10 ms·

I have been reading through the comments and I am very curious about a few things - 1. What "bullshit" degrees people are talking about? Are they the liberal a

by vaidhy 6y ago

I have been reading through the comments and I am very curious about a few things - 1. What "bullshit" degrees people are talking about? Are they the liberal arts studies? If so, as a society do we not see value in the fine arts? Expertise in music, language, anthropology, history, etc do not necessarily lead to a well-paying job.. but they give intellectually satisfaction in and of itself. 2. IMHO, the pay you are likely to earn should never be a judge of value of a degree. A degree gives you an opportunity to learn something in depth. As long as you are able to reach that, the degree is valuable. The sad part of being in US (and other places) is that the depth is not valued. Trying college fees to ability to earn is an incorrect optimization. 3. If I were a poet, an author or a painter, do you think I should expect that I will be able to pursue my passion on a nominal pay (maybe as a teacher/tutor, basic income from government etc)? Most of the "golden age of civilizations" had this property. When everyone needs to fight for survival, that reflects poorly on the state of things and it is more of a dog eat dog world.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
"This knowledge is valuable in itself. It will make you a better, more well-rounded person, who has a richer life." That's a completely reasonable statement. "This degree is valuable economically. It will lead to you having a well-paying job that will lead to you being economically successful". For many degrees, that statement is false. The problem is that, when we talk about the value of a college education, much of the time we're talking about the second statement. But that statement is true only of some degrees, not of all of them. Is the first statement still true? Sure. But is it true enough to be worth going deeply into debt for, without an economic payback for the degree? That's much harder to claim. And many people think that they're getting the second benefit from a degree when they're getting a degree that only provides the first, and they feel like they didn't get what was promised.
- michaelchisari 6y ago
  A degree used to show someone was capable of learning more advanced topics. Companies hired broadly regardless of major and trained for the tasks needed. Degrees as having economic "worth" comes from the shift away from career training and apprenticeship and towards an expectation of readily available career skills (and unpaid internships, a related issue).
  - rtx 6y ago
    Isn't that the result of increasing complexity.
andreilys 6y ago
"1. What "bullshit" degrees people are talking about? Are they the liberal arts studies? If so, as a society do we not see value in the fine arts?" I don't see value in graduating with 6 figure debt for those degrees. In the words of Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting: “You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.”
- vaidhy 6y ago
  I do not believe in this over-simplification. However, the point about going to debt for those degrees is a question specific to US at this point in time. We should talk about free college education or heavily subsidized one, but this same group here has been heavily against these ideas because they are socialist. However, happiest countries in the world seems to be mostly social democratic[1] and for one, if possible, I will happily trade my US pay for a lower pay, less worried life. On a side note, I have a feeling that US prefers a "dog eat dog world" because everyone here thinks they will be the ones doing the eating and caring for the underdog is a sign of weakness/waste of resources. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/03/20/ranked-20-happiest-countries-2020/#103598c97850 https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/03/20/ran...
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    > We should talk about free college education or heavily subsidized one It already exists. It's called the internet. You can learn almost everything you need, and in much greater detail, than a traditional 'higher education' offered by a brick and mortar institution. The problem is only convincing the gate keepers.
    - 8bitsrule 6y ago
      There is no comparison. College is not a vocational school. Internet is not a library, more like acres of dusty piles of tattered and strewn books. More importantly, it's also a shitty source of: collegiality, constructive criticism, respect for scholarship, access to intelligently-vetted new experiences, and well-reasoned communication. What I remember most, and consider most valuable about my college years, is not the teaching/coursework. The net cannot begin to compare. Facebook is free.
rodneyg_ 6y ago
