Fully tax supported public colleges and universities.

[Jolly_Penguin]

... And art will go on existing just fine without public funding to art schools.

You couldnt stop art if you tried.

 

[Toni]

... And art will go on existing just fine without public funding to art schools.

You couldnt stop art if you tried.

Of course it will. That does not mean that art does not have a valuable role in a university education. It does not mean that aspiring artists cannot learn a great deal about their art (and history, literature, society, science, math, people, the world around them) and gain valuable skills and techniques and understanding at a university. If nothing else, young artists can learn something about the ropes of the art business--and unfortunately, there is a business side to art as well as a creative part. I also dislike the establishment which insists that an artist must have an MFA in order to be worth considering. This does not make an MFA not worthwhile.

No one is claiming here is claiming that a university is the only place for an aspiring artist to lean to become a better artist. But even Michelangelo served apprenticeships under other artists.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

... And art will go on existing just fine without public funding to art schools.

You couldnt stop art if you tried.

And you think science will stop?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We need artist. One example of millions:

We need artist to create the educational material wee use to educate physicians.

Graphic designers are not artists.

 

[ksen]

uh huh

 

[laughing dog]

1) Seeing so many of them.

Ah, the old small unscientific sample of an anecdote.

2) Both of my parents taught at the college level--and they saw a *BIG* difference between the fresh-out-of-high-school parent-supported students and the older self-supported students.

So? You think motivation has to be identical for education to be useful?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No one is claiming here is claiming that a university is the only place for an aspiring artist to lean to become a better artist. But even Michelangelo served apprenticeships under other artists.

Paid for by tax payers in a democracy?

You want our tax dollars. You waive your arms around trying to make art look important and trying to make it look like it would be in danger if we didn't fund art schools with money we take by force from tax payers. You'll have to do a better job justifying it. We could be building hospitals with that money. We could be fixing roads. We could be funding science, leading to technology that does more than look pretty.

 

[ZiprHead]

Already stated above. A lack of funding to medical schools means fewer and worse doctors, which means more sick and dead people. A lack of funding to art schools means what? Some paintings you don't like? People who don't understand or appreciate various styles of painting and drone on about it in coffee shops?

We regulate doctors, and force them to go to school and get credentials before we let them practice medicine. Since we are forcing doctors-to-be to go to med school, it makes sense to fund that. It makes sense to get the best and brightest. It makes sense to streamline them and regulate them and make sure they are properly educated. Public health depends on it. So the public should pay for it. Same with engineers, scientists, architects, accountants, welders, and to a lesser extent teachers, lawyers, etc.

Artists-to-be are not forced to go to art school before being allowed to be artists. Regulation of art isn't something desirable. Anybody can paint, dance, or sing, and it really doesn't hurt anybody if they do it in a way we don't like, which is in itself subjective.

We need artist. One example of millions:

We need artist to create the educational material wee use to educate physicians.

Artists create advertising.

 

[laughing dog]

No one is claiming here is claiming that a university is the only place for an aspiring artist to lean to become a better artist. But even Michelangelo served apprenticeships under other artists.

Paid for by tax payers in a democracy?

You want our tax dollars. You waive your arms around trying to make art look important and trying to make it look like it would be in danger if we didn't fund art schools with money we take by force from tax payers. You'll have to do a better job justifying it. We could be building hospitals with that money. We could be fixing roads. We could be funding science, leading to technology that does more than look pretty.

But there were roads and medicine and science and technology before humans took money by force from tax payers to pay for them, so why bother funding those things? As usual, you continue to miss the point - education whether it is mathematics or chemistry or anthropology or sociology or art - makes people better able to make informed decisions which makes for better citizens.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As usual, you continue to miss the point - education whether it is mathematics or chemistry or anthropology or sociology or art - makes people better able to make informed decisions which makes for better citizens.

Medicine, Engineering, Law, Fine Art... its really all the same to you? So long as people get an education in SOMETHING, we should pay for it? Doesn't matter what it is? Do you support public funding of classes on playing video games and on the philosophy of belly lint?

 

[arkirk]

We need artist. One example of millions:

We need artist to create the educational material wee use to educate physicians.

Graphic designers are not artists.

You don't know that, Loren. A graphic designer can very well be and most likely will be an artist. This just shows how little connection you have with the art community.

This thread is about fully tax supported public colleges and universities....an idea of which I approve most heartily. There seems to be a notion on the part of so-called conservatives that THEIR RIGHT TO ALL THE MONEY SHOULD TRUMP PUBLIC EDUCATION, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND PUBLIC WELFARE. These people are small minded regardless of the size of their purse. Our society is faced with monumental problems in the next few decades. The better we are educated, the better we will fare as a society. Funding education is a necessity, not something that can be shirked as it is currently. The greater the diversity of the educational system, the greater likelihood we will face our problems better armed with an educated public.

Exposure too and promotion of the arts is part of a good education. It needs to be funded just like the other educational functions.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But as dismal pointed out. Why not educate everyone at Harvard for their entire life? Is it's societies duty to make sure everyone doesn't work because work is dull and boring? Where is the line? Why HS? Why College?

 

[ksen]

I didn't realize harvard was a public university.

 

[dismal]

I didn't realize harvard was a public university.

We can make it one it that's your only objection.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I didn't realize harvard was a public university.

We can make it one it that's your only objection.

you want to nationalize Harvard?

Why?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Didn't think it was that important. Doesn't haven't to be Harvard. Just choose any of the state schools in your state.

 

[dismal]

We can make it one it that's your only objection.

you want to nationalize Harvard?

Why?

Let's face it, if we're sending people to Cal State San Luis Obispo it's not the same as Harvard.

If the goal is to give everyone the maximum education with public money we should probably nationalize Harvard and send everyone there. For life.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Didn't think it was that important. Doesn't haven't to be Harvard. Just choose any of the state schools in your state.

or we could go the other direction and shut it all down.

why stop at any state school, lets choose all publicly funded institutions of learning from Headstart on up. Shut them down. Public libraries, museums, parks. Close them up. Invest not a single solitary dime in the intellectual growth, stimulation or competency of the citizenry.

Why not do that?

 

[dismal]

Didn't think it was that important. Doesn't haven't to be Harvard. Just choose any of the state schools in your state.

or we could go the other direction and shut it all down.

why stop at any state school, lets choose all publicly funded institutions of learning from Headstart on up. Shut them down. Public libraries, museums, parks. Close them up. Invest not a single solitary dime in the intellectual growth, stimulation or competency of the citizenry.

Why not do that?

If the goal was to minimize education we'd shut all that stuff down and ban private schools too.

But I don't think anyone is arguing that we want to minimize education.

Well, except Boko Haram.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Didn't think it was that important. Doesn't haven't to be Harvard. Just choose any of the state schools in your state.

or we could go the other direction and shut it all down.

why stop at any state school, lets choose all publicly funded institutions of learning from Headstart on up. Shut them down. Public libraries, museums, parks. Close them up. Invest not a single solitary dime in the intellectual growth, stimulation or competency of the citizenry.

Why not do that?

So the argument becomes where in the spectrum we stop paying for education. Though your argument of getting rid of the state in education would make sense too, and make it a parent responsibility.