Higher Education

 

    First let me point out that there are many higher education opportunities and not all of them are college, especially for those that are in the arts. I've seen the work that goes into theatrical training and I've seen artists crash under the pressure of the education system. I believe education, predicated under the paradigm of the way it is now, dampens creativity and forces artists to put themselves in a box. Not only does it stifle an artist's creativity, but also provides additional roadblocks which may deter people from reaching their end goal. If one decides to endure the ever-changing goal post of higher education standards for his or her dream job, he or she will need to spend exorbitant amounts of money and sacrifice years of their life to meet standards that are more or less arbitrary depending on the profession. Does one really need a master's? If so, what's to prevent a master's degree from becoming just as diluted as a bachelor's degree? And is pursuing the arts and pursuing a science (like being a doctor) both deserving of the same level of education?

    For students that are becoming doctors, it is necessary to go to school but why become a doctor if you'll be in debt and it'll take 10 to 14 years. Not many people will put themselves through all of the work it takes to become a doctor instead of a nurse that takes a fraction of the time. As a result, you may have a de facto glass ceiling barring anyone not part of the elite from entering the field. This de facto classist segregation that occurs is a type of disparity that already happens with education writ large. However, it is nonetheless unsettling and frankly disconcerting. 

    If such a gap can occur with a field as sought after as being a doctor, what's to prevent a gap within the liberal arts? Moreover, is the paradigm creating such disparity even suitable for something like the arts? In school, generally speaking, one's goal is to pass As (perhaps even a B and the occasional C). However, is such a standard even well suited for creative endeavors? In schools, artistic assignments have short deadlines kin as math tests and expository essays. This is somewhat ironic when books, plays, movies, and artwork can take an artist years to create but in an institution, it is expected to have the same quality or the potential to meet such a quality in a fraction of the time. So if an artist has the talent and creativity why do they need higher education to provide arbitrary deadlines and subjective metrics under which works are evaluated? For the arts, it seems as though forcing a square peg into a round hole, or trying desperately to incorporate artistic fields into a troglodytic paradigm. That being stated, having the traditional master's over a bachelor's for something like the arts is ludicrous. 

    In reality, one may learn so much more from training and apprenticeship that helps shift one's perception of a field and builds their strengths. This creates optimal preparedness for actual on-the-job skills that are both necessary and practical.  It is never worth it to go into debt for an art degree because you'll rarely ever make that money back, yet it is desired by bosses. Meanwhile, on-the-job training happens with doctors too but much of it would be fruitless without years of education to supplement the training. With the arts, the same does not hold true.