教育资金是否只应该投给科学型项目 Money for postgraduate research is limited. Some people， therefore， think that financial support from government should be only provided for scientific research rather than research for less useful subjects. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion？
Now， it is widely held that in terms of the confined scientific funding， the government should give priorities to research for ＂hard sciences＂ over ＂soft sciences＂. Personally， I think this assertion fails to grasp the values of these seemingly less fruitful subjects， and my reasons would be listed as below. Admittedly， there is a necessity for the government to keep the primary investment into scientific research， for whose breakthroughs can make practical contributions to our society. To begin with， with more financial aid from the government to be used in the medical research， human beings will profit much from it. Indeed， a new breed of medicine needs to be experimented many times prior to being introduced to and benefiting us. Without money， experiments are hard to be proceeded. In addition， it is obvious that funds used in technology may contribute to the improvement of our living standard. For instance， the inventions of air conditioners， fridges， and air planes have made our life more convenient than before， again by thousands of experiments which also cost much money. However， I strongly believe that so-called less-valuable subjects deserve the funding too， because they are the foundation of practical subjects. Obviously， there is no denying that mathematics， a typical theoretical course， is the basis of the science of computer， chemistry， physics， medication and engineering， because the former can provide basic calculating methods， ways of data record and analysis， formulas and testing tools which substantially support the studying of the latter subjects . In other words， with ignorance of mathematics， students would fail to find the doorway of scientific research. Besides， seemingly pointless and impractical courses in university have proved to provide life-long values to all students. Specifically， philosophy equips students with critical thinking， which instructs them to make wise decisions and judgments in daily life. Similarly， through history learning， a student can obtain precious lessons and social experience to avoid repeating the same mistakes happening in the past. Law courses also instill students with social morals and rules， which enables them to be law-abiding， with the ability of distinguishing the right from the wrong. That is to say， under this function of university， a new generation can grow up into maturity and independence fully， and make positive contributions to social civilization. Consequently， by being educated with theoretical courses， students can turn into eligible citizens. To sum up， I agree that the research on science deserves to be paid more attention and money. However， it does not mean that the other subjects should not be funded at all. I propose that limited budget allocated more wisely and efficiently is the best way to achieve the balance.