Research Low-income students steered away from risky creative careers at school (EDU design)

[C C]

Low-income students and girls are steered away from “risky” creative careers at school
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1120569

INTRO: Schools, families and social pressures are channelling young people – especially girls and poorer students – away from studying creative subjects because they are considered low-status or financially “risky”, a report says.

The University of Cambridge study argues that the underrepresentation of women and people from lower-income backgrounds in the creative industries reflects a “narrowing pathway” that begins at school, and steers students away from subjects like art, music and drama as their education progresses.

The study, funded by the social and economic well-being charity, the Nuffield Foundation, used the educational records of 1.7 million students in England, longitudinal data about 7,200 young people’s progress into work, and interviews and surveys with people studying and working in creative fields.

Although almost half of 14-year-olds said they enjoyed creative subjects, just one in 25 was working in a creative occupation by their early 30s. In between, the study found that participation drops at every stage: at GCSE, post-16 and in higher education. The fall-off is especially steep among poorer students and girls, with girls from lower-income backgrounds facing a “double disadvantage”.

The report is particularly critical of underlying educational “hierarchies” – the low status of both creative subjects, and of creative qualifications from further education (FE) colleges.

Professor Sonia Ilie, from Cambridge’s Faculty of Education, said: “If you have a university degree in a creative subject, you are much more likely to end up in a creative career. Young people from low-income families, however, and especially girls, are less likely to reach the point where studying for a creative degree is even an option.”

“That reflects wider societal structures, inequalities, cultural messaging and pressure on schools to deliver academic results. We need a more thoughtful conversation about the value of creative subjects – and frankly about the snobbery that still surrounds certain qualifications.”

While class inequalities in the creative sector have been raised in previous reports, the Cambridge study explored the problem’s underlying educational dynamics. The researchers mapped young people’s trajectories into and out of creative subjects such as art, dance, design, drama, media studies, music and photography; among others... (MORE - details, no ads)

[Syne]

This reflect the realities, that only those with a financial safety net (mostly family money or arts nepotism) can, or even should, take such a huge risk with their whole career... and lifetime earning potential. Arts careers are highly competitive, and there's no guarantee that your voice will find an audience.

I wouldn't fault schools for promoting pragmatism. Otherwise you end up with tons of people in debt with useless degrees.

[Yazata]

Low-income students and girls are steered away from “risky” creative careers at school
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1120569

INTRO: Schools, families and social pressures are channelling young people – especially girls and poorer students – away from studying creative subjects because they are considered low-status or financially “risky”, a report says.

I agree 100% with Syne up above.

Isn't what this author complaining about actually a good thing? A poor student is more likely to have to try to make a living from whatever they study, than a posh kid at Cambridge who is waiting to inherit 50 million pounds or something. The rich kid is better able to study a subject with poor job prospects simply out of love for the subject or something like that.

The biases in this "study" are obvious since it goes immediately to 'class' and 'gender', two of academia's woke obsessions. Another bias is how it treats "creative subjects" as synonymous with the art, music, drama and the like. It excludes engineering which has to be considered a creative subject as well. One that pays very well, is actually in demand, and has far more ability to change the world than dance.

The report is particularly critical of underlying educational “hierarchies” – the low status of both creative subjects, and of creative qualifications from further education (FE) colleges.

"Hierarchies"! Oh no! (And this coming from Cambridge, just about the most hierarchical university on the planet.)

FE colleges are the British equivalent of American community colleges. And they probably do deserve a lot more respect than they in fact receive. But isn't this about the arts? Does anyone really judge a dancer or a musician or a visual artist by the school they attended or the diploma/degree they received? In the arts, it's a question of what can you do? and what have you already done?. The main value of an art-school is probably teaching a student studio technique and giving him/her the chance to build a portfolio.

Certainly in real life, in the arts like in many subjects, advancement and success are often a function of who do you know?. And the swankier schools are more apt to put students in touch with the rich and powerful. It's unclear whether an ivy-league university provides better instruction than a more proletarian state university here in the states. But what the ivy league school does provide are top notch networking opportunities. And it's often knowing the right people that gets a young artist a wine-and-cheese show in a trendy New York City art gallery. (Or a junior executive job at a top corporation.) So there's that.

As for me, I'd advise a young high-school graduate to enter a community college (FE college over there) or a trade school and learn a trade. Become an electrician, plumber, heavy equipment operator, welder or something like that. So when a prospective employer asks what can you do?, you have a ready answer. Then work at that for five or ten years. Build up some savings. The military might be another option.

Then, when the kid is more mature, make a decision about attending a university, especially if the prospective subject is something with poor job prospects. The kid already has a plan-B prepared. And the kid will do much better in college if he or she actually studies and doesn't treat it as a continuation of high school. Even subjects with better job prospects like engineering benefit from having students with actual experience out on the factory floor. (Elon is always out on the factory floor and he insists on his engineers doing the same. That's how to learn how ivory tower designs lend themselves to actual manufacturing processes.)

[Syne]

The biases in this "study" are obvious since it goes immediately to 'class' and 'gender', two of academia's woke obsessions. Another bias is how it treats "creative subjects" as synonymous with the art, music, drama and the like. It excludes engineering which has to be considered a creative subject as well. One that pays very well, is actually in demand, and has far more ability to change the world than dance.

Programming being another highly creative and lucrative non-arts career.

Does anyone really judge a dancer or a musician or a visual artist by the school they attended or the diploma/degree they received? In the arts, it's a question of what can you do? and what have you already done?. The main value of an art-school is probably teaching a student studio technique and giving him/her the chance to build a portfolio.

The most successful in the arts often have zero education. And most technique can be learned for free on YouTube nowadays.

Certainly in real life, in the arts like in many subjects, advancement and success are often a function of who do you know?. And the swankier schools are more apt to put students in touch with the rich and powerful. It's unclear whether an ivy-league university provides better instruction than a more proletarian state university here in the states. But what the ivy league school does provide are top notch networking opportunities. And it's often knowing the right people that gets a young artist a wine-and-cheese show in a trendy New York City art gallery. (Or a junior executive job at a top corporation.) So there's that.

In the arts nepotism arena. You would think engineering students at prestigious universities could also take a few arts classes and have the same networking opportunities without risking their whole career on it.

As for me, I'd advise a young high-school graduate to enter a community college (FE college over there) or a trade school and learn a trade. Become an electrician, plumber, heavy equipment operator, welder or something like that. So when a prospective employer asks what can you do?, you have a ready answer. Then work at that for five or ten years. Build up some savings. The military might be another option.

Then, when the kid is more mature, make a decision about attending a university, especially if the prospective subject is something with poor job prospects. The kid already has a plan-B prepared. And the kid will do much better in college if he or she actually studies and doesn't treat it as a continuation of high school. Even subjects with better job prospects like engineering benefit from having students with actual experience out on the factory floor. (Elon is always out on the factory floor and he insists on his engineers doing the same. That's how to learn how ivory tower designs lend themselves to actual manufacturing processes.)

Absolutely. The benefit of at least experiencing the real world before deciding to go into debt for an iffy career would probably save on a lot of the "bail me out of my student debt" whining.