This House believes degrees in the creative arts are luxuries society can no longer afford
The creative arts might be considered to include painting and sculpture but also drama, poetry and creative writing, dance, composition and music, and others. This debate will not focus on literature and other disciplines, such as History of Art, where the main role is to analyze the creative output of others. Instead the focus here is on those degrees that seek to train students to be practitioners of those disciplines rather than generalists with a focus on discussing them.
There are two possible approaches to this debate (in fact there are many but two are the most obvious). The first – and the one most clearly in the spirit of the motion – is that the creative arts add little to the economy directly and that if society is going to have universities, especially in those countries where they are funded through direct taxation, then students should be focusing on subjects that have a proven economic worth. Although the arts do contribute financially to an economy, it tends not to be in the way that, say, languages, engineering or economics do. There is another aspect here, which leads into the second interpretation, that graduates of creative arts departments rarely make their living in that field; the competition is simply too fierce.
That brings us on to Prop’s second choice for a definition, which is that if people really want to learn the creative arts then a university setting is not the right place to do so. Stage schools and fine art colleges are often separate from universities and, even then, some argue that if someone has real talent, they should just get on with it. There are countless examples of people who have excelled in the arts who have no formal training and learnt their craft ‘on the job’.
The specific focus on the creative arts also poses some problems for Proposition. If drama has to go, then why not philosophy – or for that matter large chunks of physics? Very few graduates pursue their subject professionally and those who do tend to simply teach it to the next generation replicating the situation. As a result, if Opposition accepts that, say, History has a place on the curriculum, because it is a useful way of training people’s minds, then why not train them as poets or ballerinas?
Opposition has some strong arguments on this front – the arts directly generate more revenue than, say, English Literature. Many graduates go on to do jobs that don’t require any degree at all, let alone their particular degree – so, once again, why focus on this particular collection of degrees. Opp’s strongest argument, however, is that society is about far more than cold economic data and that the arts add hugely to society in a way that is difficult to measure but would certainly be missed.
This then opens up two lines of attack. The first is that the university experience is, in and of itself, a net social benefit. Latterly, it also raises the issue that having members of a society with certain skills enriches it even if those graduates never use the skills they have acquired professionally in later life.
Debater’s Note:
This debate can be an interesting way of looking at what role higher education actually fulfills and what taxes are for in the relationship between economic benefit and the wider social health of a nation. A truly minimalist approach would only leave us with what are sometime called the old professions – medicine, law, engineering, teaching and academia. Traditionally there would have been another slot on that list for the priesthood. That niche is probably now taken by IT. However, it is all too easy for this debate to degenerate into an exchange about whether Arts or Science degrees are ‘harder’ by some objective standard. That’s really not the focus of this motion (and it’s rubbish as well) and, tempting though that particular intellectual cul-de-sac might be, it’s best avoided.
For the purposes of these notes it is assumed that society is making some collective expenditure on the provision of degrees. Although in some countries this may not be explicit as the students incur the costs of their degree either up front or at a subsequent date, there is still an opportunity cost in terms of work that person could have been doing if they were not engaged in their studies. In those countries where the full costs of a degree are borne upfront by the students’ parents, the proposition may like to point out that parents are rarely wild about the idea that their child wishes to study poetry or dance as they do not believe that the expenditure will ever be recouped in income.
Points For
Creative arts graduates are rarely well rewarded
It is a simple fact that degrees in the Arts offer less earning potential than those in all other sectors (except Education and social work)[i]. As well as being an issue for the individual, this affects wider society, as those on lower incomes are more likely to become dependent on the state at some point in their life and are less well placed to stimulate other sectors of the economy through their own consumption.
The median earning figure across Arts degrees is, itself deceptive. The median in the US is $45,000 but this disguises the lower end of the scale, with 25% earning $30,000 a year or less.
Unlike education and social work which at least tend to have the consistency of a government salary, the Arts are also fantastically unreliable as an employment sector. Teachers and social workers may have comparatively low salaries but at least they can be assured of job security. The Arts offers low and unstable wages, frequently at an ongoing expense to the taxpayer, when the jobs exist at all.
As a result, encouraging the creative arts through university qualifications places both an initial and, potentially, ongoing cost on the rest of society. It also means that graduates are likely to be destined to long term financial instability because of a decision they made as a teenager.
It is difficult to see who benefits from such an arrangement.
[i] ‘Arts’, Georgetown University, http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/arts.pdf
COUNTERPOINTVery few go into the arts expecting a high income, they do so because they enjoy it. Likewise, the very fact that people pay for the arts – both through their own purchases and social funding, suggests that the pleasure that performance - and other creative arts – gives is recognised by wider society. The output of the Arts sector provides entertainment and pleasure to others in a way that really cannot be said of, for example, banking or derivatives brokerage.
