Studying business or science related subjects at university level is more important than arts related courses like literature. Do you agree or disagree?
When considering tertiary level discipline, there is a school of thought that believes that studying concrete topics such as commerce, physics or biology is more valuable to the community than spending time focused on novels and other literary subjects. However, this argument is flawed for a number of reasons as will now be presented. Primarily, any form of study has inherent advantages. Although certain fields of study lead more directly into a position of employment, a university training is worthwhile not only for the schooling learned but also as an indication that the person has the ability to learn, and as such it is irrelevant whether it is a career based course of study or something more intangible, like the arts. It suggests to potential employers that the person can learn new skills, and this is often as important as what is already known. Moreover, those that complete an arts-related degree could potentially go on to be writers, poets or playwrights, for example, and thus contribute to the public in a cultural form rather than financially or technologically. The opinion that the writer is of less worth than the scientist is very biased, especially when it relates to a societal contribution. Admittedly, there is the point that science and business-related training can financially benefit a country, whereas art and literature are unlikely to offer the same value economically. However, a country’s wealth is not calculated in financial terms alone, and should also include more socially beneficial aspects. In sum, therefore, both types of discipline offer advantages to the country, so neither should have preference over the other as both have a degree of value to the community. If the more literary subjects are abandoned, this could result in a less creative community.