Arts degrees 'reduce earnings'

March 6, 2003 2:39 AM

Arts degrees 'reduce earnings' A degree in an arts subject reduces average earnings to below those of someone who leaves school with just A-levels. Graduates in these subjects - including history and English - could expect to make between 2% and 10% less than those who quit education at 18

"Feeling warm about literature doesn't pay the rent."
posted by MintSauce (62 comments total)

In other news, daily internet users could expect between a 12% to 16% higher pay level than those who do not.

(And 56% of statistics are made up on the spot!)
posted by woil at 2:58 AM on March 6, 2003

As the old joke goes:
A science major says: "Why does it work?"
An engineering major says: "How does it work?"
A liberal arts major says: "Do you want fries with that?"

Is it fair? Absolutely not. But people should be aware that the education they pick will have an effect on their future earnings and job prospects.
posted by spazzm at 3:04 AM on March 6, 2003

Law graduates did best, on average earning between 24% and 30% more than A-level school leavers.

A prècis, then: teachers get paid shit, solicitors and barristers don't. That is, the number of arts graduates who go into teaching is very likely to drive the mean income into the gutter. I'm sure that those flush law graduates will appreciate this when their kids are old enough to go to school.

Social timebomb? Too right.
posted by riviera at 3:27 AM on March 6, 2003

what's "fair" about it? is there some kind of moral law that says that you should earn more if you have a degree? is there someone advertising arts degrees as a way to get rich (not in the spam i receive)?

i don't know about anyone else here, but i worked for a degree because it was interesting (and also, truth be said, because of social pressures that i, innocent babe, was unaware of).

and if teachers should (assuming some kind of democratic "morality") really be paid more, then people in the uk would vote for higher taxes - that's where their wages come from. truth is, people in the uk don't give a damn when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is...
posted by andrew cooke at 3:33 AM on March 6, 2003

I never claimed that it was fair, if that's what you're implying.
posted by spazzm at 3:39 AM on March 6, 2003

heh .. "Statistics are like eggs, it depends who lays them, who cooks them and who eats them."
posted by MintSauce at 3:47 AM on March 6, 2003

Fair. Unfair. But comparisons a bit odd. After all, you get an undergraudate degree (in America) in 4 years, no matter what the discipline. You add on 3 more years to get law degree. Odd fact: in America, the law de3gree which should be equivalent of a Master's degree is instead called Doctor of Laws--as though they had gone on for Ph.D...but that is the power and the push they have.
posted by Postroad at 3:50 AM on March 6, 2003

Art students make squat when they graduate? Hardly and earth-shattering revelation.

In the U.S., the only way that I know to parlay such a degree into a viable career is to go into journalism or graphic arts. In addition, many university art and literature departments couldn't be less interested in helping their students acquire skills that might translate into paying jobs. Finally, most people I know who went into art and lit programs went with the expectation that they were going to starve unless they went into teaching, or took up a marketable skill like technical writing or computer graphics as a minor to fall back on when they got tired of starving in a garret.
posted by MrBaliHai at 3:56 AM on March 6, 2003

A prècis, then: teachers get paid shit, solicitors and barristers don't.

Add to the equation those that work in journalism (the vast majority of jobs in journalism pay fuck all) and publishing. Plus also factor in the fact that women are more likely to be arts graduates than science graduates and earn about 20% less than their male equivalents.

I'm an arts graduate but for me it wasn't a question of choice. I'm good at History and English, I'm crap at Maths and Physics. What am I going to do?
posted by Summer at 4:03 AM on March 6, 2003

then people in the uk would vote for higher taxes

Higher frickin' taxes? Oh, for the love of all that is holy!

Sorry to let you in on the bad news, but an 'art' degree doesn't enable or increase demand for dookie, and guarantees you even less. There's a huge glut of 'artists', or rather 'art school grads' who are swamping the market and whining for more government funds from taxpayers, and waiting tables and flipping burgers. They can go and play in traffic and stick their tax heists up their collective degrees. There are others who are doing their best to work with what they have, cramming late night painting or writing in between double-shifts, never giving up or ignoring what their hearts and dreams create: more power to them.

