, if science is the only subject encouraged by the students,

this

will create an imbalance in the economy.

Also

, children that want to explore and are interested to learn other things will not be given a choice on what they are passionate about which could cause more detrimental effects later on in life.

Additionally

, a high number of them will be unemployed since there are no high vacancies for science-related jobs

while

other working sectors will have an increased number of job vacancies as there are more openings for them. In conclusion, I disagree that the funding of the government should not only focus on

sciences

since other

subjects

have their own contribution to the well-being of a

child

and

this

could lead to an imbalance economy of the job market.