What are the pros and cons of doing Arts in UCD

Het-Field

Like most degrees, the BA is a stepping stone towards other things. Nobody walks out of the UCD School of law as a fully qualified Lawyer. Ditto graduates of the Quinn School and the Science faculty. It is expected that they will continue their study in a more professional orienteered manner.

Very few undergraduate degrees (with the exception of the medical field, Architecture and engineering) qualify you for anything.

Stabshauptmann

Eoin Macollamh wrote: »

Great. Got any investment tips for me (since you obviously have great insight into what the future holds)?


Careful with charges of academic dishonesty, there, pardner. I could just as easily say that "your pointing at [sic] times of non-economic mess" is academically dishonest.



And there is no debate that Engineers have less sense of the possibilities life has to offer than do Classics and other Arts grads. Money isn't the only measure of the quality of a life, as you seem to think. In fact, your view is a particular philosophy called "hedonism." Maybe a Classics grad can explain it to you.

You're a tard. Bravo on the utter stupidity of everything in that post.

The_Minister

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

You're a tard.

This isn't the first time you've crossed the line.

Take a few days break.

Het-Field

The sheer arrogance of Mr Redeye's posts have hit a new level on this thread.

Tayto2000

And another thread degenerates into tit-for-tat post dissection... I will say that this does seem to tend to happen in threads where Mr Macollamh is arguing his points...

The_Minister

I'm sorry, I must have imagined asking people to stay on topic.

Het-Field wrote: »

The sheer arrogance of Mr Redeye's posts have hit a new level on this thread.

I'll be drinking with you later, so we will discuss it then *wags finger*, but you should know better than to kick the corpse. He has been banned for a few days, it's not for you to comment on.
After all the topic is not "What do you think of Kaptain Redeye?", but is in fact "What are the pros and cons of doing Arts in UCD?"

Tayto2000 wrote: »

And another thread degenerates into tit-for-tat post dissection... I will say that this does seem to tend to happen in threads where Mr Macollamh is arguing his points...

Reread the title and ask yourself how that comment is productive. If you have concerns about a particular poster, report the post, or PM me. Don't drag a thread further off-topic by airing your dirty laundry.

Now.
EVERYONE BACK ON TOPIC RIGHT NOW!
/clears throat.
The OP asked a serious question, and would like some insights, so I'm not going to lock the thread.
But.
If the thread keeps going off-topic, and if people keep acting the mick, the thread will be locked, and someone will be banned.

Tayto2000

Fair enough.

Pros: UCD has some top class lecturers teaching in the Arts degree, there's good freedom to pick and choose under the modular system and personally I've always thought it was one of the most 'sociable' degrees to be on, there's a huge range of people doing it so you're sure to meet some like minded friends along the way. I suppose short hours are a plus but you'll be very busy out of classes if you're taking it seriously.

Arts has a lot of active societies associated with it, there's lots to get involved with if you're up for it.

Cons: As mentioned, class sizes can be a problem for some. UCD prices seem a bit high but I'm not sure how they compare to other colleges. Travel can be an issue for some, parking is hard to get after 09.00 if you're driving.

KeyLimePie

I'm gonna be doing arts next year, and do english and french with a view to become a french and english teacher, i don't think ANYONE can tell me it's a waste of time, for me at least

there's no point choosing the best degree then thinking about the job, you have to think about what job you want first then pick the degree for that, and if an arts degree is what you need then go for it

Gingy

Arts is a top quality course to do, but don't be fooled by the (realitive) number of points needed, it involves a good bit of work.

There has been a lot of sneering cynicism in this thread by other UCD students towards Arts students. My response to that is get out of you own hol*s in the Quinn building and see the reality. After finishing a commerce degree what are you going to become, (a business man/woman). Most undergraduate degrees from university will be little help to you when looking for work/deciding a career, they are merely a stepping stone and part of your 'learning cycle'. And you might as well do something that you like, and more than likey the arts course will have something that you like.