Are the arts and artists important? Ask Shakespeare and Michelangelo. Do they need taxpayer funding? Hell effin' no! Not a single worthwhile artist in history has sponged off the public, and here's hoping that a bad recent trend comes to a swift and screeching halt. (take a look at the most recent NEA funded shenanigans and the Turner prize-winner nonsense for more clarification)

Here's the kindest message I can muster for the 'art' grads: put up or shut up. Or get a job.
posted by hama7 at 4:06 AM on March 6, 2003

The survey doesn't prove that having an arts degree gives you less earning power. It might just be that the kind of people who go to get an arts degree on average find the highest paid jobs less attractive, resulting in their average earnings being lower. This looks like a classic example of finding a correlation and assuming that A causes B rather than A and B simply having a common cause.
posted by Gaz at 4:10 AM on March 6, 2003

"Feeling warm about literature doesn't pay the rent."

Maybe you could get a job running the furnace at the library, and live in the basement.
posted by LeLiLo at 4:14 AM on March 6, 2003

Arts degrees, not Fine Art degrees. Arts degrees in the UK (and Australia/NZ) cover all of the humanities and social sciences: English literature, languages, history, geography, political science, sociology, cultural studies, etc.
posted by rory at 4:31 AM on March 6, 2003

See, this is why it's fun to be on this international internet.

What the heck is an "A-Level"? Just an A grade average on your high-school marks? What is an A grade in the UK (I assume it's 90-100 %)?

If it's an average on your marks, I'd suggest that anyone who can get such a high average from high-scool is likely (dare I say it?) just more intelligent, and therefore would find better job opportunities.

Sorry, but I'm just a little clued out of this one.
posted by shepd at 4:43 AM on March 6, 2003

[ Pause for a moment's hilarity at hama7's wasting a pint of spittle, while not realising that an arts degree isn't an 'art school' degree. ]

After all, you get an undergraudate degree (in America) in 4 years, no matter what the discipline. You add on 3 more years to get law degree.

Not in Britain (or at least, not in England & Wales): a law degree is your standard three-year undergraduate course, followed by a year's professional traning.

What the heck is an "A-Level"?

You take your GCSEs at 16, then you have the option of leaving school or staying on for two more years to take your A-levels ('A' for 'advanced'), which can then earn you a place in university. Scotland does it differently. I suppose it's the equivalent to 'graduating high school', but not really.

Anyway, shepd: the survey's basically saying that if you leave school at 18, you'll earn more in your lifetime than if you go to university and take an arts degree.
posted by riviera at 4:55 AM on March 6, 2003

An A-Level is an 'advanced level' subject in the final years of high school, as distinct from a GCSE subject (which used to be called O-Levels, or ordinary level subjects).

Students study the following national curriculum subjects until the end of year 11: English, mathematics, science, design and technology, a modern foreign language, information and communication technology, physical education and religious education. Courses in most of these subjects will lead to a qualification. Many students also take qualifications in a range of other subjects. GCSE is the most common qualification at this stage...

An A level is divided into two equal parts: the AS and the A2. The AS is normally taken at the end of the first year of study. It is made up of three units and is a qualification in its own right. To turn an AS into an A level, students take the A2 (a further three units) in the second year...
posted by rory at 4:56 AM on March 6, 2003

Er, yeah. Wot riviera said.
posted by rory at 4:57 AM on March 6, 2003

Ahhh, okay. Makes sense. It's a bit like the extra grade some places have (in my case had) that was designed to prepare you for university, if that's where you wanted to go, with exit exams tacked on top of it.

I assume you're still a graduate wether you take A-Levels or not, as long as you fully complete your basic high school education.

And GCSEs, I would assume, are like SATs (US standardized test) then (which are also a little confusing for me, as I have no special exams like those where I live [if you want to go to university, they look at your relevant marks from your last couple of high-school grades, or they take you in as a mature student], but I get the picture).

