Task 2 · Sample Essays
IELTS Task 2 Education Essay: Band 6.5, 7.5 and 9.0
Three complete answers to the same discussion question, written at three distinct band levels. Comparing them shows you precisely what an examiner sees when they move a score up or down.
What separates Band 6.5 from Band 9.0
- 1.Band 9 essays reframe the question; Band 6.5 essays just answer it mechanically with formulaic connectives
- 2.Band 9 develops each point with a causal chain; Band 6.5 states a point and moves on
- 3.Band 9 vocabulary is precise and non-repetitive; Band 6.5 repeats "study," "subjects," and "students" throughout
Task 2 Question
Some people argue that students should be required to study a broad range of subjects at secondary school, while others believe that young people should focus on the subjects they are most interested in. Discuss both 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.
Band 6.5 answer
Band 6.5 TR 6 · CC 6 · LR 6 · GRA 7 → Overall 6.5 · 265 words
Nowadays, there is a debate about whether secondary school students should study many different subjects or only study subjects they are most interested in. Both sides of this argument have their own reasons, and I will discuss them before giving my personal opinion.
Firstly, some people argue that a broad curriculum is important for secondary students. When students learn a variety of subjects, they are able to gain the general knowledge which will be useful in their future lives. For example, a student who studies both science and arts subjects will have a better understanding of different areas. Furthermore, young people at secondary school often do not know what career they want to pursue, so studying many subjects gives them more opportunities to find their strengths.
On the other hand, other people believe that students should focus in subjects they are interested in. This is because when students are forced to study subjects they do not like, they may lose motivation and their performance become poor. In addition, if students can choose their own subjects, they will work harder and achieve better results. Students who specialise early can also develop more deeper knowledge in their chosen area.
In my opinion, I think the best approach is a combination of both views. Schools should require students to study essential subjects like mathematics, languages and science, but should also give them some freedom to choose subjects which interest them. This balance will ensure that students gain important skills while also being able to develop their personal interests. Overall, a balanced curriculum with some specialisation is the ideal solution for secondary education.
Examiner commentary
Task Response is limited at Band 6 because both body paragraphs state a single point with one generic example and no further development — there is no explanation of why the example matters or how it supports the argument. Coherence is also Band 6: "Firstly," "On the other hand," "Furthermore," and "In addition" are used mechanically, and the conclusion introduces no new synthesis. Lexical Resource is weakened by heavy repetition of "subjects" and "students" throughout, and by non-standard collocations including "gain the general knowledge" (article error) and "focus in subjects" (preposition error, should be "on"); "more deeper" is a Band-6 double comparative. GRA reaches 7 because several complex clause types are attempted, but agreement errors ("their performance become poor") and the double comparative prevent a higher mark.
Task Response is limited at Band 6 because both body paragraphs state a single point with one generic example and no further development — there is no explanation of why the example matters or how it supports the argument. Coherence is also Band 6: "Firstly," "On the other hand," "Furthermore," and "In addition" are used mechanically, and the conclusion introduces no new synthesis. Lexical Resource is weakened by heavy repetition of "subjects" and "students" throughout, and by non-standard collocations including "gain the general knowledge" (article error) and "focus in subjects" (preposition error, should be "on"); "more deeper" is a Band-6 double comparative. GRA reaches 7 because several complex clause types are attempted, but agreement errors ("their performance become poor") and the double comparative prevent a higher mark.
Band 7.5 answer
Band 7.5 TR 7 · CC 8 · LR 7 · GRA 8 → Overall 7.5 · 282 words
The question of whether secondary schools should offer a broad, compulsory curriculum or allow students to concentrate on subjects that genuinely engage them has long divided educational policymakers. While both positions have considerable merit, I believe that a structured foundation of core subjects, combined with meaningful elective choice, produces the best outcomes for young people.
Those who advocate a wide curriculum argue, with justification, that adolescence is too early for rigid specialisation. Students who have not yet encountered a subject cannot know whether it will ignite a lasting passion or unlock an unexpected aptitude. Moreover, universities and employers consistently value candidates who demonstrate the capacity to think across disciplines — a skill that narrow early specialisation rarely develops. Exposure to history, science, and the arts in parallel encourages the kind of flexible reasoning that proves valuable throughout adult life.
Proponents of student-led choice, however, point to a genuine weakness in compulsory breadth: when students are required to spend years on subjects they find irrelevant, disengagement often follows. Research in educational psychology suggests that intrinsic motivation is among the strongest predictors of academic achievement, and a timetable that ignores student interest risks undermining it. There is also a practical dimension — modern professions demand specialist depth that a generalist secondary education alone cannot provide.
