Why are creative degrees less respected?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by AreebWithaHat
how is a poem going to help people and civilisation? you don't need a degree to write a poem.
Progress isn't just technological.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_of_the_Shirt This poem had a measureable impact on Victorian Britain, as did all the prose works of Dickens
Original post by Pessimisterious
If you're not going to put a science degree to use, isn't it exactly the same? Like studying chemistry and then becoming an accountant. There's little overlap.
Original post by TCA2b
Well I don't think a degree is required in either case. It may be 'required' in the sense that the employer imposes the requirement, or that this is currently the most efficient way for getting into the subject, and some people may learn better this way, but it is highly questionable whether you need to go to university to learn something.
If you think about it, what the university is really doing is grading your knowledge. A lot of the learning process involves your own reading and workshops with other students and a tutor, and not so much the lectures, which you can just download online and don't even require university attendance for. All of this can be done outside a university. What the university confers is prestige and, for some subjects, it may efficiently combine all this. I think the educational landscape is changing, however.
I suppose I see what you are trying to say, however good authors, artists etc. use techniques to unleash their creativity and study the works of other artists. This isn't teaching creativity but it may help. Though I absolutely agree there is no need for a university education, for this. People have the luxury of doing it because many employers simply don't care what you studied. They just treat the degree as a social signalling mechanism, which shows you are intelligent and capable of being taught. I.e. what the high school diploma used to do.
I think similarly of business degrees to art degrees, BTW. I don't think entrepreneurship can be easily taught; how many MBAs are millionaire/billionaire entrepreneurs? They are more likely to be highly paid managers of someone else's business. There's also research by an investment advisory site that I follow showing that fund management analysts having a PHD makes precious little difference to the fund's ability to out-perform the market.
If you think about it, what the university is really doing is grading your knowledge. A lot of the learning process involves your own reading and workshops with other students and a tutor, and not so much the lectures, which you can just download online and don't even require university attendance for. All of this can be done outside a university. What the university confers is prestige and, for some subjects, it may efficiently combine all this. I think the educational landscape is changing, however.
I suppose I see what you are trying to say, however good authors, artists etc. use techniques to unleash their creativity and study the works of other artists. This isn't teaching creativity but it may help. Though I absolutely agree there is no need for a university education, for this. People have the luxury of doing it because many employers simply don't care what you studied. They just treat the degree as a social signalling mechanism, which shows you are intelligent and capable of being taught. I.e. what the high school diploma used to do.
I think similarly of business degrees to art degrees, BTW. I don't think entrepreneurship can be easily taught; how many MBAs are millionaire/billionaire entrepreneurs? They are more likely to be highly paid managers of someone else's business. There's also research by an investment advisory site that I follow showing that fund management analysts having a PHD makes precious little difference to the fund's ability to out-perform the market.
Interesting - we have found some agreement!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
I agree with the rest of your post, but not this. She said you don't have to have natural talent/ability to study or excel in science/maths-based subjects. This is not true in every single case, much less the majority.
Ok, I think I see what you mean now. She does seem to be underestimating how complex mathematics can be at higher levels.
Original post by techno-thriller
What have they contributed then?
If you're asking me what art, music and literature have contributed to society and the development of humanity then I think you're insane, or a blind idiot.
Original post by TCA2b
If you're not going to put a science degree to use, isn't it exactly the same? Like studying chemistry and then becoming an accountant. There's little overlap.
Agree. And people who do that are very foolish, in my opinion!
Posted from TSR Mobile
The purpose of formal education is the accumulation of knowledge and ideas in line with a pre-existing system.
Clearly formal education suits the sciences, which operate by continually adding to and revising a system of knowledge.
Does a formal education suit the arts to the same extent?
Clearly formal education suits the sciences, which operate by continually adding to and revising a system of knowledge.
Does a formal education suit the arts to the same extent?
Original post by techno-thriller
One can argue, if we knew no arts, the world would not have been boring. Rather we would have been used to it.
