I'm not saying that we don't need those fields; I'm saying that we shouldn't be subsidizing them.
But if you agree that we need them as well, then we should also subsidize them, no?
See, you are correct with supporting our best and brightest into molecular chemistry and biology. I get royally annoyed every year when all top-performer bursaries go to arts students. OF COURSE it is easier getting 90+ in history than in quantumdynamics, no matter what some M.A. will try to tell me. But to cut funding for one field in order to get kids take another is a little "1984". If you end up with students that take engineering although they are much more interested in psychology but engineering was free and psychology was not, you end up with disgruntled engineers. And those will remain the run-of-mill ones that GSlob referred to. They certainly will not come up with new inventions since they only do a 9-5 job.
posted on 07/17/2004 6:49:20 PM PDT
Just like Friedman said, it's about Return on Investment (ROI). If Molecular Chemists give you the biggest ROI, then you should invest more in it. If it's literature majors that give you the best ROI, then spend more on them.
On a side note, don't you feel that people who get "social" degrees tend to be far more liberal than others? And since when can you teach creativity?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson