Choosing University Subjects: Personal Interest vs Useful Fields

Both views are addressed with relevant main ideas and some support, but the writer's own opinion remains vague and underdeveloped in the conclusion.

Ideas are organised into clear paragraphs with logical progression, though linking is at times mechanical and some statements connect loosely to the argument.

An adequate range of vocabulary suits the topic, with some attempts at less common items, but occasional awkward or inaccurate phrases reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used with reasonable accuracy, though frequent minor errors and some faulty constructions are noticeable.

The response addresses all parts of the task, discusses both views with some development and examples, and presents a relevant clear opinion, though the ideas are not always fully extended and the proposal in the conclusion slightly digresses.

Ideas are arranged in a broadly logical paragraph structure with some cohesive devices such as 'moreover' and 'on the other hand', but referencing and linking are at times faulty or mechanical.

The vocabulary conveys the main argument and includes appropriate phrases such as 'economic growth' and 'have more incentive'. Word-choice and word-form errors, including 'unconscious about' for uncertainty and 'feel boring' for the students' feelings, reduce precision.

Complex sentences are attempted, but frequent errors in clause structure, verb forms and articles require reader effort. Examples include 'a major is about the technology', 'the subject that they love it' and 'it can makes', alongside several comma splices joining complete clauses.

Both views are discussed with a clear preference for practical subjects. The personal example illustrates motivation and performance, while a qualitative research claim supports career prospects. The recommendation could address more explicitly whether useful subjects should be encouraged or made the only available choice.

Ideas progress logically across clearly organised paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, although some linking is mechanical and the parallels between the two body paragraphs feel formulaic at times.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible for the topic with some precise items such as 'tertiary students' and 'employability', but recurring choices like repeated 'opine' and awkward phrases such as 'practical values' and 'majors from art faculties' show occasional imprecision.

Relative clauses, time clauses and concessive structures are used with generally good control. Longer sentences remain understandable, although some wording and clause combinations are awkward. Grammatical errors rarely impede meaning.

Both views are discussed with a consistent, clearly stated opinion, developed ideas, and relevant examples, though support is somewhat general rather than fully extended.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is clear with a range of cohesive devices, but some linking is mechanical and reference within sentences occasionally repetitive.

Vocabulary is generally adequate for the topic with some precise items like remuneration and enrollment, though collocation is occasionally unnatural and phrasing repetitive.

The essay uses concessive clauses, relative clauses and other complex structures with generally good control. Some constructions, including 'makes students able to easily find a job' and 'how much their earnings are', are awkward or wordy. Meaning remains clear throughout.

The response addresses both views and presents a clear, consistent personal opinion with developed, relevant supporting ideas, though some arguments rely on assertion rather than fuller elaboration.

Ideas progress logically through clearly organised paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used mostly naturally, despite occasional slightly mechanical linking.

The response uses a sufficient range of vocabulary with some flexibility and less common items such as 'citadel' and 'tertiary education', though occasional imprecise collocations and phrasing reduce precision.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, and frequent error-free sentences are present, with only minor non-impeding slips in grammar and word form.

The essay addresses all parts of the task, presents both views and a clear, consistently maintained opinion, and develops main ideas with relevant if sometimes generic support.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, though transitions are at times formulaic and linkages within paragraphs occasionally loose.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and largely precise with good collocation such as 'intrinsic motivation' and 'foster creativity', with only occasional less natural phrasing like 'promotes individual interests'.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, and errors are minor and infrequent, though some sentences are wordy or slightly awkward.

The essay addresses all parts of the task, discussing both views with well-developed ideas and a clearly stated, consistently maintained position throughout.

Ideas are logically sequenced across clear paragraphs with a wide range of cohesive devices used naturally, such as 'in spite of these arguments' and 'finally'.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations like 'knowledge and skill gaps', 'career progression', and 'creative thinking skills'.

A wide range of structures is used with flexibility and accuracy, including complex conditionals ('If this were the case') and varied subordinate clauses.

Both views receive relevant support, including aptitude and cultural contributions for free choice, and employment and innovation for technical subjects. The final recommendation preserves other disciplines, but the distinction between prioritising STEM and allowing only STEM should be stated more explicitly.

Ideas are logically organised across clear paragraphs with effective cohesive devices and a sensible progression, though some linking is slightly mechanical, such as formulaic transitions like 'To conclude' and 'To exemplify'.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural academic phrasing such as 'aptitude', 'counterproductive', and 'economic stability', and only minor instances of less idiomatic expression like 'They opine'.

Conditional sentences, relative clauses and other complex structures are generally accurate and controlled. The indirect-question clause 'if they should be limited' is grammatical. Sentences remain clear despite their length, with few evident errors.

Both views are developed with a clear preference for freedom of choice, supported by relevant educational and economic examples. The statement that technical degrees ensure well-paid employment is too absolute, and the country example could explain the connection between education and growth more precisely.

Paragraphing is logical and cohesive devices are used skillfully and mostly unobtrusively, though progression within paragraphs is competent rather than fully extended.

A wide range of precise, natural vocabulary is used with flexibility, including collocations like 'fosters creativity' and 'unfulfilled workforce', with only rare imprecision.

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used flexibly and accurately with only minor slips.