To the woman who mentions her husband plays jazz piano and is a surgeon, why do you say “he’s not gay”? Who would think that? Are you saying that men who play piano are usually gay? Is that what you think other people think? I don’t know, as a mother of a gay son, I found that slightly offensive or at least just confused that you are using a weird stereotype.

Setting aside the intrinsic value of the arts from a practical perspective, I learned way more about project management, administrative stuff like budgeting, and how to manage a team from student directing a play in college than I ever did in any internship or job I had before graduating.

The arts provide unparalleled opportunities to conceptualize a project and see it through from its inception to its completion, almost always working collaboratively with others. Artistic endeavors call upon and stretch ones imagination, creativity, problem solving, ability to make things work with limited resource, and critical thinking about how most effectively to convey the thought or intention underlying a piece to the audience or viewer.

Those are highly valuable and practical skills. It must be sad and stunting to go through life with such a limited definition of education.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not some kind of uncultured Neanderthal, I’m really not, but I find it a bit strange when I see parents focusing on the strength of this or that school’s art/theatre/music/dance programs. I get it, your kid is good at art, wants to stay with it, but come on. Unless you are loaded and the kid will never have to worry about supporting himself or herself, who cares about the quality of the art programming? It’s a nice hobby and a nice side benefit of going to college, but to prioritize it seems impractical to me. It’s hard for me to relate to. It’s like choosing a college based on how good the sports team is. Who cares? The point of college athletics is to use it to get into college, not to be a member of a team that had a 10-4 record rather than 8-6.

What am I missing?

Ahhh, the arts troll is back. Every few weeks this surfaces. Every time, those of us who make our living in the arts explain and validate the field as a vocation and enrichment. So, having done this dance numerous times, I have to think that this is a troll at this point. Or, just another ignorant person who likes to pass judgment on something they know nothing about. Please, give it a rest, Arts Troll.

Every engineering school we visited touted their version of fine arts programs, and they invest a lot of money in them. Why? Because, they all say, they recognize that students want and need to exercise both parts of the brain, and being involved in the arts makes them better engineers, better students, and develop into better people (EQ). This is from academics at engineering schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC who graduated with a double math/physics major couldn't have survived college without being able to participate in orchestra. When Covid shut everything down he was devastated, but fortunately they were able to connect on Zoom and still play together.

Your DC sounds a lot like mine. May I ask where he went to college?

Amherst

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's with this "help brain development" BS? And OP, are you really serious with this question?

You all might want to take a look at the minimum pay charts for directors, writers, producers, etc.. on the websites of their unions. And then look at the chart of residual payments. Then ask yourself if you ever will make that kind of money doing what you are doing.

Then take a look at the list of credits on a movie, or the masthead of a magazine.

THEN, I invite you to take a look at LinkedIn and search "Head of Content" or Chief Content Officer and see what pops up. What do you think those people studied? Accounting?
Who do you think is writing, designing and creating all these ads you see on social media and TV? Do you even know that the average person on TIKTOK doing stupid dance videos is making 10K a month on sponsorships?

What century are people living in?

But then take a look at the average salaries of arts graduates--the return on investment is negative for most.

So is the return on investment to having kids. Why did you have children?

That response was everything.

Anonymous wrote:I was a little like OP in my younger years and my father was a lot like OP. Now I've got a son who wants to pursue a career in music and a daughter who wants to pursue a career in art. And I half jokingly, half seriously tell them, "you're killing me! You do know you're going to have to eat."

But, the thing is, they're really good. They put serious time into their music and art. And they love these things.

So, our compromise is that they're going to big schools where they have good art & music programs but also have a lot more on offer. My son is pursuing a dual degree in computer science on top of his music degree. My daughter will major in graphic design even though her natural inclination would be toward a strict fine art degree.

Ultimately, they're smart, diligent kids. One way or another, they'll be fine.