Well, it all seems clear enough to me why this is the way it is. Education level has never meant better earnings. Look at Michael Dell and Bill Gates (both dropouts) for that little fact. If you want money, when the opportunity comes, you have to jump on it, giving anything else in the way up (including education). That's just the way the world works.
posted by shepd at 5:11 AM on March 6, 2003

[ Pause for a moment's hilarity at hama7's wasting a pint of spittle, while not realising that an arts degree isn't an 'art school' degree. ]

You might explain the difference instead of wasting your sneering spittle and condescending time.
posted by hama7 at 5:11 AM on March 6, 2003

Just go back to school and become a plumber, or an electrician. You have any idea what these people make? That, and half of them are retiring in about 10 years.
posted by CrazyJub at 5:20 AM on March 6, 2003

English major, doing fine here. Counts her blessings every day. My communication skills have helped me considerably in my career. The trick is to do something your passionate about and find a way to balance the passion with the necessity of eating, paying bills and your taxes.

As them Cajuns say: "Bon ton B.A." Or is that roulet?
posted by VelvetHellvis at 5:23 AM on March 6, 2003

I don't see why this is unfair — after all, there's no reason an education should be guarantee of earnings. You ought to be getting an education for its own sake, particularly if you're getting an arts education. What is unfair is the ridiculously inflated price of an education, generally justified by the schools on the basis of a presumed higher income, which is now being shown to be false.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:29 AM on March 6, 2003

riviera didn't waste as much time as you, hama7. Maybe a spot of reading might have been in order before shooting off the cuff?
That would have saved time for all of us.
posted by asok at 5:45 AM on March 6, 2003

shepd - 'What the heck is an "A-Level"? Just an A grade average on your high-school marks? What is an A grade in the UK (I assume it's 90-100 %)?'

That is a good question. Seems nobody knows until after the results are in.
This gives a rough idea, it seems that 80% should get you an A grade A Level.
posted by asok at 5:53 AM on March 6, 2003

Just go back to school and become a plumber, or an electrician.

Not so easy: the FE colleges up the road from me are oversubscribed a few times over for their plumbing and electricians' courses. The publicity over the shortage of tradespeople and the money to be made appears to be working. I'd definitely have signed up for political history and plumbing, had there been a joint honours available.
posted by riviera at 5:54 AM on March 6, 2003

You British seem to have an education system that requires a course on the education system itself. Uniform marks, GCSEs, A-Levels, AS-Levels, A2, argh! So confusing! :-)

And then my mom goes on about grammar schools and technical schools and I just think :-S
posted by shepd at 6:01 AM on March 6, 2003

I just thought an Arts Degree can lead, via a successful career, to the top jobs in academia (pay-wise).
But should prospective students have to pay 'top-up fees' for their Arts Degree if they are not expected to earn as much as school leavers?
'Become a plumber' - nice idea, but as riviera points out, courses are over-subscribed at the moment. A friend of mine who teaches plumbing says many of his new students this year are ex-solicitors, lawyers, bankers, pilots and other well paid vocations. Motivated by greed, rather than need it seems. There will soon be a glut in qualified plumbers, and maybe we'll see reasonable prices charged for their work? Only maybe.
posted by asok at 6:16 AM on March 6, 2003

shepd: I assume you're still a graduate wether you take A-Levels or not, as long as you fully complete your basic high school education.

In the UK, there's no concept of graduating a school. You go to school and possibly take exams then leave. "Graduate" is reserved for those who have gained a 3rd or better at B.A. or B.Sc. level.

I'd like to point out that A levels were by far the hardest exams I've ever done. I sailed though university with a first, but my A-levels were a pretty poor B,C and D.
posted by salmacis at 6:19 AM on March 6, 2003

I had the same experience salmacis. A levels were a nightmare, my degree was shamefully easy. However, that was A levels in 'our' day. Nowadays they just give them away, kids don't know they're born, society crumbling etc etc etc.
posted by Summer at 6:24 AM on March 6, 2003

I assume you're still a graduate whether you take A-Levels or not, as long as you fully complete your basic high school education.

There's no such thing as graduating high school in the UK: you can leave school when you're 16 whether you passed your GCSEs or not. Not having GCSEs is obviously likely to hinder your future career path - but as long as you're 16, you can leave. If you stay on at school or go to a sixth form college to take A-Levels, then that's a bonus, and required to get into university, but it's not mandatory by any means. We don't have any kind of high school diploma or graduation like you have in the US - the word 'graduate' is reserved for university graduates.

