One of the bitterest and most time-worm debates in student union bars up and down the country is res
olved as academic research confirms that in financial terms at least, arts degrees are a complete wa
ste of time.Getting through university boosts student earnings by 25%, on a weighted average, or $2
20,000 over theirlifetime, according to Professor Ian Walker of Warwick University-but if they study
Shakespeare or the peasant revolt instead of anatomy of contract law, those gains are likely to be
completely wiped out.
　　The government is about to allow universities to charge students up to $3,000 a year for their deg
rees, arguing that it a small price to pay compared with the financial rewards graduates reap late
r in life. But Prof. Walker research shows there are sharp variations in returns according to whic
h subject a student takes.
　　Law, medicine and economics or business are the most lucrative choices, making their average earni
ngs 25% higher, according to the article, published in the office for national statistic monthly jo
urnal. Scientists get 10-15% extra. At the bottom of the list are arts subjects, which make only a “
small ”differenceto earnings- a small negative one, in fact. Just ahead are degrees in education-whi
ch leave hard pressed teachers anaverage of 5% better off a year than if they had left school at 18.
　　“it hard to resist the conclusion that what students learn does matter a lot; and some subject a
reas givemore modest financial returns than others,” Prof. Walker said. As an economist, he was quic
k to point outthat students might gain non-financial returns from arts degrees:”Studying economics m
ight be very dull, forexample, and studying post-modernism might be a lot of fun.”