Some people think that allocating state fund on science education more than other subjects is crucial for country’s development. While this is true to some extent, I think different subjects can be a holistic progression and more beneficial for long-term development.
On the one hand, the option to spend money on science education is attractive for several reasons. Firstly, science is definitely a powerful innovation for national development, which is a strong focus on inventions, technological advancements that all of them contribute to societal progress or social demands. Secondly, science education is the aspect of other sciences that benefit society as a whole such as healthcare systems. For example, many countries struggle to own medicines, medical technologies or vaccines that can develop treatments for diseases such as Covid-19 vaccines or STEM which lead to breakthroughs in various fields and create highly skilled workforces that can compete globally.
On the other hand, other subjects are important in some ways. To begin with, a diverse economy requires skills of other subjects that include skilled trade, calculating, business leaders. To illustrate, students study about economics in universities such as how to manage money or skillful commerce to compete in global economy. Furthermore, other subjects such as English eloquence, literature, math, art contribute to critical thinking and problem-solving or creativity, studying country’s culture. A good example of this is that many high schools teach literature to enhance empathy, mother tongue, or foreign language and communication skills.
In conclusion, it seems evident that both science education and other subjects have their own advantages. In my opinion, most countries would benefit greater from a well education, with emphasis on all methods, not only that of science.