[elblanco]

I don't think I said anything about being "good" at art. There are sadly a great many artists that aren't particularly good.

I don't know what the admission standards are to get into an undegrad art program, but at least at my alma mater, there are a great many pieces of junk littering the grounds that are apparently supposed to be showpiece works of the art students, apparently actually being "good" is not a prerequisite.

I'm just not sure what exactly is "hard" about getting an art degree, and I'm perfectly willing to say that's because of my own ignorance. Some of the art history classes might be toughish, perhaps learning specific techniques, or comparative art across cultures or something. But nothing more difficult than say, a technical writing class.

[foldr]

I think that it's hard to get an art degree because you need to be able to produce good art in order to get one.

Granted, you don't have to be very good, but then you don't have to be a very good physicist in order to get a physics degree.

>there are a great many pieces of junk littering the grounds that are apparently supposed to be showpiece works of the art students, apparently actually being "good" is not a prerequisite.

What if undergraduate work in math and physics were put on display? Would it necessarily be any more impressive? You don't expect undergraduates to be world-class physicists, and you can't really expect them to be world-class artists either.