Band 8 Discussion Essays

The question of whether parents or schools should bear primary responsibility for teaching children to be good citizens is a contentious one. While both institutions play crucial roles in child development, I believe that parents should take the lead in this area, with schools providing complementary support. Those who advocate for schools as the primary educators of social values argue that educational institutions provide a structured environment where children learn to interact with diverse peers. In school, children encounter formal lessons on ethics, citizenship, and social responsibility through dedicated curricula. Furthermore, teachers are trained professionals who can deliver consistent messages about appropriate behaviour and societal expectations. The classroom setting also offers practical opportunities for children to practise cooperation, respect, and conflict resolution with classmates from various backgrounds. However, I align more closely with the view that parents should be the principal teachers of social values. The family environment is where children first learn fundamental concepts such as empathy, honesty, and respect. Parents serve as primary role models, and children inevitably absorb values through daily interactions and observations at home. Moreover, parental influence begins from birth, establishing foundational moral principles long before formal schooling commences. This early conditioning shapes a child's character in profound ways that schools cannot replicate. Additionally, parents possess an intimate understanding of their child's personality, strengths, and weaknesses, enabling them to provide tailored guidance that teachers, who must attend to many students, simply cannot offer. When parents actively engage in teaching social values, these lessons carry greater emotional weight and authenticity. In conclusion, while schools undoubtedly contribute to children's social education, parents must accept primary responsibility for raising good citizens. The most effective approach combines strong parental guidance with supportive school programmes that reinforce these values in broader social contexts.

There is ongoing debate about the primary purpose of university education. Some maintain that universities exist to advance academic knowledge, while others argue that practical skills are just as valuable. Both sides present compelling arguments, but the most effective system draws strength from each. Those who favour academic study point out that universities have historically been centres of intellectual exploration. Rigorous theoretical training builds analytical thinking and deep subject mastery, which are essential for fields such as science, medicine, and law. Without a strong academic foundation, societies would struggle to innovate or produce experts capable of addressing complex challenges. In this sense, academic knowledge forms the backbone of long-term progress. However, practical skills have become increasingly important in a rapidly changing job market. Employers expect graduates not only to understand concepts but also to apply them in real-world contexts. Practical education—through internships, laboratory work, and industry partnerships—helps students gain confidence and adaptability. This approach reduces the gap between academic theory and professional expectations, allowing graduates to transition smoothly into the workforce. In my view, the most effective university model blends theoretical depth with applied learning. Academic understanding provides intellectual structure, while practical training ensures relevance and employability. Universities that integrate both create graduates who are not only knowledgeable but also capable of using their skills meaningfully. To conclude, both academic knowledge and practical skills serve vital roles in higher education. A balanced approach enables students to develop expertise that is both intellectually grounded and professionally useful.