Tying college fees to ability to earn is important because most students are told from every authority in their lives that getting a college degree is the "guarantee". If students weren't told that, then sure, maybe there's other things to focus on and talk about, the problem is most people are being told and sold on the "guarantee".
alexchantavy 6y ago
> If so, as a society do we not see value in the fine arts? There's lots of value there - art for art's sake and all that - but these degrees (and many others) don't directly translate to employment. The problem is that many people are expecting college degrees to give them lucrative employment when this isn't what college was necessarily designed for in the first place.
contravariant 6y ago
When did liberal arts become fine arts? Not that the examples you give are wrong, but they're not fine arts.
- sukilot 6y ago
  When someone doesn't get a liberal arts education, I suppose.
luxuryballs 6y ago
even then the value is not in the degree but the value produced by the person, someone with the highest perceived value degree can still end up wasting it if they can't deliver, real world value is always found in actual output, a degree of any kind ultimately has no value
29athrowaway 6y ago
You do not need to go to a music conservatory to be a musician. And among the musicians with the highest net worth, few have formal training. Take for example, Metallica. To my knowledge, none of them have formal training, yet each member has a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars.
- vaidhy 6y ago
  Yes, but the vast majority of musicians do have formal coaching and training. A net worth is not an indication of musical talent and should not be used as one.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    True, but musical talent doesn't mean I should give you anything. If you ask something of me (money? time?) I may demand something in response (entertainment). Should we fail to make a deal, you are out the money/time and I am out the entertainment and we both seek out others who may be agreeable. This is fair. This is free. This is the market. And it is today.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    This article is about P(good life|college degree) Global popularity and net worth is not everything, but you could say that is "a good life", in the context of this discussion. If we restrict this only to artists, a degree doesn't guarantee a base level of popularity or base income.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    > Yes, but the vast majority of musicians do have formal coaching and training. I really doubt the majority of musicians trained at a conservatory or similar institution exist is what the person you’re responding to said. Having gotten some amount of lessons at some point is not the same as spending even three months at a conservatory. > A net worth is not an indication of musical talent and should not be used as one. But it is an indication of how much the public values your work, a very noisy one, to be sure, but by far the most democratic measure if that’s something you care about.
diebeforei485 6y ago
The arts (orchestra/symphony, opera/musicals, etc) are a luxury good. There is a small, niche market for these things, mostly centered around certain cities - so we can only have so many artists. The mass arts that the masses can afford to consume (TV, streaming music, and movies) are by definition based on popularity, so we can only have so many artists. I don't know why we fund so many people's arts degrees. We need less funding for arts degrees, and more funding for the arts instead. Someone being able to live a basic (but self-sufficient) life has nothing to do with funding arts degrees.
- jimbokun 6y ago
  UBI will probably do more to promote the creation of more and better art than subsidizing loans for high tuition degrees.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  >orchestra/symphony, opera/musicals You've chosen the arts which require massive organisation and expense. What about painters, singer-songwriters, writers, poets, etc.?
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    What about being a painter, singer, writer or poet requires a four year degree? In some cases (in particular, the visual arts) conventional wisdom seems to be that going to school for such a thing narrows artistic vision and creativity into a box. Actually organizing events requires an entirely different skill set- while having an appreciation for the arts absolutely can help pull off a successful event, it is by no means a requirement.
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      In visual arts, deep knowledge of what other artists have done, of history, of literature, of geometry, of techniques, of composition, colour theory, etc., etc., generally at least some of these things are crucially important for a visual artist, such as a painter, a print-maker, or a sculptor. Random local artists off the top of my head, Bill Hammond, Tony de Lautour, and Neil Dawson all draw very heavily from at least a few of these things.
