Pages: 1 … 25 26 27 28 29

 

2010-12-20 16:24:23
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6541|what

Turquoise wrote:

Aren't private funds sufficient?
Nope. That's why you'll see empty theatres/music halls, etc.

I personally do not believe the arts should receive public funding - but all other tutition fees should be standardised and assisted by the tax payers.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-12-20 16:26:52
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6859
im not talking about 'the arts' as an institution; within the context of this discussion it's the arts subjects that deserve equal funding to all other courses (which nobody really is much debating, except for dilbert and that lot of quackpots). dilbert seems to be hung up on the point that brooker makes about cuts to higher-education and cultural projects having an adverse affect on society... apparently he thinks that public funding of anything that doesn't have an immediate financial return is madness. i simply disagree.

and since when are private funds sufficient to sustain anything on a decent scale?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-20 16:30:00
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5626|Cleveland, Ohio

Uzique wrote:

and since when are private funds sufficient to sustain anything on a decent scale?
porn
2010-12-20 16:30:45
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6794|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

and since when are private funds sufficient to sustain anything on a decent scale?
Consumer spending is a huge part of the economy.  Private funds sustain many things.
2010-12-20 16:34:55
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6859
'tuition fees - standardised? privatised?'

i know this discussion has had many little bends and curves in its general discourse, but this tangent is practically a spaghetti-loop

my only point is that subject-elitism and arbitrary, subjective, matter-of-opinion 'judgements' should not selectively affect funding for 'x' subject either adversely or favourably. higher-education funding should be provided to everyone to have complete freedom in their choices and interests of education-- let the financial/economic reality of their situation affect them afterwards when they try to apply to the graduate/national job-market. if somebody has done a 'worthless' degree, then their job-hunting prospects and eventual salaries will reflect that adequately, according to whatever macroeconomic 'laws' you guys like to get hard-ons over when you stroke your BSc's and smile smugly at those with dance qualifications from theatre school. okay? all i'm saying is that education as a humanist, liberal principle should be funded equally and should provide opportunity for people to study whatever they want without ANY financial influence/imperative; course 'y' should not be more expensive, year-by-year, because it is deemed 'less useful'; course 'z' should not have funding cut by 50% so that departments and professors have little-to-no-resources because the government are promoting IT and engineering for 2011.

THAT is all i am saying. filling theatres? consumer spending? you're reading the wrong departure-lounge book again turq...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-20 18:28:52
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6494|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique wrote:

one-sided snobby piece of satire? i find it extremely egalitarian. it's promoting the humanistic open-education of everybody, regardless of department/subject/background, and impervious to wider economic conditions. how is that snobby? it's mocking and condescending to the ministers and politicians, yes certainly... but only because they are apparently strategising with the foresight and tact of small-children. hence the patronising is warranted.
Because, you self-absorbed little cunt, it doesn't make any suggestions on how its to be paid for or by whom.

If there were some sensible suggestions in the article then patronising might be warranted. Since its snobby and silly satire at a time when the country is in a financial meltdown then the author just looks like a prick and you more so for unthinkingly referencing it.
it's the arts subjects that deserve equal funding to all other courses
Deserve? How exactly? Most arts subjects are as deserving of funding as degrees in David Beckam Studies or Conversational Klingon.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-12-20 18:35:00)

Fuck Israel
2010-12-20 18:50:35
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5746|London, England

Uzique wrote:

im not talking about 'the arts' as an institution; within the context of this discussion it's the arts subjects that deserve equal funding to all other courses (which nobody really is much debating, except for dilbert and that lot of quackpots). dilbert seems to be hung up on the point that brooker makes about cuts to higher-education and cultural projects having an adverse affect on society... apparently he thinks that public funding of anything that doesn't have an immediate financial return is madness. i simply disagree.

and since when are private funds sufficient to sustain anything on a decent scale?
Since always? Every single museum/art gallery/theater/orchestra etc in NYC is funded via donations.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-12-20 19:05:44
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6859
'since always' in the historic sense, not the universally-true sense... jesus did that really need clarifying?

and see dilbert, that's exactly where you're wrong. to distinguish between the arts and any other 'academic discipline' (i.e. a university-studied subject, period) and say that one is less or more 'deserving' than the other is idiocy. it's really just you putting your personal judgements, subjective opinions and petty hatreds over the liberal principle of universal education and equal opportunity/accessibility. putting arts and subjects like classics, literature etc. next to 'david beckham studies' just shows how absurdly ridiculous your queer and irrational little pet-hate is. im sorry, most of the reputable arts are just as credible as any other 'academic' degree. they shouldn't - and thankfully aren't - be cut more aggressively than the sciences.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-20 19:36:50
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6494|eXtreme to the maX
The other way of looking at it is everyone should pay for their education, either in advance or in arrears via a loan.
If the government chooses to subsidise certain subjects which give a net advantage to the nation then thats for the govt to propose and for the electorate to vote on.
Thats essentially the system the UK is getting to now and most countries have long had.

