Nowadays, the variety of different majors tends to have different levels of attraction, so students will choose the major that is interesting and suitable for them. However, some people argue that the government should only fund students who study subjects needed for society. I disagree with this viewpoint because the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
Long term too much focus on socially needed majors may lead to an imbalance in the labor force. The incentive policy can attract more learners in some subjects, making these subjects become an option for many people. This can lead to too many specialists in certain fields while creating a shortage of experts in others. Moreover, if a lot of subjects shortage labor force, governments have to employ foreign workers to fill that major and position missing. This can lead to governments having to pay a lot of fees for foreign workers; from there, they may suffer from financial burden.
Besides, such an educational policy expresses inequality in education. Students in irrelevant subjects may feel envious and inferior. They may think that professions won’t have potential in the future and won’t earn much money, so they will lose motivation in study. Additionally, students in relevant subjects may, because of received government funding, sacrifice passion for financial support. This may make them easily lose interest in studying and get failure in life.
On the other hand, short-term such investments will enjoy the availability of the workforce in society. More students in necessary sectors will fill vacancy in socially demanded fields. From there, those fields will increasingly develop and maintain industrial activities. This can lead to enhancing the potential economic of country and develop national economy.
In conclusion, educational policy may result in a social imbalance and inequality. Therefore, the government should support all majors equally to create better conditions for everyone.