There is ongoing discussion as to whether the state should allocate less national funding on the arts, so that they could spend a considerable amount on the educational institutions. While there is less truth to this assertion, although I contend that spending more money for education ensures long-term success opportunities and assists in overall academic development , I concede that funding on creative subjects enhances theoretical skills, problem solving skills and comprehensive improvement.
On the one hand, it is understandable why some people advocate for the preference towards practical subjects. Proponents of this view point out that this supports children’s critical thinking skills, fosters cognitive abilities, and emotional well-being. Furthermore, through creative subjects like music, drawing and painting they learned how to think flexibly. For example, when a student learns how to play a musical instrument it improves the learner’s memory, coordination, and attention. Moreover, by painting and drawing children can express his sadness and happiness perfectly. Therefore, it is clear that this perspective holds significant merit.
On the other hand, I would argue that this viewpoint fails to consider the effective advantages of career prospects . This is largely because focusing on education helps children gain the knowledge and the skills required for having a good career. Nowadays, high qualifications are necessary to secure well-paid jobs. For instance, the scholars who are excellent in their academic studies often get admission to reputed and top universities which aid in shaping their future. Consequently, it is evident that overlooking this factor would be a grave mistake.
In conclusion, although funding more on education has certain advantages, I remain convinced that creative subjects cultivate comprehensive development and logical reasoning. Hence, the government should adopt a collaborative approach between the funding of education and arts as it is the most viable solution.