The employment outcomes of Arts graduates

[brendan]

  Brendan, what do you think of subjects in the vein of: Art, Pornograhpy, Blasphemy and Propaganda, The Victorian Supernatural, Film and the Body, Witches and Witch Hunting in Europe and Gothic Fictions?

I do not think taxpayers should be forced to pay for that.

isn't okay for the taxpayer to pay for it?

No, it absolutely is not OK. If a person wants to study 106-043 The Victorian 'Supernatural' they should pay for it themselves rather than forcing someone else pay for them.

You aren't trying to say that you're portraying a completely balanced outlook on the whole issue, are you?

I wasn't trying to portray any "outlook" on any issue at all. I was simply relaying the information - a messenger.

It's anti-arts because you said that 'arts students to have difficulty finding jobs'

It wasn't "anti-arts" at all. It's your own mind that interpreted it as "anti-arts". I'm simply relaying information. The statement that arts graduates are more likely to encounter labour market difficulties is a statement of fact, not one of value where you are "anti" or "pro" something.

a) according to the article, everyone will have difficulty finding jobs, including people who do 'generalist degrees';

Actually this is what the article said:
Graduate Careers Australia executive director Cindy Tilbrook said while the pain might be eased by vacancies due to an ageing workforce and an continuing skills shortage in areas such as health and engineering, those with a "less defined" career path from humanities or generalist degrees were more likely to struggle to find work.

b) the reasons why this happens has little to do with the degree itself, rather the type of people who are more likely to do the degree.
In essence, it is anti-arts because it's simplistic.

You are latching onto a straw-man. Where, in any of my posts in this thread, did I ever argue that the job market problems that Arts graduates encounter were solely due to the degree itself?

actual argument that you 'won't' dispute.

Because much of your argument is simply grasping at straw-men.

[Eriny]

I wasn't saying that you said those things, I wasn't arguing with you. There's little to argue with, evidently.

Where does my first post 'grasp at straw men'? I was merely explaining why it may seem as though there are fewer job prospects in Arts. I was examining the claims of the article and many of the claims I read about arts on VN.

[brendan]

Where does my first post 'grasp at straw men'?

I wasn't referring to your first post specifically.

[bubble sunglasses]

  Brendan, what do you think of subjects in the vein of: Art, Pornograhpy, Blasphemy and Propaganda, The Victorian Supernatural, Film and the Body, Witches and Witch Hunting in Europe and Gothic Fictions?

I do not think taxpayers should be forced to pay for that.

      Do you think taxpayers should be paying for Commerce subjects? Do you see Commerce subjects as more worthy of taxpayer money than the subjects I listed?

  Also, do you think there is anything wrong with the subjects I mentioned above being cross-subsidized, funded by the fees of International students?

[ninwa]

  Brendan, what do you think of subjects in the vein of: Art, Pornograhpy, Blasphemy and Propaganda, The Victorian Supernatural, Film and the Body, Witches and Witch Hunting in Europe and Gothic Fictions?

I do not think taxpayers should be forced to pay for that.

Why not?

No, it absolutely is not OK. If a person wants to study 106-043 The Victorian 'Supernatural' they should pay for it themselves rather than forcing someone else pay for them.

Why?
What gives you the right to decide which subjects are worthy of taxpayer dollars and which are not?
Indeed, how and where does one draw the line?

[brendan]

Do you think taxpayers should be paying for Commerce subjects?
No.

Do you see Commerce subjects as more worthy of taxpayer money than the subjects I listed?
See above.

What gives you the right to decide which subjects are worthy of taxpayer dollars and which are not? Indeed, how and where does one draw the line?
When it comes to the cost of higher education, there is no free lunch. Someone, somewhere has to pay. The only question is: who?
On that question, I do not think the non-users of higher education should be forced to pay for those that do use it. In addition, once you think about the kind of people that attend university, and the kind of people that don’t, taxpayer subsidies to higher education is awfully regressive.

