Modern societies need specialists in certain fields, but not others. Some people, therefore, think that governments should pay university fees for students who study subjects that are needed by society. Those who choose to study less relevant subjects should not receive the government funding. Would the advantages of such an educational policy outweigh the disadvantages?

Sample 1:

In every country, there are fashions among students about which subjects are the best to the study at university. Sometimes the popularity of a subject is determined by how much money a graduate could subsequently earn in that field. Or subjects that are perceived as relatively ‘easy’ may also become popular, in spite of later difficulties of finding appropriate employment. It is up to governments to give incentives to students to choose subjects that match the needs of their society.

Obviously one way to do this would be for the government to pay the fees of those choosing such subjects. The advantage would certainly be that higher number of students would enroll and would later fill the employment gaps.

However, the disadvantages of such a policy would be considerable. For example, the students attracted by the funding may not have any real interest in or aptitude for that subject. Such students may drop out before graduation or after working only a short time in a related job. Furthermore, funding one group of students but not other would penalize those with a genuine interest and ability for another field. Such discrimination would certainly affect the whole of higher education of the country, and students would develop very negative attitudes towards going to university altogether. This would be very counter-productive for any country.

In conclusion, I think there are many other incentives for students that could be considered, such as making courses more interesting to take, or the job rewards greater after graduation. The education policy proposed above, however, would certainly have more long-term disadvantages than benefits for society.

Sample 2:

Controversy on special education funding for different courses for young adults is frequently debatable in this contemporary aeon. Whether government provide scholarships for students who enrol in courses that are beneficial to the public is considered lucrative or prejudicial often creates a concept of discrepancy. In the forthcoming paragraphs, I will talk through the merits and demerits of government allocating budget to various subjects along with my perspective that pros prevail over cons with credible illustrations.

On one side, there are some educational programs which are crucial for the well-being of residents. For instance, medical sciences have immense significance as doctors and nurses play a vital role in our day-to-day lives. Unfortunately, these institutes lack fundamental teaching resources. Thus, it is the responsibility of the local authorities to provide extra funding to these courses by establishing laboratories which eventually makes people more inquisitive about enrolling in these courses. Once they are graduated, they can set up clinics or provide medical amenities to the public free of cost. Hence, it is of great importance that government allocates the budget appropriately for such educational resources.

On the flip side, many professional and management subjects such as engineering and business studies are not fruitful to common people since they only improve the living standards of people. Students who enrol in these technical classes are already affluent as they pay massive amounts of money in the form of donations. With such massive costs which they receive from pupils, it is sufficient to provide world-class education and establish all amenities on the premises. Similarly, the study of engineering only enhances our level of comfort and leads to a convenient lifestyle rather than causing any impact on our health. Hence, local authorities can offer minimal funding to engineering graduates.

In a nutshell, this treatise has elucidated the importance of providing funds to courses which has a colossal and minute influence on the society based on the education. Thus, it is fruitful for everyone if government segregates their budget based on the subjects, which has a massive effect on the well-being of the public.

Sample 3:

It is a fact that some society needs experts to handle the situation, and designs should provide funds only to the scholars, which subjects are important for the community, but in case of those children opt for the courses of their choice, they should not receive any composition by the government. However, many see it as a post phenomenon. It is not a trend without drawbacks. Both merits and demerits will be explicated at their length before forming an opinion.

The first advantage is that the proposal brings tremendous benefits to improve the structure of the community or country. To be clear, this initiative may attract a bunch of well-educated students who Pursue a degree without financial worries so that they would be contributed with their knowledge and helps to enhance the civilization among the individuals. The first advantage is that the proposal brings tremendous benefits to improve the structure of the community or country. For instance, India faced a drastic problem due to a lack of health doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nation suffered from medicines and health providers because lack of arrangements and specialists to give possible help in that crisis. After that Indian government realized the importance of the health sector was vital for the country. In addition to these practices, regimes provide funds for the selected course, which eventually provide helps to enhance the condition of the nation.

Despite these merits, with this policy will cause some problems for the nation. It will be increased the unemployment rates in the nation furthermore, if students get to focus on a particular course so they will face some difficulties getting enrolled in another subject.

Put in other words, this initiative creates a disturbance in the community and degrades the whole education system of the nation, which eventually leads to the majority of scholars being deprived of various courses and unable to choose the specific field which they are seeking for. For example, every community requires experts in every field, such as teachers, engineers, artists, and other important workers, without these specialists. Ultimately, the situation will reverse because these experts become less required and other fields become more prominent. So, this situation creates disbalance in the associations. Therefore, the country should focus on all fields to sort out any difficult situations with the help of knowledge.

To put it in a nutshell, after analysis of both the aspects, I am of the view that government should pay funding for all courses to balance the situation of their nation.

Sample 4:

In our modern world, people’s educational background is considered one of the greatest priorities to many administrations. Some may say that some more important study must be supported more by state authorities; however, others, included myself agree that the drawbacks of this method outweigh the positive influences.

On the one hand, those who believe that focusing more on some specific essential curriculum by governments is more beneficial to humans have their reasons. One reason behind it is that they will face fewer healthcare problems. Admitting of more medical or nursing students will lead the general public to gain a better quality of healthcare system. For example, had the government of India backed up medical students more, Indian people would have had a better level of well-being; but unfortunately, every year hundreds of medical graduates have to move their country into Western countries for finding better study opportunities. Another advantage is that more starved nations will be nourished. Farming should be supported more by governments. Investing more in agricultural education, countries will have more advanced and mechanised agriculture, and more developed techniques will be used in this sector.

On the other hand, I personally believe that all study subjects must be valued equally, and all humans have similar rights to receive identical funds to continue their study. The first obvious factor is that the rate of unemployment will increase if university principals follow this policy. Clearly, by supporting more specific study subjects, the number jobless professionals will increase far considerably. For instance, in Iran, two decades ago, the capacity of medical universities was enhanced by the government, and more loans were given to medical students. This caused the number of medical graduates grew fast, and gradually their employment opportunity dropped. Furthermore, it can be against the civil rights. Obviously, all citizens pay tax and must have a wide selection to choose their favourite study material. If they do not receive equal financial support, they may become unsatisfied citizens.

To sum up, although some education fields are more phenomenal to societies, from my point of view, all study courses must be validated similarly by administrations because all applicants have equal rights, and this method may increase the number of unemployed professionals being more backed up.