Not everyone is smart enough to get into degrees studying philosophy, literature, and history. Some people instead get jobs as cashiers or plumbers.
Does it seem fair to you that they should subsidise the education of people smarter than them? For those people to learn subjects that don't contribute as much to the economy (ie. are able to contribute less toward paying for future students to study)?
It's easy to say education is an end in itself when you're the beneficiary of it and some poor schmuck is paying the bill.
Why shouldn't they? You say it as if educating a portion of the population has no wider benefit to the rest of society beyond the individual benefit to the students who are educated. Is it not a good idea to have trained doctors when you fall ill? Do you plan on sending your kids to school? Maybe you should support educating some teachers. Do you want to live and work in buildings that won't fall down? Hmm, maybe it would be a good idea to have a few engineers around. Of course there is some benefit to the educated individuals too and hence perhaps they should contribute to their training. But to claim society has no strategic incentive to subsidise the costs is just nonsense. If nothing else, they are likely to contribute more on average in terms of taxation in future .
They shouldn't support it because the point of the government is to act on behalf of the society as a whole. Many problems need money: healthcare, transportation, energy, disaster prevention etc. Without the market's price mechanism, in this context represented by the job prospects after graduation, it's very difficult to know how much should be spent paying philosophy and gender studies teachers. We'd be preventing an efficient allocation of resources potentially killing people in the process.
Additionally, while many people have a genuine interest in these topics (and should buy themselves books, or pay their own philosophy college course), many young adults will be happy signing up for this "education" to avoid making hard decisions for their lives (such as getting a plumbing degree). In this case, the government is financing a sort of young adult daycare and party service.
Does it seem fair to you that they should subsidise the education of people smarter than them? For those people to learn subjects that don't contribute as much to the economy (ie. are able to contribute less toward paying for future students to study)?
It's easy to say education is an end in itself when you're the beneficiary of it and some poor schmuck is paying the bill.