Why are creative degrees less respected? Watch

Pessimisterious
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#41
Report 5 years ago
#41
(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
Surely you agree that art and music are huge parts of human existence and culture. By studying those and being in those fields professionally you would be improving/adding to our culture and lives.
I don't think you need a degree to contribute to human culture...(!)

Pretty sure most renowned artists are not 'specially' educated in their field.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 5 years ago
#42
(Original post by Book_Lover_23)
I totally agree - anyone has the ability to learn maths or physics or something,


Posted from TSR Mobile
That could be seen as quite offensive you know, and it certainly isn't true.
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#43
Report 5 years ago
#43
I don't think you need a degree to contribute to human culture...(!)

What makes you think you need a science degree to contribute to human understanding? It may help, but what makes it 'required'?
0
reply
HJ M
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#44
Report 5 years ago
#44
(Original post by russellsteapot)
It's a difficult one really.

For me, they're both equally valuable. People have their own ideas of what defines academic prestige and rigour, which tends to go in line with whatever they employers of the day and teachers tell them is the best subject. There's also a misunderstanding that creative subjects are not academically rigourous, which is nonsense. Anyone can go into their university library and have a look at some of the books and journals in there written about creative topics. The reason those books are there is that students of this topic study them. They're often very relevant to the real world, and current issues. And they're no less academically credible than anything else. Misunderstanding a subject isn't sufficient reason to consider it a 'lesser' subject or akin to a hobby (which indicates a lack of understanding of course content in the same way that me playing with a chemistry set as a kid compares to a chemistry degree).

I don't do a creative degree myself, but I do wander the library sufficiently, and have an interest in general education, so I do often find myself looking at creative things in detail, and it's as intellectual, worthy and relevant as anything else.

With any debate like this, it would be rude not to mention Sir Ken Robinson. He puts it far better than me, or anyone else, I think, well worth watching/listening to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
I second what you said. I think academically they are equal and are equal in terms of getting a career out of it. I also think Sir Ken's thoughts on this issue are brilliant and note the problem we have with educational snobbery towards certain subjects.
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 5 years ago
#45
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
That could be seen as quite offensive you know, and it certainly isn't true.
Why? It is true. Maybe people don't have the same capabilities but anyone can learn the subjects. I think too often bad teachers get a free pass because it is assumed some children are just 'stupid' and incapable of learning a subject, when it is the teacher who is bad.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 5 years ago
#46
(Original post by TCA2b)
Why? It is true. Maybe people don't have the same capabilities but anyone can learn them. I think too often bad teachers get a free pass because it is assumed some children are just 'stupid' and incapable of learning a subject, when it is the teacher who is bad.
It isn't true at all, prove it. People have talents for different things, some for science subjects and some for the arts. To say one requires innate talent and the other does not is nothing short of absurd.
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#47
Report 5 years ago
#47
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
It isn't true at all, prove it. People have talents for different things, some for science subjects and some for the arts. To say one requires innate talent and the other does not is nothing short of absurd.
How about you prove your own assertion? You are confusing talents/propensities with a capacity to learn something. It's like me saying some people just can't learn English, they're too dumb.

It may be true in some few cases (e.g. dyscalcius) but this nonsense that pervades modern society that mathematics is some esoteric discipline which only a few people are capable of learning is baffling. Yeah, maybe not everyone can be the next Thales or Einstein but so what?
0
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#48
(Original post by TCA2b)
How about you prove your own assertion? You are confusing talents/propensities with a capacity to learn something. It's like me saying some people just can't learn English, they're too dumb.

