Home Page

Stuff A Computer Programmer In Your Arts Hole

February 10, 2016

by:

Joe Patti

Possible evidence of what I suggested yesterday regarding the need to discuss all the career paths available to arts grads comes in a post last week by Alex Tabbarok Marginal Revolution blog.

Tabbarok opens by reviewing graduation data he used in a book he published showing more students graduated with a bachelor’s degree in visual and performing arts in 2009 than in “in computer science, math and chemical engineering combined.”

So what has happened since 2009? The good news is that enrollment in STEM fields has increased dramatically. The number of graduates with computer science degrees, for example, has increased by 34%, chemical engineering degrees are up by a whopping 49.5% and math and statistics degrees have increased by 32%.

The bad news is that we are still graduating more students in the visual and performing arts than in computer science, math and chemical engineering combined. As I said in Launching nothing wrong with the visual and performing arts but those are degrees which are unlikely to generate spillovers to society.

In the comments section there is a lot of discussion about the relative usefulness of different majors. The following observations about the mix of proficiencies one needs to create a successful product in computer science caught my eye.

Floccina February 4, 2016 at 10:04 am

The CS majors could be made easier. There are hard programming tasks and easy programmings task, there IMO are even programming where less intelligent people can do a better job by making interface that is easier to understand. Some programing task require less intelligence and more art. So perhaps there should be an easy Computer programming major. And perhaps it would make us all better off by increasing total production.

Fill disclosure I am a programmer who not so smart. When I have a difficult algorithm to write that I cannot look up I get help from a smart person.

Andy February 4, 2016 at 11:09 am

I agree. I’m a liberal arts major in English and Information Studies (not programming), and lucked out by finding a job that trained me in administrative computing. CS majors are really needed for software engineering but for programming for basic business processes they can really screw things up, often because their communication skills aren’t that great. The setup we have at my university – train liberal arts majors in computing – has worked well because they draw smart people from areas and occupations that emphasize communication and critical thinking. I’m always hearing horror stories of young CS majors who overengineered systems to the point of unmaintainability and can’t be reasoned with.

An inch below that, someone comments that Apple was able to produce a successful product because Steve Wozinak was a genius at writing effective code and Steve Jobs knew that the user interface needed to be simple and attractive to users.

The problem with Tabbarok’s view, which is generally shared, is that it assumes a computer science major gets plugged into a computer science job hole and a psychology major gets plugged into a psychology job hole and if there are no corresponding jobs needing to be plugged into, then those majors are useless.

This ignores the fact that the value of computer programs, chemicals, medicine, etc., don’t become self-evident upon creation. Like it or not, marketing, advertising and design communicate something that draws attention and causes people to value those items. Whether that thing deserves to be valued is another conversation altogether.

Would you have even known of the existence of the original Macintosh 128k, much less wanted to buy the boxy thing if it weren’t for the iconic 1984 Super Bowl ad? Why did VHS trump Beta when the latter was the superior format? Acai berries always had the same nutritional qualities so why were they miracle berries one year and barely mentioned the next?

The value of something isn’t completely dependent or proportionate to its usefulness.

From a certain point of view, the computer science, chemistry and biology degree really only has value because the creative team at a marketing firm has made the software, artificial sweetener or drug important. Even then, the product may fail for intangible and unexpected reasons just as high budget movies do.

To some degree, more computer science jobs create more creative jobs and creative jobs help create more computer science jobs. This sort of interdependence is illustrated by the success of Amazon, Google and Facebook. Nobody would be hired in one group of jobs if the other area was deficient. (Lord knows, whoever keeps updating the TOS for Facebook has nearly screwed things up a number of times.)

This gets back to what I was saying yesterday. Everyone is done a disservice when they are told actors can only act, violinists can only be in an orchestra, psychologists can only get jobs in clinical, counseling and school psychology.

God help us if a tuba player starts a technology company!

