Some university students want to learn about other subjects in addition to their main subjects. Others believe it is more important to give all their time and attention to studying for a qualification.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
There is a genuine tension in university education between breadth and depth. Some students argue that spending time on unrelated subjects enriches their education, while others insist that a degree should be pursued single-mindedly. In my view, broadening one's studies is valuable, but only in moderation, and it should never come at the expense of the main qualification.
Those who favour studying extra subjects make a strong case. A degree that is purely narrow can leave a graduate with a single set of skills, whereas exposure to other fields builds adaptability and a broader perspective. Many employers value graduates who can think across disciplines, and in fields such as technology and business, combining a core skill with an understanding of, say, design or psychology is often a real advantage. Learning for its own sake can also be genuinely enjoyable and intellectually stimulating.
Those who prefer total focus are not wrong either. A qualification is the point of university, and spreading attention too thinly risks a weaker result in the subject that actually matters for a career. The pressure of assessment is real, and a student who spends time on optional subjects may simply have less time to master the essentials of their own discipline. In some demanding fields, such as medicine or engineering, there is little room for anything beyond the core curriculum.
My view is that the two goals can be balanced. The most sensible arrangement is for students to spend the overwhelming majority of their effort on their main degree, while a small, optional element of cross-subject study — a module here or there — is kept available rather than made compulsory. This gives the benefits of breadth without letting it dilute the qualification. Purely optional it may be, but students who choose to broaden their horizons should be supported, not criticised.
In conclusion, although both sides have merit, I believe the answer lies in moderation. A degree should remain the priority, but a measured amount of wider learning is a worthwhile addition rather than a distraction.
The essay genuinely discusses both sides (this is a "discuss both + opinion" prompt, not a one-sided agree/disagree), each with two supporting reasons, then gives a clear opinion that balances them. The position is nuanced — breadth yes, but in moderation and secondary to the degree.
Takeaway: for "discuss both + opinion," give each side TWO distinct reasons (not one), then stake a clear opinion that can sit between them — "moderation" is a safe, credible middle position.
The structure is clear: introduction → case for breadth → case for depth → synthesis/opinion → conclusion. Concessions ("are not wrong either", "My view is that", "Although both sides have merit") keep it balanced and signpost the turns.
Takeaway: use a concession-bridge ("those who... are not wrong either") before your own opinion, so the reader sees you weighed both sides rather than just picking one.
The vocabulary is precise about education and careers: "breadth and depth", "think across disciplines", "a single set of skills", "cross-subject study", "dilute the qualification." These collocations sound authoritative without being jargon-heavy.
Takeaway: learn the education collocations (breadth and depth, core curriculum, cross-disciplinary, dilute, a genuine advantage) — they let you discuss university study with precision.
The essay uses concessive and comparative structures: "A degree that is purely narrow can leave..." (defining relative), "whereas exposure to other fields builds adaptability" (contrast), "It may be optional, but..." (concessive), and "a module here or there" (idiomatic partitive).
Takeaway: deploy "whereas" for direct contrast and "it may be X, but..." for concession — and a light idiomatic partitive ("a module here or there") to vary the tone.