It may be true in some few cases (e.g. dyscalcius) but this nonsense that pervades modern society that mathematics is some esoteric discipline which only a few people are capable of learning is baffling. Yeah, maybe not everyone can be the next Thales or Einstein but so what?
Ironically, Einstein wasn't a very good mathematician!
0
reply
Felix Felicis
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#49
Report 5 years ago
#49
(Original post by TCA2b)
Why? It is true. Maybe people don't have the same capabilities but anyone can learn the subjects. I think too often bad teachers get a free pass because it is assumed some children are just 'stupid' and incapable of learning a subject, when it is the teacher who is bad.
I could make the exact same argument about learning how to play an instrument/ learning how to draw/ how to write. Through hard work, most people should be capable of reaching a decent standard but it is blatantly obvious that different people have different levels of natural aptitude for a certain subject.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 5 years ago
#50
(Original post by TCA2b)
How about you prove your own assertion? You are confusing talents/propensities with a capacity to learn something. It's like me saying some people just can't learn English, they're too dumb.

It may be true in some few cases but this nonsense that pervades modern society that mathematics is some esoteric discipline which only a few people are capable of learning is baffling. Yeah, maybe not everyone can be the next Thales or Einstein but so what?
Nope, the poster I was quoting made the assertion so the burden of proof is on her, and you for that matter seeing as you agree.

I'm not at all. It may be easier to learn anything given the right teachers and resources. I dont see why someone would be able to learn maths better with a good teacher anymore than someone would be able to learn colour theory with a good art teacher.

I never said maths is some esoteric discipline which only a few people are capable of learning. But that doesn't mean that gifted mathematicians have any less innate talent than gifted artists.
0
reply
Et Tu, Brute?
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#51
Report 5 years ago
#51
(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
Well they certainly do, indeed it can be argued they contribute more in the long term progression of humanity.

If it wasn't for arts, there would be no entertainment. The world would be an incredibly boring place.

So what exactly does maths and science contribute to human progression? Well lets see here. And just to clarify, I am focusing on the term 'progression' here, I am not saying the two subjects are very important to humanity.

So then, because of advances in STEM subjects, we are able to sustain a population of billions of people, chopping up the planet using excessive amounts of resources while doing so. These people are all able to live long now as well due to advances in STEM subjects. So due to sciences, we have more people on the planet and less and less environment to cater for them all.

As a result of improved medical related STEM fields, we are currently keeping 'undesired' traits in the gene pool. Defying the laws of natural selection. Many believe this will have a detrimental effect on the human race.

Saying that STEM subjects contribute more to human progression, is simply not justified when it can be argued they are currently taking us into a black hole.


(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
Following on from a thread I saw from a couple of month ago I wondered why we have this divide where subjects like art, music and creative writing are seen to be less respected.

I enjoy delving in these areas in my spare time and I am more impressed with somebody's ability to create a striking piece of art or compose an evocative piece or music or write something that makes me laugh than their knowledge of the 16th century.

I understand that this respect is probably more related to academic rigor than how 'impressive' the things you can do after studying a subject are but in the only example of a degree that is both creative and respected that I can think of - Architecture - I don't see what makes it different to the other arts? Is it merely the fact that it's a professional degree? Are there any other degrees that you consider to be academic yet creative?
It isn't that they are less respected. You need to remember that a lot of the people on this site are very insecure, a lot of them a victims of bullying and some of them are depressed.

As a results, many of them will look to the future for comfort, believing that in a few years time they will have this big fancy degree which will get them a highly paid job and as a result every problem that they currently are faced with will go away.

By looking down on other degrees, they can 'turn the table' in a sense. They believe that having this degree, which is essentially an automatic ticket into a fancy job, that they are now so much better than everyone else.

In a nut shell, often they are people who haven't had an easy time during school and seek an opportunities to make themselves feel bigger at the expense of others.

I think the fact that you get so many 'god isn't real because Santa Claus told me so' atheist type on this site, the ones which try an ridicule others, is also evidence of what I mentioned above. Again, this relates to insecurities and a need to feel bigger.
1
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#52
Report 5 years ago
#52
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Nope, the poster I was quoting made the assertion so the burden of proof is on her, and you for that matter seeing as you agree.

