IELTS Writing Feedback

Universities are expected to prepare students for adult life, but there is disagreement about whether this should mainly mean employment training or the development of independent thinking. Although practical skills are important, I believe higher education should combine employability with intellectual independence rather than choose one purpose. Those who favour an employment focus argue that degrees require a major investment of time and money. Students therefore need communication, teamwork and problem-solving skills that employers can use immediately. Work placements, professional projects and contact with industry may also help graduates understand workplace expectations and find suitable jobs more quickly. This is particularly valuable in subjects with clear professional routes, such as engineering, nursing and accountancy. However, universities also have a wider responsibility. Industries change, technologies become obsolete and graduates may work in several different occupations during their careers. Independent judgement allows people to evaluate evidence, challenge weak assumptions and make ethical decisions when no standard procedure is available. For example, a graduate who has learned how to research unfamiliar problems can adapt more effectively than someone trained only for one current role. In my view, the strongest courses integrate both aims. Students should complete realistic tasks and gain relevant experience, while also being required to conduct research, debate competing ideas and justify conclusions. Employers benefit from graduates who can perform practical work, but society also needs citizens who can think beyond immediate commercial demands. In conclusion, universities should support employment, but not at the expense of independent thinking. A balanced curriculum is more likely to produce adaptable graduates who can contribute throughout a changing career.

The growth of remote work has led some people to predict that large cities will become much less important. I agree that working from home will change urban life and reduce some forms of commuting, but I disagree that it will remove the main advantages of cities. Remote employees no longer need to travel to a central office every day, so some households may move to smaller towns where housing is cheaper and space is greater. Businesses may also reduce office floorspace, while city authorities could convert underused buildings into homes or mixed-use developments. These changes may lower pressure on commuter transport and weaken the traditional link between employment and a daily journey into the centre. Nevertheless, cities provide benefits that cannot be reproduced fully online. They concentrate specialised labour, universities, hospitals, cultural institutions and professional services within a relatively small area. This concentration encourages innovation because people from different organisations can meet, exchange ideas and establish new businesses. Many jobs, including healthcare, construction, hospitality and laboratory work, also require physical presence. Even teams that work mainly online may benefit from occasional face-to-face meetings for training, complex decisions or relationship building. In my view, remote work will cause adaptation rather than urban decline. Successful cities may become less dependent on five-day commuting and more focused on housing, leisure, education and flexible workplaces. Public transport patterns and commercial property use will change, but the underlying networks that create opportunity will remain valuable. In conclusion, large cities are unlikely to become unimportant. Their role will evolve as work becomes more flexible, yet they will continue to function as major centres of employment, knowledge, services and social life.

Making public transport free could reduce private-car use, but the success of the policy would depend on service quality and public funding. In my view, the advantages can outweigh the disadvantages when free travel is introduced together with investment in capacity, reliability and route coverage. The main benefit is that removing fares lowers the cost of travelling to work, education and essential services. This would particularly help low-income residents, for whom transport costs can limit access to opportunities. Free buses and trains might also persuade some drivers to leave their cars at home. If enough people changed their behaviour, cities could experience less congestion, lower air pollution and reduced demand for parking. Public transport would then create wider social and environmental benefits rather than serving only existing passengers. However, the policy would be expensive. Fare income would have to be replaced through taxation or reductions in other public spending. Free services could also become overcrowded, especially where networks already operate near capacity. More importantly, price is not the only reason people drive. A free bus is unlikely to attract commuters if it is slow, unreliable or does not connect residential areas with workplaces. Governments could therefore spend heavily without achieving a significant reduction in car use. Overall, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages only under clear conditions. Authorities should first improve frequency, safety and route coverage, then introduce free or heavily subsidised travel where the network can absorb additional demand. They should also monitor congestion and passenger numbers to assess whether drivers are actually changing modes. In conclusion, free public transport can be worthwhile, but removing fares alone is not enough. The policy must be part of a broader, properly funded transport strategy.

Artificial intelligence can make learning more accessible, but uncontrolled use by students creates serious problems for assessment and skill development. Schools and universities should respond by redesigning tasks, setting clear rules and teaching responsible use rather than relying only on detection software. One major problem is academic integrity. Students can submit generated essays or solutions that do not represent their own understanding, which makes grades unreliable and unfair to those who complete the work independently. A second concern is overdependence. If learners routinely ask a system to plan, write and solve problems for them, they may fail to develop research, reasoning and communication skills. AI outputs can also contain inaccurate, biased or invented information, and inexperienced students may accept these claims without checking reliable sources. Institutions should take several measures. First, assessment should include more supervised work, staged drafts and short oral explanations in which students defend their choices. These methods make it easier to evaluate genuine understanding. Second, schools and universities need clear policies that distinguish permitted assistance, such as language feedback, from misconduct, such as submitting generated work as original. Students should be required to disclose how tools were used where appropriate. Finally, teachers and students need training in verification, citation and the limitations of automated systems. This would help learners use AI as a support for thinking rather than as a substitute for it. In conclusion, AI can cause cheating, unreliable assessment and weaker independent skills, but banning it completely would be unrealistic. A combination of better assessment design, transparent rules and digital literacy is more likely to protect academic standards while allowing responsible educational use.