Arts subjects are simply not as 'credible' as other subjects and I don't see how they could be. No doubt they're a lot of fun but credible they aren't - unless you accept that a degree in Klingon is potentially as credible as one in Latin.

The 'liberal principle of universal education' is pretty well dead at the tertiary level. If you can find someone to pay then by all means revive it.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-12-20 19:38:12)

Fuck Israel
2010-12-20 19:38:42
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6859
why are they not as credible? why is it that i know people with degrees in arts/humanities that easily crossover into graduate-employment for city firms and banks? without management/economics/science/math degrees? surely they'd lend more to work in the tertiary industry or financial sector, right? guess those fun and worthless literature degrees aren't credible... cause a guy that hates them said so. the employment trends are bogus!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-20 22:09:05
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6494|eXtreme to the maX
Please show us some employment data to back up your argument, not 'I know someone who got a job'.
Since you don't apparently mix with science students I suspect your data is skewed.
Fuck Israel
2010-12-20 22:16:54
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|6087
There are plenty of successful people who have degrees in Arts/Humanities.
2010-12-20 22:26:29
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6859

Dilbert_X wrote:

Please show us some employment data to back up your argument, not 'I know someone who got a job'.
Since you don't apparently mix with science students I suspect your data is skewed.
haha yeah, it's black/white isn't it, dilbert? you, the guy that graduated from imperial college, which doesn't even have an arts/humanities school... telling me that my anecdotal evidence and 'social mixing' are too narrow? i don't think you've ever hung around with successful arts/humanities graduates in your life... you strike me as someone socially and educationally that has found solace in science their whole life, and by god, you're sticking by it. i hang out with plenty of science students... i've had disparaging things to say about their 'party' antics, in a facetious manner, but i'm hardly the arty bohemian keeping to circles of avant-garde poets and marxist revolutionaries. i go to a small, campus university. of course i hang out with and know students/post-graduates/graduates from all faculties; it's impossible not to here.

so, you're saying that my 'mere anecdotes' don't offer good enough proof, whereas your wildly stigmatized generalisations do? i can't believe you're 40-something and you still think that the degree you earn at age 21 determines your success for the rest of your life. how ridiculous. but yes, i totally agree, we should just cull-off all art/culture/humanities degrees and their funding now and just streamline the process of human specialisation... degrees should be changed from an educationally-enriching qualification to a vocational, preparatory training-ground. why should we bother studying or preserving anything that doesn't have an immediate, short-term financial reward? philosophy? load of old men sitting around in chairs talking about things that don't even exist. arts? people staring at paintings and sipping wine. history? living in the past and particularising over dates and petty details. engineering and maths on the other hand? fast-track to being an actuary in the city, baby

just stop fucking posting
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-20 22:33:24
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6494|eXtreme to the maX
i hang out with plenty of science students
But you couldn't find one to take five minutes to take a look at your PC.
so, you're saying that my 'mere anecdotes' don't offer good enough proof, whereas your wildly stigmatized generalisations do?
I'm just asking you to back up what you're saying with something, anything.
i don't think you've ever hung around with successful arts/humanities graduates in your life
In my experience they aren't successful.
we should just cull-off all art/culture/humanities degrees and their funding now and just streamline the process of human specialisation
Nobody is saying that, just that if people want to do a degree then maybe they should pay for it themselves - as pretty well everyone outside the UK already does.
Fuck Israel
2010-12-20 22:36:32
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6859
wow dilbert, yes you just totally refuted my entire argument re: arts and tuition fees... because i couldn't find a science student to fix my PC? are you fucking serious? hahahaha.

and where are arts students not exactly paying for their degrees? all subjects are funded the EXACT SAME fucking way here. it's absolutely ludicrous that you're holding something against arts/humanities students because they take a loan/state subsidy in the EXACT SAME fucking way that a maths/science student does. all students are the exact same financial burden on society-- SUBJECTS DO NOT MATTER. this is why i am so exasperated with ridiculous science geeks coming into this thread on some arbitrary, self-invented high horse to declaim the 'money drains' that are 'useless degrees'. every degree costs the same, loan-wise and subsidy-wise, to the paying public. at what point are you even finding an opportunity to assert your little asinine subject-rankings?

everyone loans the same, everyone pays back the same. where exactly are all the arts kids being a burden?