I'm not at all. It may be easier to learn anything given the right teachers and resources. I dont see why someone would be able to learn maths better with a good teacher anymore than someone would be able to learn colour theory with a good art teacher.

I never said maths is some esoteric discipline which only a few people are capable of learning. But that doesn't mean that gifted mathematicians have any less innate talent than gifted artists.
Again, read what you quoted. All she said is anyone can learn the disciplines, which is true. Nearly anyone can, given time and effort.

As to why the teacher makes a difference, it is because different people have different learning styles. Not everyone is capable of learning through repetition. Now, if you have a classroom of 20 - 30 pupils maybe you simply cannot devote the time to each pupil to discover this. However, you cannot simply write some people off as being incapable of learning mathematics based on this. It would be worrying if this were the case.

Incidentally, I think her answer is correct. Entrepreneurship and creativity are -very- hard to teach in an academic setting.
0
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#53
(Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
Well they certainly do, indeed it can be argued they contribute more in the long term progression of humanity.

If it wasn't for arts, there would be no entertainment. The world would be an incredibly boring place.

So what exactly does maths and science contribute to human progression? Well lets see here. And just to clarify, I am focusing on the term 'progression' here, I am not saying the two subjects are very important to humanity.

So then, because of advances in STEM subjects, we are able to sustain a population of billions of people, chopping up the planet using excessive amounts of resources while doing so. These people are all able to live long now as well due to advances in STEM subjects. So due to sciences, we have more people on the planet and less and less environment to cater for them all.

As result of improved medical related STEM fields, we are currently keeping 'undesired' traits in the gene pool. Defying the laws of natural selection. Many believe this will have a detrimental effect on the human race.

Saying that STEM subjects contribute more to human progression, is simply not justified when it can be argued they are currently taking up into a black hole.




It isn't that they are less respected. You need to remember that a lot of the people on this site are very insecure, a lot of them a victims of bullying and some of them are depressed.

As a results, many of them will look to the future for comfort, believing that in a few years time they will have this big fancy degree which will get them a highly paid job and as a result every problem that they currently are faced with will go away.

By looking down on other degrees, they can 'turn the table' in a sense. They believe that having this degree, which is essentially an automatic ticket into a fancy job, that they are now so much better than everyone else.

In a nut shell, often they are people who haven't had an easy time during school and seek an opportunities to make themselves feel bigger at the expense of others.

I think the fact that you get so many 'god isn't real because Santa Claus told me so' atheist type on this site, the ones which try an ridicule others, is also evidence of what I mentioned above. Again, this relates to insecurities and a need to feel bigger.
I like this answer! It is really appealing.
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#54
Report 5 years ago
#54
(Original post by Felix Felicis)
I could make the exact same argument about learning how to play an instrument/ learning how to draw/ how to write. Through hard work, most people should be capable of reaching a decent standard but it is blatantly obvious that different people have different levels of natural aptitude for a certain subject.
Well I don't disagree but creativity (and this can also apply to the natural and social sciences as well as the arts) is difficult to teach. I also think this militates against "creative arts" degrees, ironically. I don't think there's the expectation that every student out there will be some sort of pathbreaker, and you could apply this as much to natural science degrees as creative arts ones. Perhaps, on average, the skills furnished by a natural science degree are perceived to be more valuable, but then you also get the fact that many employers select on where you went and what grades you got over what you studied.
0
reply
Pessimisterious
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#55
Report 5 years ago
#55
(Original post by TCA2b)
What makes you think you need a science degree to contribute to human understanding? It may help, but what makes it 'required'?
Think of it this way.

The workforce of CERN could all easily contribute to the wider culture of humanity, simply by putting pen to paper.

Whereas most of humanity would be lost at the controls of the large hadron collider.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 5 years ago
#56
(Original post by TCA2b)
Again, read what you quoted. All she said is anyone can learn the disciplines, which is true. Nearly anyone can, given time and effort.