Also, I know my group of friends don't represent the average, as an Oxbridge degree goes a long way in the employment market, but no-one reading for an arts degree sees themself as in any way hindered in future careers. My fellow historians and other arts students are a mixed bag - one or two are going onto graduate work, several are going on to law conversion courses, a few are going to be corporate whores for investment banks, ad agencies and management consultancies, some are taking years out travelling and others don't know what they're going to do.

For a lot of careers, what you've done at Uni isn't of much importance - if you've got a 2:1 from a reputable institution, have good extra-curricular activities and can communicate well, whether you've done Engish or Engineering isn't of much consequence. A lot of companies would prefer to hire an English graduate from Durham than a Business Studies graduate from Keele. It might be snobbish but it's the way it works.
posted by kitschbitch at 6:25 AM on March 6, 2003

asok, the top jobs in academia pay-wise generally aren't in the older universities, they're in the newer ones. The old unis can pay less because everyone wants to work at them.
posted by rory at 6:28 AM on March 6, 2003

there's no reason an education should be guarantee of earnings.

So true. Unless you're taking a degree or diploma specifically to qualify for a job (nursing, medical school, law school, electrician, mortician etc), education and employment often have little to do with each other. There's this strange idea that you go to school to increase your earning potential these days instead of going to school to get educated.

many university art and literature departments couldn't be less interested in helping their students acquire skills that might translate into paying jobs.

That's not what they're there for. If people want education to help them get a paying job, they should choose a course of study that's likely to do that, not expect universities to change their curricula to change a general arts degree into something it's not.
posted by biscotti at 6:44 AM on March 6, 2003

All of my art degree friends (BFA/MFA) that have 'real jobs' do internet work of some kid - web dev, sysadmin, whataver... I'd probably still be washing dishes if not for the internet.
posted by john m at 6:47 AM on March 6, 2003

It's no news that a degree will not in itself guarantee a good income, and these stats are really kind of useless because they are a false measure of what a degree is worth. I think it's a mistake to see a degree as a meal ticket or as an entire education in itself, or to see education as a hurdle to be gotten over by the age of 21. You still have to position yourself in the marketplace, and you'll have to keep making adjustments and upgrades to your skill set as the marketplace changes, or as your interests do.

Someone with an arts degree has spent three years learning how to read, write and think critically and analytically, and they have a base of knowledge in one area or another. Valuable skills all, but to make a living one needs skills that are more specific to one job or another.

There are various ways to get these job-specific skills, like part-time classes at community colleges or technical schools, or by volunteering. A friend of mine did a honours degree in psychology and all through his four years he volunteered in that field. When he graduated he had contacts, references, and an entire resume of great experience, some of which had been paid work. Meanwhile a number of his classmates were wondering how they'd ever get a job with no experience. Some of them weren't even sure if they'd like working in psychology.

I have a B.A. in English and wouldn't want to be without it - but I'm also glad I didn't stop there. It's the combination of my degree, and my diploma in publishing and certificates in graphic design and desktop publishing that have gotten me the job I have. I'm also working on web site design skills and on learning French. Sure, it sucks a little to make less than my truck-driving brother. But I wouldn't have liked or been good at driving a truck and I do like what I do. And I'm also only 29. Given time, I might surpass him, since I'm going to keep learning and he's not.
posted by orange swan at 6:59 AM on March 6, 2003

Oddly enough, my university released a study showing that, five years after graduation, arts graduates had lower unemployment rates and higher salaries than many of their counterparts in other fields, and that this only went up with a graduate degree. This was about six or seven years ago, and I may not be remembering the details correctly, mind.
posted by mcwetboy at 7:03 AM on March 6, 2003

A degree in an arts subject reduces average earnings to below those of someone who leaves school with just A-levels.

Huh? What in the hell is this supposed to mean? Like an employer's going to look at a resume and say, "Oh, it looks here like you've got an art degree. I'm sorry, but we're going to have to hire this high school kid instead."

Right.

