Some people think students should study the science of food and how to prepare it.Others think students should spend time on important subjects. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some today advocate the teaching of food science and preparation in schools as a key 21st-century skill. In my opinion, though the expense is a potential obstacle,

such

a proposal is justifiable. Opponents of

this

proposed curriculum shift argue that it would only benefit more affluent school systems. The majority of schools, particularly those in inner cities and remote rural regions, struggle already to maintain quality facilities and employ experienced, dedicated teachers. The idea of building a kitchen for student use and keeping it stocked with ingredients

as well as

the sophisticated equipment required to teach about and practice molecular gastronomy is simply unrealistic. Critics justly point out that

such

money would be better spent maintaining more essential infrastructure

such

as the fields, classrooms, and school buildings themselves.

Nonetheless

, assuming government funding is available,

this

would be an ideal method of combining practical skills with scientific theory. One of the most common complaints among students after graduation is that the vast majority of their studies were impractical and did not prepare them for adulthood. Learning to cook on its own would go a long way towards answering

this

criticism.

However

, the true gains would come from the linking of theory and practice. Many scientific theories are abstract and difficult to both understand and retain later in life. The practical application in cooking would not only help students grasp the concepts

initially

but a repeated review from making meals in one’s daily life would likely ensure permanent understanding. In conclusion, food science may seem trivial and its application might pose financial hurdles but it is worth enacting in order to educate students well. Where possible, governments should allocate the necessary funding