My own view is that these positions are less contradictory than they appear. A core of foundational subjects — literacy, numeracy, and basic scientific understanding — should remain compulsory for all students, as these underpin virtually every career pathway. Beyond this core, structured elective choice allows students' aptitudes and interests to inform their studies without foreclosing essential learning. This hybrid model respects both the value of breadth and the motivating power of personal engagement.
Examiner commentary
This is a well-organised essay with a clear, consistent position and a good range of vocabulary including less common items such as "aptitude," "disengagement," and "foreclosing." Coherence is strong at Band 8 — paragraph transitions are natural and varied, and the argument progresses logically without mechanical signposting. What prevents a higher Task Response score is that the second body paragraph's claim about "specialist depth" is asserted rather than illustrated with a concrete example or causal development. The minor ambiguity in "risks undermining it" (where "it" could refer to either motivation or interest) is a characteristic Band 7.5 cohesion slip that slightly weakens the otherwise strong Coherence score.
This is a well-organised essay with a clear, consistent position and a good range of vocabulary including less common items such as "aptitude," "disengagement," and "foreclosing." Coherence is strong at Band 8 — paragraph transitions are natural and varied, and the argument progresses logically without mechanical signposting. What prevents a higher Task Response score is that the second body paragraph's claim about "specialist depth" is asserted rather than illustrated with a concrete example or causal development. The minor ambiguity in "risks undermining it" (where "it" could refer to either motivation or interest) is a characteristic Band 7.5 cohesion slip that slightly weakens the otherwise strong Coherence score.
Band 9.0 answer
Band 9.0 TR 9 · CC 9 · LR 9 · GRA 9 → Overall 9.0 · 298 words
Few educational debates are as persistent as this one, perhaps because both sides are genuinely correct about what they are describing, even when they draw incompatible conclusions. The question is not, at root, whether breadth or depth matters more; it is how secondary education can deliver both, and in what sequence.
The case for a broad compulsory curriculum is stronger than its critics acknowledge. The objection that students know best what interests them at thirteen or fourteen systematically underestimates the degree to which interests are formed by exposure rather than discovered in a vacuum. A student who has never encountered economics, philosophy, or computer science cannot meaningfully choose to pursue or avoid them. Compulsory breadth, then, is not an imposition of irrelevant content; it is the structural precondition for informed choice. There is also a cognitive argument: engagement across disparate disciplines — mathematics alongside literature, history alongside natural science — develops forms of reasoning that no single subject can cultivate in isolation.
What the advocates of specialisation are correctly identifying, however, is the cost of an undifferentiated compulsory curriculum extended too far and too long. Sustained disengagement from subjects a student finds genuinely purposeless is not a minor inconvenience; it actively corrodes the motivation and self-efficacy on which all learning depends. The secondary years are also a period during which vocational aptitudes begin to crystallise, and a system that offers no room for that process does those students a structural disservice.
The resolution I would propose is a sequenced one: a common foundation in the early secondary years that ensures every student acquires the cognitive tools and cultural literacy that adult life requires, followed by a progressively expanding zone of elective study as students mature. Breadth enables depth; the foundations of genuine specialisation are often laid in subjects one would not have chosen for oneself.
Examiner commentary
This essay earns Band 9 on all four criteria. Task Response is fully realised: the essay does not merely discuss both views but reframes the question itself, arguing that breadth and depth are sequential rather than competing — a level of analytical sophistication that characterises Band 9. Cohesion is seamless; connectives such as "then," "however," "also," and "What... are correctly identifying" are embedded within the argument rather than prefixed to paragraphs. Lexical Resource is wide and precise throughout ("structural precondition," "self-efficacy," "crystallise," "disparate disciplines"), with no awkward collocations or repetition. Grammatical range is equally strong: complex nominal phrases, passive constructions, and parallel clause structures are all used accurately and without strain.
This essay earns Band 9 on all four criteria. Task Response is fully realised: the essay does not merely discuss both views but reframes the question itself, arguing that breadth and depth are sequential rather than competing — a level of analytical sophistication that characterises Band 9. Cohesion is seamless; connectives such as "then," "however," "also," and "What... are correctly identifying" are embedded within the argument rather than prefixed to paragraphs. Lexical Resource is wide and precise throughout ("structural precondition," "self-efficacy," "crystallise," "disparate disciplines"), with no awkward collocations or repetition. Grammatical range is equally strong: complex nominal phrases, passive constructions, and parallel clause structures are all used accurately and without strain.