If you're still unsure, my opinion would be that you give arts a go, it's an interesting course, but try to pick a subject that involves small numbers, Irish, Spanish etc.. it's the best way to get to know people.

petrochemical

Pro: Good sports facilities
Con: Everyone in UCD is Ross O'Carroll Kelly, with a surfer hoodie.

bnt

petrochemical wrote: »

Con: Everyone in UCD is Ross O'Carroll Kelly, with a surfer hoodie.

Ha! Speak for yourself. I've looked at some of his stuff, and can't even tell what he's trying to say. "Roish?" WTF is "Roish?" You say "Uggs" and I think of Cavemen, dragging women back to their caves by their hair. I don't even know where to buy Abercrombie & Fitch, but I expect that if I did, I would be horrified at the prices. I guess that living in D4, for 7 of the 9 years I've been in Ireland, hasn't quite rubbed off on me.

MrMatisse

'Tom Garvin (Politics) is the number one intellectual in the field of Nations and Nationalism, Richard Aldous (for better or for worse) is becoming one of the most notable historians of this decade'


Slight exaggeration perhaps:)

Time Magazine

Gingy wrote: »

There has been a lot of sneering cynicism in this thread by other UCD students towards Arts students.

I don't think there has.

My response to that is get out of you own hol*s in the Quinn building and see the reality.

Lovely.

After finishing a commerce degree what are you going to become, (a business man/woman). Most undergraduate degrees from university will be little help to you when looking for work/deciding a career,

Well that depends entirely on how you define "a business man/woman". Personally I use that as a synonym of entrepreneur, though I may be wrong in that. Perhaps the financial world of the past will become a historical oddity so I'll add a slight conditional clause, but Commerce would have adequately prepared you for an awful lot of jobs (and to clarify, in all probability still does.) The common Arts degree route of B.A. + specialised M.A. + personal skills = good job is less applicable to Commerce because, as I said, Commerce does provide good employment opportunities immediately.

If you're still unsure, my opinion would be that you give arts a go, it's an interesting course, but try to pick a subject that involves small numbers, Irish, Spanish etc.. it's the best way to get to know people.

I say this honestly, not sarcastically: Do you not think it's a little strange to advise people on their degree choices based on how social those courses are?

Again, I re-iterate that I'm not advocating avoiding Arts. It's great for a lot of people. However it doesn't turn out to provide what some people expected it to and imho that should be pointed out to people.

Monkey61

Well I didn't do Arts in UCD, (though I did go there for a couple of weeks and know a lot of people who did it)I did it in Trinity, but I still have a few points to make.

First of all OP, consider why you are choosing this particular degree. If it's just for the love of the subjects, the challenge, or because you want to eventually be a teacher, academic or something related, then go for it.

If it's to make yourself more employable, then perhaps consider something else.

It's always a danger, to spend three/four years of your life devoted to something on the presumption that by the time you have finished, you will know what you want to do. That's not always the case. the majority of Arts graduates I know who didn't want to go into something specific like teaching, journalism etcetera are stuck working in menial jobs and wishing they had done something else.

Obviously none of that may apply to you, but it's something to bear in mind.

The cons of choosing Arts in UCD seem mainly to be the class sizes, if you pick popular subjects like English or History. Classes in Trinity were relatively small and I enjoyed that. As a mature student in either it seems relatively easy to integrate with other mature students, but not with the younger ones.

The pros would be the amount of subjects you can choose from and the fact that you get to try anything out before you choose it (at least that's the way it was 7 years ago).

I personally don't like the atmosphere on the UCD campus and find the buildings quite depressing - but that's just my preference. Maynooth and Trinity both have lovely campuses in comparison.

Also I agree with the poster who advised having a look at Maynooth - I've heard nothing but good things from anyone who went there.

griffdaddy

I know plenty of people who got decent arts degrees and went on to to work for 'the big 3' and similar straight after they graduated, or at least got accepted into their in-house training programs. I know some people who did arts degrees and got incredibly good jobs almost straight away. If you have a decent degree, regardless of what it is in, and are willing to be flexible in your career choices, then you can almost certainly find a decent job. Companies are actually starting to recognise the value of arts degrees more and more, in fact, if you look at many CEOs, you'll be surprised how many of them have arts backgrounds. (Well you used to be able to get a job anyway, dunno how it is now with the recession, i expect i'll have to resort to at least a month of chugging dick for beer money in a toilet when i graduate )

Peewee_lane

I dropped out of my original first choice ( Music BA Maynooth) because I panicked that there would be no job opportunities.

