Upper-middle class white adults can smoke Marijuana without impunity. They might make the odd noise towards legalization now and then but their liberty is not being threatened so why bother too much.
You are right that these people would be horrified to see their friends being prosecuted but their friends are not being prosecuted. Poor minorities are being prosecuted and even if that is not okay, it is not too much of a concern to someone in the suburbs. Perhaps, unconsciously, they think it is good.
I don't think that the parties view Marijuana as creepy, countercultural stuff completely. Rather Marijuana and other drugs reveal the greatest hypocrisies and moral failures of American life.
There are plenty of Democratic voters who smoke Marijuana and do other drugs on a regular basis.
There are plenty of Republican voters who smoke Marijuana and do other drugs on a regular basis.
What these two groups have in common is that they are white and middle class or above. They partake from the safety of the suburban subdivision. The DEA is not staging raids at 2 in the morning in these neighborhoods.
There might be some Democratic politicians who still fear being tarred for being soft on crime or a dirty hippie for supporting reform and legalization but that is changing. Perhaps the Republicans still have a large base that has never smoked Marijuana and would bring back prohibition if they could, aren't a lot of counties still dry in the South?
The fact is that the status quo is quite evil and even pro-legalization people do not feel the need to do much because most of them are white and upper-middle class and can smoke Marijuana without fear of punishment.
I think determining how and why people choose who they vote for is a Sisyphean task.
I have never been a fan of the Thomas Frank school that yells at people for voting against their self-interest. A person's self-interest is entirely subjective and it becomes highly offensive to tell people they are voting against it. The reverse happens with Jews. Jewish-Americans still vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party. This causes a lot of rage every two to four years about why Jews vote Democratic even though they tend to be top income earners and the Republican Party is allegedly more pro-Israel.
For me, there are other concerns. The social politics of the GOP is frightening and my stance on the Zionism of Christian Fundamentalists is "with friends like that, the Jews don't need enemies" I am firm Zionist but also exist in the real world and believe that the Palestinians need and deserve their own state. A poll done several months ago still shows that Jews feel strongly about economic justice. The primary concerns for Jewish voters were not taxes or Israel but economic fairness and welfare. Though the poll used rather antiquated language. The exact line was "Caring for the widow and the orphan" I believe.
As to the people don't want to lose all the time. Are you sure? At least on the left, I think there is a certain kind of "noble loser". They probably exist on the right as well. These are purists who are always willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and would rather see the opposition win than bring themselves to vote for someone they see as less than pure. There was a recent spat when a Harvard Law professor said that Obama needs to lose for not being liberal enough and Gary Willis railed against said professor in the New York Review of Books.
I am not fully happy with the Democratic party all the time but I do find their stances much, much more agreeable than the Republican Party or Libertarian stances. I'm also a pragmatist this way. I will always vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican one even if the Democratic candidate is a party hack. Mavericks vote with their parties more often than not even when being frustrating like Ben Johnson of Nebraska. Plus they add to getting the majority.
Call me a yellow dog if you will but if someone can be a rock-ribbed Republican with pride, it is perfectly acceptable for me to be a Yellow Dog Democrat with pride. I'm a liberal and Democratic. I will not apologize for these things.
I believe this is what the French call, the politics of resentiment and I think it is very real.
The latest "I can't believe what Rush said" story illustrates this perfectly. I think the story is roughly that he talked about how the Batman villain Bane is really one-big Hollywood conspiracy against Romney. All my liberal friends hear stuff like this and then spend hours (or at least I spend a while) wondering whether Rush sincerely believes this or is merely selling snake oil. However, a lot of his listeners might enjoy the kind of rage.
I've noticed that both political sides often spend a lot of time in the politics of rage or umbrage and this depresses me. A lot of political fundraising seems to boil down to finding the most offensive members of the opposition and turning them into cartoon bad guys, complete with twirling mustache.
On your fourth paragraph, I grew up in the opposite household. My family entirely consists of straight-down Democrats who believe that the Democratic party is the party of the working man, civil rights, etc. The Republicans were always the party of the bankers and the rich in my family. Not these mythic straight shooters for the average Joe. Again, the Jewish angle plays in here.
