I've noticed an increasingly prevalent attitude about college that I find to be quite cynical: the only reason you go to college is to increase your chances of earning a higher income after you graduate. Because of increasing tuition costs and interests rates, I can understand how such an attitude might become more common nowadays. A nice comfy salary would be great of course after college but should that really be the end goal of one's education? To me if I had to choose between (1) studying something I love but as result not having that great of employment options and (2) studying something I'm ambivalent towards or even hate but would possibly get a $100,000 job as a result, I'm afraid I would have to go with the former. Spending 8 hours a day doing something I hate to earn a high salary isn't worth it (assuming there aren't already other extenuating circumstances such as family). I wouldn't be meeting my full potential because in my mind my potential is not necessarily correlated with my income level.
Art, music, and philosophy students are much maligned from my observations from business, technology, and science students because of their "worthless" degrees. Supposedly people into the fine arts like myself should either just drop out and apply to Starbucks or get a "real" degree in say engineering or mathematics. Sure, a violinist is not going to is not going to help invent the first interstellar drive, a painter is not going to invent the next iPhone, nor is an english major going to cure cancer but doing those things are not what everyone feels at all called to do. This sort of degeneration of art, music, literature, philosophy and related majors I suspect unwarrantedly assumes three things: (1) an education's worth is related to that education's utility to society, (2) that the "utility" of an education is only measured by how well an education serves toward's society's technological advancement, and (3) that a graduate's salary is somehow correlated with their self worth and how well they contribute toward's society's technological advancement. I almost get the impression when people express this sort of thinking that their ideal society is a Borg cube.
There are some other notions I resent about majors outside of the scientific/technical world. I get the impression from some that Art/Music/Writing etc is "easy." I kindly ask of such people to write a decent fugue. They can't of course before spending years reading thousands of pages from dozens of books on the subject.
I've also heard it suggested that people should just teach themselves art. That's possible and I've done it for myself for the past five years but you won't have the needed pressure to insure that you are committed fully to the study, nor will you probably be allowed time to really focus on your art undisturbed from other matters that would get in your way if you weren't in college or if you were enrolled in some other technical major. Nor would you have the support from teachers.
To me, education and meeting one's full potential in doing what they're talented in is more important than what gets you a high income. (Of course I understand however not everyone has the opportunity to readily choose between such extremes.)
What do you think? Has anyone else noticed this derogatory sentiment towards art majors, music majors, and etc? What do you think of it?
Art, music, and philosophy students are much maligned from my observations from business, technology, and science students because of their "worthless" degrees. Supposedly people into the fine arts like myself should either just drop out and apply to Starbucks or get a "real" degree in say engineering or mathematics. Sure, a violinist is not going to is not going to help invent the first interstellar drive, a painter is not going to invent the next iPhone, nor is an english major going to cure cancer but doing those things are not what everyone feels at all called to do. This sort of degeneration of art, music, literature, philosophy and related majors I suspect unwarrantedly assumes three things: (1) an education's worth is related to that education's utility to society, (2) that the "utility" of an education is only measured by how well an education serves toward's society's technological advancement, and (3) that a graduate's salary is somehow correlated with their self worth and how well they contribute toward's society's technological advancement. I almost get the impression when people express this sort of thinking that their ideal society is a Borg cube.
There are some other notions I resent about majors outside of the scientific/technical world. I get the impression from some that Art/Music/Writing etc is "easy." I kindly ask of such people to write a decent fugue. They can't of course before spending years reading thousands of pages from dozens of books on the subject.
I've also heard it suggested that people should just teach themselves art. That's possible and I've done it for myself for the past five years but you won't have the needed pressure to insure that you are committed fully to the study, nor will you probably be allowed time to really focus on your art undisturbed from other matters that would get in your way if you weren't in college or if you were enrolled in some other technical major. Nor would you have the support from teachers.
To me, education and meeting one's full potential in doing what they're talented in is more important than what gets you a high income. (Of course I understand however not everyone has the opportunity to readily choose between such extremes.)
What do you think? Has anyone else noticed this derogatory sentiment towards art majors, music majors, and etc? What do you think of it?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
