I've known Science students who show up to class drunk. To each there own.
Until you've actually been involved in part of a Research team, I don't think you can quite comprehend how hair-wrenchingly soul destroying the process is....Oh no, you have to read a lot. Here's the world's smallest violin playing just for you. Suck it up, I just had to don a balaclava and break into a lab so I can do my fucking work.
Sorry, I got a little carried away there.
I've done research, but nothing potentially hazardous. My other degree is in applied mathematics with an emphasis on statistics, the labs in question were quite different from those you described obviously. The closest I've been to danger is getting a deep paper cut, and most everything I require to complete them are on my laptop. My point wasn't it's fine to be drunk or careless whenever you want, which should be obvious to everyone when working with harmful chemicals. Merely that working in the sciences doesn't make you healthy, wealthy, and wise in and of itself. Or conversely that studying in the arts means your intentions are merely to party hard and fail at life.
However, I honestly didn't care how people spent their time in university so long as it didn't adversely affect my studies.
My mother, father, and uncle all have BAs, my mother has three. Outside of the fact that they went on to get further education and become successful in their eventual careers, they're all well rounded individuals. My father can quote Confucius, Marx, Siddhattha, Christ, and Spinoza word for word. My uncle can recognize architecture on sight, from any time and any place, describe how it was made and the cultural subtext. My mother speaks five languages and can talk expansively about political theory.
Even if their BAs did not contribute to their eventual careers, it made them better people. They studied, embraced the material, lived and breathed it. It's the difference between someone getting a degree and getting a real education.
I have a BA in sociology, I see the world differently - clearer - because of this.
Do you see the world differently BECAUSE you have a BA, or because you studied Sociology? Whilst studying for my science degree I grew an interest in other area's; Politics, History, Law, even Creative Writing and Music History. I have a greater appreciation of the arts - believe it or not after all that - but I didn't get it from a piece of paper. I have a greater understanding of things like communism and the sociological and cultural differences between nations but I didn't attain it by sitting in a room being spoon fed information like a baby. I fucking got a job and went there, immersed myself in their ways - if only for a short period of time - to try and get my head around the mindset. Art's implies creativity. You don't "teach" creativity, you work at it yourself. My writing improved by *gasp* fucking writing. I started writing a novel and now I look back on it I realise how much I've improved in a year's time. I have work from nearly four years ago online - music reviews mostly - that's fucking atrocious, but I keep it there as a reminder. And not only has this helped my ability to write creatively but it's improved my knowledge of music; I've had to look into other bands, find comparisons, research the etymology and even form my own musical links, bands playing material that was before their time. This is why people say Arts degree's are worthless, not because they're against people who are so inclined but because if you REALLY wanted to be a photographer, you'd spend less time paying to sit in a classroom and more time outside taking some god damn pictures.
A BA or BS doesn't mean anything to me in an of itself, it's an arbitrarily decided upon point of academic competency I could have gotten one without any genuine interest in the subject matter or a great deal of effort - it merely represents the level of interest I have in the subject. I love sociology, I loved many of the liberal arts courses I took and didn't have sufficient credits to major in.
AS for the rest, it's not without its truth, but it's not the only way to see things. There is only so far that an individual can carry themselves in any endeavour. Would you criticize a violinist for seeking classical training, when they're capable of practising on their own? Do you see no value in a painter immersing herself in aesthetic theory and art history? Do you really think you can become a philosopher without studying the canon and genuinely comprehending it, by simply walking the land like Kain from Kung-Fu? Do you think you can decode the human psyche by simply talking to people?
Do you think I would be stupid enough to insinuate that a Bachelor of Science is stupid when you can buy a chemistry set at your local Toys-R-Us and there's always wikipedia for the tricky areas? How about handing a star-map to astronomy students and suggesting that they should just squint?
Practice certainly helps in writing, but so does reading
a lot of different authors and comprehending literary theory. Flying to Cuba to experience Latin forms of Marxism does give one perspective, but so does reading and understanding Marx. There is far more to understanding culture than one can glean from participating in it, just as there is far more significance in history than what a tour guide provides.
Undergrad courses in University aren't about achieving scholarly status by drip drying it from professors and staff, it's about having the theoretical underpinnings to be able to view the world on your own terms. The quest is yours, the world and its infinite complexity for you to unmask - it's too vast and difficult to go unarmoured and unarmed.
True, but I was finger painting by the age of three. I remember painting with a brush by the age of four. Do you need someone sitting beside you teaching you how when you push clay with your hands it moves? Again, covered that in my first few years of life. Any additional information is where books come in. Don't get me wrong, doing things with COMPLETE independence isn't particularly advised, but you don't need a degree course to teach you advanced techniques. Do you say to musicians they can't be a musician without a degree too? Apprenticeships, perhaps; at least then you're still learning by doing. That's the point I want to emphasise; nobody learnt how to be a master artist without doing some artwork, and you don't need to pay a university for that.
Then, at what level do you become sufficiently aware of "advanced techniques"? What is the minimum? Have you ever been to an art school? Do you think they sit around with pads of paper writing mathematical equations and sipping tea? They practice, endlessly, until their motions are as simple and refined to near mechanical precision - like a computer printer. That isn't just taught, but nor is it divined from the heavens.
Edit; I've seen art academy students do work which would make me bow down and worship them, then just scrap it like it was nothing. I've heard musicians play who could bring me to tears, and they still felt they were inadequate and amateurish, That's because they care about what they're doing and are committed to bringing themselves to greater heights, that's why they're there.
