Cambridge IELTS 19 · Test 2 · Speaking · Part 3

Rewards

Question 1: What types of school prizes do children in your country receive?

In most schools, the commonest prizes are for academic achievement — often certificates,

trophies or small gifts for the top students in each subject. Alongside those, many schools

give awards for attendance, good behaviour, and effort, so a child who improves a lot can be

recognised even if they're not the best in the class. More recently, some schools have added

prizes for things like teamwork, creativity or community service, which I think is a positive

shift away from purely exam-based recognition.

Question 2: What do you think are the advantages of rewarding schoolchildren for good work?

I think the main benefit is motivation. When children see that their hard work is noticed and

rewarded, they're more likely to keep trying, and it can build genuine confidence — especially

for students who find academic work difficult but put real effort in. Rewards also send a clear

signal about what the school values, which helps shape behaviour. The one caveat is that

rewards need to be fair and accessible; if the same few students win every time, the system can

actually demotivate the rest rather than encourage them.

Question 3: Do you agree that it's more important for children to receive rewards from their parents than from teachers?

I'd partly agree, but I don't think it's a real either/or. Praise from parents is probably more

deeply felt, because it comes from the people a child loves most and it confirms unconditional

support. That kind of reward shapes a child's self-worth over the long term. But recognition

from teachers matters too, because it's earned in a more objective, competitive setting and it

validates a child's effort against a wider standard. In my view, both matter, and the healthiest

situation is where the two reinforce each other rather than compete.

Question 1: Do you think that some sportspeople (e.g., top footballers) are paid too much money?

In most cases, yes, I do. The salaries of top footballers are difficult to justify in terms of

the value they add to society, especially when you compare them to teachers or nurses who work

far harder for a fraction of the pay. However, I can understand the economic logic behind it:

these are global entertainers who generate enormous revenue for clubs, and their pay reflects

that market. So I'd say the wages are a result of a market economy rather than a fair measure

of worth, and while it often looks excessive, it's not easy to change.

Question 2: Should everyone on a team get the same prize money when they win?

I think it depends on the nature of the contribution. On one hand, winning is genuinely a team

effort, and everyone from the star player to the substitutes plays a part, so equal shares

reflect that collective achievement. On the other hand, it can feel unfair if a player who

scored ten goals receives exactly the same as someone who barely played. A common compromise

is a base amount for everyone with a bonus for extra contributions. Personally, I lean towards

a fairer base-plus-incentive system rather than pure equality.

Question 3: Do you agree with the view that, in sport, taking part is more important than winning?

I agree for the majority of people, but not for elite athletes. For children, amateurs and

most recreational players, taking part is absolutely more important — it's about fitness,

friendship, learning and enjoyment. But at the professional level, winning is the entire point;

sportspeople are paid to win, and that's what careers are built on. So I'd say the value of

participation depends heavily on the context: for most of us it's about the experience, for the

very few it's about the result.