It seems like a fantastic way to continue the income hardships your parents endured, even if college (and dorm) is free.

I am against an heavy discrimination of pricing/subsidizing based on major/area, but not because of the argument 'poor people wouldn't study art', that's a weak argument.

I know a few that are studying art or music and are definitly not wealthy. A former roommate studies music and her parents are old-school lower working-class. They know they're not going to make much money. They are doing it anyway. It's their life. Also, nobody knows whether they're a genius or not, it's harder to quantify than mathmatical abilities, at least in some areas. A lot of the art-students I know are fully aware of their prospects. I am currently taking some philosophy-seminars and the philosophy-majors are also not ignorant of the situation they're in.

An art-student I know recently married and it's going to be hard to raise kids because she's the only one that is going to make some money, at least consistenly. And she's a teacher, so it's also not much. We talked about it, it's not that he doesn't know.

Most of my friends are not doing something technical, or business-realted (art, music, literature) and I always feel lucky (or undeserving?) because I just don't have those existential problems while still doing something that I chose because I really wanted to. I have always chosen stuff because I had the inner drive to do it.

> but not because of the argument 'poor people wouldn't study art', that's a weak argument.

I think that's still a perfectly valid arguments, especially with art.

To finish my argument, I don't know how most of the would finance themselfs if they would have to heavily borrow money to study their subject. And I think society benefits heavily from them. They tour around giving concerts, organizing art-installations etc.