People are divided on the source of funding for courses of performing arts. Some opine that government should provide financial support to talented students who intend to pursue a career in performing arts such as dance, music or theatre. However, many people believe that taxpayers' money should not be wasted for this purpose, and students should look for sponsorship from other sources like corporates or their own families. This essay intends to examine both perspectives. l, however, side with the former view. The major reason for state funding for students of performing arts is that this education contributes to making a well-rounded student. Arts education has been proven to help students increase cognitive development, inspire motivation and discipline, develop confidence and inventiveness, and hone communication and problem-solving skills. So, children do well in other subjects also. For example, in a study it was seen that students who study the arts continued to outperform non-arts students on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Another big advantage is that it encourages the pursuit of extra-curricular activities. Children get a chance to show their creative expression. When such hidden abilities are exposed in school time, then those with exceptional taient can be encouraged to adopt it as a profession later-on in life. Secondly, these subjects are excellent stress-busters. Performing arts break the monotony of tough academic studies. Last but not least, such performing arts help to keep our culture and tradition alive. For the reasons given above, it is believed that government funding on such subjects is justified. on the other hand, those who are opposed to state funding contend that since it is mostly students themselves who benefit from art education, they should seek aid from other sources such as corporate funding and their own parents. For instance, like any other professionals musicians, dancers and actors also earn large sums of money from stage shows and other public performances. They also believe that since enormous amounts of money is required to fund art education, it would become an unnecessary liability for government, as it has more important priorities to deal with. To sum up, funding of performing arts courses, should be done by government, as these courses keep our culture and tradition alive, complement academic study, bring out hidden talent and break the ennui of tough academic studies.
People
are divided
on the source of
funding
for courses of
performing
arts
.
Some
opine that
government
should provide financial support to talented
students
who
intend to pursue a career in
performing
arts
such as dance, music or
theatre
.
However
,
many
people
believe that taxpayers' money should not
be wasted
for this purpose, and
students
should look for sponsorship from
other
sources like
corporates
or their
own
families. This essay intends to examine both perspectives.
l
,
however
, side with the former view. The major reason for state
funding
for
students
of
performing
arts
is that this
education
contributes to making a well-rounded
student
.
Arts
education
has
been proven
to
help
students
increase cognitive development, inspire motivation and discipline, develop confidence and inventiveness, and hone communication and problem-solving
skills
.
So
, children do well in
other
subjects
also
.
For example
, in a
study
it was
seen
that
students
who
study
the
arts
continued to outperform non-arts
students
on the Scholastic Aptitude
Test
(SAT). Another
big
advantage is that it encourages the pursuit of extra-curricular activities. Children
get
a chance to
show
their creative expression. When such hidden abilities
are exposed
in school time, then those with exceptional
taient
can
be encouraged
to adopt it as a profession later-on in life.
Secondly
, these subjects are excellent
stress
-busters.
Performing
arts
break the monotony of tough academic
studies
. Last
but
not least, such
performing
arts
help
to
keep
our culture and tradition alive. For the reasons
given
above, it
is believed
that
government
funding
on such subjects
is justified
.
on
the
other
hand, those
who
are opposed
to state
funding
contend that since it is
mostly
students
themselves
who
benefit from
art
education
, they should seek aid from
other
sources such as corporate
funding
and their
own
parents.
For instance
, like any
other
professionals musicians, dancers and actors
also
earn large sums of money from stage
shows
and
other
public performances. They
also
believe that since enormous amounts of money
is required
to fund
art
education
, it would become an unnecessary liability for
government
, as it has more
important
priorities to deal with. To sum up,
funding
of
performing
arts
courses, should
be done
by
government
, as these courses
keep
our culture and tradition alive, complement academic
study
, bring out hidden talent and break the ennui of tough academic
studies
.