Many educational institutions give greater importance to subjects related to science and ignore subjects such as drama and literature. Why is this? Is this a positive or negative development?

Universities have started to invest a greater amount of resources in scientific fields than in courses that revolve around theatre or literature. Because of rapid technical inventions, funding subjects that advocate such growth offers better returns to the schools as well as students. Moreover, the use of technology has transformed mankind resulting in talented individuals that can multitask, proving that it is beneficial to support science. Schools that enhances engineering, mathematics, or physics courses are highly sought by students. These institutions guarantee not only a job after graduation but also valuable connections through the alumni network. Moreover, a plethora of companies collaborates with such colleges that generate a considerable revenue source for them. For instance, a laser manufacturing company has tied up with a University in Germany for developing powerful equipment, thereby keeping the University highly competitive and fully funded. Although degrees in arts and drama provide some opportunities, they are limited. As a result, academic institutions argue that many individuals usually multitask and develop their skills as a passive hobby nowadays. My colleague, to illustrate, works as an engineer and also pursues a career in voice acting just as a hobby. Meanwhile, the number of students who apply to art courses has sharply decreased in the last decade. For example, a University in the USA had to fire professors due to no show for the subjects they teach. In conclusion, investing more in science provides a great opportunity for educational organizations than in art and literature. Consequently, the universities, the companies, and the students have a higher prospect of income and security.