The question of what subject students take at university would not be such an issue if the country was awash with funds and could afford to indulge young people in their whims.
However, the country is not awash with funds and a more pragmatic approach needs to be adopted. Business leaders are constantly saying that the people from whom they have to choose their employees are often not educated to a sufficient level to enable them to do the work required. This is despite many of them having been in full time education for around sixteen years, the last three or four being spent at University allegedly being elevated to degree level.
It is simply not good enough to put vast numbers of young people through higher education without clearly identified benefits. Jake is quite right, many degrees are not vocational, and in this respect “Classics” and “Philosophy” (predominately studied by privately educated people going on to Oxbridge) are just the same as “Media Studies” read by State educated pupils going on to what are really polytechnic colleges.
At the age of eighteen young people should have some idea of the career they wish to follow and those needing further education should choose an appropriate vocational course. The country cannot afford to educate people in subjects which simply demonstrate they “have the ability to learn” (which is a phrase often trotted out by the supporters of such schemes). Many of them, after three or four years of extra education, find they are no better off than those leaving education at 17 or 18, and the country simply cannot afford to fund such studies.
Of course, they could always pay the full going rate themselves.