I think what you meant to say was that people with degrees in the arts make less in gross earnings (over a lifetime) than those who instead go to work right after graduating. Well, that makes sense. The work-world sucks all over unless you're a lawyer or a banker. The difference between a plumber or electrician who learned a trade and a history or English major that decided to teach is that the college kid is saddled with oodles of debt.

Which is why, unless you really know what you want to do and think a degree is the only way you can make it happen, stay away from college. It's for suckers. A ruse. Unless that degree is covered in ivy, it isn't worth the debt you'll incur. Now, if going to college means mastering a skill or interest of yours, more power to you. But so many people (at least over here in the States) end up just as directionless after college as they were after high school, only with a more ruined credit rating. My advice to high school students: offer your parents a deal where they give you half what they'd pay for college, then take that money and invest it in something you're passionate about. Buy some equipment and some books and start your own business. Travel the world. Just about anything would be more constructive than partying it up for four years. Apologies for the rant.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:11 AM on March 6, 2003

Sure, it sucks a little to make less than my truck-driving brother. But I wouldn't have liked or been good at driving a truck and I do like what I do. And I'm also only 29. Given time, I might surpass him, since I'm going to keep learning and he's not.

Don't take this personally, but there are those of us who believe learning is more than getting marks on pieces of paper. I bet your truck driving friend could tell you more about your country's physical features than you could ever hope to know. And, at the same time as that, I'm sure you could take his words and restate them in a much more interesting and coherent manner.

Education is relative. The only way people get dumb is to just quit doing anything, or get stuck in a rut, IMHO...
posted by shepd at 7:15 AM on March 6, 2003

Hama7 - I'm calling you on your "...Are the arts and artists important? Ask Shakespeare and Michelangelo. Do they need taxpayer funding? Hell effin' no! Not a single worthwhile artist in history has sponged off the public..." statement.

I seem to recall - help me out here - that most of the great recognized geniuses of the Western Renaissance were supported by wealthy patrons, usually nobility - the Medici, for example: especially Lorenzo the Magnificent. As rulers ('benefactors', some would say, or 'enlightened despots', others might add) the Medici would have been the contemporary equivalent, during the Late Medieval period and the Renaissance, of current modern governments. Europe at this time was a fractured mosaic of local rulers and potentates which served most of the functions (along with the Catholic Church) we now associate as 'governmental'.

So - that iconic cultural triumph of the West, the explosion of artistic expression during the Renaissance, was mostly made possible through public funding.

"Perhaps Lorenzo's greatest contribution to history was his patronage of the arts. He contributed more than anyone to the flowering of Florentine genius in the late 15th century, supporting such giants as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. Lorenzo treated the artists under his protection with respect and warm-hearted familiarity." (from the link above)

Hey - I was wrong on my "Ainu" attribution...
posted by troutfishing at 7:19 AM on March 6, 2003

Tying education and earnings together is what has screwed up education at this point. The purpose of an education is to become educated; when the purpose became to maximize income potential, we lost the heart of the system. This is why we have doctors more concerned about their stock portfolios than compassionate care of patients; this is why we have lawyers more interested in high judgments rather than the application of justice; this is why we have MBAs who are happy ruining the economy for the sake of personal gain.

Setting aside the silly confusion about art-school versus liberal arts education (and say what you want, hama7, but failing to make the distinction proves the point that education has some value outside earnings potential), there's a striking omission here that speaks to our state of mind on this subject: Unless I missed it, no one here has mentioned that those who would study the liberal arts and remain committed to that study do not attach their sense of personal worth to their income, and thus don't feel the same pressure to make as much money as they can, compared to someone who views the college education as a financial investment.
posted by troybob at 7:30 AM on March 6, 2003

Huh? What in the hell is this supposed to mean? Like an employer's going to look at a resume and say, "Oh, it looks here like you've got an art degree. I'm sorry, but we're going to have to hire this high school kid instead."

That isn't what this news story is about. Read it in the context of the paragraph two-thirds in:

The government announced earlier this year that the maximum annual tuition fee for higher education would rise to £3,000 from 2006. The current figure is £1,100.

