Why are creative degrees less respected? Watch

tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#141
Report 5 years ago
#141
I think the amount of "respect" that gets attributed to a degree isn't really based on what the actual content of the degree is. It's very difficult to say that one subject is objectively "better" than another, in most cases. Rather, respect and prestige are awarded based on how competitive it is to get onto that degree, and the standards of talent that an admissions tutor for that subject is going to require. If a certain subject only has tends to have entry standards of BCC, and a different subject has standards of A*A*A, naturally people will be more impressed when you tell them that you successfully got a place on the latter degree course, regardless of what the actual subjects are. Some degrees are only accessible to amazing students - and that's ultimately what you're being respected for.

Science subjects tend to carry more weight in the jobs market, especially when looking at the higher paid jobs, and so it makes them quite attractive to students who are capable of getting onto them. (Though there are exceptions - a Law degree is probably going to be more "respected" than a Food Sciences degree). Places on the corresponding degrees become more competitive, and the entry standards go up, and they're more respected as a result.

Of course there are attractive, competitive and lucrative professions in the Arts as well. You'd have to be outstanding to bring out a best-selling Music album for example, and would probably be awarded a lot of prestige for successfully achieving this. But this doesn't confer the same respect onto a Music degree, because a degree is not necessary to excel in this career. Neither Michael Jackson nor Mozart had university degrees in Music. This means that degree places aren't quite so competitive, neither are they as prestigious, because a person wouldn't need to be as outstanding in their field to successfully get a place on it and complete it.
0
reply
Book_Lover_23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#142
Report 5 years ago
#142
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Of course you're allowed to have your opinion, but the way you have posted about science and it not requiring talent has been as if it's a universal fact, which it isn't.

In any case, what is wrong with accepting that both mathematical and artistic disciplines require talent?
I didn't mean to post like it was fact - I actually agree that to be a good scientist talent is important. I was just saying that in my opinion talent isn't AS important in those fields as it is in others. Talent is important - if you want to be great at anything, you do need to have talent. But it's more important in some fields than others.

(Original post by Juichiro)
It does not matter whether or not they have a talent in an artsy area. If they don't like painting/writing, the presence or absence of talent is irrelevant.
Yeah, that's an excellent point. If someone doesn't like something then they can have all the talent in the world and it won't matter. But it's still important that these subjects are on offer in our schools, for those people who do like them.

(Original post by Juichiro)
Do physicists only earn 30k a year? :eek:

About the bolded bit: when was the last time you opened a science textbook?
It's the average I think. http://www.payscale.com/salaries/0d1...cist-UK-Salary

I know, a lot of textbooks aren't the clearest. But my point was simply that IF textbooks were written better, maths or physics COULD be taught from them, whereas art and writing and such cannot be taught through a book. But the textbook would have to contain sufficient information, obviously, which the majority of textbooks nowadays do not.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#143
Report 5 years ago
#143
(Original post by Book_Lover_23)
I didn't mean to post like it was fact - I actually agree that to be a good scientist talent is important. I was just saying that in my opinion talent isn't AS important in those fields as it is in others. Talent is important - if you want to be great at anything, you do need to have talent. But it's more important in some fields than others.



Yeah, that's an excellent point. If someone doesn't like something then they can have all the talent in the world and it won't matter. But it's still important that these subjects are on offer in our schools, for those people who do like them.



It's the average I think. http://www.payscale.com/salaries/0d1...cist-UK-Salary

I know, a lot of textbooks aren't the clearest. But my point was simply that IF textbooks were written better, maths or physics COULD be taught from them, whereas art and writing and such cannot be taught through a book. But the textbook would have to contain sufficient information, obviously, which the majority of textbooks nowadays do not.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Good point. :]
0
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#144
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#144
(Original post by Book_Lover_23)
I know, a lot of textbooks aren't the clearest. But my point was simply that IF textbooks were written better, maths or physics COULD be taught from them, whereas art and writing and such cannot be taught through a book. But the textbook would have to contain sufficient information, obviously, which the majority of textbooks nowadays do not.


Posted from TSR Mobile
I taught myself to draw from a book, though.
0
reply
Book_Lover_23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#145
Report 5 years ago
#145
(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
I taught myself to draw from a book, though.
Really? Well I guess I was wrong then how did you manage that?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#146
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#146
(Original post by Book_Lover_23)
Really? Well I guess I was wrong then how did you manage that?


Posted from TSR Mobile
I guess you could argue that I maybe had a natural aptitude but, of course, there's that for every subject :dontknow:

My grandmother is an art lecturer and she gave me a book when I was young. It was basic art theory. Angles to hold the pencil/brush at etc.
I tended to think about it quite mathematically back then by trying to get the geometry right etc so there was no real emotion in it. When my technique got better I found it easier to find the expression for myself.
0
reply
Book_Lover_23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#147
Report 5 years ago
#147
(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
I guess you could argue that I maybe had a natural aptitude but, of course, there's that for every subject :dontknow:

My grandmother is an art lecturer and she gave me a book when I was young. It was basic art theory. Angles to hold the pencil/brush at etc.
I tended to think about it quite mathematically back then by trying to get the geometry right etc so there was no real emotion in it. When my technique got better I found it easier to find the expression for myself.
Fair enough, yeah. That's pretty cool. I've always wished I could draw, I had plenty of books as a child but all I learned was how to draw a manga face, and I can't even draw that particularly well. I guess that's why I believe you need to have natural talent when it comes to art in order to be even slightly decent at it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#148
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#148
(Original post by Book_Lover_23)
Fair enough, yeah. That's pretty cool. I've always wished I could draw, I had plenty of books as a child but all I learned was how to draw a manga face, and I can't even draw that particularly well. I guess that's why I believe you need to have natural talent when it comes to art in order to be even slightly decent at it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
I spent weeks drawing certain shapes I'd draw circles for hours until I got them perfect and lines until I was satisfied with how straight they are. I am quite obsessive so I'm not sure if it was all natural talent
0
reply
Book_Lover_23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#149
Report 5 years ago
#149
(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
I spent weeks drawing certain shapes I'd draw circles for hours until I got them perfect and lines until I was satisfied with how straight they are. I am quite obsessive so I'm not sure if it was all natural talent
Oft. I've done that myself to an extent, but only so that I can draw decent diagrams without needing a ruler or circular object. Definitely wouldn't do it for pleasure. You're clearly very dedicated


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#150
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#150
(Original post by Book_Lover_23)
Oft. I've done that myself to an extent, but only so that I can draw decent diagrams without needing a ruler or circular object. Definitely wouldn't do it for pleasure. You're clearly very dedicated


Posted from TSR Mobile
Dedicated? It's compulsive. I don't want to do it! :lol:
0
reply
Book_Lover_23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#151
Report 5 years ago
#151
(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
Dedicated? It's compulsive. I don't want to do it! :lol:
Ah, you're a bit of a perfectionist then? That must be fun for you...


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#152
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#152
(Original post by Book_Lover_23)
Ah, you're a bit of a perfectionist then? That must be fun for you...


Posted from TSR Mobile
Nope.Not usually. Usually I'm lazy. I find something to obsess over and do it!
0
reply
Book_Lover_23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#153
Report 5 years ago
#153
(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
Nope.Not usually. Usually I'm lazy. I find something to obsess over and do it!
Cos that's normal! I don't do obsession myself. Maybe I've just never found anything that's interested me enough to obsess over though


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ClickItBack
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#154
Report 5 years ago
#154
On contribution to human progression:

One (imperfect) way to think about it to ask the question 'what would happen if subject X was to go back to our knowledge of it in the Yth century? How much worse off would our society be?'

So for example let's take X to be physics and music, and Y to be 17. Would you rather give up all the music developed since the 17th century, or all the physics?

Personally I think music going back to its 17th century state might even benefit society
0
reply
Xscape
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#155
Report 5 years ago
#155
LOL at people saying studying science will help progress mankind. As if everyone that goes into science at university is making a huge impact to our world.
0
reply
pickup
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#156
Report 5 years ago
#156
(Original post by Juichiro)
:facepalm:

Are you serious?
Unfortunately yes.

It is very difficult for people to make the imaginative leap to put themselves in another's shoes without some emotional help for the arts.

This is one of the most important things the arts do - they widen the experience of their audience, readers etc. in a way purely factual information cannot. This allows us to understand other people's lives.

(This is why everyone should have access to the arts in all its forms. Why the restriction of schooling to measurable subjects or only to those leading to employment, is dangerous. The arts make us better citizens.The ancient Greeks understood this.)
1
reply
Felix Felicis
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#157
Report 5 years ago
#157
(Original post by Xscape)
LOL at people saying studying science will help progress mankind. As if everyone that goes into science at university is making a huge impact to our world.
LOL at people saying the arts provide entertainment for us. As if everyone that studies arts at university is going to make a huge impact to the entertainment industry.
0
reply
Xscape
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#158
Report 5 years ago
#158
(Original post by Felix Felicis)
LOL at people saying the arts provide entertainment for us. As if everyone that studies arts at university is going to make a huge impact to the entertainment industry.
My point wasn't belief in the opposite that "everyone who studies art at university is going to make it in the entertainment industry" however people on here say people should do science since it progresses mankind. Which is simply not true they're are plenty of people who have studied science at university and have done no such thing. Also, if someone has the money why shouldn't they pursue a career in what they wish?
0
reply
Raiden10
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#159
Report 5 years ago
#159
(Original post by Xscape)
LOL at people saying studying science will help progress mankind. As if everyone that goes into science at university is making a huge impact to our world.
Not everyone is going to impact the world, period. You might study a science degree, then go into accounting perhaps, or instantly die of botulism. Many things can happen.

But fewer people studying science means less progress of technology. More people studying science means more progress of technology; this could be in the form of space travel, new ways to communicate, new ways to produce food on a wider scale, 3-D printing and i-phones and i-pads, whatever.
1
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#160
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#160
(Original post by Raiden10)
But fewer people studying science means less progress of technology. More people studying science means more progress of technology; this could be in the form of space travel, new ways to communicate, new ways to produce food on a wider scale, 3-D printing and i-phones and i-pads, whatever.
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
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 Edexcel GCSE Maths Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - feeling positive (30)
22.9%
The paper was reasonable (56)
42.75%
Not feeling great about that exam (25)
19.08%
It was TERRIBLE (20)
15.27%

Watched Threads

View All