An LNAT practice essay that was written in response to the prompt: "Should the government prioritise funding for arts over funding for sports? Why or why not? " The writer of this essay received offers to study law from the University College of London, King's College, Durham University, the Univer...
Should the government prioritise funding for
arts over funding for sports? Why/Why not?
There are two primary arguments why governments should prioritise funding
for the arts over funding for sports: firstly, that the arts are more valuable for
their ability to yield physical products, such as paintings or statues—a
functionality that the sports lack; and secondly, that the arts are more
intellectually demanding and thus superior. In this essay, I will counter these
claims and explain why funding should remain equally distributed across the
arts and sports. For clarity, I have defined “the arts” as any activity that
revolves around subjective expression (e.g. music) and “sports” as any that
concerns physical performance (e.g. football).
I will begin with the first aforementioned counter point: sports are less
functional, as they do not yield tangible benefits. Certain modes of art can be
used to create physical products. For example, sculptors and carvers can apply
their skills in architecture to create aesthetic buildings. Likewise, pottery
students can use their qualifications to create containers, vases, and other
usable goods. Because sports are temporary spectacles and do not create
tangible benefits, they should be deemed less functional and thus less
deserving of monetary support.
However, this argument assumes that activites can only be fruitful if they yield
physical results. Although sports are unlikely to improve architecture or
manifest in aesthetic items the way the arts do, they have been shown to
widen skillsets and provide other, non-tangible benefits. Many clinicians claim
that contact sports, such as boxing, can be used to release anger in healthy,
ordered environments: an outlet that some may not be able to find in artistic
fields. Sports can also be used to improve physical endurance and strength:
traits that are not as well-trained in artistic endeavours, such as fine painting or
weaving. Thus, reducing funding for sports would likely reduce happiness and
result in a more narrow, constricted workforce. Under this logic, it does not
seem logical or beneficial to reduce funding for sports, as sports and the arts
are both necessary in maintaining sustainable, healthy communities.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller minheehouk. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.18. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
