The point is to become a productive member of society, not one that needs government support the rest of their lives.
Seattle has a large community of artists, always begging for government support, always working at low end jobs to make ends meet. The government funds theaters, the Seattle Opera, the Pacific Northwest Ballet, the Seattle Art Museum, and on and on.
A scarce few make a profit (Taylor Swift), and the other 99% need another source of income than their art. Swift did not attend a university.
What percentage of french literature majors make a living in that field? A few who manage to get a professor of french literature position?
What specific percentage of humanities majors are on public assistance?
What percentage of STEM majors are working in the field they were educated in? I know two electrical engineering majors who became lawyers, one who went into insurance, in addition to a civil engineer who went into dentistry.
I would far encourage that, than fund degrees for people who mostly wind up doing something else.
The government's role is not entertaining people. You can give your money directly, you don't need the government as your intermediary.
> art is the point of life
No argument there. Which government movies do you like?
But I'd like to talk for a moment about why I think the humanities are important, especially in the context of my own career, because I think the reason I've been successful is often a result -- direct or indirect is perhaps unclear -- of the particular education I received. I was, in fact, a math nerd growing up. I did math competitions. I was two years advanced in school, and by seventh grade I had to go to a different school every morning to go get my math education at high school.
After I was a math nerd -- because, to be honest, I finally had to think about it sometime around calculus, and I didn't really enjoy it once it stopped being pure intuition -- I was just a normal nerd. I played a lot of computer games and went to LAN parties, and I learned about building computers, maintaining a network, and troubleshooting. And I decided pure math wasn't for me, but maybe computer science was. So, I started studying that. I was in a dual-enrollment program with a local college when I was in high school, and I did the first-year sequence of CS when I was 16.
I got bored, though. I didn't want to do my homework. So I decided to go find another major, and did the classic thing where I wandered through various majors trying to find a fit. Eventually, having considered history, oceanography, journalism, and philosophy, I landed on English lit. I liked the critical theory aspects -- it felt like applied philosophy, I suppose.
There's some useful context here: I was an absolute dick. I was always right. I felt like I was better than everyone else. I had done well in math competitions; even though I'd quit studying it, my computer science professors were using the work I'd turned in weeks ahead as examples in class; I felt like I was better than my peers.
My humanities education brought a lot of nuance to what was, before then, a very black-and-white reality for me. I learned a lot about the importance of communication, about how our backgrounds can lead to different interpretations of the same material, and about how to deal with challenging, uncomfortable subjects -- not just intellectually challenging topics, but emotionally challenging topics.
The funny thing is that, in the end, I landed in tech, where I've now been for over a decade. I made my way up to senior engineer, and it was largely on the strength of my communication skills, not my technical skills; the latter were necessary but not sufficient. And I think I have a lot of potential growth left -- growth which will be enabled by soft skills, not hard skills, because the more senior you become, the more the balance shifts toward soft skills.
My point here is that studying in the humanities made me a productive member of society.