Why are creative degrees less respected?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Occams Chainsaw
I disagree. The guys involved in these great progressions in technology etc are genuinely interested in their subject. I doubt they would chose an art degree over a science and thus it doesn't really matter if everybody else doesn't apply 
What were they born interested? People get inspired.
So I completely disagree with what you are saying!
Original post by Raiden10
What were they born interested? People get inspired.
So I completely disagree with what you are saying!
So I completely disagree with what you are saying!
That doesn't make sense as an argument.
You don't have to be born interested at all, no. You've got 17 years to gain an interest. If they aren't remotely interested by that point then I think the probability of them actually doing anything in that field is probably slim.
People get inspired to do what? I hate platitudes
Original post by Occams Chainsaw
That doesn't make sense as an argument.
You don't have to be born interested at all, no. You've got 17 years to gain an interest. If they aren't remotely interested by that point then I think the probability of them actually doing anything in that field is probably slim.
People get inspired to do what? I hate platitudes
You don't have to be born interested at all, no. You've got 17 years to gain an interest. If they aren't remotely interested by that point then I think the probability of them actually doing anything in that field is probably slim.
People get inspired to do what? I hate platitudes
People can get inspired to do something *after* choosing to do it as a degree.
If you have spent 17 years at school you probably do not know very much. Most people don't know what they want to do.
Ed Witten leaving high school in the US wanted to study history and move into politics, work on election campaigns for the democrats etc. He ended up basically getting majors in History and Physics, and is now pretty much the greatest living physicist.
So haha no, things are not set in stone after 17/18 years.
Original post by Raiden10
People can get inspired to do something *after* choosing to do it as a degree.
If you have spent 17 years at school you probably do not know very much. Most people don't know what they want to do.
Ed Witten leaving high school in the US wanted to study history and move into politics, work on election campaigns for the democrats etc. He ended up basically getting majors in History and Physics, and is now pretty much the greatest living physicist.
So haha no, things are not set in stone after 17/18 years.
If you have spent 17 years at school you probably do not know very much. Most people don't know what they want to do.
Ed Witten leaving high school in the US wanted to study history and move into politics, work on election campaigns for the democrats etc. He ended up basically getting majors in History and Physics, and is now pretty much the greatest living physicist.
So haha no, things are not set in stone after 17/18 years.
But forcing people do study a subject at University that they are not yet interested in is nonsensical, no?
Why would you chose it as a degree if you don't enjoy it?
That's the flaw.
I didn't say they are set in stone at all. I just said that it was the likelihood. You gave an anomalous result. Congratulations.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Occams Chainsaw
But forcing people do study a subject at University that they are not yet interested in is nonsensical, no?
That's pretty much how education works.
You underestimate how many people are undecided or have not found something that really interests them at even age 17. You can encourage them to study this, you can encourage them to study that.
You speak of an ideal world where people will get inspired on their own. Our world is not so and neither are the people in it.
Original post by Raiden10
That's pretty much how education works.
You underestimate how many people are undecided or have not found something that really interests them at even age 17. You can encourage them to study this, you can encourage them to study that.
You speak of an ideal world where people will get inspired on their own. Our world is not so and nor are the people in it.
You underestimate how many people are undecided or have not found something that really interests them at even age 17. You can encourage them to study this, you can encourage them to study that.
You speak of an ideal world where people will get inspired on their own. Our world is not so and nor are the people in it.
I'd argue that it isn't how it works and how your idea to practically force everybody into a STEP field can be countered with a probably better alternative
In the US, as you probably understand, your first 2 years can be spent twiddling your thumbs over what you want to study. People are encouraged to study in STEM fields because of better job prospects etc Even with 'core' classes in the sciences that every student must take, people still opt out of majoring in sciences.
You are able to experiment in that system and if science isn't for you then that's fine.
Even so, we are going way off the target of the thread. I was not asking whether more people should study STEM subjects.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Occams Chainsaw
I'd argue that it isn't how it works and how your idea to practically force everybody into a STEP field can be countered with a probably better alternative
You would argue that isn't how it works? Go on then.
Putting words in my mouth now eh? Where exactly did I say "force everybody into STEP"? This is a straw man.
