what subjects are useful? My view, for reasons described elsewhere in this thread, is that all subjects are useful in some way, to somebody. Business studies, for example, would be utterly useless for me, in the sense that I wouldn't get anything much out of it, I wouldn't do very well at it, and it wouldn't enhance my life or career prospects noticeably. But there are people for whom it would be tremendously useful, possibly springboarding them into a lucrative career of some sort, or perhaps just giving them various mental tools that will enable them to interact with the world in a manner beneficial to themselves and/or everyone else.
Similarly, I've got a tremendous amount out of studying mathematics and computer science, both in career terms (I've been paid to do both at various points over the past fifteen years) and also in how I look at the world. But there are others for whom university-level mathematics wouldn't be any use. Maybe some of those would get more benefit from studying ancient history, modern French literature, or theology.
Yes, there are certain subjects that have a more obvious benefit to the short- and longer-term economic and social health of the country, and this is why the proposed £1bn cuts to the scientific research budget would have been a criminally stupid idea (and why even just freezing the budget isn't entirely sensible). But I think it's important not to be swayed by the kind of rhetoric that regards non-science disciplines as "hobby subjects", because all of them have value to some people, and thereby to the country in general.
who is really paying? Why we are I don't see any reasonable alternative, I'm afraid. And to be honest, there are few more deserving things that money could be spent on. Tax breaks for big corporations? Nuclear weapons that we can never use?
no subject
My view, for reasons described elsewhere in this thread, is that all subjects are useful in some way, to somebody. Business studies, for example, would be utterly useless for me, in the sense that I wouldn't get anything much out of it, I wouldn't do very well at it, and it wouldn't enhance my life or career prospects noticeably. But there are people for whom it would be tremendously useful, possibly springboarding them into a lucrative career of some sort, or perhaps just giving them various mental tools that will enable them to interact with the world in a manner beneficial to themselves and/or everyone else.
Similarly, I've got a tremendous amount out of studying mathematics and computer science, both in career terms (I've been paid to do both at various points over the past fifteen years) and also in how I look at the world. But there are others for whom university-level mathematics wouldn't be any use. Maybe some of those would get more benefit from studying ancient history, modern French literature, or theology.
Yes, there are certain subjects that have a more obvious benefit to the short- and longer-term economic and social health of the country, and this is why the proposed £1bn cuts to the scientific research budget would have been a criminally stupid idea (and why even just freezing the budget isn't entirely sensible). But I think it's important not to be swayed by the kind of rhetoric that regards non-science disciplines as "hobby subjects", because all of them have value to some people, and thereby to the country in general.
who is really paying? Why we are
I don't see any reasonable alternative, I'm afraid. And to be honest, there are few more deserving things that money could be spent on. Tax breaks for big corporations? Nuclear weapons that we can never use?