The notion that money is the best way of judging value is far more damaging to society than the Arts  If the value of a degree is judged purely on the likely salary at the end of it, then society has a very real problem. Even without rehearsing the fact that other disciplines would vanish by the wayside, it also ties into the myth that a degree is simply a vocational tool to increase the salary of the person taking it [i] .  The mindset that insists that everything can be reduced to the level of individual income has also brought us the obscenity of the bonus culture in high finance and, so far, five years of recession. The value of the arts is primarily non-monetary; it comes from the psychological benefit of well-designed buildings [ii] or the happiness and creativity stimulated by engaging with a work of art. [iii]  University fulfills a far wider societal role in terms of training the mind and socializing the individual. For the vast majority of students, it also provides a respite between the constrictions of the family home and those of the workplace.  It is also just possible that people select their degrees primarily because they are interested in them. That in itself is something that cannot be said of significant parts of the world of work.  The logic of this motion is that all members of society are employers – or at least wealth generators – first and last. Their role as voters, community members, parents, and plain human beings seems to be irrelevant to both the spirit and wording of the motion and the Proposition’s case.  [i] Edgar, David, ‘Why should we fund the arts?’ The Guardian, 5 January 2012.   [ii] Steadman, Ian, ‘Study: school design can significantly affect a child’s grades’, Wired.co.uk, 3 January 2013,   [iii] Alleyne, Richard, ‘Viewing art gives same pleasure as being love’, The Telegraph, 8 May 2011,