[linuxftw]

> Because there are things worth learning beyond just what's valuable to the job market

That's just your opinion. Unfortunately, it's supported by the entrenched education establishment, but that doesn't make it true.

The cold hard reality is, if you aren't college material, don't attend some vocational school, and don't learn a trade, you're in for a life of hard labor or burger flipping. It's going to be a completely crap life for most people.

> those of us who do want to pursue a career that requires a higher education shouldn't have to spend the rest of our lives in debt just to do so.

Yeah, one way to reduce costs would be to remove all the extraneous coursework that's of zero value to society.

[physicsyogi]

> Yeah, one way to reduce costs would be to remove all the extraneous coursework that's of zero value to society.

Some of that "extraneous coursework", I'm thinking of things like theather, drama, and dance, brings billions of dollars to the economy every year. For example, Broadway alone generates billions in spending annually [1], with some of that spending going towards the transportation, hospitality (hotel, food) [2], and merchandising industries [3].

[1] https://variety.com/2014/legit/news/broadway-economic-impact...

[2] https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-d...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/theater/hamilton-inc-the-...

(Edited for formatting)

[manifestsilence]

Music major here, played in Carnegie Hall. Now I'm a code monkey. Yes, the arts have economic value to society. But even someone majoring in them in a grad program isn't usually going to be making money directly on that stage, much less someone who takes an elective.

I'd argue the real value of the arts in education is that they enrich the lives of those people taking them. This is particularly true in grade school, because it's usually free. Once you start to get into debt for these enriching passions, it becomes a calculus of worth. The best way to enjoy the arts is to have sufficient stress-free time to enjoy them, plus a small amount of discretionary funds depending on the art. If you don't have that, you can be an amazing artist with no time, energy, or money left to enjoy your own talents.

I think also a major problem in our society is the centralization that easy and prevalent media access causes in the arts. Instead of hundreds of local artists, you only need one Lady Gaga. She's great, but there's also a huge amount of value in taking in the arts of local people who you know or who are part of your community. It fosters diversity, local community, and a sense of pride and identity in a place. It also helps ensure that there will be more quality superstars in the future, as everyone has to start somewhere.

Anyway, all this to say I agree, and then some. People just often focus on the extrinsic value of the arts - economic or their side benefit to STEM performance - when the intrinsic value for each person who partakes in them is the most important. Sing in the shower :)

[linuxftw]

> Anyway, all this to say I agree, and then some. People just often focus on the extrinsic value of the arts - economic or their side benefit to STEM performance - when the intrinsic value for each person who partakes in them is the most important. Sing in the shower :)

The discussion isn't whether or not you personally find intrinsic value in art. The question is, of how much utility is it to include this kind of thing in an educational curriculum when there are many people struggling financially.

When everybody's off public assistance and the unemployment numbers are at 0, we should discuss enlightening some people with the fine arts. Until then, we should be spending that money in order to train and educate people in a way that will make a material difference in their lives.

[linuxftw]

I'm sure the less than 1% of people involved in that industry are super happy the rest of society subsidized their fun and creative lifestyle.

I guess flipping burgers and not having enough money to pay your bills is all okay because a select few (of most likely already privileged kids) got to sing and dance for money.

[FiddlyPack]

Studying history seems like it would have immense value to society, but negative value to short-term corporate interests, and, by extension, may not be in the best interests of the individual. The same could be said of the study of ethics.

I must say “seems like” because there’s really no scientific way to prove this (most of the time...although there are some interesting micro-studies in behavioral economics). But if you think about it even a little bit, I think you would agree that having a “collective memory” about causality in society is incredibly valuable to the interests of the citizens of that society, even if it has negative economic value to individuals.

[linuxftw]

Just ask the burger flippers how it's such a great value to society. Unless you mean middle/upper class society, then yeah, sure. For the poor, helps them in no way imaginable.

[kiliantics]

Well it's not like the business/tech majors are helping the poor either. If anything, they help keep people poor more than the history majors do.

[FiddlyPack]

Did you miss the part where I said it has a negative economic impact on individuals, even though it may net more good to the collective as a whole? It’s a sort of free-rider problem, and I don’t fault any individual for playing the game.

[ohaideredevs]

I think the biggest part of the problem isn't that there are liberal arts degrees, it's that they aren't clearly labelled "these are for the rich kids who never need to work".

Same for any "business major", of course, except double major in accounting on CPA track.

[linuxftw]

If you consider the amount of public funding that goes into higher education, degrees for 'rich kids that never need to work' is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. In effect, the liberal arts degrees themselves are the problem.

[ativzzz]

> Same for any "business major"

Dunno about that, many of my middle class friends with degrees in Finance, Marketing, MIS, etc, went on to secure well paying jobs right out of college, and now 5-6 years later are doing really well for themselves. Also I know people who went to big 4 consulting out of undergrad with liberal arts degrees.

I think it depends more on the school than the major. A shitty school with bad career coaching that doesn't teach you how to 'sell' yourself to prospective employers will have unemployed software engineers.