[tejaswiy]

I think the argument is to not prevent people from getting art history degrees - just to make all art history courses in the US artificially limit the number of students they take in to match the actual demand.

So if someone's super passionate about art history and is also able to meet the (presumably) more stringent entry criteria, they will still be able to get that degree.

[VikingCoder]

Or maybe let people pay for Art History degrees if they want to.

And the free program should be based on Merit, and career demand.

[prometheuspk]

Thats what they do for high demand degrees like Engg and Medicine in Pakistan. In Govt. colleges education is virtually free if you are admitted on merit, else you can go for self finance

[selimthegrim]

And then what do you when most of the female medical students drop out and get married because the degree was just a tool in rishta negotiations? Why should working poor subsidize a status game?

[s73v3r_]

"And the free program should be based on Merit, and career demand."

Who chooses what defines "Merit"?

[VikingCoder]

The accredited colleges.

If you get accepted to their program, it's free for you.

Accreditation means auditing to standards and performance.

[justin66]

Scholarships. That's the concept you're grasping for.

[VikingCoder]

Sure, Federal Scholarships. Lots of them.

[dagw]

just to make all art history courses in the US artificially limit the number of students they take in to match the actual demand.

Why? Surely part of the 'charm' of University is to get chance to study thing you know nothing about just to see if that happens to be your thing, plus studying things just because you enjoy it.

Sure we probably shouldn't encourage too many people to get art history degrees, but why not let people take some art history courses just because they find the topic fascinating?