I went and did an LLB in Law. It has opened so many doors in law and outside law for me it is unreal. After a few years I met two people from my class who did the music & arts degree, one was working in the airport because they couldnt get a job and the other is working for a pharmaceutical company.

So really, study something because it will be a stepping stone onto something else.

The job Im in now I really like, I can afford cool music equipment at home and I still play bars, so Im glad I opted out of the BMus and went for something that would give me a little more sustainable living.

Stabshauptmann

griffdaddy wrote: »

I know plenty of people who got decent arts degrees and went on to to work for 'the big 3' and similar straight after they graduated, or at least got accepted into their in-house training programs.

Theres another good point, in the past (not so true at the moment) accountant firms were so desperate for staff that they would employ anyone with a degree* who had the right personality. However, those from non-business backgrounds (the Chartered Accounting exams cover things like law and finance as well as accounting) were more likely to fail their exams, obviously enough.

*They'd look for business graduates first then fill the other positions with whatever degrees were available. As there are less positions available at the moment, they dont need to stray past business graduates so much.

I know some people who did arts degrees and got incredibly good jobs almost straight away. If you have a decent degree, regardless of what it is in, and are willing to be flexible in your career choices, then you can almost certainly find a decent job.

And be flexible in your career choices...

Companies are actually starting to recognise the value of arts degrees more and more, in fact, if you look at many CEOs, you'll be surprised how many of them have arts backgrounds.

Its actually the exact opposite that is true. Look at the ages of those CEOs then explain how is the recognition of arts degrees a recent thing. My boss has a BA. It used to be the case that all the top guys in finance had engineering degrees. When they were studying it would have been rare to do specialised commerce degrees, or degrees in quantitative finance. As one looks down the chain of command comparing against the persons age, one can see quite clearly the increasing preference with those for business degrees in the corporate world.

Stabshauptmann

Just as an aside, there has been many posts here about the advantages in the current climate of choosing a practical degree over an arts degree.

There seems to be some confusion amongst arts students (like Eoin Macollamh for example) that in these "practical" courses there is no "learning for learnings sake".

I did a commerce degree, and it wasnt because I had a particular career in mind. Commerce interests me, you learn things about organisational behaviour, economics, law which is imo interesting.

I would never recommend to anyone to study something that doesnt interest them, because then you will be in a job that wont interest you. But if you find something like law and roman archetecture equally interesting, Id recommend you do a law degree.

Économiste Monétaire

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

There seems to be some confusion amongst arts students (like Eoin Macollamh for example) that in these "practical" courses there is no "learning for learnings sake".

That person is a lecturer, in a subject under the Arts umbrella, not a student. One could take that as a reason for their vehement opposition to generalised criticism of Arts, and dismissal of learning something for simple financial gain.

Het-Field

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Just as an aside, there has been many posts here about the advantages in the current climate of choosing a practical degree over an arts degree.

There seems to be some confusion amongst arts students (like Eoin Macollamh for example) that in these "practical" courses there is no "learning for learnings sake".

I did a commerce degree, and it wasnt because I had a particular career in mind. Commerce interests me, you learn things about organisational behaviour, economics, law which is imo interesting.

I would never recommend to anyone to study something that doesnt interest them, because then you will be in a job that wont interest you. But if you find something like law and roman archetecture equally interesting, Id recommend you do a law degree.

Why ?

You seem to be forgetting that there is a variety of qualifying routes into law once you finish your primary degree. If I manage to get through my exams at the summer and autumn I will have sat four sets of law exams between May 2007 and August 2009 (Having started in the legal field in September 2006). Hence I will be at a potential disadvantage to anybody who sat a masters or Phd in the field, but I will be at the exact same level as anybody who sat a degree in law at UCD, and went straight to Kings Inns. I will also be able to utilise the skills which I gained studying History and Politics (between 2003-2006).

