Education, particularly advanced education, is not only viewed as an important issue of each and every country, but is regarded as a consequential factor of an individual's life as well. A hot debate around whether the government should pay university fees for students, who study subjects that are in need by society, jumps into the public's eye.
Advantages of the policy is quite obvious. The policy will surely attract an enormous number of students to enter society-needed fields. Since costly fees are shouldered by government, many more students with a poor economical or social background could get an opportunity to enhance their abilities and possibilities to find a job. From another angle, the policy will soon fill the empty spots for special areas.
However, from my understanding, the advantages of the policy can barely outmatch the disadvantages. In fact, the harm it is to bring to the public is considerably large. The policy might ruin some students' interests for they would rather seek cheaper education and in turn, they give up what they are really fascinated by. Although it seems like the government will take responsibility for those university expenses, yet ultimately, the fees will fall on tax payers, which means that there will be an increase in tax payment for the public. It is clear that under this circumstance, an ordinary citizen will suffer more on average. Moreover, it is very dubious whether the policy will break th balance of the university education and the job market, along with confusions that what are "needed" and what are "irrelevant".
No bias should be placed in university education because the final goal of education is not to seek employment or feed oneself, but to spread knowledge and ameliorate the human race.