This means literally nothing other than the fact that you require experience/degree in Aerospace to get into Aerospace. That does not assess the worth of the degree, only the application of the degree.
Do some degrees have less worth than others?
- Thread starter Sefirosu
- Start date
This means literally nothing other than the fact that you require experience/degree in Aerospace to get into Aerospace. That does not assess the worth of the degree, only the application of the degree.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 935
- Location
- Suffolk/Bournemouth(Uni)
Erm ok, try getting into a Broadway musical with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Without any classes in singing/dancing.
I work for a hedge fund doing software engineering and statistical/financial modelling, I have an arts degree.
Admittedly if you want to get into Aerospace R&D then some sort of engineering degree is worth more than a degree in media/social studies. But that only means it's worth more if you have the goal of being in the aerospace industry in the first place. If you want to work for a new-media startup in Shoreditch it's worth less (not worthless).
And how many of them do those things because they got a BA in Art compared to those who have a natural talent?
I'm firmly of the belief you cannot teach 'arts' in the same way you can teach science, maths, engineering etc.
Disagree. All skills can be taught. Some have an affinity for them, some do not. But all can be taught. To use those skills effectively requires a lot of practise in both fields.
Take someone who is terrible at art and give them a few art classes, and if they care, watch the improvement.
Take someone who is terrible at art and give them a few art classes, and if they care, watch the improvement.
You can teach anything, but to excel you must have an affinity or ability in the given field....that includes Science. If a person has no ability then teaching will only go so far and that is true of anything.
I can learn to paint, learn to play an instrument, I can learn to write a book.....I can learn Maths, Engineering, Physics....but to be truly great at any of them, I need ability.
This is a subject for another time, but I'd also argue ability can be gained, just through rigorous study and application. Start off terrible at art, practise all the time, and eventually you'll excel. The problem is in my opinion, if you don't have an affinity for it, most people just give up without trying much.
Of course you can teach anything but what I said was that you cannot teach arts IN THE SAME WAY.
What I mean by that is that I do not believe arts are something that require university style education. By that point in time if you have the affinity you have it and there isn't the same style of complexity to be taught as there would be in an engineering course for example.
Art is something I see as intuitive and flowing, more natural and subjective in appraisal, where with engineering you need to be shown (unless you're a genius) how to do a fourier transform or taught how finite element analysis works and you can either do something right or something wrong.
One example of this that I notice a lot is with photography - I see so many people with degrees in photography that quite honestly I think barely understand which way to hold a camera. I've never understood how you 'grade' someone's photographic ability given how hugely subjective it is. Contrast that with engineering though and it's black and white - if you do it wrong the sums don't work and your ability (or lack of) is shown up for all to see.
Similarly I have my suspicions that many of the world's great artists could probably go to university and get given fail marks because what they do and what has made them great isn't in keeping with what is expected of the respective course, something that couldn't really happen with a science.
What I mean by that is that I do not believe arts are something that require university style education. By that point in time if you have the affinity you have it and there isn't the same style of complexity to be taught as there would be in an engineering course for example.
Art is something I see as intuitive and flowing, more natural and subjective in appraisal, where with engineering you need to be shown (unless you're a genius) how to do a fourier transform or taught how finite element analysis works and you can either do something right or something wrong.
One example of this that I notice a lot is with photography - I see so many people with degrees in photography that quite honestly I think barely understand which way to hold a camera. I've never understood how you 'grade' someone's photographic ability given how hugely subjective it is. Contrast that with engineering though and it's black and white - if you do it wrong the sums don't work and your ability (or lack of) is shown up for all to see.
Similarly I have my suspicions that many of the world's great artists could probably go to university and get given fail marks because what they do and what has made them great isn't in keeping with what is expected of the respective course, something that couldn't really happen with a science.
Last edited:
I'll be honest, as someone that's currently reading a BA, I think a BSc is more valuable to have, as a degree. That being said, I am an artist (a musician), and it's what defines me as a person, it's what I have to do, and would not be able to live, were I not able to do it. There's a bonus in that people enjoy listening to me and watching me perform, it makes them feel good. What could have more worth than that? It's just not something that you need a degree in.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 1,424
- Location
- Somerset
Count down till the bitter engineering nerds come in and shout down any degree that doesn't pull 40K after graduation.
The same can be said of many sciences and engineering disciplines as well......each discipline is taught according to it's own requirements and while many may be related, with related techniques and overlap in applications, that doesn't mean that they are taught in the same way.
The same could be said about anything.......Patrick Moore in the field of Astronomy, Charles Darwin has a Bachelor of Arts degree, Engineering doesn't require a degree, it has become modern convention to obtain or follow your particular interest through University but there are a lot of people working in Science and Engineering who do not have a degree, just as their are many people working in the arts who do....
However, I find it somewhat hard to envisage an Art Historian without a formal education in Art, in much the same way as it is difficult to envisage a Physicist without a formal education in Science.
But none of this really relates to what the OP asked, and the value of any given degree depends on how that degree is applied by it's recipient....an Art degree is as worthless to a Biologist as a Physics degree is to the Painter......and equally it's value to society is entire subjective, with neither specifically having any worth greater than the other.
I sometimes feel that this obsession with formal education means that many potentially great people are lost to us.......why does there seem to be less polymaths today than in centuries past?
Last edited:
Fixed.
Equally silly comment as the others out there and really doesn't have any substance or fact to it at all.
Well Done!
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Yes.
I can't really be bothered to justify it right now.
kd
I can't really be bothered to justify it right now.
kd
My wife has seen both ends of the educational ladder first degree(now an MA) in Theology from Jesus, Cambridge. Then her second in Psychology from London Met. She said there is a vast difference in the worth of these, in learning and attractiveness to an employer.