And will pay it how, exactly? By borrowing against those high future incomes that he is likely to get as an artist? A college education is, at this point, so prohibitively expensive that these fields cannot be funded by "oh, I'll pull myself up by my bootstraps and get a job as a night watchman." There was a time when you could do that. That time is not now. As such, the supply of people to these fields is increasingly limited to those who can afford to fuck around, potentially squandering a great deal of talent (which may find its way out via alternative routes, admittedly, but will not get the training it might otherwise). Also, as TX mentioned, I think you have very far afield views about how hard arts are. Sociology, English, etc. sure. But almost everyone I know who studied something artistic worked far harder than I did to get my math and economics degree.
Seriously. We were in the studio at 8:30 am M-F and getting home at 9 most nights. A Saturday (9-3 or 4ish) off was unheard of. It demands an enormous amount of passion, discipline and commitment. And, despite some of my current classmates' thoughts, most of the time it isn't "fun". It's work with a little bit of fun every now and then. These professors/directors are ruthless. They don't tolerate slackers, tardiness or bullshit. Because they don't in the real world after college. They were preparing us for that.
Now if you want to find slackers who are taking the path of content-free least resistance, amble on down to the business school, which one would expect to be full of "useful" studies.
Guess what, no one gives a fuck how hard you work. If you can sell your art on your own for a good price, great, you win, if not, shut the fuck up and pay your debts while slaving away at whatever meaningless job you found. None of this is anyone's fault but your own.
Wow. Look at all the attitude. Sounds like someone has a chip on his shoulder. I'm not bitching. I'm happy with my life. I'm merely supporting Cowbell's statement.
I was going to be a bit more polite than this... I'm aware of how hard artists work. I had a friend in high school who was serious about selling her art; she worked a hell of a lot harder than the valedictorian and other scholastic achievers. She practiced during class, during lunch, and probably at home as well, seeing as how her portfolio for her class was easily five times the size of everyone else's. She showed me some of her work, and it was outstanding. Last I talked with her, she was majoring in art. I hope she does well, although I'm pessimistic about her chances. The thing is, while she made some really cool stuff, I don't value art enough to pay massive amounts of money for it. Even masterpieces - stuff that's both art and history, an snapshot of an entire culture's hopes and fears captured on canvas - boggles my mind when I hear about it selling at Sotheby's for millions of dollars. I just don't see a market for it. If a person wants to patronize the arts, that's perfectly fine. I have absolutely no problem with someone who is interested in art and pays money to support artists in plying their craft. But I do have a problem with the taxpayers (most of whom don't give a rat's ass about art) paying for something that doesn't affect them. This isn't meant to be a rant about artists being slackers or the structure that they work in; it's a response to MoreCowbell's assertion that the government should subsidize majors that aren't able to support themselves financially. The government should concern itself with what benefits the country. Having more skilled people in the trades and technical fields benefits the country (and probably the artists as well, since richer people are more inclined to go buy art). Therefore, the government should encourage people to major in things that are useful. If someone wants to make their own way in the art or literary world, that's fine. But they shouldn't expect the government to help pay for their choice.
I can't say for colleges at large, but I have been doing research on law school expenses for a while (they're going up at an even faster rate). A big factor has been reduced teaching loads. If the average professor goes from teaching 10 hours to 8 each year, you have to hire 20% more faculty. That's a pretty huge expense on its own, but there's also collateral expenses. More faculty means more office space, more secretaries, and the higher head count means you need another IT guy. Add in guaranteed loans to fund it, and it pushes demand up even more. But, I think the bold part gets to it. They charge more because they can, not because the degree is worth more. If anything, the degree is becoming worth less because so many people have one now. As for whether Harvard could cut costs and offer the same things, I'd love to hear what it is they're offering now that makes their degree more than twice as valuable as it was 30 years ago. It's hard to imagine what could be so valuable, and I bet most students would give it up to graduate with a more manageable debt load.
The Arts, while maybe not pecuniary in nature, are some of the most important developments in human history. Don't get me wrong, bridges are awesome, air conditioning is fantastic, the combustion engine is a God send. But the Arts are just as important. They define, refine, guide, give meaning, context and beauty to our lives. In no way am I saying that engineering and science aren't important, they undoubtedly are. But Art? In my humble opinion, Art is what makes us human. it defines us. It makes us more than machines. It gives soul and breadth to humanity in general. I don't know about you, but I feel (even though I can't buy expensive art) that it benefits all of us. Every single one of us, whether I get it or not, it is vital to our development as humans, both physically and spiritually. I think that's a benefit to one and all.