By the by, it would also be interesting to see how any graduates in, say, the humanities are likely to match the earning potential of a movie star or an ‘it’ artist.
The Arts should be learnt on the job – it’s a craft
The idea that the best place to learn an artform is a classroom is fantastically modern. The idea of teaching them at all is fairly recent. If ever there were an example of ‘those who can, do; those who can’t, teach’, then it’s the arts. Novelists, poets, painters, dancers, composers, musicians and others have been learning from each other as they practiced their art for, quite literally, millennia.
Practitioners learning by doing has worked perfectly well for most of history and produced, for example, the extraordinary works of the renaissance or classical art mostly without the benefit of a university degree. All a degree in this area does is extend the period of delusion that an individual is good enough to cut it as a professional artist[i].
[i] Goldman, Jeremy, ‘Actors dilemma: Theatre major vs. No theatre major’ USA Today, 25 June 2012. http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/campuslife/actors-dilemma-theater-major-vs-no-theater-major
COUNTERPOINTThis argument is just specious. There have been plenty of times in history when medicine was ‘learnt on the job’, it didn’t make it a good idea. However, and medicine is an excellent example, we now realise that there is a huge benefit to having students acquire a theoretical underpinning of their discipline before going on to get some hands on experience. Of course there is some need for practical training but there is little reason why universities cannot offer this rather than individual artists.
Arts degrees limit opportunities for Universities to offer other courses
Universities have to provide a range of courses, some of which are going to be more financially viable than others, that fine. However, investment in one area inevitably means that there are resources not being focused elsewhere. It’s not a huge factor but some subjects – creative arts, Theology and a few others do represent a ‘back door’ into universities for those who didn’t get the grades to get onto more demanding courses.
Those students still need to sleep, study and socialize somewhere – in place of those who could have taken their places on Engineering, Medicine, Economics or similar courses had the space been available.
By keeping these courses, universities are turning away students for other disciplines and those studying the arts courses are learning in a way that may not be the most productive – as mentioned in the previous argument. It’s difficult to see who wins.
COUNTERPOINTThis isn’t an either/or discussion. Despite Prop’s efforts to suggest that there are masses of homeless, would-be engineering students roaming around university campuses, the reality is that universities pack their bankable courses just fine and ensure that they have the capacity to do so. The fact that universities do not just churn out an endless round of vocationally-focussed graduates is hugely to be welcomed. If nothing else, it ensures that the university experience itself is a well-rounded one.
The very fact that students continue to apply for these courses, and universities continue to meet that demand, suggests that applicants are interested in something more than money. Presumably the very students who are applying for such a degree – and will shoulder the repercussions of having one – form part of society and are quiet happy to ‘afford’ their degree.
Points Against
Creative arts graduates are rarely well rewarded
It is a simple fact that degrees in the Arts offer less earning potential than those in all other sectors (except Education and social work)[i]. As well as being an issue for the individual, this affects wider society, as those on lower incomes are more likely to become dependent on the state at some point in their life and are less well placed to stimulate other sectors of the economy through their own consumption.
The median earning figure across Arts degrees is, itself deceptive. The median in the US is $45,000 but this disguises the lower end of the scale, with 25% earning $30,000 a year or less.
Unlike education and social work which at least tend to have the consistency of a government salary, the Arts are also fantastically unreliable as an employment sector. Teachers and social workers may have comparatively low salaries but at least they can be assured of job security. The Arts offers low and unstable wages, frequently at an ongoing expense to the taxpayer, when the jobs exist at all.
As a result, encouraging the creative arts through university qualifications places both an initial and, potentially, ongoing cost on the rest of society. It also means that graduates are likely to be destined to long term financial instability because of a decision they made as a teenager.
It is difficult to see who benefits from such an arrangement.
[i] ‘Arts’, Georgetown University, http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/arts.pdf
COUNTERPOINTVery few go into the arts expecting a high income, they do so because they enjoy it. Likewise, the very fact that people pay for the arts – both through their own purchases and social funding, suggests that the pleasure that performance - and other creative arts – gives is recognised by wider society. The output of the Arts sector provides entertainment and pleasure to others in a way that really cannot be said of, for example, banking or derivatives brokerage.
By the by, it would also be interesting to see how any graduates in, say, the humanities are likely to match the earning potential of a movie star or an ‘it’ artist.
