Timely article. I read about the 'contraction' of QUT's arts and social science programs. Melb Uni is even running vocational communication arts degrees. RMIT has created a mish-mash of hybrid multimedia degrees which specialise in nothing. They're still running on the old creative industries model.

There will always be a place for a general arts degree. We've placed so much emphasis on 'doing' (technics) rather than thinking so that when we stuff up in the market place or environmentally, we leave a crater rather than a dent.

I've always thought that a BA was not an end in itself but the start of a learning adventure. It's not valued by business but who cares? A BA can open students to new ways of thinking as well as tolerance of differing opinons (well, it should try).

Arts degrees will always be under attack in conservative times. A well-rounded university education gives citizens the ability to gather evidence on a topic and form their own conclusions, which may contradict whatever dictate or bogeyman serves the government of the day.

There are a number of reasons why the Arts is having problems.

1) There's the problem of identity. In many cases studies in what constitutes "the Arts" pragmatically should belong elsewhere. For example, moral reasoning, political economy and political theory is a regulative approach and should be awarded an Legum Baccalaureus. In some cases it deals with (social) facts which really is an objective and scientific approach. In others it is interpretative on an aesthetic level and should be combined with the fine arts.

2) There is a problem of laity. Everyone is a lay sociologist for example. It is generally considered easy to *pass* an Arts degree for this reason. But when is the last time you heard of someone getting a 100% in an Arts essay? It is easy to pass but very hard to do well in.

3) There is the problem of micro-economic relevance. A skilled generalist is not something which makes sense in a micro-economic analysis. Their presence however is the 'glue' which can tie disparate provision of production and services together. Arts graduates typically make excellent administrators for this reason, far better than those generated by "management" courses. Further the presence of Arts graduates provides macro-economic positive externalities. But of what value is to the individual organisation?

A bit off the topic but my daughter is well advanced in completing a double degree in Arts majoring on languages. After her 4 years study she will start with a debt of around $60000. My 18 year old son with less than a years experience in the workforce has canceled the idea of uni as he has just been offered a job at 50000 plus. I am not complaining about this but it makes you wonder whether its worth going to uni these days at all. Get a trade and you can name your own price in the mining industry or get paid $60 per hour to change tap washers. THe again learning Chinese has not hurt Mr Rudd!

If a student has been through 12 years of school, one would expect that they have been taught how to think. And if they couldn't think, then they should not have been able to pass exams.

However most politicians seem to have Arts and Law degrees, but that has not decreased our trade deficit.

Maybe it is time to rethink the education system.

HRS, the point is, that many exams are simply facts by rote.
That isn't necessarily thinking or critical reasoning, it's just an issue of memorising things.

CHERYL... you said:

>>A BA can open students to new ways of thinking as well as tolerance of differing opinons<<

I find this 'artsy' view quite intriguing. Could you help me out here without me saying too much at first.

IF.... the differing opinion one encounters the day after graduation is of a totalitarian nature.. whereby if that 'view' attained power, it would mean
-the end of democracy.
-Establishment of a Theocracy.
-Rule by terror.
-Hacking off of hands for serious theft.
-Stoning to death of people who have 'affairs'.
-Stoning of homosexuals.
-Execution for blasphemy.

can you please.. please explain to me how one can be in the slightest bit 'tolerant' of such intolerance ?

I mean.. we can 'tolerate' such views when we perceive them to be a non threatening tiny social and demographic minority, but lets say people who hold such views were..
-45% of the population ?
-Constantly lobbying for the implementation of such things

Would you be as "tolerant" ? :)

Luv 2 hear from u about this -truly.

I suggest that if an 'arts' degree churns out mindless social zombies who tolerate the intolerable.. then get rid of the arts degrees and replace them with HISTORY degrees and focus on the years 732 in France (Tours) and 9/11 1683 in Vienna Austria. (do you notice anything significant about that 2nd date ? if you look up this link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
you might see a symbolic connection with the date when 9/11 took place in the USA.

History was determined by the skill of Polish sappers/moles detecting a large 'IED' under the gates of the city and diffusing it :)

Er, Boazy. Virtually everybody who majors in History at an Australian university does so under the rubric of an Arts degree. You might even like to try it sometime - if you pass, you might show some semblance of knowing what you're talking about on the subjects of both history and university degrees.