I know plenty of Arts graduates who have gone on to work in the top legal firms in the country, and no less than three of my lecturers have said to me that they would have rather studied for a BA over their Law Degree. A law degree will not make one a better lawyer, and a commerece degree will not guarantee that every graduate of that discipline will be more worthwhile to a company. In fact I would rather employ a BA Graduate with a 1.1 or 2.1 in economics that a 3rd Class Graduate of the Quinn School

Stabshauptmann

Het-Field wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting that there is a variety of qualifying routes into law once you finish your primary degree.

I think I made it quite clear that people of any background can sit the professional exams, but that (obviously enough) those who've studied the subjects previously tend to do better.

In fact I would rather employ a BA Graduate with a 1.1 or 2.1 in economics that a 3rd Class Graduate of the Quinn School

Hardly a fair comparison.

Het-Field

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I think I made it quite clear that people of any background can sit the professional exams, but that (obviously enough) those who've studied the subjects previously tend to do better.




Hardly a fair comparison.

I would like yo to elabourate on your former statement. what do you mean by do better ??? Are you speaking about entry into such professions, or long term success.

FionnMatthew

Since this has become a "whether we ought to be down on Arts" topic...

*surreptitiously slips in a funny link*

My chosen area of study, philosophy, is in there at number 11. Not so bad, methinks.

I studied Applied Arts (Drama) in DIT for three years after leaving school, and then came to UCD (still with free frees, because my previous qualification was a Diploma) to study Arts. I took English, GRC and Philosophy in first year, and dropped English in second year. I've performed well enough since first year not to have to pay for my education since then, and to have a sizable monetary contribution towards my living expenses, meanwhile getting to just read and read, and just exponentially grow as an intellectual creature. I just finished an MA in philosophy, and I'm currently working part-time with the department while casting around for very prestigious foreign options for my PhD.

I'm not rich, but I can expect fair employment within the academy, provided that Western civilization doesn't implode within the short term, and I can't imagine a better life than the one offered by scholarship in the Arts. If I had to work anywhere else, I probably wouldn't bother continuing with life.

Not everyone who takes an Arts subject has an experience quite like my one. I've tended to be quite elitist about it in the past, and wonder why the university has come to be seen as a path to employment, rather than the preserve of an intellectual elite. I have tended to believe that Arts degrees ought to be entirely less forgiving of mediocrity in a student, and ought to be highly exclusive on the basis of ability, so that the disciplines were not viable for timewasters and drop-outs.

But we live in a society which admits far more individuals to university than it should. Some people just aren't cut out for it. I tend to think Arts subjects are viable choices only for those who intend a career within the discipline. Hence, the vast number of people who leave Arts only to find employment in Spar probably are people for whom university education was a grand tour.

And this phenomenon, of the commercialization of the university, and the democratization of third level education, has tended to give the Arts a far worse reputation than it might otherwise have had. Because quality of tuition goes down, likelihood of employment likewise, and a vast number of directionless, unmotivated college entrants choose Arts as a default subject. These people might have skewed the statistics of other disciplines more equally if Arts hadn't been the catch-all for people who don't know what they want to do. But when some of them do drop out, as they would have in any course, as they realize uni is not for them, it is from Arts they drop out. And those who get enamoured of the social life, and choose to coast through, gaining a mediocre degree, and taking very little from their degree beyond a two week headache, tend to, again, dilute the statistics pertinent to education prospects from Arts courses.

I certainly don't think dismal statistics militate against the study of Arts so long as you really are interested in research/education in the Arts. For one thing, you mightn't even be intending employment from your degree. You might, in fact, merely be wishing to get a bit of "life-enhancement" on the side . On the other hand, if you are serious about the Arts, you'll likely be at the top end of that curve, and not in the mean, and those statistical inferences probably won't apply to you. It really applies, I should think, to those people who choose their university subjects by throwing darts at a wall chart, as advice on how best to hit the bullseye without really knowing what you're doing. Mature students, in my experience, although certainly not universally, tend to exercise a little more discretion in their pursuit of university education.

I would recommend, however, moving around a bit for your postgraduate qualifications, if you particularly value career prospects (although you may not.)