Last edited by Uzique (2010-12-20 22:37:25)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-20 22:40:50
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6494|eXtreme to the maX
every degree costs the same, loan-wise and subsidy-wise, to the paying public
The return on investment the public gets from the arts, and science/engineering/medicine is very different - thats the part you're totally missing.
wow dilbert, yes you just totally refuted my entire argument re: arts and tuition fees... because i couldn't find a science student to fix my PC?
No, your assertion that you mix with science students is dubious.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-12-20 22:41:40)

Fuck Israel
2010-12-20 22:45:13
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6859
the economic return that graduates 'give' to society is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT from the tuition fees argument.

that principle isn't even being discussed or considered in parliament.

and yeah dilbert... i'm lying about hanging around with science students. HAHAHA. one of my best friends is a physics undergrad, working with professors that are making leading progress/research on CERN. credible enough? do you want a picture of me with him as concrete proof? maybe one with him doing some equations whilst i thumbs-up in the background? i'll sort it asap for you... it's very important for my argument's credibility, i do agree.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-20 22:48:19
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6494|eXtreme to the maX
the economic return that graduates 'give' to society is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT from the tuition fees argument.
I doubt it, why then, according to you, would they be focussing on IT and Engineering for 2011?
one of my best friends is a physics undergrad, working with professors that are making leading progress/research on CERN
And he couldn't take five minutes to stick an AVO in your PSU?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-12-20 22:48:56)

Fuck Israel
2010-12-20 22:51:27
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6859
where are you getting the assumption from that a) all science students can fix computers, or b) that i even want to solicit my friends to come nose around inside my desktop? there's a pc shop in town, that does the job nicely and i don't have to go around my social group asking for geek-help. pretty simple. i don't exactly know what you and your friends do for spare-time fun but when me and my friends get together, we don't discuss power-supplies and thermodynamics.

my point about IT and engineering was entirely rhetorical; i'm arguing against the PRINCIPLE of reducing funding / increasing fees in selective departments/subjects (i.e. the restructuring plan that you 'subject elitists' posit)... my hypothetical argument then was that it would be inane and ridiculous to boost selected fields, year-by-year. it doesn't make any sense when considering universal, liberal educational values. nobody is doing it nor proposing it because, thankfully, even our dumbest-of-shit politicians have a little more common sense and open-mindedness than half the reclusive science geeks on here.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-12-20 22:51:47)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-21 06:12:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6794|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

THAT is all i am saying. filling theatres? consumer spending? you're reading the wrong departure-lounge book again turq...
My B.A. in Departure-Lounge Economics has served me well then.
2010-12-21 10:36:49
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|7056

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

im not talking about 'the arts' as an institution; within the context of this discussion it's the arts subjects that deserve equal funding to all other courses (which nobody really is much debating, except for dilbert and that lot of quackpots). dilbert seems to be hung up on the point that brooker makes about cuts to higher-education and cultural projects having an adverse affect on society... apparently he thinks that public funding of anything that doesn't have an immediate financial return is madness. i simply disagree.

and since when are private funds sufficient to sustain anything on a decent scale?
Since always? Every single museum/art gallery/theater/orchestra etc in NYC is funded via donations.
PBS.  I grew up on shows like Sesame Street and School House Rock.
2010-12-21 14:38:54
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6494|eXtreme to the maX
it doesn't make any sense when considering universal, liberal educational values
Which are essentially dead globally, so whats your point?
Fuck Israel
2010-12-21 15:19:28
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|7056

Dilbert_X wrote:

it doesn't make any sense when considering universal, liberal educational values
Which are essentially dead globally, so whats your point?
Here is the US, we have a version of Math studies just for Liberal Arts students.
2010-12-21 20:34:29
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|7070|Disaster Free Zone

Ilocano wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

it doesn't make any sense when considering universal, liberal educational values
Which are essentially dead globally, so whats your point?
Here is the US, we have a version of Math studies just for Liberal Arts students.
Does 1+1= A rainbow?
2010-12-21 21:06:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6494|eXtreme to the maX
1+1 = Whatever answer they put => 2 marks and a hug
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 … 25 26 27 28 29

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard