Theatre Degrees Aren’t the Problem — Our Imagination Is

Every few months, someone in public life decides to take a swipe at arts degrees — usually theatre — as if they’re the root cause of economic stagnation, student debt, or unemployability. It’s a tired argument, and it’s wrong. Not just philosophically wrong, but practically wrong. And I say that not as an academic, but as an employer.

Jak and I have built businesses for more than a decade. We’ve employed thousands of people. We’ve hired graduates from every discipline you can imagine — law, business, engineering, finance, marketing, sciences. And do you know who consistently rose to the top?

The arts graduates.

The theatre graduates.

The ones who could analyse a problem and solve it creatively.

The ones who didn’t panic when the answer wasn’t in a spreadsheet.

The ones who could communicate clearly, collaborate instinctively, and adapt instantly.

The ones who could look at a challenge and say, “Alright — what if we try this?”

That’s theatre training.

This is the part policymakers never seem to grasp: theatre is not vocational training for acting. It’s a multidisciplinary, high‑pressure, future‑skills degree. It teaches communication, collaboration, leadership, improvisation, emotional intelligence, project management, and creative problem‑solving — the exact skills employers say they can’t hire for.

Meanwhile, the labour market is shifting faster than any traditional degree can keep up. Careers change every five to seven years. Entire industries transform in a decade. The people who thrive are the ones who can think laterally, adapt quickly, and communicate effectively.

That’s theatre training.

And if you want proof beyond my own experience, look at the corporate world.

Michael Eisner (Disney) studied theatre.

Indra Nooyi (PepsiCo) studied theatre.

These leaders didn’t succeed despite their arts background — they succeeded because of it.

Behavioural economist Rory Sutherland recently pointed out that creatives are held accountable to non‑creatives, but never the other way around. If a creative idea fails, it’s reckless. If a data‑driven idea fails, it’s “the model.” But data is historic. Creativity is generative. Theatre teaches generative thinking.

In business, that’s called innovation.

In leadership, it’s called vision.

In theatre, it’s called Tuesday.

So let’s stop pretending theatre degrees are the problem. The real problem is a lack of imagination in how we value education. If we want graduates who can lead, adapt, collaborate, communicate, and create — we should be investing in theatre, not dismissing it.

Because the future belongs to people who can think differently.

And theatre has been teaching “different thinking” for centuries.