Money for postgraduate research is limited; therefore, some people think that financial support from governments should be provided only for scientific research rather than research for less useful subjects. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

These days, investment in research is undeniably important. However, funding for some research such as postgraduate courses is inadequate. Thus, some individuals deem that the government’s budget must be allocated in scientific studies only, which is more practical. I completely agree with this notion.

There are a number of reasons why postgraduate research does not need funding from governments for support. For one, most of the students who gain interest in studying master’s and doctorate studies are willing to pay their tuition fee. In addition, some studies proposed by students are irrelevant and do not contribute to the country's development. In the Philippines, for example, some students solely infringe their research work from other sources. This clearly shows that their intention is merely to graduate from the course and get a degree without providing any contribution to the body of knowledge that could later on benefit their nation.

Another reason is that the government’s budget is a form of investment. This means that the money provided by them should not be wasted on unnecessary research work that would not yield any result. In other words, the aim of the country leaders is to spend money on something that could bring high-returns, and that is investing through scientific research. Consequently, the extra funds can be utilized in other crucial projects such as building new hospitals, schools, and property houses for the masses.

To conclude, for the reasons I have mentioned above, I firmly believe that governments must concentrate principally on scientific research, which is more valuable and beneficial than postgraduate studies.

Sample 2:

Government funding for post-graduate research is very common for universities worldwide. However, it is argued that in case of deficit of funds, should such financial help be concentrated only on scientific researches. This essay shall discuss the significance of such an argument, and also of less useful subjects.

Universities encourage post-graduate research, in order for students to extend their current state of knowledge. Therefore, since the government’s contribution is an investment on behalf of the citizens, it is better if it gets invested in areas where the results can benefit masses. For example, the progression in television and computer technology is all credited to such research. Exploring distinct technical knowledge is fundamentally required for a country’s development, thereby the government would benefit visibly from funding it. But although scientific research is crucial, there is no denying the fact that non-scientific subjects should also not be ignored.

Research in subjects like literature and philosophy, although playing a noteworthy role in human life, pertains to only a certain category of individuals. Economics and statistics on the other hand have a more consequential effect on the policy-formation and analysis of a country’s economy. Therefore, research and funding in such areas is as necessary as in any scientific subject, such as engineering. Research in behavioural studies regarding reducing crime, and conduction of mental disorders can also help build and secure the social fabric of civilization. Hence, in no way can the research in non-scientific subjects be considered petty for financial aid from the government.

To conclude, I opine that both scientific and non-scientific subjects are worthy enough to claim monetary aid from the government in order to conduct research that would benefit humanity. Obviously, since there is a shortage of funds, the research areas should be prioritized.