This isn’t to say that there is no value in pursuing a discipline toward a highly specialized end. There is a lot of training, study and practice behind orchestra musicians, surgeons, major league baseball players, ballet dancers, etc. It is widely acknowledged that there are only a few such slots available to the tens to hundreds of thousands of practitioners (except surgeons, of course, I hope there aren’t that many people practicing surgery for fun).

Those who don’t have the ability and will to operate at an elite level shouldn’t have other options closed off to them by a siloing mentality if they have skills that overlap well into other areas.

Art(ist) Education, State of the Arts, Working In The Arts

2 Comments

A Real Artist Wouldn’t…

February 9, 2016

by:

Joe Patti

Throughout my life I have frequently seen articles about all the careers you can pursue with X major. Some of the options seemed a little far fetched and based on individual outlier examples. (Though philosophy majors have racked up some interesting achievements so perhaps it is I whose vision is limited.)

Over the last few months it occurred to me that when it comes to arts careers, the “if you are not suffering, you are selling out” philosophy might be influencing mentors and educators when it comes to providing advice to young students and practitioners. More accurately, it may be less about starving as purity of practice.

I haven’t assembled enough examples to really support this thesis, but I thought I would toss the idea out there to spur some thought and draw attention to how career options are being communicated, including in one’s personal practice.

I started thinking along these lines last Fall when I was attending the Society for Arts Entrepreneurship in Education SAEE conference. One of the research presentations found that music conservatory graduates felt they hadn’t been prepared for anything but a career as a member of an orchestra or as a soloist.

This isn’t necessarily groundbreaking news. It has long been observed by both faculty and students of all disciplines, including arts, science, business and law, that more people are being graduated than there are open positions. One of the goals of SAEE is to find ways to train students to better manage their careers and make their own opportunities. It is still a fledgling effort, though.

A little more recently, I was listening to faculty from the video game design program at my university on a video conference talking about the program and career opportunities. It wasn’t until a prospective student asked what other career options existed for the degree that the faculty members mentioned there were some graduates that had gone into medical imaging and simulation and were actually making quite a bit more money than those who went into the gaming industry.

I was surprised to learn that there were good options in the medical field. It had never occurred to me that such opportunities existed. I don’t think they were intentionally hiding that fact, especially with all the other things they needed to talk about. Still, there was something in the way they spoke about the medical field careers that made it sound like the less preferential option versus the core focus of the program. Given that the program is pretty competitive and rigorous, it could only raise the profile if they touted a range of career options.

It is natural that we are all biased toward what we perceive to be the pure practice of our discipline. The question remains, are we telling the broadest, best and most interesting range of stories about the opportunities our disciplines afford?

It isn’t enough to convince people that what the arts and culture represent and create have resonance and meaning in their lives with an eye to making them consumers. There is also a need to mention the diverse ways these skills can be manifested and practiced even if they lack some elemental of idealized purity. Or if we feel some practitioners are bastardizing and demeaning an art form with lack of skill and discipline.

At the very least this would create a growing awareness of all the ways artistic vocations are practiced and improve the perception of the arts as a career path.

Art(ist) Education, Working In The Arts

1 Comment

The Water Balloon War Final Exam

February 8, 2016

by:

Joe Patti

I was listening to some Big Think videos this weekend when I was struck with an insight about educational philosophy. I am pretty sure it isn’t a new insight, but the metaphor that occurred to me might help a little bit with the conception of the problem.

At the tail end of an interview with psychologist Laurence Steinberg, he says that there is no problem with teaching to the test if the test is measuring something that you want kids to achieve.

Sir Ken Robinson and others have pointed out that our goals for education are based in Industrial Revolution thinking where education was meant to create a competent workforce. (Robinson’s words are entertainingly illustrated in the Zen Pencils cartoon I shared last week.)

As Robinson has pointed out elsewhere, we barely know what the world will look like in five years time, much less what skills will be needed in 15-20 years time when students being educated today start to enter the job market.