linuxftw 6y ago
> Most of the "golden age of civilizations" had this property I don't know what civilizations you're talking about, but the vast, vast majority of humans in the past were busy working in the fields to avoid starvation. The classical fine artists were wealthy or had wealthy patrons.
- vaidhy 6y ago
  An era of relative peace, prosperity, and cultural production which will define an entire society is often called a golden age. It is rare enough that it needs a mention in history. Here are a few examples: https://sites.google.com/site/dobsonandphillipsinc/home/ancient-rome/golden-age-of-rome https://sites.google.com/site/dobsonandphillipsinc/home/anci... - During this era, the economy, arts, architecture and even commerce, flourished. Golden age of Gupta empire: [https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HIST101-7.2.1-GuptaDynasty-FINAL1.pdf https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-c...] Under his rule, the Gupta Empire reached its zenith, and this is considered the golden age of India. His reign, like his father’s, was marked by religious tolerance and great cultural achievements There are very similar notes about Persians, middle ages in Europe etc. But there is no reason why we are not living in one now.
  - namdnay 6y ago
    The parent’s point is that even in these “golden ages”, 99% of the population was slaving away on farms all day every day
- sukilot 6y ago
  Not true. They worked a bit to avoid starvation, and hung around resting a lot.
MrGilbert 6y ago
> A degree gives you an opportunity to learn something in depth. I'd like to add: "[...], and show people that you've done so." I can learn a lot of things in-depth in my leisure time, yet I'll never obtain a certificate which states that I've got in-depth knowledge on a certain topic.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
I think it's interesting how few read to the end. The author is a "professor of the practice of public leadership." At a business school. It's worth asking what a "professor of the practice of public leadership" is, because - with my combined liberal arts and STEM academic background - I honestly have no idea. Which piques my curiosity, because this piece reads like a parable. Second son not interested in college? Never mind. He can always work dawn to dusk - note that work ethic - among "hard-working honest folk." And then join the marines. Where happiness ensues. As career outcomes go, what could possibly be more wholesome and indeed American? Which is why should we teach the liberal arts in colleges and schools. Because if we taught the liberal arts - including media literacy and critical thinking - this piece would be seen for what it is: a transparently manipulative piece of propaganda written by someone who works for a right-wing think tank. Now - you can agree, or not agree, with the political positioning. But unless you are liberal arts-literate, you will not be agreeing freely. You will not know how a piece like this is crafted with stock techniques of manipulative rhetoric to persuade you of a point of view, and a course of action, and in fact a complete moral package, while appearing to be an entirely anodyne but reassuringly plain speaking personal story. Because - apparently - that is what "the practice of public leadership" really is.
- grawprog 6y ago
  That's pretty much what public leadership is have you ever seen a leader that doesn't do that? I've never had any liberal arts background, but we sure did learn to persuade people in my biology schooling. It's pretty much required to get anyone to care about saving animals and forests over making money. Public leaders do the same thing every day to get you to agree with laws or decisions they make. Corporate leaders do it to get people to buy their shit or work for their company. Leadership, is literally persuading people to follow you. Because in the end, you're going to be a lot more successful as a leader doing it that way than through orders and fear or something. As to the rest of your post about the article itself though, I don't disagree with you, having written many persuasive things designed to sway people using facts, and perfectly placed numbers, that's pretty much what this is.
  - rtx 6y ago
renewiltord 6y ago