Everything around you is based on maths and physics
Let's begin.
Everything around you is based on maths and physics
Let's begin.
The sun, the moon, the stars, the sky, trees, oceans? I don't think so. They are merely explained by science. What a ridiculous comment.
Science didn't invent the universe. The universe invented science.
Let me first define STEM subjects.
Why how kind of you, I had absolutely no idea what they were until you defined them in such a non-patronising way.
Its really unfair to be blaming stem subjects for overpopulation. At least they are working on ways of feeding the population, what exactly are musicians doing?
I don't see that it is unfair. Unless of course you are saying that are hunting and gathering ancestors would have started creating litters upon litters of children because...can't think of a reason why they would do such a thing, perhaps you can fill me in.
We cannot erase the unwanted traits.
Yes we can, it is called artificial selection.
As long as people continue to reproduce, they will be there. That's natural.
No, in a truly natural environment, detrimental traits would mean that person wouldn't live very long. Thus they do not pass these genes on. Over time they are phased out. That is a basic observation of natural selection.
We however are currently keeping such traits in the gene pool, thus it is not natural selection.
Stem subjects a have done more for this world than any musician or artist ever will.
Of course. I never disputed that so not sure why you feel the need to clarify that.
Just so you know, I'm not against studying it, but it should be a limited to a hobby and not taken up to HE.
So you aren't against studying arts, but you are against studying arts...ok...I...see....................................................
It's silly to try and turn this sort of thing into a whole "what have arts/sciences done for society?" discussion. They are both incredibly valuable, and often one is expressed through the other. Many great scientists are also artists and vice versa. The topic surrounds the degrees in these domains, and that's a different question entirely to whether art or science are valuable. They both are! People benefit from both.
It's like I said earlier, people tend to view degrees as investments but more often than not they are consumption goods, and this applies irrespective of the subject matter.
It's like I said earlier, people tend to view degrees as investments but more often than not they are consumption goods, and this applies irrespective of the subject matter.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Et Tu, Brute?
The 'general public' couldn't give a toss.
Well, where's your proof for this? They may not give as much of a toss as some members on here who stick up their noses at anyone who does an arts degree, but there is a disparity in perceived difficulty between degrees.
You also can't say that to be true either. Where is your evidence for such a statement?
Well, where's your evidence for such a statement that "many" members on TSR hold this belief? A couple of threads made by elitist users on here/ trolls? What does many even mean in this case?
Also, you are veering off track here. Since when does rigour equal respect?
The more difficult the degree, the smarter people think you are hence more respect. Again, I'm not taking any sides here, I'm simply offering possible answers to the question in the OP.
Original post by Pessimisterious
I don't know. People are pushed into doing degrees nowadays, mostly because of the perception that without one, you won't get work (which isn't true, and this is why I said I think it's more a matter of degrees vs trades/apprenticeships than arts vs science degrees.) When many an employer communicate that your degree's subject matter isn't important, would you not study a subject you find interesting to you? I'm not saying I agree with this line of thought, but I wouldn't say it has much to do with foolishness.
In my view, as long as it's you or your parents who is paying and not everyone else, what you study or why you do is unimportant. The whole topic only becomes relevant when, as in the current system, degrees are subsidised by cheap finance and/or taxes (because this cheap finance is ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayers.) Universities have become debased by virtue of being turned into glorified training centres, which many employers are beginning to recognise do not even confer the basic skills necessary for their employees. In the end, all that happens when you socially engineer things so that a majority of people have a degree is that the bar is raised. Thus now it is Masters and PHDs which are seen as desirable. This is a huge money sink and for what? Social signalling.
You can be an educated, well rounded person without going to university.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Occams Chainsaw
You try composing something or writing a poem. Failing that, get a physicist to do it.
Why are you making the assumption that subjects like Physics aren't creative? Or at least, that's what you seem to be implying.
Original post by Dr Pesto
If you're asking me what art, music and literature have contributed to society and the development of humanity then I think you're insane, or a blind idiot.