The UK government is justifying this to the public on the basis of the higher salaries graduates make, just like the Australian government did when it reinstated tertiary fees in the late 1980s. This study shows that according to the government's own Labour Force Survey figures this simply isn't true for a lot of graduates.
posted by rory at 7:39 AM on March 6, 2003

I have to agree with Gaz on this one. This survey shows a correlation but does not even attempt to show causation.

I believe that the pay disparity is caused by differences in personal motivating factors. I'd be willing to bet that a person who expends the time, effort and money required to get a degree in something of little practical use is far more likely to prefer a life with less money and a job that they love than a person who skips education in order to enter the workforce directly.
posted by mosch at 7:51 AM on March 6, 2003

Damn, mosch said it better than I did...and shorter, too!
posted by troybob at 8:00 AM on March 6, 2003

So a degree in, say, linguistics is of "little practical use", but a 9-5 job watching the machine that stamps out Happy Meal toys is A-OK?

(Sorry, mosch; your basic point is plausible, but the implication that the liberal arts - and the fine arts, for that matter - are of "little practical use" irritates me. Probably because I once worked on this and this.)
posted by rory at 8:07 AM on March 6, 2003

If one chooses to go into plumbing, you should know there is an occupational risk of contracting hepatitis A and B.

And electricians have a higher rate of fatalities per work related accident. Ohm's Law is enforced with vigor, so no short cutting those safety procedures, OK?

Most trades also carry the risk of falls, since a lot of work is done at height.

The working life of tradespeople a lot of times doesn't extend beyond 55 years of age. That cuts pretty hard into the accumulative earnings potential.

So how about a hand for those limping, infected, scorched, old before their time tradespeople? 35 years of dodging viruses, malicious electrons, and falling materials and work mates might not be the prize some make it out to be.
posted by dglynn at 8:14 AM on March 6, 2003

I decry the implication that electrons are malicious!
posted by troybob at 8:25 AM on March 6, 2003

could we, as humans, carry on our lives without art?

yes, but our lives would resemble those of animals.
posted by pxe2000 at 8:45 AM on March 6, 2003

Sure, it sucks a little to make less than my truck-driving brother. But I wouldn't have liked or been good at driving a truck and I do like what I do. And I'm also only 29. Given time, I might surpass him, since I'm going to keep learning and he's not.

Don't take this personally, but there are those of us who believe learning is more than getting marks on pieces of paper. I bet your truck driving friend could tell you more about your country's physical features than you could ever hope to know.

I do think learning is more than getting marks on pieces of paper, and also about more than income. Perhaps I should have said "I'm going to keep acquiring skills and he's not." Although even that's not that accurate - Charlie's a licensed mechanic as well as a trucker, very handy in general and probably does regularly learn how to do new things. But my point was that ten years from now he'll still be in the same job or a very similar one with an inflation-adjusted wage while I'll have branched into new areas at hopefully a larger salary.

He won't be able to rub it in that he makes more than me, but I'm sure he'll still be teasing me about how I use a hammer like a girl.
posted by orange swan at 9:32 AM on March 6, 2003

Toyb, individual electrons are usually no problem, but get them together in a large groups, and they can't be trusted to behave themselves.
posted by dglynn at 9:43 AM on March 6, 2003

Er, that would be troybob.

Damn electrons.
posted by dglynn at 9:47 AM on March 6, 2003

troutfishing> The source of the Medici wealth was the fact that they were wealthy traders. While no doubt some of their money did come from tax revenue, the family was more or less a hereditary proto-corporation and made a lot of their money from control of the banking industry in Florence.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 9:59 AM on March 6, 2003

troutfishing, Pseudoephedrine: While the patronage system (the Medicis, etc.) was important in funding the Renaissance, I think it's also important to consider that the vast majority of pre-Renaissance European art was funded by the Catholic Church. To the extent that the Church played a quasi-governmental function, and given the fact that the bulk of it's funding came from tithes (a de facto public tax), you can really consider almost all pre-Renaissance European art publicly funded. That's a heck of a lot of worthwhile publicly supported art.