The market already takes care of all of these things: 1. Society does see value in arts and rewards them commensurately. But democratic access to the arts means that those who are regarded good by the many are rewarded by many and those who are regarded good by the few are rewarded by few. Nothing seems wrong about this to me. Free people give Kanye more money than Killswitch Engage. And as for the liberal arts, if you're Karl Popper you'll live a productive life. If you're Joe Schmoe the Philosopher-Barista then maybe you're not going to reach his heady heights but that's because you're not as useful to me. 2. Each person has a concept of what you value. If you would go into lifelong debt to know about Kierkegaard, then so be it. Good for you! You have that option. 3. You shouldn't expect anything but the same fair shot anyone should be given at life. If we have surplus money and we wish to spend money on people who want to paint, then we will. If we don't, we won't. And we will be fickle. Adapt or die. Your business model is not my problem.
- LeanderK 6y ago
  in many societies not the market itself, but the government shoulders a big share of the costs for the arts. Societies came to the conclusion that they need to publicly fund the arts in order to give everyone access to culture and not turn it into a luxury commodity. It's astonishing how much many things like entrances for museums, theatres and art installation would cost if they would need to pay for themselves. Many would not, or hardly able to pay such a premium price, shutting them off from the culture that defines the societies themselves.
lhorie 6y ago
If we're talking about society as an utilitarian construct, one doesn't necessarily see value in another's intellectual satisfaction as much as one does see value from being able to acquire food, plumbing services, etc. A degree is a commitment of 5-10% of a person's life, and it's meant to support the person's ability to contribute to said society for much of their adult life. Is there value in having _someone_ have expertise in classical music? Sure. Is there value in everyone in the world pursuing expertise in arts at the expense of society's ability to produce food? Obviously no. The idea that everyone should have equal opportunities to pursue the arts doesn't work on a fundamental level because the distribution of what needs to be done vs what are "desirable" occupations do not match in reality - even when we account for automation. Put another way, everyone wants to be the rich instagrammer posting cocktail pics, not the person serving said drinks at minimum wage. So, is it really a surprise that even though more people have access to arts degrees nowadays, that they are unable to realistically sustain themselves on the back of these degrees?
tikhonj 6y ago
> do we not see value in the fine arts? We could simultaneously see value in fine arts but also not see value in a four-year full-time program with a heavy accreditation component in the fine arts—and certainly not as a gatekeeping requirement for jobs that have nothing to do with the specific subject being studied! If anything, if we wanted to promote these subjects to more people, we ought to make learning about those subjects more flexible, less stressful and less expensive. (It's not just about the direct costs, either—even a free full-time program comes with a massive opportunity cost that most people can't afford.) It seems like the only way to make that realistic would be to decouple signaling and career accreditation from the education itself. This is much easier said than done, of course, but I think just mentally separating the different aspects of a college program—education from signalling—is crucial for understanding what's going on and how it could change.
- analog31 6y ago
  What music jobs, other than teaching, require a degree? The world's major orchestras have blind auditions. Most performance work is based on word of mouth reputation.
econcon 6y ago
>If so, as a society do we not see value in the fine arts? Yes but most people are complaining that they have this degree and not making enough, so what's the solution? Make government/tax payers pay for these degrees who the salaries match that of guys in STEM? >. The sad part of being in US (and other places) is that the depth is not valued. Trying college fees to ability to earn is an incorrect optimization. Lots of people who studied with me didn't like STEM but they did it just because it will give them better salary and life. These people made scarifices, it's rediculous to assume that all people study STEM are studying because of some passion or enjoyment which they don't get from studying music or acting. >When everyone needs to fight for survival, that reflects poorly on the state of things and it is more of a dog eat dog world. There is no solution, we can't have our cake and eat it too. If you offer same salaries in both music and engineering, lot more people will go to music and other art subjects. Then who will survive market demand for STEM.
- nevertoolate 6y ago
  Art is not a typical 8 hour job (if there is any...) as artist typically produce things decoupled from everyday needs of a Consumer. Consumer is raised to drink/eat big corp goods, which are neither fine, nor arts
MaximumYComb 6y ago
The golden ages of civilizations had the majority of their populations fighting for survival. The elite were free to pursue what they wanted.

