Well, for one thing, people aren't lining up to give you money for moving expenses like they are to give you student loans.
1) I think there are two related slightly different questions here: what can an individual expect, and how should society allocate its scarce resources to best provide for general welfare. The former is a matter of accurately surveying the landscape; the latter is a matter of subjective preferences, albeit within certain constraints. 2) Feasibility. My argument here is a pragmatic, not a moral, one. There are plenty of places willing to give out financial loans to students (although given the rates of defaults and unemployment, they must be getting antsy about the wisdom of their investments). There are significantly fewer looking to give unemployed people thousands of dollars to move across the country for hypothetical jobs. And while you could save, odds are that if you are unemployed, you don't have much in the way of savings. The people with means to move are the ones who, in your scenario, shouldn't; the ones who should, lack means.
Just to weigh in on this thread: Yes, Art should be subsidized. I wish there was more emphasis on it in grade school, because I truly think it is important. It doesn't have to be science vs. art. Both have their place, and both should be recognized as important. Just my two cents.
Historically, the arts (in terms of music and visual art) were always paid for by a large "corporation:" the government, a religious organization, a rich family. At the same time, artists generally were educated and performed solely through their guild. Artists took in apprentices when they were young children. The children were taken care of, and in return, they were around to see and help with the master's techniques, and eventually, allowed to contribute to the art itself and perhaps one day become a master them self. That just isn't the system of today. Today's system allows an unorganized glut of artists to exist. There are some "guilds" around but they aren't the same as before, and honestly, I can't imagine an organization that takes in children to ethically exist today. The advantage of art in the US today is that you can do what you want, when you want, and have it mean what you want. The disadvantage is that, talking percentages, you probably aren't getting paid to do it. I am okay, even with the federal government being in utter and abject debt, for the federal government to subsidize art on a SMALL scale. Art needs to exist. However, I think a revamp of the education and organization of artists needs to be undergone. In terms of a stable economy? It is smart for the government to give partial or full grants to the training and education of people who can use that education and training to get a job (ie: engineering). It encourages people to enter fields that need new workers, and allows them to have jobs, spend money, and file taxes. I think this is especially true since (has this happened already?) banks will be less likely to hand out student loans since, with the low employment rates of new graduates, new graduates are having a hard time repaying these debts. This being said, our economy is pretty shitty and there is unemployment in all fields, so this isn't an absolute answer to our problems by any means.
With this, I'll bow out of my over-posting in this thread: I think that if you want to create more engineers, scientists, etc., a revamping of lower level education would be much more fruitful than college-level subsidies. Obviously a subsidy at that level will have at least a nonzero positive effect, but almost no one avoids those fields because they think the money/jobs won't be there. Everyone knows being a physicist or engineer is probably a decent financial bet, and they still choose not to be. I think it's less a matter of long-term payoff than it is most 18 years old believing that they aren't capable of becoming an engineer, or that it is antithetical to their interests. And they may be right. If someone is barely making it through pre-calculus, they are likely ill-suited for designing bridges. A more productive route may be creating a system that produced 18 year olds who want to and are prepared to undertake that sort of training.
I think you are absolutely correct. The problem is, people as a whole are generally short sighted. If a new policy doesn't show results in less than 2 or 3 years, people bitch and moan about it being a waste of money. To fix the unemployment issues, we're going to need both short term and long term fixes. Because, face it. We have people in traditionally high demand fields who are unemployed. Even if we better educate our kids starting in the first grade in math and science, it doesn't mean that the employment problems of today are getting fixed. If anything, it means that we'll have more unemployed engineers in 16 years. There are other problems in the mix here that are contributing to our economic crisis. It took us time to get into this mess and it's going to take time and a lot of effort to get out of it.
It looks like we're discussing two different issues here, whether the government should subsidize undergraduate arts majors, and whether the government should subsidize professional artists. The former is a question about whether we want to have a certain level of arts education among the general populace. Is there some public good that comes from having people well read in Shakespeare and Chaucer out there, even if their jobs have nothing to do with English literature? It's probably worth remembering that even people majoring in the arts are still taking a broad range of required lower level classes. If we don't subsidize the arts, should we at least subsidize an art major's first two years when he's mostly taking Freshman composition, math, science, history - largely the same class as a chemistry major?
This is the issue today: There are so many people wanting to create "art" that it's very easy for the act of doing so to become meaningless. You shouldn't get any money for sitting in your apartment in Brooklyn occasionally pasting a leaf you found to a large canvas, but from what I've seen/heard that's exactly what people want. Whether subsidies exist in the US or not, these retards don't understand that they probably wouldn't even qualify for one because they aren't artists, they're bullshitters. I am surprised that this was posted/is being discussed by Canadians, you guys have a bunch of different programs (Film Board of Canada, Canada Council of the Arts, etc) that have been benefactors of some major artists. Most people are calling for that sort of thing to be created in the US, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, what with the debt and all.
Simple answer to art education - yes there should be subsidies. However, they should be smaller and for fewer students and not open to "as long as you apply" or "Sure you can study fine arts for the 6th year, here's another student loan" I think art and artists is very needed, I just think schools are pretending too many people are "artists" to get the cash from em. This is partly the student loan systems issue as well. I met a number of people in college that were simply being professional students and not actually ever learning anything useful for if they ever left. The system should filter them out and cut them off much sooner. Most I met planned on the bankruptcy way out and while I was still there the rules changed so that student loans would stay with you after you tried that and good for that change. In my mind art has become more of who can tell the best bullshit title for something bad and they get an A. Hell you could probably shit in a tuperware container seal it up, put it on a post and call it art because inside you feel it "shows the glorification and preservation of the decay of the moral and social values of society. Fuck you it's shit in a box. Also we have a medical system that cries for more nurses and doctors and other levels of employees but the system simply says "there is no money" Well perhaps education subsidies need to start heading towards that area for a decade or so. Perhaps a new doctor would be more willing to work for 100K a year instead of 250K a year if they weren't already paying off a debt larger than many mortgages. Of course this is all just a wishful concept.