And hama7, to have known that we were not discussing the fine arts should not have required extensive background knowledge, as the words "including history and English" are in the original post.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:44 AM on March 6, 2003

Patronage was a complicated business, as it could mean everything from financial support to "networking" to legal protection. Shakespeare, for example, operated in a system that required acting companies to have a patron, but that didn't mean the patron was providing financial assistance. The Lord Chamberlain's Men (later the King's Men) was a capitalist venture. Poets and painters, however, often affiliated themselves with a wealthy aristocratic patron, who would provide financial support and possibly housing. It's worth remembering that many poets were not writing for print publication; instead, they would circulate handwritten manuscripts within an elite group (so-called "coterie publication" or "scribal publication"), a practice still reasonably popular in the early nineteenth century. (Wordsworth's Prelude, published posthumously, had been circulated in MS many years previously.) As Dustin Griffin has pointed out, the patronage system was still functioning well into the eighteenth century. (A fully capitalist "mass market" in literature really takes hold only in the Victorian period--the means of cheap mass book production simply aren't available until then.) Here's an essay on Irish patronage. Samuel Johnson's wretched relationship with his would-be patron, Lord Chesterfield, produced this famous definition: "Patron: One who countenances, supports or protects. Commonly a wretch who supports with insolence, and is paid with flattery." Incidentally, the Royal Literary Fund, founded in 1790, supports writers down on their luck. (Their case files are also a terrific resource for literary historians.)
posted by thomas j wise at 12:15 PM on March 6, 2003

Hey, Hama7: Orson Welles, Studs Terkel, John Cheever, Saul Bellow, Margaret Walker, John Houseman, Ralph Ellison, Burt Lancaster, Joseph Cotten, Virgil Thompson, E.G. Marshall, Sidney Lumet, Philip Guston, Moses Soyer, Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Jacob Laurence, Ivan Albright, Marsden Hartley, Philip Evergood, Mark Tobey, Dorothea Lang...

But then maybe your education never introduced you to any of those. Pity.
posted by NortonDC at 1:42 PM on March 6, 2003

thomas j wise: yeah, Griffin's study is excellent. He's one of the few 'literary historians' writing today who actually has a grasp of history, rather than just a mish-mash of pseudo-Marxian stadial assumptions. So many lit. historians seem to share (without, I suspect, really knowing it) the enlightenment's 'prejudice against prejudice' -- the contempt for tradition -- and completely fail to recognise the perpetuation of traditional economic and cultural modes into the present or recent past.

As far as many specialists in seventeenth and eighteenth century literature are concerned, the transition to capitalism completely eclipsed older economic systems, and patronage is neglected in favour of 'consumer culture', 'primitive accumulation' in the printing house, or other such tripe. Fortunately, this is changing. There's a good article by Michael J. Suarez in PBSA (Dec. 2002), for instance, on patronage with regard to Pope and the eighteenth century editor of Shakespeare, Lewis Theobald.
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:51 PM on March 6, 2003

A Tale of Two Siblings

One invested many difficult years and many more dollars into dental school.

The other (a few years younger) invested a small amount of money and four enjoyable years into a liberal arts degree.

The older sibling works long hours that sometime involve stress and at all times require a great deal of responsibility. Free time and money are mostly invested into improving and expanding their dental techniques to further benefit patients.

The younger sibling runs a small business (with a handful of friends) that is not nearly as stressful and allows for a lot more freedom. Free time and money are spent on enjoying the finer pleasures in life while maintaining a network of friends and business associates.

The younger sibling (with the arts degree) pays himself at least *twice* as much per month (after taxes) than the older sibling (with the degree from dental school).

These siblings are living proof that degree and education have nothing to do with earning potential.

Although their education and personalities differ, they share a few common traits which include the following:

1) Both enjoy what they do and would not trade places with the other.

2) Both contribute to society (and humanity) in their own way - the older helps humanity one mouth at a time and the younger helps society one human being at a time.

3) Both have highly developed communication skills which they refined through an active interest in the people around them, a good heart and a great attitude.

So before we ask ourselves the relationship between pieces of paper and earning potential, perhaps we should look at these two siblings and ask ourselves if we enjoy what we do, if we contribute to society and if our attitude is conducive to success.