by vaidhy 6y ago

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

"This knowledge is valuable in itself. It will make you a better, more well-rounded person, who has a richer life." That's a completely reasonable statement. "This degree is valuable economically. It will lead to you having a well-paying job that will lead to you being economically successful". For many degrees, that statement is false. The problem is that, when we talk about the value of a college education, much of the time we're talking about the second statement. But that statement is true only of some degrees, not of all of them. Is the first statement still true? Sure. But is it true enough to be worth going deeply into debt for, without an economic payback for the degree? That's much harder to claim. And many people think that they're getting the second benefit from a degree when they're getting a degree that only provides the first, and they feel like they didn't get what was promised.

michaelchisari 6y ago
A degree used to show someone was capable of learning more advanced topics. Companies hired broadly regardless of major and trained for the tasks needed. Degrees as having economic "worth" comes from the shift away from career training and apprenticeship and towards an expectation of readily available career skills (and unpaid internships, a related issue).
- rtx 6y ago
  Isn't that the result of increasing complexity.

andreilys 6y ago

"1. What "bullshit" degrees people are talking about? Are they the liberal arts studies? If so, as a society do we not see value in the fine arts?" I don't see value in graduating with 6 figure debt for those degrees. In the words of Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting: “You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.”

vaidhy 6y ago
I do not believe in this over-simplification. However, the point about going to debt for those degrees is a question specific to US at this point in time. We should talk about free college education or heavily subsidized one, but this same group here has been heavily against these ideas because they are socialist. However, happiest countries in the world seems to be mostly social democratic[1] and for one, if possible, I will happily trade my US pay for a lower pay, less worried life. On a side note, I have a feeling that US prefers a "dog eat dog world" because everyone here thinks they will be the ones doing the eating and caring for the underdog is a sign of weakness/waste of resources. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/03/20/ranked-20-happiest-countries-2020/#103598c97850 https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/03/20/ran...
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > We should talk about free college education or heavily subsidized one It already exists. It's called the internet. You can learn almost everything you need, and in much greater detail, than a traditional 'higher education' offered by a brick and mortar institution. The problem is only convincing the gate keepers.
  - 8bitsrule 6y ago
    There is no comparison. College is not a vocational school. Internet is not a library, more like acres of dusty piles of tattered and strewn books. More importantly, it's also a shitty source of: collegiality, constructive criticism, respect for scholarship, access to intelligently-vetted new experiences, and well-reasoned communication. What I remember most, and consider most valuable about my college years, is not the teaching/coursework. The net cannot begin to compare. Facebook is free.

rodneyg_ 6y ago

Tying college fees to ability to earn is important because most students are told from every authority in their lives that getting a college degree is the "guarantee". If students weren't told that, then sure, maybe there's other things to focus on and talk about, the problem is most people are being told and sold on the "guarantee".

alexchantavy 6y ago

> If so, as a society do we not see value in the fine arts? There's lots of value there - art for art's sake and all that - but these degrees (and many others) don't directly translate to employment. The problem is that many people are expecting college degrees to give them lucrative employment when this isn't what college was necessarily designed for in the first place.

contravariant 6y ago

When did liberal arts become fine arts? Not that the examples you give are wrong, but they're not fine arts.

sukilot 6y ago
When someone doesn't get a liberal arts education, I suppose.

luxuryballs 6y ago

even then the value is not in the degree but the value produced by the person, someone with the highest perceived value degree can still end up wasting it if they can't deliver, real world value is always found in actual output, a degree of any kind ultimately has no value

29athrowaway 6y ago

You do not need to go to a music conservatory to be a musician. And among the musicians with the highest net worth, few have formal training. Take for example, Metallica. To my knowledge, none of them have formal training, yet each member has a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars.

vaidhy 6y ago
Yes, but the vast majority of musicians do have formal coaching and training. A net worth is not an indication of musical talent and should not be used as one.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  True, but musical talent doesn't mean I should give you anything. If you ask something of me (money? time?) I may demand something in response (entertainment). Should we fail to make a deal, you are out the money/time and I am out the entertainment and we both seek out others who may be agreeable. This is fair. This is free. This is the market. And it is today.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  This article is about P(good life|college degree) Global popularity and net worth is not everything, but you could say that is "a good life", in the context of this discussion. If we restrict this only to artists, a degree doesn't guarantee a base level of popularity or base income.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  > Yes, but the vast majority of musicians do have formal coaching and training. I really doubt the majority of musicians trained at a conservatory or similar institution exist is what the person you’re responding to said. Having gotten some amount of lessons at some point is not the same as spending even three months at a conservatory. > A net worth is not an indication of musical talent and should not be used as one. But it is an indication of how much the public values your work, a very noisy one, to be sure, but by far the most democratic measure if that’s something you care about.

diebeforei485 6y ago

The arts (orchestra/symphony, opera/musicals, etc) are a luxury good. There is a small, niche market for these things, mostly centered around certain cities - so we can only have so many artists. The mass arts that the masses can afford to consume (TV, streaming music, and movies) are by definition based on popularity, so we can only have so many artists. I don't know why we fund so many people's arts degrees. We need less funding for arts degrees, and more funding for the arts instead. Someone being able to live a basic (but self-sufficient) life has nothing to do with funding arts degrees.