You're right that there is a need for medical professionals, but did you know that there are literally not enough classrooms, equipment, and teachers to get enough of these professionals out the door? My school built a new allied health building while I was attending uni there, and they still had to reject FAR more people than they could fit in the classrooms. RN, PT, RT, and MD classes are filled up everywhere. Infrastructure is a pivotal point that needs to be addressed, but it takes years to build structures and buy the equipment needed for training. And that shit ain't free, either.
Now that I am home with a keyboard I would like to address a few things. I had some time off between undergrad and grad school (6 years, actually), so I never went straight through to grad school. I lived and supported myself in the real world. I worked as an artist and supplemented my income by teaching and taking jobs waiting tables, working in retail, etc. I think this is the way the majority of artists live. I don't know anyone who has "depended on welfare and bitched about his employment". While working in retail, I noticed that every single employee had a bachelor's degree (some with a master's) in business or early childhood education. So, that isn't an "arts thing". That's a "new grad with a degree in something that isn't a trade" thing. //////I don't know how other BFA grads are handling student loans. I don't discuss finances with friends. //////I had several opportunities I was interested in. PT attracted me because it was something different and, therefore, interesting and challenging to me. But, I could have easily gotten into several different directions, all related to my art. I'm not suggesting all artists will need to move on to something completely unrelated. I know musicians who sell instruments. I know actors who have gotten into production, and artists who are now food artists for commercials. I know several people who have started their own companies, and they are doing well. Many are working in the administration of companies. I can't speak for all artists, but I think the intelligent ones are aware of some different, yet related, avenues when they're deciding to pursue a passion. There are more opportunities than outsiders think. But, how would you know if you aren't involved or very close to someone who is? Dcc has some pretty strong opinions about an industry and subculture of which she seems to know very little.
Should the government support the arts? No, because that means they are forcing me to through my taxes. It fucking pisses me off that I’m sponsoring dreadlocked fuckwits to glue their pubes to a barbie doll for “work” then protest things than make my state financially viable as a hobby. Seriously, fuck those maggots. A private individual built this, cost him $75 Million, costs $8 million PA to maintain, its fucking incredible, leaves you feeling somewhat violated afterwards, but in a good way. For example there is a whole wall of cast vaginas, a machine which builds human poo and drops one a 2pm every day and a Porche that has been made fat. <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Old_and_New_Art" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Old_and_New_Art</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://mona.net.au/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://mona.net.au/</a> There are a couple of restaurants onsite as well as a vineyard and brewery, they all cater to the owners private tastes, if you happen to also like it that’s great, if not fuck you. My feeling of art funding mirrors the renaissance where it should be high net worth individuals who sponsor the it. Nothing good ever comes from government subsidisation or protective legislation.
Well fuck, the government shouldn't support the sciences either then, because I don't want to be forced to support some dreadlocked fuckwit studying the ability of sick shrimp to run on underwater treadmills.
I don’t think “oooow isn’t that pretty, I feel so challenged by that splash of paint, it matches my vintage clothes and butterfly neck tat” compares to “Mr and Mrs Smith, your child is going to live” I’m prepared to subsidise one, can you guess which?
Yes, we all agree that bad, meaningless art shouldn't be subsidized. The question was about good art that advances society.
Look, I agree, there's a lot of stuff that gets subsidized, both in art and science that I think isn't a great expenditure of my tax dollars. In the U.S., the biggest part of our budget is defense, and I don't particularly think that all the money we spend is put to good use. Any subsidized area is going to have parts that are objectionable to me, or anyone else for that matter. I guess I come down on the side of I'd rather subsidize some bad stuff if it goes towards good stuff as well.
Maybe this will better illustrate where I'm arguing from. U.S. student debt surpasses $1 trillion dollars this year. This article, and others like it, suggest that post secondary education is more of an albatross than a benefit to young people graduating today. It's a brewing crisis that, in my personal opinion, will rival the sub-prime mortgage crises of 2008 when it finally ruptures. I'm not an economist - I don't know how exactly it will play out - but when a portion of the 2/3 of graduating students who carry this debt start defaulting, it will implode the economy. Contrast this looming debt problem with the fact that fewer Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) students graduate as compared to degrees like Liberal arts and they also take longer to get their degrees, too. The article points out that fewer biology and science majors means fewer doctors later on. It appears that programs geared towards the techies are harder for students to soldier through, especially minorities. No one is arguing that making a living as an artist isn't hard. The problem is that there's a lack of balance between who is graduating with what degree as compared to what is in demand within society. When student debt crisis truly hits, you can bet that the government - the taxpayers - will be asked/told to subsidize all the unwise degree choices when the inevitable bailout happens. TX, I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow. You asked here why Arts degrees were being singled out so badly, after posting these details about your personal experience. When I wrote this response I honestly thought I was just answering your question in a way that related to your story. I think it's nothing short of admirable that you graduated with a degree and no debt. And you've gone even further by selecting a doctorate that's actually in demand, will allow you to earn a living and presumably suits your interests. The reason I personally single out liberal arts and arts is because, while I think you're typical (in that your ultimate career will not be with your Arts degree), I think you're sadly atypical (in that you are a unique case; the vast majority of other students don't seem to be able to accomplish what you've accomplished).