The thing that struck me, perhaps influenced by the Super Bowl this weekend, was that our current education system is akin to having the evaluation of effectiveness measured by success in a football game at the end of the year.

People complain that the approach is brutal, damaging, favors certain genders, races and physical types (or learning styles in the case of education), and doesn’t really confer the skills required for employment or even college.

The counter example that occurred to me was having a water balloon fight as the end of year evaluation. Even though both football game and a water balloon fight would be informed by history lessons in battle tactics, geometry and physics, a water balloon fight lends itself more widely, creatively and easily.

There are many more lessons to be learned preparing for a water balloon fight about the use of terrain and technology in battles that would bring history alive. With options of hand throwing, catapults, slingshots to launch water balloons, geometry and physics have to be factored in constantly by participants.

Chemistry class can be devoted to investigation of whether adding gelatin changes the ballistic properties of the balloons and whether the stickiness upon explosion will be sufficient to gum up the works of enemy weaponry and thwart hand launching attempts.

Biology class can include investigation of using biodegradable materials for balloons so the battle doesn’t ruin the environment. Literature classes would study speeches, poems and stories that inspired people to great feats from Beowulf to Shakespeare to Martin Luther King.

On the whole, a water balloon fight final exam promotes greater creativity and inquiry, exactly the type of skills we want to engender in students. It is fun and engaging and doesn’t heavily favor gender, ethnicity, physical or mental ability.

If you haven’t guessed by now, water balloons in this metaphor are arts and creativity in the classroom.

The reason why, literally and figuratively, few school districts would move from a football final to a water balloon final despite the exciting opportunities it affords, is because no one views water balloon fighting skills as marketable but football skills are viewed as such.

As we know, the same perception exists for education today. Even though few people can be employed solely based on their football skills/K12 education, those skills are still the main focus because there are a handful of people that achieve great renown.

Just as it is easier to cut arts programs than sports programs in schools, politically it is very difficult to shift away from teaching what is quantitatively measurable to what is qualitatively measurable.

Yet we still know what the results are. When students enter universities, even if they don’t require remediation, effort is still required to move students from regurgitation of facts to an inquiry mode of thinking.

Even upon graduation from university, businesses are saying their biggest need from employees is the creativity to help their companies move forward.

Integrating creativity into the classroom and returning arts classes to schools won’t solve all the issues with the education system any more than a water balloon fight is automatically superior to a football game.

Though really, wouldn’t you be more excited to learn if you knew it was connected with the Great Water Balloon Fight?

Like the water balloon fight, the inclusion and advocacy of arts and creativity has the potential to change the dynamics of the learning environment, level the playing field and increase accessibility for a wider range of people.

The reality is, there is nothing idealized, impractical, theoretical or metaphorical about my water balloon example. Winter weather aside, you could use water balloons tomorrow in connection with different subject areas in the ways I have suggested and see a lot of investment from students.

Art(ist) Education, General Musings, State of the Arts

No Comments

Inspiring Comics Break

February 3, 2016

by:

Joe Patti

If you are looking for fun, inspiring thoughts to start your day, I would direct your attention to Zen Pencils. It is not updated every day, but given the time cartoonist Gavin Aung Than invests in creating each one, you wouldn’t expect it to be.

Along with illustrating the words of prominent figures like Dalai Lama and most recently, Jane Godall, he tackles issues near and dear to the hearts of creatives.

Among some of my favorites, (and I haven’t yet read them all); are animator Chuck Jones assertion that “creative work is never competitive;” Richard Feynam on how science adds to the appreciation of art; director Kevin Smith noting, “It costs nothing to encourage an artist;” director Shonda Rhimes reminder that dreams require work; and Sir Ken Robinson talking about how education needs to encompass both body and mind.

One comic that I appreciated was his own “The Calling,” which depicts the some of the possible consequences of heeding the call for an artistic vocation. No one wants to have things go poorly for artists but I was glad that the comic reflected reality rather than trying to be overly optimistic.

creativity, General Musings, Working In The Arts

No Comments