jimbokun 6y ago
UBI will probably do more to promote the creation of more and better art than subsidizing loans for high tuition degrees.
garbagetime 6y ago
>orchestra/symphony, opera/musicals You've chosen the arts which require massive organisation and expense. What about painters, singer-songwriters, writers, poets, etc.?
- zdragnar 6y ago
  What about being a painter, singer, writer or poet requires a four year degree? In some cases (in particular, the visual arts) conventional wisdom seems to be that going to school for such a thing narrows artistic vision and creativity into a box. Actually organizing events requires an entirely different skill set- while having an appreciation for the arts absolutely can help pull off a successful event, it is by no means a requirement.
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    In visual arts, deep knowledge of what other artists have done, of history, of literature, of geometry, of techniques, of composition, colour theory, etc., etc., generally at least some of these things are crucially important for a visual artist, such as a painter, a print-maker, or a sculptor. Random local artists off the top of my head, Bill Hammond, Tony de Lautour, and Neil Dawson all draw very heavily from at least a few of these things.

linuxftw 6y ago

> Most of the "golden age of civilizations" had this property I don't know what civilizations you're talking about, but the vast, vast majority of humans in the past were busy working in the fields to avoid starvation. The classical fine artists were wealthy or had wealthy patrons.

vaidhy 6y ago
An era of relative peace, prosperity, and cultural production which will define an entire society is often called a golden age. It is rare enough that it needs a mention in history. Here are a few examples: https://sites.google.com/site/dobsonandphillipsinc/home/ancient-rome/golden-age-of-rome https://sites.google.com/site/dobsonandphillipsinc/home/anci... - During this era, the economy, arts, architecture and even commerce, flourished. Golden age of Gupta empire: [https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HIST101-7.2.1-GuptaDynasty-FINAL1.pdf https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-c...] Under his rule, the Gupta Empire reached its zenith, and this is considered the golden age of India. His reign, like his father’s, was marked by religious tolerance and great cultural achievements There are very similar notes about Persians, middle ages in Europe etc. But there is no reason why we are not living in one now.
- namdnay 6y ago
  The parent’s point is that even in these “golden ages”, 99% of the population was slaving away on farms all day every day
sukilot 6y ago
Not true. They worked a bit to avoid starvation, and hung around resting a lot.

MrGilbert 6y ago

> A degree gives you an opportunity to learn something in depth. I'd like to add: "[...], and show people that you've done so." I can learn a lot of things in-depth in my leisure time, yet I'll never obtain a certificate which states that I've got in-depth knowledge on a certain topic.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

I think it's interesting how few read to the end. The author is a "professor of the practice of public leadership." At a business school. It's worth asking what a "professor of the practice of public leadership" is, because - with my combined liberal arts and STEM academic background - I honestly have no idea. Which piques my curiosity, because this piece reads like a parable. Second son not interested in college? Never mind. He can always work dawn to dusk - note that work ethic - among "hard-working honest folk." And then join the marines. Where happiness ensues. As career outcomes go, what could possibly be more wholesome and indeed American? Which is why should we teach the liberal arts in colleges and schools. Because if we taught the liberal arts - including media literacy and critical thinking - this piece would be seen for what it is: a transparently manipulative piece of propaganda written by someone who works for a right-wing think tank. Now - you can agree, or not agree, with the political positioning. But unless you are liberal arts-literate, you will not be agreeing freely. You will not know how a piece like this is crafted with stock techniques of manipulative rhetoric to persuade you of a point of view, and a course of action, and in fact a complete moral package, while appearing to be an entirely anodyne but reassuringly plain speaking personal story. Because - apparently - that is what "the practice of public leadership" really is.

grawprog 6y ago
That's pretty much what public leadership is have you ever seen a leader that doesn't do that? I've never had any liberal arts background, but we sure did learn to persuade people in my biology schooling. It's pretty much required to get anyone to care about saving animals and forests over making money. Public leaders do the same thing every day to get you to agree with laws or decisions they make. Corporate leaders do it to get people to buy their shit or work for their company. Leadership, is literally persuading people to follow you. Because in the end, you're going to be a lot more successful as a leader doing it that way than through orders and fear or something. As to the rest of your post about the article itself though, I don't disagree with you, having written many persuasive things designed to sway people using facts, and perfectly placed numbers, that's pretty much what this is.
- rtx 6y ago

