Rising university fees and scarce employment prospects for graduatesbhave led some people to say that universities should not teach arts subjects, like philosophy and history and only offer practical degree coursesbthat maximises chances of employment. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The increased unemployment rate and the growing tution fees has discouraged few people to notice the benefits of arts subjects and driving themselves to take up other degree courses with more opportunities. Although, the upsurge in the education cost and unemployment bothers me yet I m totally against the notion as the passion for education vary in person, moreover, these courses are major requirement to the society in current scenario. Firstly, the students develop interest for the various subjects by the experience and would practically work on it. The expenditure to learn and the fear of less opportunities must not affect their aspirations. All the professions have relevance in its own sphere, for instance, the archeologist which is one of the major realm I'd arts play crucial roles in understanding the hidden ancient mysteries. Secondly, the philosophy which follows in the list if the subjects is high valued these days as most people are stressed out and require motivation. Further, the job prospects in these fields pay lucaratve wages though the number of availabilities is less as compared to the other practical degree courses. The reason is that the human resources required and the work done in these fields is way less. Hence, the hefty pay for these progressing courses is worthy. The joblessness could ofcourse curbed by providing the limited admissions in universities and development of the field by conducting research will rise the requirement of the personal. To conclude, the subjects of art group in the universities should thrive despite of excess cost as it will be paid back in futire and their is certainly chance of progression in these realms.
Submitted by Serhio Baraniuk on