The Arts should be learnt on the job – it’s a craft
The idea that the best place to learn an artform is a classroom is fantastically modern. The idea of teaching them at all is fairly recent. If ever there were an example of ‘those who can, do; those who can’t, teach’, then it’s the arts. Novelists, poets, painters, dancers, composers, musicians and others have been learning from each other as they practiced their art for, quite literally, millennia.
Practitioners learning by doing has worked perfectly well for most of history and produced, for example, the extraordinary works of the renaissance or classical art mostly without the benefit of a university degree. All a degree in this area does is extend the period of delusion that an individual is good enough to cut it as a professional artist[i].
[i] Goldman, Jeremy, ‘Actors dilemma: Theatre major vs. No theatre major’ USA Today, 25 June 2012. http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/campuslife/actors-dilemma-theater-major-vs-no-theater-major
COUNTERPOINTThis argument is just specious. There have been plenty of times in history when medicine was ‘learnt on the job’, it didn’t make it a good idea. However, and medicine is an excellent example, we now realise that there is a huge benefit to having students acquire a theoretical underpinning of their discipline before going on to get some hands on experience. Of course there is some need for practical training but there is little reason why universities cannot offer this rather than individual artists.
Arts degrees limit opportunities for Universities to offer other courses
Universities have to provide a range of courses, some of which are going to be more financially viable than others, that fine. However, investment in one area inevitably means that there are resources not being focused elsewhere. It’s not a huge factor but some subjects – creative arts, Theology and a few others do represent a ‘back door’ into universities for those who didn’t get the grades to get onto more demanding courses.
Those students still need to sleep, study and socialize somewhere – in place of those who could have taken their places on Engineering, Medicine, Economics or similar courses had the space been available.
By keeping these courses, universities are turning away students for other disciplines and those studying the arts courses are learning in a way that may not be the most productive – as mentioned in the previous argument. It’s difficult to see who wins.
COUNTERPOINTThis isn’t an either/or discussion. Despite Prop’s efforts to suggest that there are masses of homeless, would-be engineering students roaming around university campuses, the reality is that universities pack their bankable courses just fine and ensure that they have the capacity to do so. The fact that universities do not just churn out an endless round of vocationally-focussed graduates is hugely to be welcomed. If nothing else, it ensures that the university experience itself is a well-rounded one.
The very fact that students continue to apply for these courses, and universities continue to meet that demand, suggests that applicants are interested in something more than money. Presumably the very students who are applying for such a degree – and will shoulder the repercussions of having one – form part of society and are quiet happy to ‘afford’ their degree.
The Arts provide huge benefits to society; easily comparable to humanities or theoretical science
It has already been mentioned that there are plenty of degrees where it is unlikely that graduates will ever use the knowledge they acquire, per se, in their later careers. Proposition has failed to give a reason – other than earning power – as to why the creative arts should be singled out on this ground[i].
However, in terms of the general utility provided to wider society, it would be hard to point to a discipline that out performs the arts.
Every TV drama, theatre production, concert and so on is likely to include at least a smattering of participants who studied the subject. It is in the nature of the arts that its audience massively outnumbers those participating in its production. Beyond that the trickle down affect of knowledge into every area of public life from ideas and concepts initiated by artists is enormous.
However, if Prop’s entire case is that artists should be paid more for the enormous amount of good they do, we are quite happy to concede the point.
[i] McCarthy, Kevin F. et al., ‘Reframing the Debate About the Value of the Arts.’, The Rand Corporation, 2005, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9106/index1.html
COUNTERPOINTOpp makes an excellent case for further refining the role of Higher Education but not a very satisfactory one for keeping it structured as it currently is. The whole point here is that nobody benefits – not the graduate, not the Arts and not the society that is footing the bill. The benefit to society of art would remain if the arts were no longer taught as university degrees.
The Arts pay their way in film, heritage and design industries
The major film, theatrical, dance and other artistic ventures of any nation provide an enormous benefit in terms of reasons to visit as country, or travel within one. Going to the theatre, for example, has knock on benefits for the catering, transport, and retail sectors as well as crating employment in its own right for many who never went anywhere near a degree in the Arts[i].
For many nations one or two key sectors of the arts are massive revenue generators – especially film, television and music. Theatres and galleries have considerably more pulling power than heavy industry or high finance for tourists[ii] – and Prop has been very quiet on the subject of architecture, without which the bankers and financiers they so admire would be homeless. The arts may not square up to banking in terms of the amount of money earned for the economy but they also have much less of a record of damaging the rest of the economy through sparking crises.
Even just focussing on the finances of the sector, the Arts justify their presence not only through their own revenue but also through those other sectors that benefit as a result but pay nothing towards their development[iii].
