What are the reasons why science subjects are given priority over arts subject?
Answers
And that's all a matter of supply and demand. We currently live in an age where science is solving more problems of mortality, health, and quality of life, which are all things at the forefront of our cultural focus. But you see, these priorities differ over time, and over cultures.
For example, in Zimbabwe where I'm from, the most valued degree to leave home for is medicine, because Zimbabwe has struggled severely with pandemics like HIV and malaria. But closely following that, the nuanced sciences of biomed engineering, physics, chemical engineering, you name it, are all kind of brushed to the way side. Instead, Zimbabweans are looking for more and more finance and economics experts, because that is something our country has struggled with secondarily to health (Zimbabwe's Crises). Therefore, I'd say demand for expertise varies by culture and location.
Furthermore, it's my understanding that for a long time in the olden days, certain aspects of science were almost stagnant. Greek philosophers and orators are prized and praised in today because the demand for understanding and communication was high back then; but you don't hear too much about any pioneers of physics in 2AD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the culture of the time was not too focused on nuanced natural scientific pursuit.
On the other hand, I'd say that there is a strong demand for art (and, following that, artists). The entire idea behind concepts like Instagram and Pinterest is based on the fact that everyone can be and could be an artist of sorts. And our current obsession with being able to stream content on Spotify and Netflix is testament to the fact that we need artists of music and film to gratify our shortening attention spans. The problem is that with a shortening attention span and hastening of our access to content, comes a decrease in expression of appreciation for our artists. And because we are failing to appreciate our artists, it's easy to take them for granted and hence infer that we don't need them as much as our scientists.
Answer:
And that's all a matter of supply and demand. We currently live in an age where science is solving more problems of mortality, health, and quality of life, which are all things at the forefront of our cultural focus. But you see, these priorities differ over time, and over cultures.
For example, in Zimbabwe where I'm from, the most valued degree to leave home for is medicine, because Zimbabwe has struggled severely with pandemics like HIV and malaria. But closely following that, the nuanced sciences of biomed engineering, physics, chemical engineering, you name it, are all kind of brushed to the way side. Instead, Zimbabweans are looking for more and more finance and economics experts, because that is something our country has struggled with secondarily to health (Zimbabwe's Crises). Therefore, I'd say demand for expertise varies by culture and location.
Furthermore, it's my understanding that for a long time in the olden days, certain aspects of science were almost stagnant. Greek philosophers and orators are prized and praised in today because the demand for understanding and communication was high back then; but you don't hear too much about any pioneers of physics in 2AD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the culture of the time was not too focused on nuanced natural scientific pursuit.
On the other hand, I'd say that there is a strong demand for art (and, following that, artists). The entire idea behind concepts like Instagram and Pinterest is based on the fact that everyone can be and could be an artist of sorts. And our current obsession with being able to stream content on Spotify and Netflix is testament to the fact that we need artists of music and film to gratify our shortening attention spans. The problem is that with a shortening attention span and hastening of our access to content, comes a decrease in expression of appreciation for our artists. And because we are failing to appreciate our artists, it's easy to take them for granted and hence infer that we don't need them as much as our scientists.
Explanation: