Band 8 model answer
A model answer written to illustrate a Band 8 response to this question, with the rubric breakdown and what carries it. Written by us as a teaching example, not a verified exam script.
“Some argue history should be compulsory in school, while others say students should focus on practical subjects like science. Discuss both views and give your opinion.”8
Overall
8
Task response
8
Coherence & cohesion
8
Lexical resource
8
Grammar
Debate about which subjects deserve priority in school curricula often positions the humanities against the sciences, with history and science as representative rivals. Advocates of history argue that understanding the past is essential for informed citizenship, while science enthusiasts contend that technical literacy is what a modern economy and society genuinely require. I believe both disciplines are indispensable, but a compulsory grounding in history carries particular value.
The case for prioritising science and practical subjects is persuasive. Economies increasingly demand workers with strong numeracy, data literacy, and technological competence. Climate change, public health, and artificial intelligence are among the defining challenges of the age, and addressing them requires a citizenry that can evaluate scientific evidence critically. Schools that neglect science risk producing graduates poorly equipped to participate meaningfully in these conversations or to compete in knowledge-intensive job markets.
Yet history offers something that science curricula rarely replicate: an understanding of how power operates, how societies repeat patterns of error, and how context shapes every human decision. Students who study the build-up to the First World War, the mechanics of colonial economics, or the psychology of mass political movements develop a form of critical perspective that is genuinely difficult to acquire elsewhere. Democracies function better when citizens understand precedent, propaganda, and the slow processes by which rights are won and lost.
Furthermore, a narrow focus on immediately vocational subjects risks producing technically capable but historically unrooted graduates susceptible to ideological manipulation and short-termist thinking.
In conclusion, while science education is vital, the case for compulsory history is compelling on civic rather than merely academic grounds. Ideally, school systems should require both, recognising that scientific competence and historical understanding are complementary rather than competing.
- •The civic argument for history, propaganda, democratic literacy, patterns of error, is developed with real sophistication.
- •Both sides are argued with specific, credible examples rather than vague generalities.
- •The conclusion avoids false binary by arguing for complementarity, which reflects genuine analytical maturity.
- •The phrase 'historically unrooted graduates' in the penultimate paragraph, while evocative, is slightly informal for the register established elsewhere.
Write your own. Get a real band read.
Reading a model answer only takes you so far. Write your own response to this question and we’ll grade it against the four official rubrics, the same way we scored this one.
Attempt this question