[i] Lord, Clayton, ‘The Value of Arts is Not Going to be Found in Economics’, New Beans, 19 May 2011. http://www.artsjournal.com/newbeans/2011/05/the-value-of-arts-is-not-going-to-be-found-in-economics.html
[ii] The National Campaign for the Arts. Theatre: Contribution to the Economy. 2010. http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/index.php?option=com_quickfaq&view=items&cid=13:contribution-to-the-economy&id=76:theatre-contribution-to-the-economy&Itemid=152
[iii] National Endowment for the Arts. ‘Art and GDP.’, http://www.nea.gov/research/notes/104.pdf
COUNTERPOINTThis is a little like saying that the petroleum industry benefits from medicine because of the need for ambulances. People would still go out for dinner and still take holidays. More to the point, as has been suggested, they will still go the theatre or cinema, where people will still act. The issue here is that Universities are unnecessary in the process of training creative artists.
The notion that money is the best way of judging value is far more damaging to society than the Arts
If the value of a degree is judged purely on the likely salary at the end of it, then society has a very real problem. Even without rehearsing the fact that other disciplines would vanish by the wayside, it also ties into the myth that a degree is simply a vocational tool to increase the salary of the person taking it[i].
The mindset that insists that everything can be reduced to the level of individual income has also brought us the obscenity of the bonus culture in high finance and, so far, five years of recession. The value of the arts is primarily non-monetary; it comes from the psychological benefit of well-designed buildings[ii] or the happiness and creativity stimulated by engaging with a work of art.[iii]
University fulfills a far wider societal role in terms of training the mind and socializing the individual. For the vast majority of students, it also provides a respite between the constrictions of the family home and those of the workplace.
It is also just possible that people select their degrees primarily because they are interested in them. That in itself is something that cannot be said of significant parts of the world of work.
The logic of this motion is that all members of society are employers – or at least wealth generators – first and last. Their role as voters, community members, parents, and plain human beings seems to be irrelevant to both the spirit and wording of the motion and the Proposition’s case.
[i] Edgar, David, ‘Why should we fund the arts?’ The Guardian, 5 January 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/jan/05/david-edgar-why-fund-the-arts
[ii] Steadman, Ian, ‘Study: school design can significantly affect a child’s grades’, Wired.co.uk, 3 January 2013, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/03/school-design-influences-learning
[iii] Alleyne, Richard, ‘Viewing art gives same pleasure as being love’, The Telegraph, 8 May 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8501024/Viewing-art-gives-same-pleasure-as-being-in-love.html
COUNTERPOINTOpp’s case sounds excellent, and reasonable and sensible. And complete nonsense. Those countries that have changed their fee arrangements for students in recent years, such as the UK, have seen that students are very concerned with whether their degree is likely to cover the cost of taking it – now that they are expected to pay for it. When it is society at large footing the bill, unsurprisingly, they are less concerned. Of course the financial outcome of doing a degree is of paramount interest to both the student and wider society, suggesting otherwise is sophistry.
Bibliography
Alleyne, Richard, ‘Viewing art gives same pleasure as being love’, The Telegraph, 8 May 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8501024/Viewing-art-gives-same-pleasure-as-being-in-love.html
Edgar, David, ‘Why should we fund the arts?’ The Guardian, 5 January 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/jan/05/david-edgar-why-fund-the-arts
Lord, Clayton, ‘The Value of Arts is Not Going to be Found in Economics’, New Beans, 19 May 2011. http://www.artsjournal.com/newbeans/2011/05/the-value-of-arts-is-not-going-to-be-found-in-economics.html
McCarthy, Kevin F. et al., ‘Reframing the Debate About the Value of the Arts.’, The Rand Corporation, 2005, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9106/index1.html
The National Campaign for the Arts. Theatre: Contribution to the Economy. 2010. http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/index.php?option=com_quickfaq&view=items&cid=13:contribution-to-the-economy&id=76:theatre-contribution-to-the-economy&Itemid=152
National Endowment for the Arts. ‘Art and GDP.’, http://www.nea.gov/research/notes/104.pdf
‘Arts’, Georgetown University, http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/arts.pdf
Goldman, Jeremy, ‘Actors dilemma: Theatre major vs. No theatre major’ USA Today, 25 June 2012. http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/campuslife/actors-dilemma-theater-major-vs-no-theater-major
Steadman, Ian, ‘Study: school design can significantly affect a child’s grades’, Wired.co.uk, 3 January 2013, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/03/school-design-influences-learning
Have a good for or against point on this topic? Share it with us!
