“Under plans due to be announced later, universities in England will be forced to limit the number of students they recruit onto underperforming courses.”
“Under plans due to be announced later, universities in England will be forced to limit the number of students they recruit onto underperforming courses.”
I wouldn’t look at it like that.
If students do an art degree and then go on to make a significant amount above the average wage working in art restoration or curating or creating art or whatever else that degree is useful for then it is a well performing degree. If the majority become starving artists working on the checkouts at a supermarket then it’s a poorly performing degree.
It’s as simple as that. You have to be honest and ask yourself how many historians (for example) we need to qualify every year and would there be a benefit to the country if we could incentivise these people in to STEM opportunities instead.
Depends whether the “starving artist” chooses this as a life and prioritises their art over material wealth. Many would. After a period when more people from poorer backgrounds could become artists, writers and performers, we’re seeing a return to a very narrow social class monopolising the arts. Just look at how many current well-known actors come from upper-class and privileged backgrounds.
What we do need to be honest about is how the UK has allowed people working checkouts at supermarkets (and across most jobs really) to be paid so little that they may be “starving” and still live with parents.
The richness of all the pop movements that came in rapid succession from the 1950s to the 1980s or 1990s was because kids from any background could break into the scene and be heard. These days it’s mostly rich kids and music is poorer for it.
Yes.
Related is this recent article about how a third of artists living in London can’t pay their rent.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/jul/09/london-creative-core-risk-poverty-visual-artists
I guess a Tory would say “Law of the Jungle” and that artists need to respond to market demand etc.
The music scene has totally changed but I don’t think university places are the culprit. What proportion of the kids that broke in to the scene that you mention went to university?
With one or two exceptions, it’s mostly well-educated Art school or uni students. Certainly most of the “successful” British ones. Working class bands - especially those “manufactured” solo artists or groups - tended to get screwed by their managers and record companies (probably moreso today).
If the majority of music students work at Tesco but a small minority become The Beatles, I’d say its a well-performing degree. Culture isn’t about ruthless efficiency.
John and Paul both dropped out of college and none of the members went to university at all.
Nothing of what I have learnt I want to apply for the benefit of the country. Sorry
I’m not sure if you’re implying that there was a nationalist tone to my comment, if so, it wasn’t what I was aiming for. I was more trying to talk about benefitting society, not any one particular nation.
Or maybe you’re a nihilist?
So studying music, which hardly ever pays well as a career, will be prohibited? Or literature or art or philosophy? There’s such a thing as a country’s cultural wealth as well as its financial wealth. If you prevent anyone from studying the arts you create a culturally impoverished, ignorant society. And it’s pretty revolting if only the wealthy have the opportunity to engage in the arts, while everyone else has to remain in ignorance and make them more money.
I never said it should be prohibited, that’s a very silly presumption. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Do I think that the number of places should be more or less in line with the roles that we need filled in a society? Mostly.
There are also a lot of people who want to bring class in to the debate for some reason, if I had it my way, the whole of the UK would have free education as our parents did and class would have nothing to do with it.
If you ran an engineering business and you needed five additional mechanics and five additional electricians to meet the growing demands of your customers. Would you pay to train up five mechanical apprentices and five electricians, or would you pay to train up ten electrical apprentices because the mechanical roles are less desirable and you want prevent the electrical roles from becoming dominated by the upper classes?