I'd be interested to see the statistic on proportions of mature student entrants to arts courses who gain satisfactory employment as compared to mature student entrants to more "professional" courses who do the same.

bnt

I hope my previous comments weren't construed as being "down on Arts" as such, and I know that Arts graduates can and do go on to greater things, but none of that answers my primary concern about Arts at UCD: the sheer numbers involved. Not just the numbers in lectures, but the numbers of graduates: so many that UCD has to stagger the graduation ceremonies over a couple of weeks.

If you work hard and come out of that with a First, that's really something. If you graduate with a Pass or low 2.2, well, I have to wonder whether those four years would have been better spent working and making money. How is an employer to choose between dozens or hundreds of applicants with Arts degrees, no "vertical" or specialist skills, and no experience? So, in my opinion, if you're going to do Arts, you need to be really good at it, because it's a lot of time and lost wages to be just another Arts graduate.

FionnMatthew

bnt wrote: »

So, in my opinion, if you're going to do Arts, you need to be really good at it, because it's a lot of time and lost wages to be just another Arts graduate.

This is true I think. The irony, and the reason for the disagreement on this thread, is, I suspect, that the people who ask for advice probably don't need to hear this, and the people who need it most won't even take heed of it if they hear it.

I should think that nobody who is serious about employment prospects, and is yet considering Arts, and further, asks for advice about it, whether on an internet forum or elsewhere, intends with all seriousness to be "just another Arts graduate." (perhaps I'm wrong on this?) Such people probably don't need advice based on statistical averages to which they'd probably be an anomaly. I should think that's the sort of advice that ought to be proffered to those who, by and large, don't much ask for it, those who drift into an education in the Arts because they don't much like the urgent career-oriented nature of other subjects. And yet, whenever someone with a qualified and positive interest in the Arts asks for advice, a clamour of voices proclaim those statistics as if they ought to be a factor in everyone's choice, and, while I don't wish to strawman anyone in this thread with the sentiment, a loose commonplace emerges that Arts is a waster subject.

Well, I'm no waster, thanks. I've not wasted my time, either. And I feel inclined to state clearly that any such advice would likely have been extremely bad advice for me to take, and that this likelihood might extend to others in the position I was in a few years ago.

Should it come as a surprise to us that Arts has a high dropout rate, or that many Arts graduates end up with shítty jobs that have nothing to do with Arts? In this education regime, I don't think so, no. Is that information always relevant to the choices of an Arts-interested, possibly non-school-leaving education seeker, such that it becomes the catch-all advice of proponents of more "professional" degrees, and the now embittered Arts-coaster-cum-burger-technician who has come to regret his complacent educational decisions? Again, no, I shouldn't think so.

The real danger is that you would scare away genuine and hard-working Arts candidates, with real potential, because you would give them the false impression that they themselves as opposed to some lazy abstraction, or some withering anecdote, are, apart from the disinterested benefits of studying the Arts, about to flush three years of their lives down the toilet. I contest that in a sizable number of cases in which advice is asked for, that is simply not the case, and that anyone still taking all of this stuff as evidence of the inferiority of Arts as a university subject* ought to take that into account.


*(which I think ironic, since university subjects aren't traditionally those which are designed to prepare individuals for a job market)

Het-Field

bnt wrote: »

I hope my previous comments weren't construed as being "down on Arts" as such, and I know that Arts graduates can and do go on to greater things, but none of that answers my primary concern about Arts at UCD: the sheer numbers involved. Not just the numbers in lectures, but the numbers of graduates: so many that UCD has to stagger the graduation ceremonies over a couple of weeks.

If you work hard and come out of that with a First, that's really something. If you graduate with a Pass or low 2.2, well, I have to wonder whether those four years would have been better spent working and making money. How is an employer to choose between dozens or hundreds of applicants with Arts degrees, no "vertical" or specialist skills, and no experience? So, in my opinion, if you're going to do Arts, you need to be really good at it, because it's a lot of time and lost wages to be just another Arts graduate.

