Some people think that all university students should be required to study subjects outside their main field, such as history or philosophy.
A full IELTS Writing Task 2 answer to this question, with a paragraph plan, ideas you can use, and the vocabulary that fits this topic.
The question
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Some people think that all university students should be required to study subjects outside their main field, such as history or philosophy.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
How to read this question
This is an agree/disagree question, so the examiner is looking for one clear position held from the introduction to the conclusion. "To what extent" invites a partial answer — you may agree with conditions — but a partial position still has to be stated in a sentence, not implied. The word "all" is the pressure point: the safest strong answer agrees with the principle while resisting the absolute, and says so explicitly.
Paragraph plan
Introduction — Paraphrase the statement, then state the position in one sentence: broadly agree, but reject the word 'all'.
Body 1 — Why breadth helps — transferable reasoning and communication skills that a single discipline does not teach, plus the fact that graduates change fields.
Body 2 — Why 'all' is too strong — heavily loaded professional degrees, and the risk of shallow compulsory courses taken only to pass.
Conclusion — Restate the qualified position: breadth should be built in, but as a limited requirement rather than a universal one.
Model essay
Band 8.5–9.0 model essay
326 words
According to some, university students, irrespective of their chosen specialisation, ought to be required to complete courses outside their principal field, such as history or philosophy. In my view, this requirement can be beneficial, but only if it remains a modest component of the curriculum rather than a substantial diversion from students' core studies.
To begin, exposure to disciplines outside one's specialisation can cultivate transferable skills that enhance a student's overall competence. To clarify, subjects such as philosophy train students to construct rigorous arguments and evaluate evidence critically, while history familiarises them with how past decisions shaped present outcomes. For instance, an engineering student who studies philosophy is more likely to consider the ethical implications of new technologies, such as the responsible deployment of artificial intelligence, rather than focusing solely on technical feasibility. Additionally, a philosophy course can teach students the discipline of formal logic, a skill directly transferable to fields such as law or computer programming, where structured reasoning is indispensable. Such interdisciplinary awareness can make graduates more thoughtful professionals and more adaptable employees in a labour market that increasingly values versatility over narrow expertise.
However, this benefit is contingent on the scale of the requirement. If universities were to mandate an extensive number of unrelated courses, students would inevitably have less time to devote to their principal discipline. This is particularly problematic in fields such as medicine or engineering, where mastery demands years of concentrated study and practical training. Consequently, diluting the curriculum with excessive outside coursework could compromise graduates' core competence, potentially undermining their employability in highly specialised professions. Universities should therefore limit such requirements to a small number of modules rather than a significant share of the degree programme.
To conclude, although requiring students to study subjects outside their main field can broaden their perspective and strengthen transferable skills, this practice should remain limited in scope, so that it does not compromise the depth of expertise students need in their chosen discipline.
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to read the rest of this essay and unlock every model on the site.
This is an opinion (agree / disagree) question. The essay above shows you what a strong answer looks like when it is finished. What it cannot show you is how to get there from a blank page in forty minutes.
That is what our Writing Study Library is for: the structure we teach for this exact question type, the paragraph pattern that goes with it, and the sentence openers for each stage — so the essay is planned before you start writing rather than assembled as you go.
Introduction: Paraphrase the proposal that all university students must study subjects outside their main field, taking the position that this is beneficial only if it stays a modest, limited part of the curriculum.
Body 1: Argue that studying unrelated fields such as philosophy or history builds transferable skills like rigorous argument, ethical reasoning and formal logic, illustrated by an engineering student who becomes more thoughtful about the ethics of new technology after a philosophy course.
Body 2: Argue the benefit only holds if the requirement is small, since mandating too many outside courses steals time from mastery in demanding fields like medicine or engineering and could undermine graduates' employability.
Conclusion: Restate that outside-field study broadens perspective but should remain limited in scope so it does not compromise depth of expertise in the student's chosen discipline.
Word or phrase
Meaning
Used in a sentence
specialisation
a person's particular field of study or expertise
university students, irrespective of their chosen specialisation, ought to be required to complete courses outside their principal field
curriculum
the subjects and content taught in an educational programme
this requirement can be beneficial, but only if it remains a modest component of the curriculum
transferable skills
abilities gained in one context that can be applied in a different situation
exposure to disciplines outside one's specialisation can cultivate transferable skills that enhance a student's overall competence
rigorous
thorough, careful and exacting
subjects such as philosophy train students to construct rigorous arguments and evaluate evidence critically
interdisciplinary
involving two or more academic fields combined
such interdisciplinary awareness can make graduates more thoughtful professionals
versatility
the ability to adapt to many different functions or situations
a labour market that increasingly values versatility over narrow expertise
mandate
to officially require or order something
if universities were to mandate an extensive number of unrelated courses, students would inevitably have less time
diluting
weakening the strength or quality of something by adding other elements
diluting the curriculum with excessive outside coursework could compromise graduates' core competence
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to see the ideas and vocabulary for this topic and unlock every model on the site.
Answers checked here may be published on this page, without your name, to help other learners. Nothing else about you is stored.
Common questions
Can I partly agree in a "to what extent do you agree or disagree" essay?
Yes. A partial position is completely acceptable and often produces a stronger essay, because it lets you argue rather than assert. The requirement is that you state the qualification explicitly in the introduction — for example "I agree in principle, but not as a universal rule" — and then keep to it. What loses marks is a position the examiner has to infer.
How long should this essay be?
At least 250 words. Under 250 costs you marks automatically for Task Response, and there is no upper limit, but answers beyond about 320 words tend to lose control of accuracy without adding anything the examiner rewards. The Band 8.5 model above is roughly 380 words because it develops a second-order argument; 280 to 300 is a safer target under exam timing.
Do I need real examples with names and dates?
No. IELTS does not check facts, and inventing a statistic is riskier than reasoning clearly without one. A hypothetical but specific example — "a chemistry graduate who moves into marketing" — supports the argument just as well and is easier to keep grammatically under control.
Is the word "all" in the question important?
It is the whole question. Absolutes like <em>all</em>, <em>every</em> and <em>only</em> are deliberately placed to give you something to push against. Noticing one and addressing it directly is one of the clearest signals of a Band 8 Task Response.
