People have different opinions on whether freedom in academic pursuit should be allowed, or if university students should only study subjects deemed useful for the future. While the utility of university subjects is important, in my opinion, it is essential to give students the right to choose their area of interest.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why it might be crucial for university subjects to have clear prospects. Firstly, if the area chosen by graduates has limited applications, they may face unemployment, as securing a living often requires engaging in productive work. Secondly, public universities often operate on governmental funds, and it can be argued that they should train individuals who can benefit society. For instance, people might reason that philosophy lacks practicality compared to engineering, and therefore, government money should only be spent on practical disciplines. Finally, with the growing need for experts in developing countries, it might be beneficial for society if universities prioritised directing students to crucial areas.
On the other hand, it is perhaps more important to nurture students’ scholarly interests. Due to the ever-changing demands of the modern world, forecasting the future prospects of academic subjects is nearly impossible. For example, studying computer programming seemed irrelevant in the 1970s, but it became one of the most promising professions in the following decades. Additionally, enthusiasts often demonstrate remarkable abilities in their area of interest. Allowing their passion to flourish may lead them to become extraordinary experts in their chosen fields. Conversely, stifling their enthusiasm and pushing them towards areas in which they lack interest could hinder their growth and accomplishments.
In conclusion, while there are valid arguments for restricting university subjects based on utility, I believe it is significantly more beneficial to give students the freedom to choose their fields of study.