Yoiu haven't answered.
Original post by Book_Lover_23
How is it a waste of money? The majority of musicians and artists earn FAR more than physicists or such like. They're earning millions and physicists are on what, £30k a year? Who picked the better degree?
LOL!
Yes but you need someone to teach you to ride a bike or drive a car, just like you'd need someone to teach you to play an instrument. And you don't necessarily need taught the complex content in science subjects - textbooks explain it the same way the teacher does.
They don't though do they...
Original post by Book_Lover_23
Whereas people can sell their art or music anywhere if it's good enough. Musicians can even busk on the street - no-one would pay to watch you do physics. I was just trying to say that there are more options for them than for physicists, is all.
Do you have any statistics to back that up? According to this article, physics, mathematics are top 12 for employment prospects.
Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't think that you can be a good author, artist or musician without some kind of natural talent.
You cannot be a world-leading researcher in physics or mathematics without a natural talent. You are essentially comparing those at the top of their field with those who are average in another. It's nonsensical.
I myself have no natural talent except in writing, and I've attempted to learn to paint and play music several times, and have failed miserably each time, which is why I think you must need some natural talent to be any good.
The exact same could be applied for maths/ science. I know people who, regardless of how hard they have tried, have struggled to attain a C at GCSE maths. Do they need some kind of natural talent to be any good at it?
So surely it's entirely up to me what I want to do with that degree?
Sure, I'm not saying otherwise.
It's not a waste of money if I'm pursuing something I enjoy. I'm a maths student myself and many people mock me for that and think maths is useless, but I love it which is why I want to pursue it. So why shouldn't everyone be allowed to do the same without their degree being looked down on?
I am not taking sides here, I am simply offering answers in response to the OP. I actually agree with you, there are lots of misconceptions about what a maths degree involves (learning times tables, doing sums
). But, again, a lot of the general public see maths/ physics to be a difficult subject, hence it garners respect. I'm not disagreeing with you on this point, I do share your belief that people should be able to study what they want without being looked down on. What I do disagree with is the part where you said maths/ science can simply be rote learned whereas inherent ability is required for the arts.I have friends who study physics, biology and veterinary medicine at university, but I also have a friend who studies game art - I don't see her degree as being any better or worse than theirs. If anything I admire her more because her work takes so mic dedication and looks amazing at the end.
Good for you.
I'm not trying to be offensive - I myself study maths and I have friends who study physics. I was simply trying to say that maths can be taught to anyone.
Clearly not when you consider the percentage of people in the country who fail to attain a C at GCSE.
It does not require any special ability
It does not require any 'special' ability to reach a decent standard. The same could be said about a lot of things.
those who are natural mathematicians and those who are not will reach the same answer in the end, one just might do it more quickly than the other.
A person who does not have a natural aptitude for mathematics will never be able to prove Fermat's Last Theorem.(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by techno-thriller
Yoiu haven't answered.
I think it's because you are posing the question in a bizarre way. They certainly contribute to the aesthetic betterment of society. You can get a sense of this by visiting the former USSR countries, where there was a much higher focus on functionality than beauty. Weather aside, the architecture is depressing, as is much of the cultural output of these societies. Architecture is a pretty good example as it has strong artistic influences, combined with the need for the functionality it provides.
There is also the fact that technology, which is science put into practice, and particularly innovations (commercialised inventions) strongly blend with art. Do you think that no artistic direction went into designing the iPhone, or its interface?
Science doesn't tend to advance with specific goals in mind; a lot of its advancement arises from problem-solving in other areas, or by sheer accident. I am not sure how you are defining the arts but they contribute to making the place more pleasing for us as humans to live in, particularly since they are capable of producing strong emotional reactions in us, which is why art is often expressed in new commercial technologies.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Book_Lover_23
I'm being perfectly serious. Yes there are people who don't LIKE it and as such don't want to learn it. But anyone has the ability to learn maths, it's not this big giant complex subject. If it's taught properly then anyone can understand how to do it. Maybe not actually understand WHY they're doing it, but anyone can be taught "step 1 do this, step 2 do that". It's simply about memorising the technique behind it, which everyone is capable of doing.
