Why are creative degrees less respected?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

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.

I shouldn't need facts to back up my opinion. It's my opinion. I'm not trying to say it's right and yours is wrong, I'm just saying that that's what I think.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 101

Vertigo_descent

Original post by MJ1012

To me, it's the subjectivity of skill. If someone gets a good degree in physics, I think they are good at physics. If someone gets a good degree in a creative subject. I mighy think that song, drawing, poem etc is **** and think they arent very good.

True but you are underestimating the degree to which scientists are capable of belittling each others' work. ;p

Reply 102

MJ1012

Original post by TCA2b

True but you are underestimating the degree to which scientists are capable of belittling each others' work. ;p

<br />
<br />
That's only the scientists that are at a high enough level to create their own ideas, I can imagine a typical degree is learning already known information.

Reply 103

yepyepyep

Original post by Book_Lover_23

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

Well considering that music relies heavily on maths, haven't you just contradicted yourself?

Reply 104

techno-thriller

Original post by Et Tu, Brute?

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.

I meant things that were created by humans - cars, aeroplanes, houses, roads - all based on maths and physics.

Why how kind of you, I had absolutely no idea what they were until you defined them in such a non-patronising way.
No problem. Here to help.

Yes we can, it is called artificial selection.
Nobody can tell any who and who you can't have intercourse with. Artificial selection is morally wrong, and not very practical.

Of course. I never disputed that so not sure why you feel the need to clarify that.

So you aren't against studying arts, but you are against studying arts...ok...I...see.................................................... :confused:

I'm against people taking it as a profession. Keep it as a hobby, and I don't really care what people do, this is just my opinion.

Reply 105

Vertigo_descent

Original post by MJ1012

<br />
<br />
That's only the scientists that are at a high enough level to create their own ideas, I can imagine a typical degree is learning already known information.

Indeed. Of course, you also get a lot of squabbling about the contributions of the greats, since all science, like art, is a cumulative learning process. But like I said before, the creative writing courses are more focused on teaching techniques for improving on your creativity than the actual output. TBH, I don't see the need for that to be a course in its own right, but rather it is a good supplement for courses like English Lit. You may not be able to teach creativity but you can teach good writing and how to recognise it; of course this is all subjective but as a species there are general themes, styles and aesthetic standards that tend to appeal to us. In some ways, you'd probably learn more from a Marketing degree than a more traditional creative course, because it teaches you how to focus on what appeals to people. But the proliferation of increasingly niche topics (incl the likes of sports management) is just a symptom of the bubble in academia.

It's the same with being a good cosmetic surgeon, in some ways. You need excellent surgical technique but you also need to have a good eye for what people find appealing and how features harmonise in a way that is attractive to the human eye.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 106

ConsiderScience

I don't think I have ever seen such a battlefield in on TSR. With the exception of the religious section anyway.....

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 107

Pessimisterious

Original post by Book_Lover_23

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.

You clearly have no idea about anything Isaac Newton ever did.

For reference, I'll tell you the apple story is more to do with how he realised that if an apple can fall towards earth, then surely anything in the heavens can fall in the same way. From this he derived the universal law of gravitation. But to do that he had to invent calculus - y'know, that subject which makes up almost all of the A-level maths syllabus.

He did loads and loads and humanity advanced in leaps and bounds because of him.

Art is beautiful but beauty is subjective, therefore anyone can do it.

But not everyone can 'do' science.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 108

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by Book_Lover_23

I shouldn't need facts to back up my opinion. It's my opinion. I'm not trying to say it's right and yours is wrong, I'm just saying that that's what I think.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The way you've written it in your posts is in the style of fact.

Reply 109

Vertigo_descent

Original post by Pessimisterious

Small nitpick: he and Leibniz both independently arrived at it.

Reply 110

Plantagenet Crown

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.

Not true. To be able to paint a masterpiece or compose a beautiful piece of music it's practically essential to have been taught and acquired the basics, i.e. learning. You can then use the natural ability alongside that.

The same can be said for science. You cannot be taught to think outside the box and come up with theories like that of special relativity or to realise that an apple falling could have greater implications despite the fact that people had observed things falling for thousands of years. The same applies here. One could have the training in science but needs to have the talent to go further.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 111

User990473

Original post by TCA2b

Small nitpick: he and Leibniz both independently arrived at it.

Allegedly.

Reply 112

North Wolf

Many painters earns millions, by selling paints. Same goes for famous music bands, architects from top construction group, or a top director of a reputed art university. It is what we perceive that art degree is less respectable, but look at today how much people working in these fields are learning today.

Reply 113

Freier._.lance

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

Have you ever heard of a concept of "paint by numbers"? In the same sense, musicians can easily play a beethoven or a mozart piece or learn to paint a masterpiece, by learning the techniques. I'm astonished so many people are so ignorant of how much creativity is required to do mathematics and physics at a high level. Anyone can do anything they wish, but to be great at it, innate will always be required. Any thing that one person "creates" or "discovers" can always be taught to others, but that initial spark of genius comes to few people.

Reply 114

Felix Felicis

Original post by Book_Lover_23

Now I also have natural ability in maths AND it interests me.

I'm skeptical tbh. If you think that all a maths degree involves is this:

Original post by Book_Lover_23

If what you're effectively doing is memorising technique and regurgitating it like a machine in your degree, then either you're doing it wrong or you're not doing a rigorous enough course. And honestly, I think it's a combination of the two.

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

How can you honestly still not see what the flaw in your argument is? You are comparing people who are absolutely top in their field with those who are average. You are comparing Picasso/ Mozart to your friend achieving a decent pass in her degree at what is presumably a non-COWI university. It is absurd to compare the two, just like it's absurd saying that a good reason for doing a music degree is you'll become a world-famous musician.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 115

Freier._.lance

Original post by Book_Lover_23

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

You ignorance is understandable, but it is not your fault. It is because the Beethovens, Mozarts and van gough's have their works displayed and reproduced everywhere in culture. The Dirac's, the Feynman's are their equivalents, but aren't as well know among the public, which is where your ignorance stems from.

Reply 116

CM19

Original post by Freier._.lance

Would you like to demonstrate this point to us by posting a recording of you playing a Beethoven concerto?

Would you lilke to demonstrate this point to us by composing a piece of music as mathmatically proportioned yet beautifully creative as Bach?

Would you like to demonstrate this point by creating something that people will still be in awe over in the next 400 years?

A Music degree is difficult, challenging and academic. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly ignorant and uneducated.

Reply 117

Freier._.lance

Original post by CM19

The stupidity of your post is astounding.

Are you saying no one today can play a Beethoven concerto?

I never said anything about a music degree?? Maybe you are replying to the wrong person?

Reply 118

Book_Lover_23

I don't understand why people can't just let other people have their own opinion. I have mine, others have theirs. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong because at the end of the day, everybody is different and everybody thinks differently.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 119

Chief Wiggum

In my experience, people who are actually intelligent don't disrespect the humanities. It tends to be "TSR pseudo-intellectuals" who are of average ability who think it makes them sound smart to insult humanities at the expense of science.