Summary
AS AN undergraduate approaching my second year of an English literature degree, I'm appalled that universities are investing yet more of our fees in the burgeoning fields of science, technology and maths while the arts and humanities are neglected. Like many of my school friends, I was rejected by several universities, despite being overqualified for their courses. Places for English and history are as competitive and coveted as those for many science subjects. Many universities demand higher grades from arts and humanities applicants -- but it's the science students who attend lectures in lavish buildings with exclusive libraries and benefit from more than 20 hours tuition a week. Arts students are lucky if we get ten hours of teaching in cramped offices. I know that, in terms of employability, scientists are more attractive. But such discrepancies are disheartening and insulting.
I study hard, pay the same tuition fees as science students and spend my summers working to support myself financially, only to face reminders from initiatives like this latest one (creating 10,000 university places for science students) that my subject, as an art, is inferior. The Government is mistaking the symptom for the cause. There are too many qualified university applicants, neither because A-level courses are easier, nor because youngsters are more intelligent, but because grade boundaries are too low. A student with a relatively high score in their other exam papers can achieve an overall A-grade even if they don't sit one of the tests; an unimpressive points tally of 480 out of a possible 600 is all that's needed for a top grade.See the full content of this document
Extract
Funding the Arts Shouldn't Be Rocket Science [Scot Region]
The answer is n...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