Original post by Occams Chainsaw
In the US, as you probably understand, your first 2 years can be spent twiddling your thumbs over what you want to study. People are encouraged to study in STEM fields because of better job prospects etc Even with 'core' classes in the sciences that every student must take, people still opt out of majoring in sciences.
You are able to experiment in that system and if science isn't for you then that's fine.
In the US, as you probably understand, your first 2 years can be spent twiddling your thumbs over what you want to study. People are encouraged to study in STEM fields because of better job prospects etc Even with 'core' classes in the sciences that every student must take, people still opt out of majoring in sciences.
You are able to experiment in that system and if science isn't for you then that's fine.
Yes and it's not a bad idea.
Part of this is the benefits gained from not having to drop 65% of education at age 16 like we do here. It makes people able to be more flexible whilst finding their way at uni.
(edited 10 years ago)
I think this is a pretty interesting topic. A lot of people seem to be of the view that the arts are useless hobbies that don't contribute to society and aren't as important as science because you can teach them to yourself.
I'm pretty sure anyone who thinks you could teach, say, the violin, to yourself, has probably never tried. I don't know much about art, but I know a bit about music, so i'll stick to that. Music really is a discipline that you have to work at. Not to say that science isnt...
But to learn an instrument, you have to be dedicated, you have to work hard, you have to be committed to doing well, and to a certain extent you have to be a bit of a perfectionist. These are transferable skills that you can develop from the arts. Music also teaches you respect, you have to respect your instrument and your teacher. In an orchestra, you have to respect your conductor and the rest of the musicians. So i definitely think music contributes to society because of the skills, other than musical skills, that it helps you to develop. So in theory, the more you study the subject, the more your skills will develop.
I really do think things like music and art and drama contribute in a hugely important way. no, playing the recorder won't change the world and cure diseases and make everyone happy, but hey, who says every scientist will do things like that either? Going to space and telling us whats there may be interesting, but does it change the way we live, does it affect us? not really. we just know a bit more.
I've heard of things like music and art therapy, which help all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. if no one studied the arts, who would do these jobs? and if no one did these jobs, what would happen to the people who really benefit from them?
As you can probably tell, I'm not a scientist. But I don't study an arts subject either.
I study linguistics, a cross between the two (im sure many will disagree that is its a cross,but it is. It's known as the scientific study of language) so its both creative and theoretical.
Like i said, interesting topic!
I'm pretty sure anyone who thinks you could teach, say, the violin, to yourself, has probably never tried. I don't know much about art, but I know a bit about music, so i'll stick to that. Music really is a discipline that you have to work at. Not to say that science isnt...
But to learn an instrument, you have to be dedicated, you have to work hard, you have to be committed to doing well, and to a certain extent you have to be a bit of a perfectionist. These are transferable skills that you can develop from the arts. Music also teaches you respect, you have to respect your instrument and your teacher. In an orchestra, you have to respect your conductor and the rest of the musicians. So i definitely think music contributes to society because of the skills, other than musical skills, that it helps you to develop. So in theory, the more you study the subject, the more your skills will develop.
I really do think things like music and art and drama contribute in a hugely important way. no, playing the recorder won't change the world and cure diseases and make everyone happy, but hey, who says every scientist will do things like that either? Going to space and telling us whats there may be interesting, but does it change the way we live, does it affect us? not really. we just know a bit more.
I've heard of things like music and art therapy, which help all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. if no one studied the arts, who would do these jobs? and if no one did these jobs, what would happen to the people who really benefit from them?
As you can probably tell, I'm not a scientist. But I don't study an arts subject either.
I study linguistics, a cross between the two (im sure many will disagree that is its a cross,but it is. It's known as the scientific study of language) so its both creative and theoretical.
Like i said, interesting topic!
Original post by Raiden10
You would argue that isn't how it works? Go on then.
Putting words in my mouth now eh? Where exactly did I say "force everybody into STEP"? This is a straw man.
Putting words in my mouth now eh? Where exactly did I say "force everybody into STEP"? This is a straw man.
I did argue that it doesn't work by forcing everybody to study something at University with my US example
You said 'encourage', sure. I said 'practically force' which is how it would work. Want a middle ground? 'Pressure' might be a better word.