How the bands compare, criterion by criterion
Each cell describes the key differentiator at that band level for this question.
| Criterion | Band 6.5 | Band 7.5 | Band 9.0 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Position stated but under-developed; both body paragraphs offer one vague example with no causal explanation. | Clear position throughout; the first body paragraph is well-developed, but the specialist depth claim in the second lacks a concrete illustration. | The question is reframed analytically; every point is developed with a precise causal chain and the position is sustained without repetition. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Mechanical, repetitive connectives (Firstly, In addition, In my opinion) signal paragraph transitions rather than driving argument. | Logical progression with varied connectives; one pronoun reference ("it") is ambiguous, creating a minor cohesion slip. | Cohesion is seamless; connectives are embedded mid-sentence and the argument's logical structure makes signposting unnecessary. |
| Lexical Resource | Heavy repetition of "subjects" and "students"; awkward collocations (gain the general knowledge, focus in subjects, more deeper). | Good range with less common items (aptitude, intrinsic motivation, foreclosing); collocations are mostly accurate. | Wide, precise vocabulary (structural precondition, self-efficacy, disparate disciplines); natural lexical variation throughout with no repetition. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Complex structures attempted but marred by errors: double comparative (more deeper), subject-verb agreement (performance become), preposition error (focus in). | Good control of complex structures including relative clauses and nominalisations; errors are minor and do not impede communication. | Full range of structures — passives, complex nominals, parallel clauses — used accurately and without strain throughout. |
What pushes your score up
Band 6.5 to Band 7.5
- 1. Replace mechanical openers (Firstly, In addition) with integrated connectives that embed argument — "What advocates of breadth overlook is that..." rather than "Firstly, some people argue..."
- 2. Add a second layer of development to each point: after the example, explain why it matters or what it proves — the "so what" is what separates TR 7 from TR 6.
- 3. Expand your vocabulary beyond "study" and "subjects" — use "curriculum," "specialisation," "aptitude," "foundational literacy," and "elective" to show lexical range.
- 4. Audit every complex sentence for preposition errors, double comparatives, and subject-verb agreement before you consider your essay finished.
Band 7.5 to Band 9.0
- 1. Reframe the question in your introduction — Band 9 writers do not simply answer the question, they reveal what the question is really asking before answering it.
- 2. Move cohesive devices inside sentences rather than between them — "What this overlooks, however, is..." reads at Band 9; "However, this overlooks..." reads at Band 7.
- 3. Introduce precise philosophical and academic vocabulary: "structural precondition," "cognitive toolkit," "vocational aptitude crystallise" — these signal the wide LR range that Band 9 requires.
- 4. Ensure your conclusion synthesises rather than restates — a Band 9 conclusion often articulates what the two views collectively reveal, not merely which one you preferred.
Frequently asked questions
What makes an IELTS discussion essay different from an opinion essay?+
A discussion essay requires you to present both views clearly and fairly before giving your own position. An opinion essay asks only for your view. In a discussion essay, failing to cover the opposing side is a Task Response failure — even if your own argument is strong.
How do I avoid the 'both sides are valid' trap in a discussion essay?+
Present both views, then commit clearly to one. A formula that works: 'While X has merit, I believe Y is more important because...' Examiners penalise essays that sit on the fence — a clear, well-reasoned position always scores higher than a vague balanced conclusion.
How many paragraphs should a Band 7+ Task 2 essay have?+
Five paragraphs is the standard structure: introduction, two body paragraphs, and a conclusion. A third body paragraph can help if your argument has three genuinely distinct strands, but quality of development matters far more than paragraph count. Thin four-paragraph essays rarely exceed Band 6.
How do I write about education without relying on personal anecdotes?+
Frame personal experience as general observation. Write 'Many students find that...' or 'Research suggests that...' rather than 'When I was at school...' The IELTS examiner expects academic register — third-person, evidence-implied language is always safer than first-person anecdote.
What is the most common Task Response mistake in education essays?+
Writing about education in general terms instead of addressing the specific question. Always re-read the prompt mid-essay. If the question asks about secondary school specifically, writing about universities is off-task. Specificity is a marker of Band 7+ Task Response.
Get your education essay corrected to this standard
Submit your Task 2 essay and receive a band estimate for all four criteria, with specific written feedback on exactly what to fix before test day.