I am by no means saying that book smart = common sense. Often, as you've pointed out, the opposite tends to be true. However, that policy you just listed sounds an awful lot like a safety procedure that's been piped through a government bureaucracy. It makes perfect sense that ASTRONAUTS and FLIGHT ENGINEERS need to be informed of high winds. A union gets involved, a procedure gets batted back and forth through umpteen committees, and presto. You now have office employees that must receive bulletins not to go out in the rain. Lots of 'stupid' company policies are often borne from either someone getting killed or a decision by committee that got out of hand; not by the lack of common sense within the staff.
The decision for what the safety briefings will be is made within small divisions of the contractor, so it's not some ill fitted policy announced from above. But anyways, I was responding to the idea that everyone in STEM programs already has the critical thinking and communication skills conveyed in a liberal arts program.
If we're talking about undergrads, I don't think that they do. If anything, there's probably more scholarship money available for STEM majors. Though, at the level of the state subsidizing the university on the whole, all majors benefit equally from reduced tuition. I don't see why an area being easier to study matters. It still costs the same. You might have an argument though that an art history major should get funding for only 3-3.5 years, since the degree could be finished quicker. Though, if the school charges based on credits rather than semesters, it'd be the same price. Also, a large part of an art major's education will look the same as a STEM major. You take largely the same classes the first two years, fulfilling all the university wide prerequisites. So, there's a question of whether pulling funding means just for the upper level classes, or for everything (assuming we even know what you're going to major in). Several art majors aren't performance majors, such as English literature and art history. And even among performance majors, many students will have no plans to be professional artists. The point of an arts education isn't just to produce artists or to create jobs skills. It's because there's some intangible value to having a citizenry that is both educated and which has a diversity of educations. So the question is, is this right? Is this sort of education some sort of public good? Every time a debate comes up about banning books, I'm glad to know there are some English majors out there who will have some well-informed opinions about literature. Every time a debate about creationism comes up, I'm glad that those English majors were also required to take some biology classes.
Presently they don't, but that seems to be the argument of several people in this topic, no? That we should subsidize art education, as opposed to simply subsidizing works of art? Probably true, but most of it comes from major companies (Intel and Siemens are two huge patrons that come to mind), private organizations with no ties to government, and private organizations receiving funding from the government, but not directly or solely for scholarships. My argument is why give incentives to a series of majors that ALREADY enjoy wild popularity and ALREADY have the huge advantage of being vastly easier? What is the point? To have even more people major in subjects and then be out of work after graduation? This really, really depends on the university. In some cases, you're correct. In other cases, you couldn't be more wrong. At my university, for instance, I took 4-5 math and science classes and 1-2 humanities classes per term (trimester) starting with freshman year. Granted it was a technical school, but still. When I mentioned professional, worthwhile work, I wasn't solely talking about paintings, sculpture, books, or film. I even meant something like writing worthwhile research papers about the history of science, the Agricultural Revolution, or an interesting, relevant critique of Conrad's works. The overwhelming majority of liberal arts majors are incapable of this. The most informed opinions I have heard about literature have all come from....math and science majors! They have also been the most well-read. I don't think you realize how well-read and educated most math/science people are in the humanities. The opposite (humanities people with a strong knowledge of math and science) is significantly rarer.
That's actually an interesting point. Now that I think about it, a system I'd like to see trialed is: if you are enrolled in a STEM degree, the Govt would heavily subsidize you getting a double degree with an arts component, and vice versa. The more I think about it, the more I think a lot of really valuable innovation tends to come from the joining of two formerly disparate areas. Why not train a generation of renaissance men and women? This way the money goes to the people dedicated enough to put in the work for a double degree, and your students would be eminently employable in many different fields. I'm either a goddamn genius, or shouldn't theorize after a wake n bake. It's hard to tell sometimes.
That's more PhD level work. Most? Don't know about that. Though, of the math/science people who are well educated in the humanities, how many of them received a government subsidized humanities education? Remember, math majors still take some literature classes.
There's some organization that allows people to post math/science/tech problems, and other people provide answers, typically with no compensation (I can't think of the name of it, but it's discussed in Imagine by Jonah Lehrer). A ton of the solutions came from people in other fields. They bring a different perspective and think about the problems in a different way. And just look at how much great political commentary comes from comedians.
Kind of an unfair comparison. Im sure tons of politicians, from all the fields they are from, would love to comment on politics with the same level of freedom comedians do. But they have to stick to the script lest they find themselves on the wrong side of a media backlash.
It's not merely the freedom to voice your opinion though. Comedians look at problems with a completely different eye. Politicians are usually concerned with getting reelected, what makes for good rhetoric, maintaining party discipline, and gaining chips to trade with the other side. Comedians tend to look for absurdity and contradictions, and though the intent is to be funny, the different point of view can illuminate the issue, make us think about it in something other than typical political terms. But, the comedy thing was just meant as a handy example, not really the crux of the argument.
I can't speak for every STEM major, but I would believe for most cases you are quite wrong about this. I think in my first two years of college I took maybe 3 or 4 total humanities courses. The rest were physics, chemistry, calculus and engineering specific classes. Your comment also doesn't take into account that the science pre-req for STEM majors are generally more difficult than the ones taking by humanities and business majors. That little inaccuracy aside, I do think that art should be subsidized. It helps stimulate and grow our society in a lot of intangible ways. Most peoples lives are better off for having some art in it. The tuition reimbursement seems like a bad way to subsidize it though. I think we all probably knew quite a few slackers in college that just took the easiest route. Those types of people would flock to the arts majors if they were subsidized. So I don't think that would be the best way to spend money for the purpose of creating interesting, inspiring art.
Whoever brought up the difference between subsidizing art education and art WORK I think made an excellent point. Thinking about it from that angle, I support the way that art has historically been patronized: by buying the piece, arranging for a mural to be painted, by hiring the architect to create an interesting exterior to a building. Some people create amazing things and have had no formal training (this is especially true of musicians: how many bands started in someone's garage with no formal instrument training?). I don't think that formal university education is a pre-req to being a legitimate artist. A lot of artwork is simple mastering technique and being able to recreate it over and over. You have to have an eye and a brain for the subject matter, though, and a lot of that can't be taught. I still stick with my early idea, that public works of art are valuable and enrich lives and create culture. The way for it to get there, though? Not by paying for John Smith to take painting classes.
That wasn't art, and everyone who applauded should feel ashamed. And this is why I said if the government is going to fund art, it should steer clear of more experimental stuff, and focus on things where you can observe a certain technical skill level. And on a completely different note, the Army alone has 34 bands (<a class="postlink" href="http://bands.army.mil/bands/aa/default.asp?UNITNAME=1AD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://bands.army.mil/bands/aa/default.asp?UNITNAME=1AD</a>). It's not just soldiers who in their off time play instruments; if you look at the schedules, you'll see that these are full time musicians. And that's just one branch. Maybe someone can run the numbers - it'd be interesting to see how much money the military spends on artists as compared to the NEA.
This got me interested so I looked up what each service has. The Air Force has 23 bands, the Navy has 13, and the Marines have 14. In total that's 84 military bands. Granted most of them have regions of responsibility so all of them play in only in a certain area around where they are based, but that area can take up several states, or for the overseas bands several countries. Oh, and all of these bands have support personnel backing them too from what I've seen, and I'm sure their fancy uniforms cost a dick ton as well.
Sorry to bring this up again but check this shit out, it's exactly the kind of fuckwittery I was ranting about. 1 million dollars! <a class="postlink" href="http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/the-eyes-have-it-in-1m-art-attack/story-e6frfq80-1226388156636" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/the- ... 6388156636</a>