It is pointless to boil down the intrinsic relevance of a degree to potential job prospects and earnings. I disagree that too many people should be in the workforce at 18 or 19 years of age. The leaving certificate examination fails to achieve on thing...how one can stand on his.her own two feet. Students are spoonfed a government approved currciulum of history, economics and international languages. There is no room for personal discourse, and if you choose to utilise personal opinion, be ready to face any negative consequences which may transpire. Tantamount to this is the development of skills such as proof reading, analytics, research, grammatics, and word power. this can all be transferred to a wide range of jobs in a variety of fields

University also offers a broader education, which is not limited to that which is learnt within the confines of the lecture theatre. There is an extra curricular world, which is also useful for equipping people with a variety of skills. I often cite the skills i gained through these extra curricular outlets when drawing up my cv.

My degree is in History and Political Science. It is impossible to consider too many careers which are available to a "historian" or "political scientist". Academia springs to mind. I could continue my study, and intend to in the future, and remain in academic institutions imparting knowledge, and writing articles, books etc. However, there is a limited need for such academics, and the is not enough room for every arts graduate.

However, there are many careers which will look for the skills which are gained indirectly by studying such a degree. These are jobs which will not be looking for medical, science, or "practical" graduates.

Hence, I dont believe that a less than satisfactory result (which could have occured for a variety of reasons other then a lack of work) in a BA examination is such a waste that it should be substituted for direct entry to the workforce after the leaving cert.

griffdaddy

I think the whole point of In-House training is that you learn how to do your specific job Kaptain, it doesn't really matter if you've spent 3 years in Commerce if you haven't covered what you're going to be doing. Plus companies are under no illusion that a graduate is going to remember what he/she studied 2 or 3 years ago and be able to apply it instantly to his work. They're looking for intelligent people who have an aptitude for that specific job and have shown that they can successfully complete a degree with good results. Lets not assume they're going to take some bimbo who scraped her way through commerce after getting the points by studying in the institute. I've never understood where this arrogance comes from with regards to a lot of commerce students.

Eoin Macollamh

Fionn,

I agree with almost everything you say, which is a real breath of fresh air in this forum. One thing that worries me, though, is this:

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I'm not rich, but I can expect fair employment within the academy, provided that Western civilization doesn't implode within the short term, and I can't imagine a better life than the one offered by scholarship in the Arts. If I had to work anywhere else, I probably wouldn't bother continuing with life.

It's that last bit that is of concern. You are no doubt a gifted student. But the beaches are white with the bones of gifted students who were unable to get academic jobs. I know dozens of cases among my cohort who were absolutely brilliant and went to the very best universities (Princeton in Philosophy, Harvard in Political Theory, etc.) and who, whether because of bad luck or changing job market tastes or whatever, were unable to find academic work. This is particularly so in your chosen field, philosophy. There is simply far more supply of labour than there is demand for it in philosophy. So you're going to need a plan B other than suicide.:eek: And, for what it's worth, most of the people I know who gave up on looking for an academic job and ended up doing something else are happy enough (mostly) with what they are doing.

FionnMatthew

Grifdaddy wrote:

I've never understood where this arrogance comes from with regards to a lot of commerce students.

Probably can be accounted for by considering the equally common belief that commerce education is, by virtue of being practical, somehow lesser, or less intellectually rewarding, and is, as such, for those who are happier about being cogs in a mechanism, as opposed to enlightened rational agents, pursuing learning for its own sake.

To some extent, everyone can get to feel under siege, at times.

Het-Field wrote: »

It is pointless to boil down the intrinsic relevance of a degree to potential job prospects and earnings. I disagree that too many people should be in the workforce at 18 or 19 years of age. The leaving certificate examination fails to achieve on thing...how one can stand on his.her own two feet. Students are spoonfed a government approved currciulum of history, economics and international languages. There is no room for personal discourse, and if you choose to utilise personal opinion, be ready to face any negative consequences which may transpire. Tantamount to this is the development of skills such as proof reading, analytics, research, grammatics, and word power. this can all be transferred to a wide range of jobs in a variety of fields

University also offers a broader education, which is not limited to that which is learnt within the confines of the lecture theatre. There is an extra curricular world, which is also useful for equipping people with a variety of skills. I often cite the skills i gained through these extra curricular outlets when drawing up my cv.

My degree is in History and Political Science. It is impossible to consider too many careers which are available to a "historian" or "political scientist". Academia springs to mind. I could continue my study, and intend to in the future, and remain in academic institutions imparting knowledge, and writing articles, books etc. However, there is a limited need for such academics, and the is not enough room for every arts graduate.