renewiltord 6y ago

The market already takes care of all of these things: 1. Society does see value in arts and rewards them commensurately. But democratic access to the arts means that those who are regarded good by the many are rewarded by many and those who are regarded good by the few are rewarded by few. Nothing seems wrong about this to me. Free people give Kanye more money than Killswitch Engage. And as for the liberal arts, if you're Karl Popper you'll live a productive life. If you're Joe Schmoe the Philosopher-Barista then maybe you're not going to reach his heady heights but that's because you're not as useful to me. 2. Each person has a concept of what you value. If you would go into lifelong debt to know about Kierkegaard, then so be it. Good for you! You have that option. 3. You shouldn't expect anything but the same fair shot anyone should be given at life. If we have surplus money and we wish to spend money on people who want to paint, then we will. If we don't, we won't. And we will be fickle. Adapt or die. Your business model is not my problem.

LeanderK 6y ago
in many societies not the market itself, but the government shoulders a big share of the costs for the arts. Societies came to the conclusion that they need to publicly fund the arts in order to give everyone access to culture and not turn it into a luxury commodity. It's astonishing how much many things like entrances for museums, theatres and art installation would cost if they would need to pay for themselves. Many would not, or hardly able to pay such a premium price, shutting them off from the culture that defines the societies themselves.

lhorie 6y ago

If we're talking about society as an utilitarian construct, one doesn't necessarily see value in another's intellectual satisfaction as much as one does see value from being able to acquire food, plumbing services, etc. A degree is a commitment of 5-10% of a person's life, and it's meant to support the person's ability to contribute to said society for much of their adult life. Is there value in having _someone_ have expertise in classical music? Sure. Is there value in everyone in the world pursuing expertise in arts at the expense of society's ability to produce food? Obviously no. The idea that everyone should have equal opportunities to pursue the arts doesn't work on a fundamental level because the distribution of what needs to be done vs what are "desirable" occupations do not match in reality - even when we account for automation. Put another way, everyone wants to be the rich instagrammer posting cocktail pics, not the person serving said drinks at minimum wage. So, is it really a surprise that even though more people have access to arts degrees nowadays, that they are unable to realistically sustain themselves on the back of these degrees?

tikhonj 6y ago

> do we not see value in the fine arts? We could simultaneously see value in fine arts but also not see value in a four-year full-time program with a heavy accreditation component in the fine arts—and certainly not as a gatekeeping requirement for jobs that have nothing to do with the specific subject being studied! If anything, if we wanted to promote these subjects to more people, we ought to make learning about those subjects more flexible, less stressful and less expensive. (It's not just about the direct costs, either—even a free full-time program comes with a massive opportunity cost that most people can't afford.) It seems like the only way to make that realistic would be to decouple signaling and career accreditation from the education itself. This is much easier said than done, of course, but I think just mentally separating the different aspects of a college program—education from signalling—is crucial for understanding what's going on and how it could change.

analog31 6y ago
What music jobs, other than teaching, require a degree? The world's major orchestras have blind auditions. Most performance work is based on word of mouth reputation.

econcon 6y ago

>If so, as a society do we not see value in the fine arts? Yes but most people are complaining that they have this degree and not making enough, so what's the solution? Make government/tax payers pay for these degrees who the salaries match that of guys in STEM? >. The sad part of being in US (and other places) is that the depth is not valued. Trying college fees to ability to earn is an incorrect optimization. Lots of people who studied with me didn't like STEM but they did it just because it will give them better salary and life. These people made scarifices, it's rediculous to assume that all people study STEM are studying because of some passion or enjoyment which they don't get from studying music or acting. >When everyone needs to fight for survival, that reflects poorly on the state of things and it is more of a dog eat dog world. There is no solution, we can't have our cake and eat it too. If you offer same salaries in both music and engineering, lot more people will go to music and other art subjects. Then who will survive market demand for STEM.

nevertoolate 6y ago
Art is not a typical 8 hour job (if there is any...) as artist typically produce things decoupled from everyday needs of a Consumer. Consumer is raised to drink/eat big corp goods, which are neither fine, nor arts

MaximumYComb 6y ago

The golden ages of civilizations had the majority of their populations fighting for survival. The elite were free to pursue what they wanted.