Nowadays, governments spend a large amount of money on education. Some people believe that this financial support should be given only to students who study subjects which are important for society, while others think that all students should receive equal funding regardless of their field of study. Although this policy has several advantages, I believe that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.
On the one hand, paying university fees only for needed subjects can bring several positive effects. Firstly, many countries have a shortage of specialists such as doctors, teachers, engineers and nurses. If governments fully fund these programmes, more students may choose these careers, which can help solving this problem. Secondly, governments would spend public money more effectively because they invest on professions that contribute directly to society and the economy. As a result, the country could have more qualified workers in the future.
On the other hand, this policy may create several serious problems. To begin with, it would be unfair for students who are interested in subjects such as history, art, music or literature. These fields may not seem essential, but they also play an important role in preserving culture and improving people’s creativity. Moreover, it is difficult to predict which professions will be needed in the future because the society and technology change rapidly. A subject that seems less useful today may become highly important after several years. Therefore, limiting financial support only for several fields could reduce educational diversity and stop talented students from reaching their goals.
In conclusion, although paying university fees for necessary subjects can help society and improve the economy, I think the disadvantages are greater because this policy is unfair for many students and may negatively affect the development of other valuable professions.