There has only been one Republican vote cast by anyone in my family and that is when my mom voted to reelect a local judge who married her (he would probably get chased out of the GOP today). My maternal grandparents were so strongly Democratic that they were upset when Adlai Stevenson lost to Eisenhower, twice!* They were also upset when a local park was renamed Eisenhower park. It was very lonely being a Democrat in Nassau County in the 1950s and 60s. Now it is much more blue.
*I am okay with Adlai Stevenson losing twice if only because it gave us Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan.
From what I understand, a lot of the debt that Bain took in the name of the company just went back to pay BAIN. NPR's Planet Money did some shows on how BAIN worked several months ago.
I am as secular as secular can be. I believe that humans wrote the Torah (along with all other holy books) and am a firm agnostic when it comes to the existence of a deity or not. Unlike the Dawkins set, I don't treat this as bad. Torah and Talmud can be treated like philosophy. Some is highly relevant and worth following. Other parts, not so much.
Though what does carry with me is the material nature of Judaism. I am not concerned with pre-determination and salvation like Calvinist based Protestantism. Judaism is concerned with the here and no and does not believe in fate. Too much of the Republican party platform is wrapped up in Calvinist notions that I disagree with and find disturbing.
I think Foccault once called Derrida a "Linguistic Terrorist". He wrote in absolutetly unreadable prose but bashed anyone who brought that up as a moron.
I think Obama is talking about more than social infanstructure. He is talking about law. We have laws in this country that help set-up businesses. You can sue someone for breach of contract and recover. Bill Gates mentions Rule of Law a lot in terms of Microsoft's success. Now I'm sure he did not like the DOJ's antitrust suit but he still acknowledges the importance of a functioning legal system and other parts of the government.
Perhaps this is my Litvak blood speaking, or the fact that I have mainly lived close to or in very large and diverse cities with multiple cultures that do not naturally get along well but need to live in close proximity; but I never got the notion of Rugged Individualism. Rugged Individualism always seems like a myth to me. Yes people come up with ideas for businesses but as someone said above, we are also a part of society. Humans by nature are social animals. We form groups (both familial and larger) to survive and thrive.
You are making a mistake that a lot of people do, including myself, and this is confusing today for tomorrow.
Understandably we do all need to live in the moment and I think the anxiety felt by many people is perfectly reasonable but there is still decades left to life for most people and things changed. There was an article a while ago in the New Republic about a woman with a Masters from Yale who was working as a waitress because of a recession. Her recession was in the early 1980s. She is now in charge of a respectable non-profit.
I imagine that most arts and humanities programs do not have much in terms of grant money. I received a small scholarship for my MFA program of about 7,000 dollars a year or 3500 per semester. A nice little deduction but not enough to cover the cost of the program. Even with everyone paying rather hefty tuitions, my MFA program was still run on a shoestring budget.
I have never seen one. As a New Yorker (who might or might not go back), I still tend to see San Francisco as a kinder and gentler version of New York.
I live in a gentrified part of the Western Addition or as someone I know calls the neighborhood, I live in the DMV Heights.
Neighborhoods like Stern Grove are what I like about San Francisco. You have these little villages that are in the middle of the city and no one visits them! One friend describes SF as the "incorporated villages of San Francisco"
I never liked Heeb. My own part in the Jew v. Jew debate is to be very turned off by the practioners of "Kitschy Judaism". I define "kitschy Judaism" as basically turning 5000 years of history, culture, and philosophy into a bunch on jokes. I love Jewish humor but there is more to Judaism than Adam Sandler, Woody Allen, Sarah Silverman, and the Borscht Belt.
Now that I live on the West Coast, I am told that "East Coast Reform" equals "West Coast Conservative" so things might be even more lax here. There might also be a generational gap. I notice that a lot of Jews who belong to the Millenial Generation are getting tattoos (Lena Dunham is the most obvious celeb example). A lot of them talk about "reclaiming". This strikes me as odd. How can you reclaim what was never ours to begin with? I'd rather they just say they want tattoos. I would take that argument as being more intellectually honest. Though I know my views on Jews and tattoos is not going to change the minds of anyone. If someone wants a tattoo, they are going to get one.
As for the comment section (and keep in mind that I know nothing about your politics or whether you are Jewish or not), I have a theory that Republican/Politically Conservative Jews have a feeling of being an embittered minority within a minority. It seems like every Presidential election brings about the same posts about whether Jews will stop voting Democratic this year. Every Presidential election reveals the answer to be no. If you are among the 20 percent of Jews who are partisan Republicans, this must be really frustrating. Also Orthodox Jews are becoming more common. I grew up in a very Jewish suburb. When I was around, the town was largely Reform/secular, now the town is much more Orthodox.