As to why the teacher makes a difference, it is because different people have different learning styles. Not everyone is capable of learning through repetition. Now, if you have a classroom of 20 - 30 pupils maybe you simply cannot devote the time to each pupil to discover this. However, you cannot simply write some people off as being incapable of learning mathematics based on this. It would be worrying if this were the case.
If you actually read her very first sentence, she's implying that to do arts you need to be born gifted, but that to do science subjects or maths you don't. This is clearly false.

Why are scientific disciplines easier to learn than the arts, I really don't understand this. If anything, people could say the scientific concepts are more challenging and difficult to understand, but that's not my argument.

Indeed, not everyone can learn through repetition, but to suggest that to become a gifted scientist or mathematician requires naught but practiced repetition is to understand very little of the subject.

Furthermore, you seem to think that creativity is not present in science. Who on earth gave you this idea? If it were not, then there would be no such things as PhD students or researchers or even possibly new discoveries.
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#57
Report 5 years ago
#57
(Original post by Pessimisterious)
Think of it this way.

The workforce of CERN could all easily contribute to the wider culture of humanity, simply by putting pen to paper.

Whereas most of humanity would be lost at the controls of the large hadron collider.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Again - where does the degree requirement come in?
0
reply
skydive23
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 5 years ago
#58
Personally it's not the degree itself that impresses me- it's what graduates DO with their degree that is important.

I'd respect an art or photography graduate who was making something useful of their qualification much more than a Medicine graduate who was working at Tesco.
0
reply
Book_Lover_23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#59
Report 5 years ago
#59
(Original post by Bloxorus)
Are you being serious here? You're saying the majority of artists and musicians are earning more than physicists?
Get real mate.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes, because it's very difficult to get a job in physics at the moment. With so many people doing general degrees in physics, it's a very competitive industry. 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.

(Original post by Felix Felicis)
I disagree with much of what you say.

The ability to paint, write literature or play music can be acquired - this is just outright false. Unless, of course, you are comparing the intellect of an average year 11 physics student to that of Mozart - which is absurd.


That's the point, it is extremely unlikely that you will become a famous musician or an artist after finishing your degree. You cannot make that argument without considering what the probability of attaining that level of success is - it only makes sense to deal with averages. You must realise why it is absurd to compare the top 1% of entertainers to, probably, 100% of research physicists?

I'm not taking any sides here, just answering the OP, but the general public may not deem it to be worth the £9k you have to fork over for employment prospects significantly less than those of a scientist's.


You're not a science student, are you? Textbooks can be vague, concepts can be hard to grasp, it is extremely useful to have a good teacher - not only to clarify your doubts but to stretch you to your limits.


ETA: Just so I don't derail this thread too much, I think they aren't as respected by the general public for a variety of reasons:
1) The course itself doesn't teach much to the majority of students that will help them contribute to society, as opposed to degrees which lead you into a vocation (medicine, engineering, etc...)
2) There is a preconception in the general public that maths/ physics are very difficult, most likely because they struggled at it at school/ stereotypes of scientists with mad hair and lab coats writing out big, nasty looking equations on black boards and just don't think arts degrees are as difficult.
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. 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.

Also, as I'm from Scotland the government pays for my first degree. So surely it's entirely up to me what I want to do with that degree? 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 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. I understand it is important to have a good teacher - the same is true for learning an art form, is all I was trying to say.

(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
That could be seen as quite offensive you know, and it certainly isn't true.
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. It does not require any special ability, 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.


Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Pessimisterious
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#60
Report 5 years ago
#60
(Original post by TCA2b)
Again - where does the degree requirement come in?
I'm on about the need for education. Arts students want to 'taught' art. It makes no sense because anyone can 'do' art whenever they want.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA GCSE Physics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (1)
8.33%
The paper was reasonable (6)
50%
Not feeling great about that exam... (2)
16.67%
It was TERRIBLE (3)
25%

Watched Threads

View All