Original post by blurrygirl
Going to space and telling us whats there may be interesting, but does it change the way we live, does it affect us? not really. we just know a bit more.
As you can probably tell, I'm not a scientist.
As you can probably tell, I'm not a scientist.
Actually, I couldn't tell, until you said this:
Original post by blurrygirl
Going to space and telling us whats there may be interesting, but does it change the way we live, does it affect us? not really. we just know a bit more.
Firstly, the technology needed to get to space has changed life here on Earth. The business of communication through the background of space is very tricky - it actually involves (or has involved) encoding messages using mathematical devices almost exactly the same as Sudoku squares (basically Sudoku squares without the restriction of "every subsquare contains every character").
This sort of stuff can then be transferred to other kinds of communication here on earth.
Secondly, we are going to need to explore space for more than just fun at some stage. The number of people here is getting bigger and Earth isn't, in case you hadn't noticed. Space is space and space is important.
Original post by Occams Chainsaw
I did argue that it doesn't work by forcing everybody to study something at University with my US example
You said 'encourage', sure. I said 'practically force' which is how it would work. Want a middle ground? 'Pressure' might be a better word.
You said 'encourage', sure. I said 'practically force' which is how it would work. Want a middle ground? 'Pressure' might be a better word.
You seem to think the only thing you can do is walk up to people, poke them in the head and say "study this because I think you should".
You train more teachers in the subject, try to attract better ones, to inspire pupils, you saturate the media with campaigns designed to raise the awareness of whatever learning areas you want to enhance.
Ideally you don't need to do this, because you already have all the teachers you need in all the subject areas and the public is both sage and learned in many different areas of knowledge.
Again, though, the world isn't like that.
Original post by Raiden10
Actually, I couldn't tell, until you said this:
Firstly, the technology needed to get to space has changed life here on Earth. The business of communication through the background of space is very tricky - it actually involves (or has involved) encoding messages using mathematical devices almost exactly the same as Sudoku squares (basically Sudoku squares without the restriction of "every subsquare contains every character").
This sort of stuff can then be transferred to other kinds of communication here on earth.
Secondly, we are going to need to explore space for more than just fun at some stage. The number of people here is getting bigger and Earth isn't, in case you hadn't noticed. Space is space and space is important.
Firstly, the technology needed to get to space has changed life here on Earth. The business of communication through the background of space is very tricky - it actually involves (or has involved) encoding messages using mathematical devices almost exactly the same as Sudoku squares (basically Sudoku squares without the restriction of "every subsquare contains every character").
This sort of stuff can then be transferred to other kinds of communication here on earth.
Secondly, we are going to need to explore space for more than just fun at some stage. The number of people here is getting bigger and Earth isn't, in case you hadn't noticed. Space is space and space is important.
That's a really good point, I never considered how the technology is used here too, as silly as that sounds! I guess I was just trying to express that I think a lot of people see science and maths as the be all and end all, but there is a really important place in society for creative arts as well. They don't do the same job, they're not important in the same ways, but I think they're both really important, and both contribute to society in equally massive ways. So I think you definitely need both, and I'm not sure its fair to say one is better than the other. Slightly off topic, I know.
The world is about to be destroyed; You can take either the medicine graduate, the engineering graduate or me the English Lang and Linguistics graduate to live on the new earth-like planet.
There's your answer.
There's your answer.
Original post by techno-thriller
Well, arts don't contribute much to human progression compared to maths and science, that why I think they are less respected
Where do politics, philosophy and sociology sit here with you?
Surely liberalism, justice, democracy and rights are at least equally as important to human progression as electricity, computers and flight for instance?
Original post by Professor Oak
Where do politics, philosophy and sociology sit here with you?
Surely liberalism, justice, democracy and rights are at least equally as important to human progression as electricity, computers and flight for instance?
Surely liberalism, justice, democracy and rights are at least equally as important to human progression as electricity, computers and flight for instance?
Not equally, no. Also 'liberalism, justice and democracy' aren't subjects. It was about degrees being less respected.
Original post by techno-thriller
Not equally, no. Also 'liberalism, justice and democracy' aren't subjects. It was about degrees being less respected.