Peace.
posted by cup at 9:45 PM on March 6, 2003 [1 favorite]

Amen, cup. That's really what it's all about. Facts and figures like these serve only to stimulate cocktail conversation and are of little value otherwise.

"Despite" my bachelors degree in French literature I have propelled myself farther and faster into upper management than many of my contemporaries who opted for the grind of business administration and accounting degrees back in college. It's so much more about the a person and his/her ambition than it is about a selecing a a major or course of study that will statistically translate into a certain range of monetary reward.
posted by psmealey at 10:30 PM on March 6, 2003

The Medici sponsorship was patronage, not socialism. Of course wealthy patrons sponsored artists, and that is, and has been, as it should be. But not from the filthy public tax-grubbing coffers! And socialism need not break an excellent tradition.

I stand by my original comment, although I botched the context; English lit. majors or liberal arts majors ought to be willing to accept the cruel cold facts: either pony up one's own abilities, or otherwise accept the fact that doing nothing equals nothing. Even *actual* writers (and not spectators) don't have a fat and easy time, save a precious few, and nobody owes them a free ride on tax robbery.

It's irresponsible to assume that any degree guarantees anything, much less a cushy liberal arts appreciation job re-reading and teaching the classics, which teach themselves.
posted by hama7 at 4:28 AM on March 7, 2003

So if unelected rulers tax the people and redistribute some of the proceeds to artists and writers, that's patronage and just dandy, but if elected rulers (who are actually accountable for how they spend public money) do the same, that's socialism and bad.

It's irresponsible to assume that any degree guarantees anything, much less a cushy liberal arts appreciation job re-reading and teaching the classics, which teach themselves.

Windmills, Sancho? Those are giants, I tell you! Onward, Rosinante!
posted by rory at 6:58 AM on March 7, 2003

These statistics are worthless

I don't know that much about the UK, but assuming it's somewhat similar to the US, there are not going to be many people leaving highschool with 3.5-4.0 GPAs and then simply giving up on education. Those that do probably have a good reason for doing so, like a family job.


For all we know, B, C and D students going on to collage and getting an arts degree could end up doing better then their peers who give up on school, who we can assume make up a much larger portion of those that did give up on school

In other words. if you didn't get As in highschool, this does not apply to you in any way
posted by delmoi at 12:20 PM on March 7, 2003

Pseudo - So the medici defined the rules - therefore, they had governmental powers (and without any possible democratic recourse for the masses....)

mr_roboto: as I said, "Europe at this time was a fractured mosaic of local rulers and potentates which served most of the functions (along with the Catholic Church) we now associate as 'governmental'."...

thomas j wise - thanks for your expansion on the meanings of "patronage" in the late middle ages.

rory - Bingo!: "So if unelected rulers tax the people and redistribute some of the proceeds to artists and writers, that's patronage and just dandy, but if elected rulers (who are actually accountable for how they spend public money) do the same, that's socialism and bad."

Hama7 - please now! - "The Medici sponsorship was patronage, not socialism": so........you are denying that the Medici ran Florence? Enforced the ground rules of commerce? Collected taxes/tributes?
posted by troutfishing at 9:01 PM on March 7, 2003

you are denying that the Medici ran Florence?

They were also a monarchy, which has been replaced today by representative democracies, and they should stay out of the business of funding the arts on the public dime. Not from taxes.

Private donors and contributions? By all possible means!
posted by hama7 at 9:08 PM on March 7, 2003

Trout> Sort of. The best analogy is really to CitiGroup or the Bank of Hong Kong and Shanghai, as giant international NGOs that wield greater financial power than many governments, without actually having the legitimacy to legislate that the governments of nations do. After all, "government" back then was nothing at all like government today. There wasn't even a police force, let alone the various other technologies and institutions by which a modern government monitors and controls its citizens. The Medici controlled the banking industry because they owned or held the debts of the banks in Florence, not because they could legislate interest rates or decide mortgages or decide that such and such actions constituted fraud. Lorenzo could buy more mercenaries for the armies of Florence than anyone else, and had the richest citizens in his pocket, therefore he was in charge, not vice versa.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 8:37 AM on March 10, 2003