Do you think there is anything wrong with the subjects I mentioned above being cross-subsidised, funded by the fees of International students?
Cross-subsidisation hasn't been mentioned before in this thread. My thoughts on it are this: Cross-subsidisation happens in many businesses and organisations, and whether or not is efficient can vary from business to business. My libertarian tendencies tell me that businesses and individuals ought to be able to spend their revenues however they wish. From a social welfare standpoint, I don't know whether or not cross-subsidization is efficient. If the market is relatively competitive, then it wouldn't be something I would think too much of. In the realm of higher education, I and many other policy analysts think that cross-subsidisation is mainly occurring as a result of the unnecessary government regulation (mainly through quotas and price controls) of higher education. Furthermore, its readily acknowledged by many of those working inside higher education, that international students cross-subsidise a lot more than just the Arts faculty. I'd suspect that they are propping up the science faculty, and probably other faculties too that don't have a lot of fee-paying students whether local or international.

[brendan]

humanities kids to watch them get all defensive.

I will say that I am amazed just how extraordinarily defensive they can get.

[Collin Li]

Yeah, one thing that they should accept is that even though the evidence may be against them, if you are a good Arts student with direction you can still get a good job.

Also, who says a job is all that matters? Brendan didn't say that. Maybe you think it is though, and then perhaps that's why you're offended. But no one is saying that Arts is bad, it only becomes perceived that way with your own value input.

[BA22]

humanities kids to watch them get all defensive.

I will say that I am amazed just how extraordinarily defensive they can get.

Probably because on some level they know it to be true

[hard]

humanities kids to watch them get all defensive.

I will say that I am amazed just how extraordinarily defensive they can get.

Probably because on some level they know it to be true

bam!

[AppleThief]

Do you think taxpayers should be paying for Commerce subjects?
No.

Lol! So what was the point of whinging about taxpayers paying for a specific Arts subject, when you're opposed to the idea of taxpayers paying for any university subject?

?!

[brendan]

Do you think taxpayers should be paying for Commerce subjects?
No.

Lol! So what was the point of whinging about taxpayers paying for a specific Arts subject, when you're opposed to the idea of taxpayers paying for any university subject?
?!

What's your point?

I oppose taxpayers subsidies to the 106-043 The Victorian 'Supernatural'.

I was specifically asked:
  Brendan, what do you think of subjects in the vein of: Art, Pornograhpy, Blasphemy and Propaganda, The Victorian Supernatural, Film and the Body, Witches and Witch Hunting in Europe and Gothic Fictions?

[AppleThief]

Do you think taxpayers should be paying for Commerce subjects?
No.

Lol! So what was the point of whinging about taxpayers paying for a specific Arts subject, when you're opposed to the idea of taxpayers paying for any university subject?
?!

What's your point?

I oppose taxpayers subsidies to the 106-043 The Victorian 'Supernatural'.

I was specifically asked:
  Brendan, what do you think of subjects in the vein of: Art, Pornograhpy, Blasphemy and Propaganda, The Victorian Supernatural, Film and the Body, Witches and Witch Hunting in Europe and Gothic Fictions?

No.

You whinged about it before that question.

[Eriny]

humanities kids to watch them get all defensive.

I will say that I am amazed just how extraordinarily defensive they can get.

Probably because on some level they know it to be true

Not really. I'm expecting a job I like. Though I'm not doing a "BA" and the degree I'm doing currently won't be my last, either.

[brendan]

Do you think taxpayers should be paying for Commerce subjects?
No.

Lol! So what was the point of whinging about taxpayers paying for a specific Arts subject, when you're opposed to the idea of taxpayers paying for any university subject?
?!

What's your point?

I oppose taxpayers subsidies to the 106-043 The Victorian 'Supernatural'.

I was specifically asked:
  Brendan, what do you think of subjects in the vein of: Art, Pornograhpy, Blasphemy and Propaganda, The Victorian Supernatural, Film and the Body, Witches and Witch Hunting in Europe and Gothic Fictions?

No.

You whinged about it before that question.

And your point is?

I oppose taxpayers subsidies to the 106-043 The Victorian 'Supernatural' and Gothic Fictions etc.