However, there are many careers which will look for the skills which are gained indirectly by studying such a degree. These are jobs which will not be looking for medical, science, or "practical" graduates.

Hence, I dont believe that a less than satisfactory result (which could have occured for a variety of reasons other then a lack of work) in a BA examination is such a waste that it should be substituted for direct entry to the workforce after the leaving cert.

A lot of what you say is true, HF, but I wonder whether you could apply this philosophy even to those who proceed through their undergraduate degrees with a certain amount of patronising contempt for what they have to study. It seems to me that there are people for whom Arts education is a definite boon, even should they not apply themselves well, and even should they have no interest in continuing with the Arts in their career, because it systemically benefits their critical thinking, world-view, intellectual life, skills, social adjustment, etc etc... Such an ideal also is contributive towards the ideal of the enlightened, and civilly responsible democratic citizen, an ideal I cannot find unagreeable. I cannot help but feel that most Western democracies would be in a better state if the electorate were bequeathed the sort of understanding of their civic duties which accompanies an education in certain of the various humanities.

So... Career pragmatism ought not to be the only rationale available to such people, in their choice of a university subject.

But it also seems to me that the unilateral policy of third level education for all, immediately after school, does often burden otherwise valuable Arts courses with the good-faith tuition of unmotivated students, who might have been better off interspersing their education with a few years of bottom-of-the-career-ladder hard work to make them appreciate the advantages and appeals of a university education, which also might have bequeathed them the advantage of more discernment in the choice of an undergraduate vocation, and thereby alleviated, somewhat, the deadbeat blight within the Arts.

FionnMatthew

Eoin Macollamh wrote: »

Fionn,

I agree with almost everything you say, which is a real breath of fresh air in this forum. One thing that worries me, though, is this:



It's that last bit that is of concern. You are no doubt a gifted student. But the beaches are white with the bones of gifted students who were unable to get academic jobs. I know dozens of cases among my cohort who were absolutely brilliant and went to the very best universities (Princeton in Philosophy, Harvard in Political Theory, etc.) and who, whether because of bad luck or changing job market tastes or whatever, were unable to find academic work. This is particularly so in your chosen field, philosophy. There is simply far more supply of labour than there is demand for it in philosophy. So you're going to need a plan B other than suicide.:eek: And, for what it's worth, most of the people I know who gave up on looking for an academic job and ended up doing something else are happy enough (mostly) with what they are doing.

Thanks, Eoin, and I appreciate the info.

I was actually worried I had overstated my case a little bit in that post. In fact I've been perusing the Leiter blog on employment prospects within philosophy, especially yesterday and today, and I find myself unsurprised by the general trends.

I'm also anxious not to be seen as someone with the "sense of entitlement" referred to in that thread of discussion. I don't think I have that sense of entitlement. Although I also feel I don't owe society at large an apology for the existence of philosophy. I suppose that, while trying to affect a tone as credible and realistic as I could, I was still unable to avoid talking up my own career prospects, and therein the Arts, (and so basically saying what I knew was not true) as a knee jerk reaction.

You're quite right, though, and it was disingenuous of me not to acknowledge that career prospects within academic philosophy were pretty dim. I didn't for a couple of reasons: 1) I didn't want to get into a more complex issue, which is my general dismay with the industrialization and professionalization of academic philosophy, and the formation of a "job market," and my certainty that I'd actually rather not work at all than demean myself so much as to have to think of myself as a product that I'm trying to sell, and 2) to properly express the sentiment, more figuratively than literally, that I'd still rather starve than spend the rest of my life employed in a way that doesn't somehow involve my Arts education. I know I seem to have said exactly the opposite, but I do have alternatives to strictly academic employment in mind, which are far more realistic, which, however, do entail continued involvement with scholarly research, and which do tend to incorporate much of what I've spent the last 7 years working at.

I understand, reading over it, that it doesn't come off that way. In fact, I appear to be largely ignorant of the stark realities of "the job market." And for the overtly dramatic tones in my post, I do apologize. (I suppose I am as easily incensed by disparaging attitudes as the next person!)