I suppose I would have done stuff differently as well but I can't say what my record would look like if I was a high school senior in 2002, 2005, 2008, 2012, etc. Based on what my 1998 record was (read: all over the map), I can only guess that I would not get into my alma mater if applying today. There are too many perfect candidates. You never can completely tell but even back in 1998, I was a lucky long-shot who got in.
I applied to a lot of colleges because of my all over the map grades, good extracurriculurs, and SAT scores. This turned me into the waitlist king.
So yes, it is all part of the arms race and I went to a very academically competitive high school (professional suburbs of New York). It is probably even more arms race now.
Normally, they are a very good on-line Jewish magazine* especially for non neo-cons like myself (and most Jews) but every now and then they have to publish an article like this and I sigh along with the neocons.
*Though I do get angry at the anti-Reform Judaism sentiment that often gets expressed in the comments. Says the proud Reform Jew.
Another problem is that college applications are a lot more competitive now.
I was admitted to a Tier I private liberal arts college in 1998 and graduated in 2002. I doubt that my high school record would get me admitted now. Most likely I'd be somewhere in the Tier 2 range. A lot of my cohort feel the same way.
Also it is impossible to determine what a marketable major is or is not. A person can major in comp lit, suffer for a few years, get an entry level advertising gig, and then really start to bloom, etc. Also I imagine many teachers come from Tier 2 schools. Should teachers study the subjects they teach?
I think this is a large part of our current educational-debt-employment problem, the fact that employers do not want to train anyone for anything.
I am all for having a mass educated class. However, I think it is a problem when employers use college graduation as a short hand for competence. I've certainly had jobs that said "BA required" but could have been done by a non-college graduate.
A return to apprenticeship for a lot of jobs including many business jobs like marketing and accounting would be a good thing. I don't see this happening though.
You can major in anything and go to law school. No extra courses necessary!
As opposed to my friends who decided to go into social work, therapy (psychological and phyiscal), etc. They needed to make up a lot of courses before grad school.
From what I remember, the hard part about Japanese universities is getting. Once you are admitted to the top universities, it is supposed to be smooth sailing and the old boys' network guarantees your career. This obviously happens a bit or a lot in the United States as well especially among certain schools known for creating fiercly devoted alumni but it might be more accute in Asia).
I would agree with your statement on the US system encouraging more work but that could also be part of the problem especially with the whole costs and student debt crisis. In many (or most) other countries, law and medicine are studied as undergrad subjects. This means that a person has more time in the field as a practioner to earn their income and less debt. They don't have undergrad debt plus law school or med school or business school debt piled on top.
There are some benefits to allowing law school to be a bit like grad school. I was allowed to kick around in art for most of my 20s and then head to law school when I realized my theatre career was probably not going to bloom. But in terms of debt and getting a late start into careers, it is not so good.
There are a lot more people who make their livings paying piano than one dozen. People still enjoy going to concerts and a dozen concert pianists could not fill the need for all the live performances.
As a former theatre person, I can also tell you that the vast majority of my artisitc friends understand the career prospects. Don't get me wrong, we all think or thought it would be very nice to make a living doing our art but I don't think most of us expected to. People create art or write or perform because they need to, it is in their blood.
The point and purpose of university is to create a well-educated person. There is such a thing as stuyding a subject out of love and passion, not for cost-benefit analysis on post-graduation employment prospects. The world does not need to be filled with STEM people only.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Sometimes Too Much Agreement is the Worst of All”
I wrote about this below.
Upper-middle class white adults can smoke Marijuana without impunity. They might make the odd noise towards legalization now and then but their liberty is not being threatened so why bother too much.
You are right that these people would be horrified to see their friends being prosecuted but their friends are not being prosecuted. Poor minorities are being prosecuted and even if that is not okay, it is not too much of a concern to someone in the suburbs. Perhaps, unconsciously, they think it is good.
"
I don't think that the parties view Marijuana as creepy, countercultural stuff completely. Rather Marijuana and other drugs reveal the greatest hypocrisies and moral failures of American life.
There are plenty of Democratic voters who smoke Marijuana and do other drugs on a regular basis.
