Why are creative degrees less respected? Watch

TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#61
Report 5 years ago
#61
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
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.
I do not think that, if you scroll up. However, this also brings into question what level of degree you are discussing. All I said is that her statement, as it is written, is correct. Now as to scientific concepts being more 'challenging', sure, perhaps for some people they are and for others they aren't. This is confusing the role of the degree to the average student, however. It usually involves studying a topic one is vaguely interested in because one needs to get a job afterwards.

Bringing PHDs into this just muddies the waters, because they are by definition more specialised degrees than the average undergraduate degree, and thus you are far likelier to be exposed to the genuinely more esoteric, difficult to grasp concepts in these, and perhaps Masters too.
0
reply
Dr Pesto
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#62
Report 5 years ago
#62
(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
Absolute b0llocks.
1
reply
Felix Felicis
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#63
Report 5 years ago
#63
(Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
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.
It is not just people on this site though who hold this belief - there seems to be a belief in the general public that science-based degrees are more rigorous, intellectually-demanding, etc.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 5 years ago
#64
(Original post by Book_Lover_23)



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
I don't know if you're being serious or not, but this clearly isn't true, it does require special ability in many cases. There are many people who simply cannot hack maths, science etc be it in secondary school or beyond, regardless of how good their teachers are. Yes, they may learn a little better with good instructors, but to claim anyone can become gifted at these subjects whilst not being the same for the arts is rubbish.

The same could be said for art or music. Colour theory and drawing techniques as well as playing instruments could be learnt and studied rather than requiring special talent. Just so you know, I dont actually believe this, in my view innate talent is needed for both to actually become a world famous scientist or artist.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report 5 years ago
#65
(Original post by TCA2b)
I do not think that, if you scroll up. However, this also brings into question what level of degree you are discussing. All I said is that her statement, as it is written, is correct. Now as to scientific concepts being more 'challenging', sure, perhaps for some people they are and for others they aren't. This is confusing the role of the degree to the average student, however. It usually involves studying a topic one is vaguely interested in because one needs to get a job afterwards.

Bringing PHDs into this just muddies the waters, because they are by definition more specialised degrees than the average undergraduate degree, and thus you are far likelier to be exposed to the genuinely more esoteric, difficult to grasp concepts in these, and perhaps Masters too.
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.
0
reply
Plainview
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#66
Report 5 years ago
#66
(Original post by AreebWithaHat)
because a degree reviewing batman films will not be as difficult as a degree in physics.
Why would you compare those two?
0
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#67
(Original post by Felix Felicis)
It is not just people on this site though who hold this belief - there seems to be a belief in the general public that science-based degrees are more rigorous, intellectually-demanding, etc.
Ah, so you've consulted experts. Great! :yep:
0
reply
Pessimisterious
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#68
Report 5 years ago
#68
Art is just expression. ANYONE can do it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#69
Report 5 years ago
#69
(Original post by Pessimisterious)
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
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.
0
reply
techno-thriller
Badges: 14
#70
Report 5 years ago
#70
(Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)

If it wasn't for arts, there would be no entertainment. The world would be an incredibly boring place.
One can argue, if we knew no arts, the world would not have been boring. Rather we would have been used to it.
So what exactly does maths and science contribute to human progression?
Everything around you is based on maths and physics
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.
Let's begin.

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.
Let me first define STEM subjects.


  • Science and science related subjects: e.g. medicine, nursing, agriculture, horticulture, dentistry, veterinary science, animal science, geology, astronomy, science elements of hairdressing, psychology and pharmacy.
  • Technology: e.g. I.T., manufacturing technology, electricity transmission, telecoms.
  • Engineering: e.g. aerospace, civil engineering, electrical engineering, motor mechanics, marine engineering, power engineering, construction.

Mathematics: e.g. statistics, pure and applied mathematics.

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?

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.
We cannot erase the unwanted traits. As long as people continue to reproduce, they will be there. That's natural.

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.
Stem subjects a have done more for this world than any musician or artist ever will.

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.
0
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#71
(Original post by Pessimisterious)
Art is just expression. ANYONE can do it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
To do it well enough for everybody to be able to appreciate is an art.
Is comedy also something anybody can do? Or acting well?
Can anybody create a great piece of music?
0
reply
Felix Felicis
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#72
Report 5 years ago
#72
(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
Ah, so you've consulted experts. Great! :yep:
Well to assert that this is a belief that is widely held by the odd 1 million TSR users based on a handful of threads made by a few select elitist members/ trolls has just as much backing as me making the claim for the population of Britain based on the number of times I've heard people say "You want to study maths? Gosh you must be clever, I could never do that!​"
0
reply
techno-thriller
Badges: 14
#73
Report 5 years ago
#73
(Original post by Dr Pesto)
Absolute b0llocks.
What have they contributed then?
0
reply
Et Tu, Brute?
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#74
Report 5 years ago
#74
(Original post by Felix Felicis)
It is not just people on this site though who hold this belief - there seems to be a belief in the general public that science-based degrees are more rigorous, intellectually-demanding, etc.
The 'general public' couldn't give a toss.

You also can't say that to be true either. Where is your evidence for such a statement?

Also, you are veering off track here. Since when does rigour equal respect?
0
reply
Pessimisterious
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#75
Report 5 years ago
#75
In a city of scientists, there will still be creativity. Because anyone can do that.

But in a city of artists, there will be no science.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
techno-thriller
Badges: 14
#76
Report 5 years ago
#76
(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? Yes there's an element of luck in there, as there's no guarantee they'll become a successful artist. But if they want to try and devote their life to their hobby, why shouldn't they pursue a degree in it?



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.




Posted from TSR Mobile
I went to sleep for a while - I'm guessing your questions have been replied to.
0
reply
rickfloss
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#77
Report 5 years ago
#77
(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?
engineering and product design are pretty respected

or by "creative" do you mean painting on a canvas with your own faeces
0
reply
Pessimisterious
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#78
Report 5 years ago
#78
The pursuit of art is fine. But to officially 'study' it..? Hedonism.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
DJMayes
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#79
Report 5 years ago
#79
(Original post by Book_Lover_23)
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
Maths does not require special aptitude up to a point. However, the exact same holds true for any artistic subject. To say that it does not require a certain level of natural aptitude to progress past a certain point is as stupid as saying that given enough time I could paint a professional piece of artwork when I am physically incapable of drawing even a stick-man to a passable standard. It simply isn't going to happen and I do not believe that given enough time you could get someone who is simply bad at Maths to be able to get a good pass in a good undergraduate Maths degree.
1
reply
Book_Lover_23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#80
Report 5 years ago
#80
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
I don't know if you're being serious or not, but this clearly isn't true, it does require special ability in many cases. There are many people who simply cannot hack maths, science etc be it in secondary school or beyond, regardless of how good their teachers are. Yes, they may learn a little better with good instructors, but to claim anyone can become gifted at these subjects whilst not being the same for the arts is rubbish.

The same could be said for art or music. Colour theory and drawing techniques as well as playing instruments could be learnt and studied rather than requiring special talent. Just so you know, I dont actually believe this, in my view innate talent is needed for both to actually become a world famous scientist or artist.
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
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 A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (206)
22.17%
The paper was reasonable (395)
42.52%
Not feeling great about that exam... (178)
19.16%
It was TERRIBLE (150)
16.15%

Watched Threads

View All