Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
That's not what Lanny is saying. His point is that completing a purely STEM-focused degree will turn out a graduate who is perfectly capable of designing structures and drawing blueprints, but if you want someone who is can create something that is a beautiful example of both form and function, they're going to also take "useless" liberal arts courses in subjects like Art History, Philosophy, Literature, Classics, etc.
|
From this thread, I would summarize the main topic of debate is about the utility of modern universities and the value of the dollars and time we are putting into the tuition and education.
STEM and practical degrees have very real certifications and accreditations that empower careers from the get go. Liberal arts degrees do not afford young students the same vectors at all and contain subjects and achievements that can be learned on your own or for self-enrichment if you have the time and money to also take those courses as well. Historically those classical educations were also for the leisured classes who had the time and wealth to indulge in them.
If I was a parent, I'd say they would be better off spending their hard-earned tuition and time in their youth getting the STEM degree for the engineering background and then work on their portfolio as a passion project through much more affordable art classes and free study of art history and classical architecture on the internet, then parlay that into an architectural field.
At least they would be able to get an internship and a job to pay the bills while they worked on artistic passions - Or they could be an art student and work at Starbucks and get a personal internship with the anomie and depression they are also learning about in their sociology and psychology classes.