That's the way to do it!! Double major is awesome. Gives your son something divert towards if the music doesn't pan out with the career he'd want. And your Daughter found a way to market/utliize her love of art. What more can you ask for?

Anonymous wrote:Work to live, don't live to work.

I kind of get it - I saw the world like I think OP is describing it back when I was in my teens and twenties. The arts were nice extras but they weren't "real." But I've come to believe that people can't do the "real" things as well unless they have at least some of the broader understanding that you pick up through things like art, music, the humanities, sports, and non-vocational pursuits. So, I think OP is undervaluing these peripheral undertakings.

Second, I think a lot of us value schools based on criteria that aren't directly relevant to what our kids will personally experience. When we pick a school based on ranking, a non-trivial chunk of that ranking is based on resources that our kid will never use. The main benefit is that the kid will bask in the university's reflected glory.

Finally, the difference between a #30 and a #90 university isn't all that predictable on an individual level. Statistically, the #30 university probably produces better outcomes and higher salaries more often than the #90 does - but for any given student, results can vary wildly. My guess is that the kid who is studying chemistry at the #90 while he is enjoying the hell out of the kick ass music program is going to ultimately fare better than the kid studying chemistry at the #30 but who is grinding it out without much joy.

+100

People who are happy in life will excel at life. Simple fact

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP: it’s not that I’m advocating vocational training. I get the value of learning how to read, write, think critically, problem solve. And I see the fringe benefit of art stuff as a fun and healthy activity. But where the arts oriented people lose me is when they choose one school over another based on the arts programming as opposed to variables that may have a more significant long term impact. Like choosing a less reputable school because there are good pottery classes. It just seems that these things are nice to have but for $320k maybe they don’t matter that much and you should be focused on other factors?

You know, I wanted to believe that you asked the original question out of real curiosity and desire to learn about other people. People replied and explained, and your response is to double down and explain why you’re right and they’re wrong.

Seriously, no one is trying to convince you to value the arts as part of a college experience. No one cares whether you value it. Why do you care that others value it? Are you just desperate for something to judge other people about? Good lord.

The tell is the idea that people are "choosing a less reputable school because there are good pottery classes."

OP: I’m obviously demonstrating a bit of proletarian disdain for the arts here, but I guess from a practical point of view, when I read things like my DS really wants a strong theatre program or something like that, I’m just thinking to myself - come on- high school is over, a man has to focus on making a living now. I totally appreciate that people have hobbies and interests but, I don’t know, you gotta focus on getting from A to B. That’s just my mindset. Thinking about the quality of art offerings feels frivolous but look, it’s not my wheelhouse. And btw I collect art and appreciate art. I guess I am just focused more on my kids being well positioned to get ultimately good jobs out of this whole college thing and be on a strong career trajectory. I’ve seen people get distracted by their passions and then have nothing to show for it

So you don't really value art or theater or music, etc. You say you do but actions speak loudly to indicate you don't....you don't think anyone should actually follow their passion, but should instead "focus on making a living". I know plenty of people who make a living in the arts. They are happy and thriving. They may not be wealthy but they are rich in life. And they all make a decent living and support themselves just like everyone else.

Next, most people can focus on two or more things while at college. My own kid is BME and CS double major (at a T30), and almost minoring in dance as well (will have everything except the required "stage managing 2 shows" by graduation time). If they didn't have this creative outlet, they would be miserable. I'd much rather they spend a lot of their free time at dance and with dance friends than just hanging at frat parties (trust me that happens too, but not as much when you have 2 time consuming majors and a minor/time consuming hobby). Interestingly, over 75% of the dance majors/minors at their school are also STEM (Engineering/premed). People can enjoy one passion and also focus on another that is the degree they really want to use for a career.

There are student led dance companies at Duke, Stanford and UChicago that are big draws for those who were serious dancers and want to keep it in their lives even if they don’t major in it.