There are plenty of Republican voters who smoke Marijuana and do other drugs on a regular basis.
What these two groups have in common is that they are white and middle class or above. They partake from the safety of the suburban subdivision. The DEA is not staging raids at 2 in the morning in these neighborhoods.
There might be some Democratic politicians who still fear being tarred for being soft on crime or a dirty hippie for supporting reform and legalization but that is changing. Perhaps the Republicans still have a large base that has never smoked Marijuana and would bring back prohibition if they could, aren't a lot of counties still dry in the South?
The fact is that the status quo is quite evil and even pro-legalization people do not feel the need to do much because most of them are white and upper-middle class and can smoke Marijuana without fear of punishment.
On “The Electorate’s Priorities”
I think determining how and why people choose who they vote for is a Sisyphean task.
I have never been a fan of the Thomas Frank school that yells at people for voting against their self-interest. A person's self-interest is entirely subjective and it becomes highly offensive to tell people they are voting against it. The reverse happens with Jews. Jewish-Americans still vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party. This causes a lot of rage every two to four years about why Jews vote Democratic even though they tend to be top income earners and the Republican Party is allegedly more pro-Israel.
For me, there are other concerns. The social politics of the GOP is frightening and my stance on the Zionism of Christian Fundamentalists is "with friends like that, the Jews don't need enemies" I am firm Zionist but also exist in the real world and believe that the Palestinians need and deserve their own state. A poll done several months ago still shows that Jews feel strongly about economic justice. The primary concerns for Jewish voters were not taxes or Israel but economic fairness and welfare. Though the poll used rather antiquated language. The exact line was "Caring for the widow and the orphan" I believe.
As to the people don't want to lose all the time. Are you sure? At least on the left, I think there is a certain kind of "noble loser". They probably exist on the right as well. These are purists who are always willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and would rather see the opposition win than bring themselves to vote for someone they see as less than pure. There was a recent spat when a Harvard Law professor said that Obama needs to lose for not being liberal enough and Gary Willis railed against said professor in the New York Review of Books.
I am not fully happy with the Democratic party all the time but I do find their stances much, much more agreeable than the Republican Party or Libertarian stances. I'm also a pragmatist this way. I will always vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican one even if the Democratic candidate is a party hack. Mavericks vote with their parties more often than not even when being frustrating like Ben Johnson of Nebraska. Plus they add to getting the majority.
Call me a yellow dog if you will but if someone can be a rock-ribbed Republican with pride, it is perfectly acceptable for me to be a Yellow Dog Democrat with pride. I'm a liberal and Democratic. I will not apologize for these things.
"
Dear Fabrice,
I believe this is what the French call, the politics of resentiment and I think it is very real.
The latest "I can't believe what Rush said" story illustrates this perfectly. I think the story is roughly that he talked about how the Batman villain Bane is really one-big Hollywood conspiracy against Romney. All my liberal friends hear stuff like this and then spend hours (or at least I spend a while) wondering whether Rush sincerely believes this or is merely selling snake oil. However, a lot of his listeners might enjoy the kind of rage.
I've noticed that both political sides often spend a lot of time in the politics of rage or umbrage and this depresses me. A lot of political fundraising seems to boil down to finding the most offensive members of the opposition and turning them into cartoon bad guys, complete with twirling mustache.
On your fourth paragraph, I grew up in the opposite household. My family entirely consists of straight-down Democrats who believe that the Democratic party is the party of the working man, civil rights, etc. The Republicans were always the party of the bankers and the rich in my family. Not these mythic straight shooters for the average Joe. Again, the Jewish angle plays in here.
There has only been one Republican vote cast by anyone in my family and that is when my mom voted to reelect a local judge who married her (he would probably get chased out of the GOP today). My maternal grandparents were so strongly Democratic that they were upset when Adlai Stevenson lost to Eisenhower, twice!* They were also upset when a local park was renamed Eisenhower park. It was very lonely being a Democrat in Nassau County in the 1950s and 60s. Now it is much more blue.
*I am okay with Adlai Stevenson losing twice if only because it gave us Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan.
On “The American People Have Lied To Mitt Romney”
From what I understand, a lot of the debt that Bain took in the name of the company just went back to pay BAIN. NPR's Planet Money did some shows on how BAIN worked several months ago.
