4 ms·

There's something seriously concerning about having the only path forward be science/engineering and trades. That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to onl

There's something seriously concerning about having the only path forward be science/engineering and trades. That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to only the rich and the delusional. If fields such as architecture, literature, photography, film, journalism are populated by people who grew up with wealth, their privilege be reflected in their work. Would a journalist who grew up in a gated community be the best choice to cover and discuss income inequality and gentrification? Would an architect who has only lived in million dollar houses necessarily understand how to design public housing? The liberal arts fundamentally shape how we view, live and act in the world. If this perspective is purely driven by the rich and the privileged, we risk losing an understanding of how the other half lives.

nixarian 7y ago
>That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to only the rich and the delusional. Not strictly true. If you notice, and you probably have, women are able to get useless degrees and marry a man with a useful one. The reverse is rarely true.
asark 7y ago
> That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to only the rich and the delusional. Fulfilling careers that pay even a semi-decent wage for folks in those majors already kinda are limited to the (relatively, at least) rich. See Graeber's speculation in Bullshit Jobs re: the elevation of the military in certain circles as a reaction to all the doing-good-in-the-world or expressing-oneself while also making-ends-meet jobs being monopolized by those with family connections and/or existing money.
malvosenior 7y ago
Of the fields you list, architecture stands out as different in that it seems hard to self study. The rest have already been totally subsumed by amateurs (photography) or are on their deathbeds (journalism). Youtubers are as well known if not more so than professional actors. Most journalists are already filtered down to the upper classes (the ones with jobs anyway). Being productive in liberal arts, and more broadly, creative endeavors is absolutely attainable without a university degree. The internet has made self study, guidance and distribution open to anyone. It's also decimated many of these fields from a professional perspective.
2ion 7y ago
> That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to only the rich and the delusional. As it always has been except since the 20th century. Lots of writers of the past known as such today had to have patrons, be well-situated in society and commerce, or just be rich as hell. The period where a writer could be a published writer and make a living just by means of achievement was incredibly short. There are many extremely successful people with 'useless degrees', like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Livingston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Livingston, but she had a metric ton of social capital which the middle class simply does not have. The middle class ever had only limited opportunities, and since the middle class is shrinking, that's indicative of the opportunities getting boarded up. > The liberal arts fundamentally shape how we view, live and act in the world Thinking many years hard about engineering topics does the same. Plus, engineers do not not philosophize.

nixarian 7y ago

>That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to only the rich and the delusional. Not strictly true. If you notice, and you probably have, women are able to get useless degrees and marry a man with a useful one. The reverse is rarely true.

asark 7y ago

> That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to only the rich and the delusional. Fulfilling careers that pay even a semi-decent wage for folks in those majors already kinda are limited to the (relatively, at least) rich. See Graeber's speculation in Bullshit Jobs re: the elevation of the military in certain circles as a reaction to all the doing-good-in-the-world or expressing-oneself while also making-ends-meet jobs being monopolized by those with family connections and/or existing money.

malvosenior 7y ago

Of the fields you list, architecture stands out as different in that it seems hard to self study. The rest have already been totally subsumed by amateurs (photography) or are on their deathbeds (journalism). Youtubers are as well known if not more so than professional actors. Most journalists are already filtered down to the upper classes (the ones with jobs anyway). Being productive in liberal arts, and more broadly, creative endeavors is absolutely attainable without a university degree. The internet has made self study, guidance and distribution open to anyone. It's also decimated many of these fields from a professional perspective.

2ion 7y ago

> That's essentially limiting the liberal arts to only the rich and the delusional. As it always has been except since the 20th century. Lots of writers of the past known as such today had to have patrons, be well-situated in society and commerce, or just be rich as hell. The period where a writer could be a published writer and make a living just by means of achievement was incredibly short. There are many extremely successful people with 'useless degrees', like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Livingston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Livingston, but she had a metric ton of social capital which the middle class simply does not have. The middle class ever had only limited opportunities, and since the middle class is shrinking, that's indicative of the opportunities getting boarded up. > The liberal arts fundamentally shape how we view, live and act in the world Thinking many years hard about engineering topics does the same. Plus, engineers do not not philosophize.