Posted in the dunk tank because I expect to be dunked on.


So I got in a discussion with a friend that someone they knew was hardworking because they were doing a degree in music theory on a PhD track while also juggling multiple jobs. I was impressed with all the jobs this person was doing, but I said that music theory as a degree is absurd and most liberal arts degrees are related to professional bullshitting (re: writing useless essays about a specific quality of something) than they are about something socially useful so I didn't find that aspect impressive at all. In my eyes, the socially useful thing about a music theory degree would be applying this idea to make good music, or to teach others about it. Notably, music theory is not about engineering a stage for good acoustics, nor is it about building instruments. It leads to nothing tangible, but rather is a sort of meta-analysis of music as a whole. Its possible to receive a music theory degree while making bad music. And bad music and good music is wholly subjective, its possible to put on a very musically skillful display and have no one like it, or not be interesting enough that a good swath of people enjoy it.

Compare this to, say, an architecture degree. There can be artistic expression in architecture, but its incredibly important to put people through a degree program for rigor to avoid architectural deficiencies which can kill people. The point here is that any sort of rigor drilled into someone in a music theory PhD pipeline has questionable benefits, and is likely a waste of time and labor. However, it is possible that it would be useful to have music theory certifications that are relatively quick, cheap, and potentially free to get to help teach musicians music theory to improve their art, maximizing social benefits. And I think that is something that can be applied to a lot of liberal art degrees.

Maybe this is colored by the way my grandma taught me about Socialist Czechoslovakia. There were benefits for artists, but people could only get free/subsidized degrees if they went to do something very practical such as architecture, engineering, science, and so on. Which is why so much socialist art is baked into something practical, like housing.

  • kristina [she/her]
    hexagon
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Socialist transition requires the elimination of poverty, the elimination of poverty can only be done by material means, therefore engineering and other practical degrees were highly valued. Similarly, I don't see the value in spending 10+ years in a degree only to teach rudimentary stuff, and neither did any socialist system. The option was there, but it was never subsidized. Sometimes, to preserve culture, there were things like helping boost art from minority cultures in order to attract tourism. But that hardly requires a PhD

    Some of my point is: what makes it so worth it to spend 10+ years of study to help with research in liberal arts? Why not just have a certificate and hit the ground running?