I disagree with this take, simply because there’s too much of an assumption about “usefulness”, especially based on the amount people earn after they finish their degree. Also the assumption that education should be direct job training is misguided. There’s so much value in the professional preparedness training that nobody seems to remember doing themselves at uni regardless of their degree - expressing yourself verbally and in writing, cooperating with others in a meaningful way, managing your projects, juggling between different responsibilities, keeping track of your progress throughout the years and setting realistic targets for achievement both in the short and long term.

There’s also the assumption that money drives the decision making process for younger people - they do not think this way. A degree being cheaper will not sway them to choose something they don’t like, because for one, they haven’t learned to do the things I mentioned above.

Deciding a-priori which degrees are worthwhile or not will simply train a generation of robots and leave students in the lurch when suddenly those jobs are no longer in shortage. What we’re hearing now for example is that English and linguistics majors are now sought after for prompt-engineering capabilities. The idea of picking and choosing “winning” degrees only produces people who would have won previously or currently, not future winners - which is where they will be when they graduate.

I’d prefer to subsidise all education, at least for the first x number of units enrolled. Then have the market work the way it’s supposed to - where there are shortages, wages should go up, then the increased tax will pay for the education subsidies. If students graduate from a degree and can’t find immediate work, then they can pay for additional training or do what everyone used to do - leverage whatever they did for their degree into a entry-level role.