Please help rate my essay. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Modern societies need specialists in certain fields but not in 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 government funding. Would the advantages of such an educational policy outweigh the disadvantages?
Tertiary education which enables many breakthroughs and advancements in society is undoubtedly important to both students and the community as a whole. Yet, university tuition has skyrocketed to a point where a lot of students cannot afford and drop out from their universities. In light of this, along with the benefits of university education on society, some people start advocating a policy to fully sponsor students who study subjects needed the most in society to pay for their university fees and expenses. However, this well-intended proposal may create more harms than good.
First and foremost, drawing a line to distinguish what subjects are crucial to the development of the society is an inherently problematic task. No one has the authority and capability to decide which particular subjects are beneficial and in urgent need for the public. Visual art classes which are considered by many as useless are a good example here. Professional artists often help patients who are diagnosed with depression to express their deepest feelings to heal the psychological problems. And such significant tasks can only be accomplished by someone who has studies art which, again, is labelled by many as a waste.
In addition, providing tuition subsidies only to those who study a specific subject but not based on one's merits or income level is in essence a form of unjustified punishment against students who study unpopular subjects. Students studying in less popular degrees are barred from receiving government supports for no reasons. This in itself is unfair.
To summarise, implementing such policy is impractical because no one has the ability to classify subjects in terms of their usefulness to the society, and unfair as such policy discriminates students based on unjustifiable grounds. Thus, the cons outweigh the potential pros resulting from this proposal. It is hoped that such proposal will never be implemented regardless how good the intention is.
(312 words)
Pls rate my task 2 essay: University Education
Re: Pls rate my task 2 essay: University Education
larry_li wrote:Please help rate my essay. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Modern societies need specialists in certain fields but not in 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 government funding. Would the advantages of such an educational policy outweigh the disadvantages?
Tertiary education which enables many breakthroughs and advancements in society is undoubtedly important to both students and the community as a whole. Yet, university tuition has skyrocketed to a point where a lot of students cannot afford it and are forced to leave university without completing their education. In light of this, along with the benefits of university education on society, some people have started advocating a policy to fully sponsor students who study subjects needed the most in society to pay for their university fees and expenses. However, this well-intended proposal may create more harm than good.
First and foremost, drawing a line to distinguish what subjects are crucial to the development of the society is an inherently problematic task. No one has the authority and capability to decide which particular subjects are beneficial and in urgent need for the public. Visual art classes, which are considered by many as useless, are a good example here. Professional artists often help patients who are diagnosed with depression to express their deepest feelings to heal their psychological problems. And such significant tasks can only be accomplished by someone who has studied art which, again, is labelled by many as a waste.
In addition, providing tuition subsidies only to those who study a specific subject but not based on one's merits or income level is, in essence, a form of unjustified punishment against students who study unpopular subjects. Students studying in less popular fields are barred from receiving government support for no reason. This in itself is unfair.
To summarise, implementing such policy is impractical because no one has the ability to classify subjects in terms of their usefulness to the society, and unfair as such policy discriminates against students based on unjustifiable grounds. Thus, the cons outweigh the potential pros resulting from this proposal. It is hoped that such a proposal will never be implemented regardless of how good the intention is.
(312 words)
Re: Pls rate my task 2 essay: University Education
Thank you. you are awesome ~!!! 
Flick wrote:larry_li wrote:Please help rate my essay. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Modern societies need specialists in certain fields but not in 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 government funding. Would the advantages of such an educational policy outweigh the disadvantages?
Tertiary education which enables many breakthroughs and advancements in society is undoubtedly important to both students and the community as a whole. Yet, university tuition has skyrocketed to a point where a lot of students cannot afford it and are forced to leave university without completing their education. In light of this, along with the benefits of university education on society, some people have started advocating a policy to fully sponsor students who study subjects needed the most in society to pay for their university fees and expenses. However, this well-intended proposal may create more harm than good.
First and foremost, drawing a line to distinguish what subjects are crucial to the development of the society is an inherently problematic task. No one has the authority and capability to decide which particular subjects are beneficial and in urgent need for the public. Visual art classes, which are considered by many as useless, are a good example here. Professional artists often help patients who are diagnosed with depression to express their deepest feelings to heal their psychological problems. And such significant tasks can only be accomplished by someone who has studied art which, again, is labelled by many as a waste.
In addition, providing tuition subsidies only to those who study a specific subject but not based on one's merits or income level is, in essence, a form of unjustified punishment against students who study unpopular subjects. Students studying in less popular fields are barred from receiving government support for no reason. This in itself is unfair.
To summarise, implementing such policy is impractical because no one has the ability to classify subjects in terms of their usefulness to the society, and unfair as such policy discriminates against students based on unjustifiable grounds. Thus, the cons outweigh the potential pros resulting from this proposal. It is hoped that such a proposal will never be implemented regardless of how good the intention is.
(312 words)