Academic Discussion (Art vs Science Funding)
Time Limit: 10 minutes
Instructions: Your professor is teaching a class on public administration. Write a post responding to the professor's question. Express and support your opinion, and make a contribution to the discussion in your own words. An effective response will contain at least 100 words.
The government has a limited budget for funding cultural and scientific projects. Some argue that funding the arts (museums, music programs, public art) is essential for a vibrant society. Others believe that almost all funding should go to scientific research (medicine, engineering, technology) because it has tangible benefits.
What do you think? If you had to choose, should the government prioritize funding for the arts or for science? Why?
I think science should definitely be the priority. Scientific advancements save lives, cure diseases, and solve global problems like climate change. While art is nice to have, it doesn't solve practical problems. In a world with limited resources, we must invest in what ensures our survival and comfort.
I respectfully disagree. The arts are what make life worth living. They foster creativity, empathy, and mental well-being. A society without culture is just a machine. Plus, the arts also drive the economy through tourism and entertainment. We shouldn't view art as useless.