The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chair of the music department to the president of Omega University:
“Mental health experts have observed that symptoms of mental illness are less pronounced in many patients after group music-therapy sessions, and job openings in the music-therapy field have increased during the past year. Consequently, graduates from our degree program for music therapists should have no trouble finding good positions. To help improve the financial status of Omega University, we should therefore expand our music-therapy degree program by increasing its enrollment targets.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The arguments in this academic memorandum seem to have some merit. However, after further analysis, I find the conclusion to be flawed. The reasoning starts with an assumption that music therapy is more effective than other forms of therapy, but this is not necessarily the case. The theory behind the program’s effectiveness needs to be examined more closely as well as its effectiveness in the larger context
The line of reasoning seems to presume that if a firm wants to boost its profits, increasing money spent in one area is a surefire way to do so. While this is generally true, there are certainly exceptions. For example, increasing the amount of money spent on a football team will not immediately improve its winning percentage. Likewise, spending money to increase enrollment in an art class might bring in more visitors to that museum, but do not necessarily lead to more purchasers of that art. The reason that the music therapy argument fails is that there is not a clear correlation between the number of people receiving therapy and the effectiveness of the therapy. A 2014 study took a random sample of 176 participants in group music therapy sessions and found that 40 percent of the participants had no measurable improvements in their symptoms. Another study found that only 20 percent of those receiving individual music therapy improved their symptoms. While these numbers do not mean that music therapy does not work, they do indicate that there is a need for more research on the effectiveness of the therapy
In a larger context, there is a troubling trend at Omega University. While Omega’s enrollment has increased by nearly 50 percent since 2005, the number of music therapy students has declined by more than half. At the same time, the monetary cost of the program has increased by 80 percent. Thus, even if the music therapy program were to be expanded, the university would not be making more money in the process. Instead, the institution could be losing more money due to fewer students enrolled in the music therapy program. There is also no evidence that music therapy is more attractive to prospective students than courses in other fields. The losing trend of students suggests that it is the music department that has fallen out of favor, rather than the music therapy program. Additionally, while it is true that music therapy job openings have increased, this could be attributed to the increased popularity of music therapy as an industry. There are any number of reasons for this, such as increased government funding for research, increased awareness of the benefits of music therapy, and competition for talent. Moreover, if the music therapy program were to actually help boost the profits of the university, it could be that the increased enrollment would be the result of increased advertising for the program, not an increase in demand for the program
These problems point to other possible explanations for the decline in music therapy enrollment. Perhaps the music department is losing students to other music programs at other schools that charge lower tuition. Perhaps the decline in music therapy enrollment is a result of the decrease in demand for music therapists, not a drop in enrollment. Perhaps the increase in job openings for music therapists is due to the fact that there are more people majoring in music, not an increase in demand for the program. Thus, although music therapy might be a worthwhile investment of time and money, only further research and experimentation would reveal if it is.