Here is the OECD report
http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/arts.htm which stresses the importance of Arts in education and benefits of arts to students (even students of non-arts subjects). They also conclude that
"The arts have been in existence since the earliest
humans, are parts of all cultures, and are a major domain of human experience,
just like science, technology, mathematics, and humanities. In that respect, they are
important in their own rights for education."
Some Universities have Arts appreciation course for non-arts students who are interested in knowing, understanding and
appreciating Art.
>just that they needn't do so on taxpayer money
May I know the rationale behind this? If I understand correctly, what you're trying to say is that letting people study these subjects on taxpayers money is a waste of public money, which I think is not true. There are people with Academic arts background who have contributed to the society. Even (for the sake of argument) if these are not economically rewarding areas of study, is it justified that the whole field of arts which has been there almost since the beginning of mankind to be not funded by the government just because the system under which we currently live doesn't find it profitable? Is it justified to deny access to an entire group of people who are interested to study Arts but they can't because they don't have the money to pursue it?.