I know--my point was that liberalism, justice and democracy and innovations produced by the subjects politics, philosophy and sociology
. So aren't these innovations aren't as important as ones such as flight, electricity, inoculation etc. produced by science subjects...Original post by Professor Oak
I know--my point was that liberalism, justice and democracy and innovations produced by the subjects politics, philosophy and sociology . So aren't these innovations aren't as important as ones such as flight, electricity, inoculation etc. produced by science subjects...
. So aren't these innovations aren't as important as ones such as flight, electricity, inoculation etc. produced by science subjects...Mmmm, nah. But then again I'm biased, because I don't take an interest in those subjects.
Also, I don't think that liberalism and justice HAVE to be attained through studying politics etc.
Original post by Professor Oak
Where do politics, philosophy and sociology sit here with you?
Surely liberalism, justice, democracy and rights are at least equally as important to human progression as electricity, computers and flight for instance?
Surely liberalism, justice, democracy and rights are at least equally as important to human progression as electricity, computers and flight for instance?
Justice, democracy and human rights did not come from a social science textbook, and Hitler, Goebbels, Pol Pot, Stalin, were not scientists. In fact they had (not Stalin) and extensive education in the liberal arts.
Original post by techno-thriller
Also, I don't think that liberalism and justice HAVE to be attained through studying politics etc.
Also, I don't think that liberalism and justice HAVE to be attained through studying politics etc.
They weren't and never have been. They have been tried, tested, discovered, and to various degrees forgotten and been rediscovered over the ages and through the civilisations.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Book_Lover_23
I totally agree - anyone has the ability to learn maths or physics or something, but you need to be born with natural talent in order to paint or write or play music. I am very impressed by people who can produce amazing works of art or write beautiful songs, mainly because I lack that ability myself. But I think it's because most people on those types of degrees don't really get taught much, they just get their natural talent nurtured. They learn new ways to apply that talent, but they don't really get taught a lot (I'm aware that was quite a clumsy way of explaining it, I hope someone gets it). And I think as humans we sort of look down on those degrees because in our minds it doesn't require a lot of thought to do, because all you're doing is furthering your own talent. Whereas I think people think that degrees like maths and physics are more intellectually challenging. I completely disagree myself, I have the upmost respect for those who pursue creative degrees. But that's why I think most people look down on them. Also I think techno-thriller is correct too - it doesn't appear to contribute much to human progression. You've also got degrees like philosophy which are looked down on for the same reason, I think.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think you will find that is completely not true. What is your degree?
To do well at maths, science or engineering, you have to have a certain level of natural ability at the problems the subject encounters. Sure you can teach people a certain amount of maths, but you could never teach somebody to be as good as a natural mathematician or scientist. Just like you can teach any idiot to draw to a certain standard if you put the time and effort in, but you could never make them a professional.Although the big point is that you could never fake an ability at maths. If you have ever seen some modern art, there exists little skill. I could put three basketballs in a fish tank, but could that artist apply the Navier Stokes equation? No, most likely.
Your experience is not doubt limited to maths and physics at school. Which is not representative of STEM subjects at degree level.
I am not sure people have a negative view of creative professionals. I have the utmost respect for many authors and amazing artists. Studying art at uni is a whole different kettle of fish to being a succesful artist though.
Original post by AreebWithaHat
Music, film etc should be self taught. I feel sorry for those who waste fees on those degrees and 99% of the time they go into the checkout tills at Asda.
Musicology is solid as ****, bro. It's not all listening to music and composing and playing songs. Lots of complex, rigorous academic stuff to it.
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?
- Why did you choose your degree?
- Uni chioces ?? Help asp
- Career advice
- Career
- Can I apply to 2-3 different courses?
- A level choices help
- Can I get into Architecture with these A levels?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 13 minutes ago
Government Social Research Placement interview questionsLast reply 19 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 34 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 45 minutes ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 45 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 47 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 48 minutes ago
narrowly missing offer conditionsLast reply 53 minutes ago
St dominics, henrietta barnett, RMS, parmiters or girls grammar??Last reply 54 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
857
Last reply 56 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 58 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewTrending
Last reply 1 week ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 4 weeks ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levelsTrending
Last reply 1 week ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 4 weeks ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levels
