Because I did Art/Architecture, Biology & English at A Level & didn't do Latin, I was told by my grammar school in 1963 I couldn't apply for University. It was a bit late to tell me because I was in my final year. Apparently universities didn't like mixed arts & sciences. Personally I think specialising too early is a mistake & a broad based education is better for the individual & society. So I did the next best thing & went to a college affiliated to London University which offered a 3 year degree equivalent course. These only came in in 1961, so it was quite new. The course specialised in art, music & drama as well as a comprehensive concentration on teaching. I am what I am today because of not going to university, so I am grateful.
The core education debate is "what is education for"? Should the driver be individual or societal? Should a child be allowed to pursue the subjects they like / are good at? Or, are the needs of society paramount, so they should be directed into areas society needs or lacks? You often hear the argument that some university courses are useless. Commonly criticised / low value degrees are - Creative Arts & Design (including Fine Art, Drama, and Fashion Design) - Performing Arts (Music, Theatre Arts, and Dance - Mass Communications and Media Studies - Creative Writing and Film Studies). All of these so called "low value" degrees are arts.
However in purely financial terms, the arts & culture sector generates approx 0.4 to 0.5% of the UK's GDP & the broader creative industries generate 5.5 to 5.7% of total economic value. The less quantifiable value of the arts is the benefit we all get from the various aspects of the arts & creativity. That can be in just looking & experiencing or in participating ourselves. I wonder if that even features in the figures I quoted. Think of all the art & craft materials & books sold to hobbyists.
I am a great believer in evidence, so science is important to me. More & more I feel that we need to be able to verify & challenge the information readily available to us from numerous sources, many questionable, if not totally unverified. We need scientists & empirically trained people to give us information we can trust.
I suppose my argument is that in order to be the best that we each individually can be we need a broad based education for as long as possible. There is a heavy emphasis on STEM education (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) which has historically sidelined arts & humanities. Proponents of prioritising sciences contend that focusing on STEM aligns with labour market demands in high-growth sectors, and technology-driven economic strategies.
When students choose narrower subject combinations, research has shown that the proportion of students mixing arts and sciences has sharply drops, with exclusive STEM tracks doubling. There have been persistent funding cuts for creative & performing arts & a shift in the Strategic Priorities grant redirecting it to high cost healthcare & technical subjects. Governments are actively manipulating students choice towards a societal one.
We all need both arts & sciences to flourish. Our children need & deserve a flexible, broad based, curriculum right through the education system, including tertiary. The broader our knowledge & experience the more flexible we will be. In a changing world that is really important.
No comments:
Post a Comment