Hi guys, I would be grateful to know your ideas about my essay. Your comments on my previous essays were really helpful.
Topic: Modern societies need specialists in certain fields, but not in others. Some people therefore think that governments should pay universities fees for students who study subjects that are needed by society. Those who choose to study less relevant subjects should mot receive government funding. Would the advantages of such an educational policy outweight the disadvantages?
The advancement of technologies, sciences and educational systems have caused an extensive range of subjects to be created in relative to different needs of modern societies. However, it is believed that a group of majors are more required as compared to others. As a result, governments should allocate higher budget to these types of subjects. This opinion may have several positive and negative aspects which will be argued in this essay.
Restriction of government's expenditures to a narrow range of subjects in universities- that are considered as the most popular and important ones in a country- can have two main positive effects. First of all, with decrease in budget of less imperative majors, governments can save more money. This saved money can be spent on other difficulties such as eradication of poverty in societies. Secondly, if funding for important fields of study like engineering to be increased, facilities and educational standards would be driven up. Therefore, students' skills may be improved and these individuals can be more effective in a country as they occupy different job vacancies in the future.
However, this attitude toward government funding may accompany by disappearance of some subjects that are not essential apparently. Social sciences,for instance, may be viewed as less important than engineering because they do not impact the technology and economical aspects of a country. But, these kinds of sciences are necessary for recognizing the roots of societal issues. Moreover, this policy can draw attention of more students to the subjects that obtain more fees.Thus, many students ignore their interests just for using the higher funding. In addition, these days all sciences are relate to each others and this is what known as "interdisciplinary concept". In fact, nowadays it is too hard to distinct various subjects and classify them as more and less important ones. Consequently, with execution of the view which was mentioned above, one part of a science may improve, whereas other related subjects cannot have an opportunity for progressing.
According to what was discussed above, the downsides of this educational policy are more than its advantages. From my perspective, all majors are imperative in a specific way and all of them must be ameliorated for promotion of societies.
In summary, some say government funding would not evenly distribute through different subjects. They think those that are more effective should be given more fund. However, this idea is followed by several negative facets that make it harmful for a society.
Topic: Modern societies need specialists in certain fields, but not in others. Some people therefore think that governments should pay universities fees for students who study subjects that are needed by society. Those who choose to study less relevant subjects should mot receive government funding. Would the advantages of such an educational policy outweight the disadvantages?
The advancement of technologies, sciences and educational systems have caused an extensive range of subjects to be created in relative to different needs of modern societies. However, it is believed that a group of majors are more required as compared to others. As a result, governments should allocate higher budget to these types of subjects. This opinion may have several positive and negative aspects which will be argued in this essay.
Restriction of government's expenditures to a narrow range of subjects in universities- that are considered as the most popular and important ones in a country- can have two main positive effects. First of all, with decrease in budget of less imperative majors, governments can save more money. This saved money can be spent on other difficulties such as eradication of poverty in societies. Secondly, if funding for important fields of study like engineering to be increased, facilities and educational standards would be driven up. Therefore, students' skills may be improved and these individuals can be more effective in a country as they occupy different job vacancies in the future.
However, this attitude toward government funding may accompany by disappearance of some subjects that are not essential apparently. Social sciences,for instance, may be viewed as less important than engineering because they do not impact the technology and economical aspects of a country. But, these kinds of sciences are necessary for recognizing the roots of societal issues. Moreover, this policy can draw attention of more students to the subjects that obtain more fees.Thus, many students ignore their interests just for using the higher funding. In addition, these days all sciences are relate to each others and this is what known as "interdisciplinary concept". In fact, nowadays it is too hard to distinct various subjects and classify them as more and less important ones. Consequently, with execution of the view which was mentioned above, one part of a science may improve, whereas other related subjects cannot have an opportunity for progressing.
According to what was discussed above, the downsides of this educational policy are more than its advantages. From my perspective, all majors are imperative in a specific way and all of them must be ameliorated for promotion of societies.
In summary, some say government funding would not evenly distribute through different subjects. They think those that are more effective should be given more fund. However, this idea is followed by several negative facets that make it harmful for a society.