On “I Want The World To Know Nothing Ever Worries Me”
BlaiseP,
Tikkun Olam is a brilliant concept.
I am as secular as secular can be. I believe that humans wrote the Torah (along with all other holy books) and am a firm agnostic when it comes to the existence of a deity or not. Unlike the Dawkins set, I don't treat this as bad. Torah and Talmud can be treated like philosophy. Some is highly relevant and worth following. Other parts, not so much.
Though what does carry with me is the material nature of Judaism. I am not concerned with pre-determination and salvation like Calvinist based Protestantism. Judaism is concerned with the here and no and does not believe in fate. Too much of the Republican party platform is wrapped up in Calvinist notions that I disagree with and find disturbing.
"
I think Foccault once called Derrida a "Linguistic Terrorist". He wrote in absolutetly unreadable prose but bashed anyone who brought that up as a moron.
"
How would Hayek explain Canada, Sweden and other welfare states that not devolved into dictatorships?
The Road to Serfdom seems to be another variant of Malthaus. A great thing for doomsayers to always be wrong about but never give up.
"
I think Obama is talking about more than social infanstructure. He is talking about law. We have laws in this country that help set-up businesses. You can sue someone for breach of contract and recover. Bill Gates mentions Rule of Law a lot in terms of Microsoft's success. Now I'm sure he did not like the DOJ's antitrust suit but he still acknowledges the importance of a functioning legal system and other parts of the government.
Perhaps this is my Litvak blood speaking, or the fact that I have mainly lived close to or in very large and diverse cities with multiple cultures that do not naturally get along well but need to live in close proximity; but I never got the notion of Rugged Individualism. Rugged Individualism always seems like a myth to me. Yes people come up with ideas for businesses but as someone said above, we are also a part of society. Humans by nature are social animals. We form groups (both familial and larger) to survive and thrive.
On “Higher Ed: Profit, Price, & Performance”
You can walk from one end to another in San Francisco. I've done it. Sometimes the hills are painful though. The city is only 7 x 7 square miles.
"
You are making a mistake that a lot of people do, including myself, and this is confusing today for tomorrow.
Understandably we do all need to live in the moment and I think the anxiety felt by many people is perfectly reasonable but there is still decades left to life for most people and things changed. There was an article a while ago in the New Republic about a woman with a Masters from Yale who was working as a waitress because of a recession. Her recession was in the early 1980s. She is now in charge of a respectable non-profit.
"
I imagine that most arts and humanities programs do not have much in terms of grant money. I received a small scholarship for my MFA program of about 7,000 dollars a year or 3500 per semester. A nice little deduction but not enough to cover the cost of the program. Even with everyone paying rather hefty tuitions, my MFA program was still run on a shoestring budget.
"
I have never seen one. As a New Yorker (who might or might not go back), I still tend to see San Francisco as a kinder and gentler version of New York.
"
It really is.
Though my New York* self is still having a hard time adopting to Californicus Flakius even though I've lived here for four years in August.
*We aren't rude. We are direct. Direct in a way that San Franciscans usually dislike.
"
I live in a gentrified part of the Western Addition or as someone I know calls the neighborhood, I live in the DMV Heights.
Neighborhoods like Stern Grove are what I like about San Francisco. You have these little villages that are in the middle of the city and no one visits them! One friend describes SF as the "incorporated villages of San Francisco"
On “A Note for the Sake of Historical Accuracy”
I never liked Heeb. My own part in the Jew v. Jew debate is to be very turned off by the practioners of "Kitschy Judaism". I define "kitschy Judaism" as basically turning 5000 years of history, culture, and philosophy into a bunch on jokes. I love Jewish humor but there is more to Judaism than Adam Sandler, Woody Allen, Sarah Silverman, and the Borscht Belt.
Now that I live on the West Coast, I am told that "East Coast Reform" equals "West Coast Conservative" so things might be even more lax here. There might also be a generational gap. I notice that a lot of Jews who belong to the Millenial Generation are getting tattoos (Lena Dunham is the most obvious celeb example). A lot of them talk about "reclaiming". This strikes me as odd. How can you reclaim what was never ours to begin with? I'd rather they just say they want tattoos. I would take that argument as being more intellectually honest. Though I know my views on Jews and tattoos is not going to change the minds of anyone. If someone wants a tattoo, they are going to get one.
