Alex Tabarrok argues against subsidizing certain college degrees:
The potential wage gains for college graduates go to the graduates — that’s reason enough for students to pursue a college education. We add subsidies to the mix, however, because we believe that education has positive spillover benefits that flow to society. One of the biggest of these benefits is the increase in innovation that highly educated workers theoretically bring to the economy.
As a result, an argument can be made for subsidizing students in fields with potentially large spillovers, such as microbiology, chemical engineering, nuclear physics and computer science. There is little justification for subsidizing sociology, dance and English majors.
Wilkinson defends economically inferior majors:
I don't think Mr Tabarrok accurately identifies why "we add subsidies to the mix". He's right that many of us hold that education is a boon to society. But this conviction is rooted less in growth theory than in a Jeffersonian faith in the importance of a well-informed, well-rounded citizenry.
The Dish 
