The rationale behind discrediting Liberal Arts

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The fact that as LotM pointed out, there is not even one private institution in the English speaking world that agrees with you doesn't give you pause, frog?

Errr...I think you missed the part where I said it wasn't about getting rid of the liberal arts entirely, but of reducing their importance.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The amount of money spent on liberal arts is already ridiculously low.

Produce something people are willing to pay for then.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Produce something people are willing to pay for then.

You mean things like literature, art, motion pictures and music?

[KrazyHorse]

Music, motion pictures literature and art are produced by liberal arts departments?

[Verto]

Don't be stupid.

[Drake Tungsten]

Personal anecdote...

I have a friend whose novel is coming out in the summer of 2008. He graduated with a degree in physics from Notre Dame.

[KrazyHorse]

My friend's dad is a physics prof at Notre Dame...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

My Aunt's boyfriend's yoga teacher once looked askance at a Physics prof from Notre Dame.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Music, motion pictures literature and art are produced by liberal arts departments?

Lord of the Rings

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You people will believe anything...

A person's character is determined merely by how wealthy they are?

No, their character is not determined by how wealthy they are. Their value as a human being is revealed by how wealthy they are, however. People who are worth more to society get paid more, ergo their wealth is a sign of their superior value.

This sounds like something Dis would say.
A) It's total bull****
B) Dis has no money, so
C) What's the ****ing point?

[BeBMan]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No, their character is not determined by how wealthy they are. Their value as a human being is revealed by how wealthy they are, however. People who are worth more to society get paid more, ergo their wealth is a sign of their superior value.

Michael Jackson

[Last Conformist]

I thought Wacko Jacko was supposed to be impoverished these days?

[BeBMan]

Dunno, maybe today, but he was still the most successful guy in pop music for quite some time IIRC....

[Verto]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I thought Wacko Jacko was supposed to be impoverished these days?

Impoverished simply means he blows through the millions he gets in royalties every year.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Errr...I think you missed the part where I said it wasn't about getting rid of the liberal arts entirely, but of reducing their importance.

How much more can you reduce them?

Do you have numbers on any campuses that show that tuition paid by arts and humanities students (on top of government grants per student) do not more than cover their own depatments?