4 ms·

It is depraved and cynical to suggest that the purpose of a college should be job-training. This is a wholly american idea, and a shitty one at that. The purpo

It is depraved and cynical to suggest that the purpose of a college should be job-training. This is a wholly american idea, and a shitty one at that. The purpose of college is to make one educated. If one wants to study art history, then one should study art history. One can easily build up skills on the side to complement one's education (I did programming on the side with my philosophy major and have a great job). Ideally (and as it happens in civilized countries) the state should be paying for an education, and students should study just whatever they damn please. College shouldn't cost 6 figures in the first place.

jazzyb 11y ago
> It is depraved and cynical to suggest that the purpose of a college should be job-training. This is a wholly american idea, and a shitty one at that. Not wholly American. I have a coworker in Brussels who was surprised to find out that most of the programmers in the states only have BS degrees. In Belgium, he tells me, it's hard to find a programming job with less than six years of university on your résumé. > If one wants to study art history, then one should study art history. I agree, but the problem is the mixed messages. The messages being told to prospective students (and they were told to me) are (1) "Study whatever you are passionate about; the purpose of an education is to make you a well-rounded human being" and (2) "After 4 or 5 years of this, you'll be able to get whatever job you like". It's perfectly acceptable to tell someone #1 but with the caveat that there aren't a lot of jobs in art history. It's also reasonable to tell someone #2 with the understanding that they need to study, e.g., STEM. > College shouldn't cost 6 figures in the first place. Wholly agree.
todd8 11y ago
I see things a bit differently, I feel that we don't have a god given right to study whatever the hell we want and require other people to pay for it. I understand that some people have no interest in being productive members of society, and I don't own them; they own themselves and can make their own decisions and choices about their lives. I'm happy that there is art in the world, and I support artists by buying art, and I think it is a shame that art isn't valued by society enough to provide a really outstanding living for all but a select handful of artists. However, that's the world we live in. I like to read science fiction novels occasionally. Should I expect others to pay me to do that? Of course not, I consider that my own choice and I limit how much I do of that to what I can afford to pay for out of my own resources. Artists and art historians don't have a right to make me work to support them simply because the choices they make don't result in the life or education that they want. If they believe they can write a book or produce a piece of music that I will purchase more power to them. However, people (and universities) shouldn't go around saying "follow your bliss" or "study whatever looks like fun" and mislead them about where that course of action will end up. A mathematician says "How do I prove that?", a scientist says "How do I investigate that?", a businessman says "How do I produce that?" and an art history major says "Do you want fries with that?".

jazzyb 11y ago

> It is depraved and cynical to suggest that the purpose of a college should be job-training. This is a wholly american idea, and a shitty one at that. Not wholly American. I have a coworker in Brussels who was surprised to find out that most of the programmers in the states only have BS degrees. In Belgium, he tells me, it's hard to find a programming job with less than six years of university on your résumé. > If one wants to study art history, then one should study art history. I agree, but the problem is the mixed messages. The messages being told to prospective students (and they were told to me) are (1) "Study whatever you are passionate about; the purpose of an education is to make you a well-rounded human being" and (2) "After 4 or 5 years of this, you'll be able to get whatever job you like". It's perfectly acceptable to tell someone #1 but with the caveat that there aren't a lot of jobs in art history. It's also reasonable to tell someone #2 with the understanding that they need to study, e.g., STEM. > College shouldn't cost 6 figures in the first place. Wholly agree.

todd8 11y ago

I see things a bit differently, I feel that we don't have a god given right to study whatever the hell we want and require other people to pay for it. I understand that some people have no interest in being productive members of society, and I don't own them; they own themselves and can make their own decisions and choices about their lives. I'm happy that there is art in the world, and I support artists by buying art, and I think it is a shame that art isn't valued by society enough to provide a really outstanding living for all but a select handful of artists. However, that's the world we live in. I like to read science fiction novels occasionally. Should I expect others to pay me to do that? Of course not, I consider that my own choice and I limit how much I do of that to what I can afford to pay for out of my own resources. Artists and art historians don't have a right to make me work to support them simply because the choices they make don't result in the life or education that they want. If they believe they can write a book or produce a piece of music that I will purchase more power to them. However, people (and universities) shouldn't go around saying "follow your bliss" or "study whatever looks like fun" and mislead them about where that course of action will end up. A mathematician says "How do I prove that?", a scientist says "How do I investigate that?", a businessman says "How do I produce that?" and an art history major says "Do you want fries with that?".