Governments should only use their spending on public services and not waste money on the arts (E.g music and painting)?

Governments should only use their spending on public services and not waste money on the arts (E.g music and painting). To what extent do you agree or disagree?
---

 How to allocate fairly government’s budget for a variety of social demands from health care, infrastructure to other mental ones such as arts remains controversial. Some people insist on that that money sho...uld be earmarked more for public services and less for arts while others believe each area should receive an inequitable amount of spending for its unique value contributed to social development. I partly agree with the latter view for the following reasons.

Admittedly, public services are of immediate benefit for the entire society. The issues of health care, education, and infrastructure are always top concerns of any government that wants to recruit high-skilled labor, strong workforce and modern facilities. To countries, say, Vietnam, Cambodia still struggling with abject misery after wars, a big amount of spending for music and painting proves infeasible.

However, the need for arts is rising these days for their long-term worth, especially during the time the country is beyond the peak of economic development and gears itself towards sustainable growth. With music, painting and other kinds of arts gaining their popularity, people’s spiritual life is continuously enriched. Such cities, say, Florence, Paris and Madrid are always unforgettable destinations of millions of visitors for their spectacular artistic creations and lure them into a different world where people are away from worries and let their creativity take off. These cities are also homes to various well-known art geniuses from Picasso, Leona De-Vinci to Gaudy who led art revolutions, partly by dint of their governments’ greater appreciation of this field and bigger expenditure on it. America and Britain are, too, other examples of nations where music industry overwhelms other key ones for their greatest generation of profit, which again derives their governments’ frequent organization of musical shows and festivals to attract audience world-wide.

In a word, governments should pay more attention to key sectors when their nations are in the embryonic stage of growth, but once they escape the life of poverty, arts should have bigger says for their mental, educational and economic merits.

Government should allow students to pay fee after graduation or students are responsible for it or totally free education?

Government should allow students to pay fee after graduation or students are responsible for it or totally free education? Which one is the best?
---

 Higher education, especially tertiary one, is the aim of most people, but not all obtain easily. Therefore, some believe with government’s free education or allowance for students to pay fee after graduation, mor...e people can make this dream come true while others claim that by paying himself, knowledge will be definitely taken seriously. Each view has its pros and cons, actually.

The first benefit of the policy of emancipating students from financial payment during their learning time is to achieve the ultimate goal of the society i.e. a high-skilled labor. It is undeniable that several countries, say, Germany and Northeastern nations, often free their university education, which partly explains why they have the highest self-awareness and the most knowledgeable citizens. On other hand, others argue that private education in which students are heavily charged offers the best condition for students in learning with the top-notch professors and cutting edge innovations, as reflected in the case of Havard, Yale and Cambridge non state-owned schools. Equally important, let’s take Vietnam as a stark example of an education which frees students from learning in education, and not until they graduate do they move to other fields in search of high-paid salaries, which, again, bespeaks itself the unwise investment by government.

Second, it is contended that free education creates a level-playing field for everyone. It is well known that because of abject poverty, the disadvantaged and impoverished can hardly gain access to advanced education and end up with their big dreams unfinished while other eager adult learners, due to being burdened with numerous responsibilities from taking care of their parents to their own families, are reluctant to short-cut their formal training and become normal blue-workers with lower salaries. Also, no sooner are outstanding students less worried with high fee of tertiary education than their desire for knowledge materializes. However, it is equally necessary to take into consideration other cases. With families whose income is relatively high, as a result of being exempt from education, would it be fair? Another point is that so easily accessible is higher education that people may take it for granted, and hence, drop out for no reason while others who see education as expensive and competitive try their best to do part-time jobs to cover their expense, find it worthy for their effort and nurture other crucial living skills, such as, team-work, pressure dealing, right at the moment of being a students.

The third view, different from two above, is that students should still pay, but only after their graduation. Pros of this are well seen when economic burden is still liberated from poor and distinguished students who, after graduation, are likely to obtain prestigious jobs with high salaries, feel indebted to government and even decide to make big donations in the projects of upgrading infrastructure or setting up scholarship schemes for those in the same boat as them. Obama is a telling example of a person who borrowed money from government to follow advanced education in Havard law school and now becomes a prominent politician. However, when it comes to the issue of management, the question remains as to how government could effectively control the flow of students in and out after graduation, keep exhaustive records of their performance to make sure fee will be paid back in time. Another reason is that to indentify clearly the right target receives to deserve this policy is a head-aching matter, as a result of the fact that some mercenary ones whose income is rather abundant still want to take advantage for their personal gain.

In brief, each method has its own pains and gains, and the most superior solution, I believe, is that fee payment should be mandatory, and for the less lucky ones, scholarships or other kinds of financial aid are available for them to realize their goal through their endeavor