Introduction
It is hard to disagree that the inequalities and injustices that students face in higher education are some critical issues that should be addressed. Thus, many low-income persons have to choose uninteresting majors because of their low tuition fees or refuse the idea of getting a college degree because of not having any financial opportunities. One of the decisions proposed by governments is to fully subsidize certain majors. While this option contains specific disadvantages, one may agree that governments should implement it because more justice and equality will be achieved in this case.
Arguments for the Decision
The first reason to support the idea in question is that many young people from low-income families will receive an opportunity to enroll. They will have a degree in useful and valued spheres, which will then allow them to improve their social status (Kasman, 2020; Winograd & Lubin, 2020). Indeed, such a chance is significant because it will make citizens more equal, ensuring that not only wealthy but also poor students can receive a good education and choose interesting and required majors.
The second argument for the decision is based on the idea that professors will treat all students equally if the latter are not divided into those who pay for their education and those who do not. According to Brint (2019), the mentioned concern is a severe issue that requires increased attention. In other words, providing all students within a specific major with scholarships will equalize them and remove the main reason for manipulation by classmates or professors. All persons will become equal in their own eyes and the eyes of educators, and this will motivate them to excel in other parameters, for example, in academic performance.
Finally, the last supporting fact is that it is just to promote those spheres that are most needed in the nearest future. For example, the government considers that more IT professionals with the robust educational background will be needed in five years. To receive them, the authorities should offer something in return, and if this ‘something’ is scholarships, this decision will promote justice (Mitchell et al., 2019; Vedder, 2019). As a consequence, this decision seems to be a good deal between the government and students, especially low-income ones.
Arguments Against the Decision
Unfortunately, the identified option also brings inequalities and injustice to the sphere of higher education. One of the primary disadvantages is that primarily high-income students may receive these scholarships, depriving many low-income persons of this opportunity (Herbaut & Geven, 2020). This will create severe inequalities between the two groups because, unlike wealthy students, disadvantaged ones cannot pay for their education if they fail to get a subsidy.
The second disincentive created by this option is that many individuals, when choosing a major, will focus not on their interests or abilities but on whether a particular major is subsidized. This is unjust to make students with no financial resources select an educational program they do not like merely because it is the only available option (Mitchell et al., 2019). While it is essential to pay attention to these arguments, one may notice that they both will lose their strength if the whole program is more detailed and thought-through. In other words, if low-income students will be privileged when providing full scholarships, the first opposing reason will be of little importance (Salmi & D’Addio, 2021). As for the second argument against the identified decision, one may say that other majors will also include some scholarship options, so disadvantaged individuals will be able to select them.
Conclusion
To draw a conclusion, one may say that the identified proposition has both severe advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, fully subsidized majors will make it possible for low-income persons to have access to higher education. Further, inequalities between students will be eliminated, and the authorities will have more professionals in the needed spheres. On the other hand, it will be unjust to make poor individuals choose the subsidized major even if they are not interested in it.
References
Brint, S. (2019). Can we fix the college inequality problem? The American Prospect. Web.
Herbaut, E., & Geven, K. (2020). What works to reduce inequalities in higher education? A systematic review of the (quasi-) experimental literature on outreach and financial aid. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 65, 100442. Web.
Kasman, M. (2020). Data-driven approaches to subsidizing college enrollment costs. Brookings Institution. Web.
Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Saenz, M. (2019). State higher education funding cuts have pushed costs to students, worsened inequality. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 24, 9-15.
Salmi, J., & D’Addio, A. (2021). Policies for achieving inclusion in higher education. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 47-72.
Vedder, R. (2019). Should states subsidize universities?Forbes. Web.
Winograd, M., & Lubin, M. (2020). Tuition-free college is critical to our economy. EdSource. Web.