As for the comment section (and keep in mind that I know nothing about your politics or whether you are Jewish or not), I have a theory that Republican/Politically Conservative Jews have a feeling of being an embittered minority within a minority. It seems like every Presidential election brings about the same posts about whether Jews will stop voting Democratic this year. Every Presidential election reveals the answer to be no. If you are among the 20 percent of Jews who are partisan Republicans, this must be really frustrating. Also Orthodox Jews are becoming more common. I grew up in a very Jewish suburb. When I was around, the town was largely Reform/secular, now the town is much more Orthodox.
On “Higher Ed: Profit, Price, & Performance”
Kazzy,
I grew up in Nassau County on Long Island. Now I live in San Francisco.
"
Kazzy,
I suppose I would have done stuff differently as well but I can't say what my record would look like if I was a high school senior in 2002, 2005, 2008, 2012, etc. Based on what my 1998 record was (read: all over the map), I can only guess that I would not get into my alma mater if applying today. There are too many perfect candidates. You never can completely tell but even back in 1998, I was a lucky long-shot who got in.
I applied to a lot of colleges because of my all over the map grades, good extracurriculurs, and SAT scores. This turned me into the waitlist king.
So yes, it is all part of the arms race and I went to a very academically competitive high school (professional suburbs of New York). It is probably even more arms race now.
On “A Note for the Sake of Historical Accuracy”
Oh Tablet.
Normally, they are a very good on-line Jewish magazine* especially for non neo-cons like myself (and most Jews) but every now and then they have to publish an article like this and I sigh along with the neocons.
*Though I do get angry at the anti-Reform Judaism sentiment that often gets expressed in the comments. Says the proud Reform Jew.
On “Higher Ed: Profit, Price, & Performance”
Another problem is that college applications are a lot more competitive now.
I was admitted to a Tier I private liberal arts college in 1998 and graduated in 2002. I doubt that my high school record would get me admitted now. Most likely I'd be somewhere in the Tier 2 range. A lot of my cohort feel the same way.
Also it is impossible to determine what a marketable major is or is not. A person can major in comp lit, suffer for a few years, get an entry level advertising gig, and then really start to bloom, etc. Also I imagine many teachers come from Tier 2 schools. Should teachers study the subjects they teach?
"
I think this is a large part of our current educational-debt-employment problem, the fact that employers do not want to train anyone for anything.
I am all for having a mass educated class. However, I think it is a problem when employers use college graduation as a short hand for competence. I've certainly had jobs that said "BA required" but could have been done by a non-college graduate.
A return to apprenticeship for a lot of jobs including many business jobs like marketing and accounting would be a good thing. I don't see this happening though.
"
You can major in anything and go to law school. No extra courses necessary!
As opposed to my friends who decided to go into social work, therapy (psychological and phyiscal), etc. They needed to make up a lot of courses before grad school.
"
Also, my undergrad was Division III, so there were no athletic scholarships offered.
"
From what I remember, the hard part about Japanese universities is getting. Once you are admitted to the top universities, it is supposed to be smooth sailing and the old boys' network guarantees your career. This obviously happens a bit or a lot in the United States as well especially among certain schools known for creating fiercly devoted alumni but it might be more accute in Asia).
I would agree with your statement on the US system encouraging more work but that could also be part of the problem especially with the whole costs and student debt crisis. In many (or most) other countries, law and medicine are studied as undergrad subjects. This means that a person has more time in the field as a practioner to earn their income and less debt. They don't have undergrad debt plus law school or med school or business school debt piled on top.
There are some benefits to allowing law school to be a bit like grad school. I was allowed to kick around in art for most of my 20s and then head to law school when I realized my theatre career was probably not going to bloom. But in terms of debt and getting a late start into careers, it is not so good.
"
Okay, this is a hobby horse of mine.
There are a lot more people who make their livings paying piano than one dozen. People still enjoy going to concerts and a dozen concert pianists could not fill the need for all the live performances.
As a former theatre person, I can also tell you that the vast majority of my artisitc friends understand the career prospects. Don't get me wrong, we all think or thought it would be very nice to make a living doing our art but I don't think most of us expected to. People create art or write or perform because they need to, it is in their blood.
The point and purpose of university is to create a well-educated person. There is such a thing as stuyding a subject out of love and passion, not for cost-benefit analysis on post-graduation employment prospects. The world does not need to be filled with STEM people only.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.