The 2 sisters from DC who formed Syncopated Ladies (tap group that perform to sold out audiences) are Ivy educated

Anonymous wrote:My DC who graduated with a double math/physics major couldn't have survived college without being able to participate in orchestra. When Covid shut everything down he was devastated, but fortunately they were able to connect on Zoom and still play together.

+1000

My kid is a BME and CS major and is doing enough to be a dance minor---wouldn't have it any other way. the dance is what keeps them happy/balanced.

Anonymous wrote:You are missing that some kids really thrive when participating in these programs, so they care that they will be in a place that supports it. Every kid has something they want that will make the college experience a happier, better four years for them. For some it is a football tradition, for others it is Greek life, for some it is easy access to hiking and climbing or surfing, for some it is weather, and for some it is a vibrant fine arts program.

+1

I doubt my kid will be a star of stage and screen, but i hope he has access to performing in theater at his college, even though he'll probably major in molecular biology. For him in high school, theater is fun and uses a different part of his brain than science. In college, extracurriculars are great places to form friendships, more so than classes.

Of course if he ends up at a school with a strong theater program and many kids serious about majoring in it, he likely won't end up in the elaborate productions for theater majors only – but hopefully there will be smaller spinoff student groups and comedy troupes and such. It's good to have a variety of interests and friends, in college and life beyond.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am an Asian Indian and my entire schooling system was mostly academics - fine arts and sports were a joke.

Now most of my friends are in late 40's and it is hard to figure out a hobby. I have insisted my kids to play a musical instrument plus a sport, not for college admission but so that they have a hobby/active life style for life. They are pretty average but helps give them an outlet outside of stressful HS. My older one also takes Theater as an elective. I find numerous benefits of theater, more confident and interesting teenagers. I would absolutely encourage them to take a few classes in fine arts in college.

But I agree, the other variables in college including costs, proximity to home, strength of engineering program will matter MUCH more than the strength of fine arts program.

If my kids participated at a much higher level in fine arts and sports, the conversation would be different

Sensible post.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not some kind of uncultured Neanderthal, I’m really not, but I find it a bit strange when I see parents focusing on the strength of this or that school’s art/theatre/music/dance programs. I get it, your kid is good at art, wants to stay with it, but come on. Unless you are loaded and the kid will never have to worry about supporting himself or herself, who cares about the quality of the art programming? It’s a nice hobby and a nice side benefit of going to college, but to prioritize it seems impractical to me. It’s hard for me to relate to. It’s like choosing a college based on how good the sports team is. Who cares? The point of college athletics is to use it to get into college, not to be a member of a team that had a 10-4 record rather than 8-6.

What am I missing?

I think you are missing quite a few things. Maybe the kid loves "that school’s art/theatre/music/dance programs" and want's to continue to participate in something that is meaningful to them in college. Maybe the kid was so good as an artist, performer, instrumentalist and that got him into a top 20 school where he can still perform and enjoy that activity while getting an excellent college degree. Maybe he wouldn't have had that opportunity without the arts.

As for sports, I would argue the same. Some kids want to pursue their passion for sports and compete at whatever level they are capable. Some go to D! schools on full ride scholarships where grades alone would not have afforded them the opportunity of being admitted. Others go D3 (even if they had the grades to go to better schools} just to compete in a sport for which they have passion and love the competition.

I don't have stats for those that were admitted to college on some type of arts programming and if they became "professional" in that field of work. However, I do know that fewer than 2 percent of NCAA student-athletes go on to be professional athletes. In reality, most student-athletes depend on academics to prepare them for life after college. Education is important. There are more than 460,000 NCAA student-athletes, and most of them will go "pro" in something other than sports.

Finally, if your kid is passionate about something, you should encourage it. Maybe it's the arts, sports, academics - whatever. The kids are the ones pursuing a dream and they are the ones putting in all the hard work. You might find it strange. I don't!

OP, it's like sports for kids who aren't into sports.

Same reason someone wants a good football or basketball program at a college, when it doesn't affect the major at all.