Currently it's quite clear that you know little about either.

Turnrightthenleft
I spent many years analysis different things when working in a laboratory, and that takes thinking.

Why does something need to be analyzed, what tools or forms of analysis should be used, what is going to happen to the analysis data, how should the analysis data be presented etc.

All requires thinking.

There is also nothing wrong with learning by rote or memorizing things. Learning how to ride a bike is learning by rote, and if you consider how neural pathways are physically established in the brain, learning by rote becomes necessary, (or someone is more likely to forget).

CJ..... I kinda think you missed my point there.

and..... of course.. you didn't miss an opportunity to impugn my own character :) How many times must I remind you.. that room :) those dolls... "Its not about me".....

If I may have a little dabble in 'chucking a rock back at you'..... you seem to feel you have the benefit of said degree in your own hip pocket.. and it makes me ask "why don't I see the evidence in your posts?"

Studying history in an Arts degree is good. But I'd be interested in knowing 'which' streams of history are studied, and with what emphasis and which selection.

One gets the impression that the focus of most 'Arts' degrees is to show from history how 'evil' we (The West, Britain and America and Australia) are.

I'd rather see an honest study of history..

1/ REALISTIC.

a)"Yes.. the various Western Empires and colonial efforts did have a very selfish, greedy and evil element in them"

Last night I was chatting with a Sikh in my gym about Ghandi, he didn't have anything nice to say about British rule..nothing.

b) Our history is just 'history' and is common to the expoits of mankind universally. "Its all about territory"

2/ VALUES. There are some bright spots on our historical landscape.
The freedom we currently enjoy did not come from 'nowhere'.How we have this freedom, what processes unfolded to give it to us.. how did we get rid of the slave trade etc etc.

3/ THREATS.. always should be studied. What are the likely sources of challenge and domination, what drives them... based on historical manifestations of such threats.

IN SHORT.. History should be a broad strokes SWOT analysis of our present based on the past.

I don't see much evidence of this in the student youth of today.

I know... I'll do the 'sign' thing at RMIT again "The War in Iraq is good" :) and see where that leads (besides a stay in intensive care)

life expands where ever it can, trying to find a living.. law pays better than trades, so we have more lawyers than electricians. when you finally get too many lawyers, they expand into politics.

the arts degree is a feature of a different society, wherein the ruling class didn't have to work, and felt so secure that they could pursue intellectual hobbies.

some people will still 'do' an arts degree, to get a certificate of upper class membership without the need for great effort or intellect. most of these will come from upper class families who can afford to educate a 'generalist' without too much concern for professional payoff.

so the arts degree will continue, but play a much smaller role. the 'strivers' from law school will occupy the ecological niches once held by the gentry.

I thinks Patrick Begley's comment pinpoint the one great contribution that historic Western Education contributes to our modern utilitarian obsessed world - the power of thinking skills - especially building these skills from the fundamental antecedents of knowledge in an area of study. This is why engineers and medical doctors and other 'focused' professionals from western universities are so highly sort after in our world. They have the ability to work through complex and ever changing stuations they face by drawing upon these sets of antecedent principles. The Arts is based on this fundamental belief and we lose it at our peril.

I guess it's not so much what degree you do that counts as what you do with your degree. Obviously, an arts degree won't get you a job as a neurosurgeon or a lawyer, or even an accountant, but it doesn't hurt. I once read that Microsoft was keen on recruiting arts graduates because of their analytical and critical thinking skills; Other organisations like the research-intensive nature of history programs and other, similar arts degrees. As a teacher, an arts degree has given me an edge over colleagues who have plain education degrees - it is assumed that my depth of knowledge must be greater than that of teachers who do not have a second degree.

But is this enough to keep anthropology, philosophy, history, historiography, literary studies and other arts programs relevant in today's world? It would certainly be a great loss to society if knowledge for the sake of knowledge was replaced entirely by knowledge for the sake of employment. Again, I'm not belittling professional qualifications. I just think that there is a certain value in understanding our culture, the culture of people around us and the societies in which these cultures have evolved. It may not cure cancer (then again, it might), but it will certainly help us remember how far we've come.

Now to make it economically viable . . .