I agree, it can be taught. But only to an extent. Newton was not a gifted physicist - anyone could have been sitting there and had the apple fall on their head and came to the same conclusion. But Beethoven or Picasso or such like were actually gifted in their chosen subject. Natural ability plays a far more important part in art forms than in science subjects.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I agree, it can be taught. But only to an extent. Newton was not a gifted physicist - anyone could have been sitting there and had the apple fall on their head and came to the same conclusion. But Beethoven or Picasso or such like were actually gifted in their chosen subject. Natural ability plays a far more important part in art forms than in science subjects.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think you're really underestimating how difficult science and maths can be.
In any case, we'll have to agree to disagree because what you're saying is clearly not backed up by any facts whatsoever.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Felix Felicis
Do you have any statistics to back that up? According to this article, physics, mathematics are top 12 for employment prospects.
You cannot be a world-leading researcher in physics or mathematics without a natural talent. You are essentially comparing those at the top of their field with those who are average in another. It's nonsensical.
A person who does not have a natural aptitude for mathematics will never be able to prove Fermat's Last Theorem.
You cannot be a world-leading researcher in physics or mathematics without a natural talent. You are essentially comparing those at the top of their field with those who are average in another. It's nonsensical.
A person who does not have a natural aptitude for mathematics will never be able to prove Fermat's Last Theorem.I researched job prospects when my friend chose physics as her degree, and a that point physics had quite low employment rates. However, as you do have proof otherwise I will retract that statement, clearly I was looking in the wrong place or things have changed since.
I agree. But what I'm saying is this: I personally have a natural talent for writing, as does a friend of mine. Both of us were told to pursue English or some form of literature at university because of our abilities. And we could have both excelled because we have natural ability. Whereas I chose maths and she chose physics. Now I also have natural ability in maths AND it interests me, but my friend is not as natural at physics. Her degree involves physics and maths, and she has to study HARD in order to keep up with her classmates because she is not as naturally gifted. However she does manage to keep up because it is a subject that can be learned by studying. She will achieve a good pass at the end of it, it will just take a lot more work than it would if she had more natural ability. The point I'm making is that whilst natural ability does play a part in academic subjects, it is not as important as it is in the arts. You cannot be taught to paint a masterpiece or compose a beautiful piece of music, that cannot be learned through studying because it requires a level of natural ability. Whereas that ability is not as important in physics or maths.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Book_Lover_23
The point I'm making is that whilst natural ability does play a part in academic subjects, it is not as important as it is in the arts. You cannot be taught to paint a masterpiece or compose a beautiful piece of music, that cannot be learned through studying because it requires a level of natural ability. Whereas that ability is not as important in physics or maths.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think you're correct, in the sense that the average undergraduate student will not receive a very in-depth exposure to the subject, and particularly its more challenging areas, which may require a higher natural propensity for the subject than can be taught. This would usually be broached upon in a research degree. I'm not sure how Oxbridge and other equivalent UG degrees differ in this respect, but they're exceptional as far as I am concerned.
What makes subjects like mathematics difficult at higher levels is the ability for abstraction that it requires.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Foundation Art Falmouth or Bath Spa or Edinburgh College or UAL.
- How important is an English degree in order to become a good writer?
- English Literature Degree
- Where can a degree in creative writing actually get me?
- What are the best career choices for me?
- Can I go to university for marketing with a btec in media
- Art degree
- English Language vs. English Literature
- Stuck on which modules to choose for my second year
- A level psychology or chemistry
- online degree
- Can i make it to a foundation year plus degree?
- What can I do with my A levels - biology, English lit and psychology?
- Career
- Career advice
- Why did you choose your degree?
- Uni chioces ?? Help asp
- Can I apply to 2-3 different courses?
- A level choices help
- Which leaves more doors open for careers?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
