> 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 acc

> 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.