Why are creative degrees less respected?

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 totally agree - anyone has the ability to learn maths or physics or something,


Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't think you need a degree to contribute to human culture...(!)

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

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 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.

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?

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.

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?

Well, arts don't contribute much to human progression compared to maths and science, that why I think they are less respected

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?

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.

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 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.

What makes you think you need a science degree to contribute to human understanding? It may help, but what makes it 'required'?

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.

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

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

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.

That could be seen as quite offensive you know, and it certainly isn't true.

Again - where does the degree requirement come in?