The Value of Degree Courses

[top-cat]

The other thing to be careful of is the (IMO, false) belief that a degree represents training for direct entry into a professional role.

 

The fact is that for equivalent entry level jobs, graduates are no more or less employable than non-graduates.

 

Only a fraction of what you need to know working in this industry can be taught in a classroom. The rest is stuff you pick up. The problem is the attitude of people thinking they can skip steps. The degree itself is doing no harm.

[indyld]

The other thing to be careful of is the (IMO, false) belief that a degree represents training for direct entry into a professional role.

 

There is an argument that would suggest a belief that 'all you need to do' is pay to do your Technical Whatever degree and everything will fall into place. Students need to be reminded that this isn't the case.

 

Being able to solder an XLR half decently doesn't need £27k of education, a learner can do what I ( and I'm sure many of us) did and buy a £20 Antex and fiddle about with it at home. Of course, these days you can watch a YouTube video for free (rather than having to buy a beginner's electronics book). Those students that continue to learn in addition to their formal studies and participate in the field with casual work etc. are the ones that end up the most employable.

 

As is often discussed here in different contexts undertaking a course in anything is the beginning, not the end. As TC says, there is no substitute for time served when it comes to skills and experience. That hasn't changed since the days when there were no BA (Hons) in any show production subject.

 

The problem with the OP's line of questioning is that one could answer to have found plenty of people in life underskilled and lacking in knowledge - not just graduates! Defining that as being a problem or not rather depends on one's expectations of them. Additionally, plenty of uneducated containers for gentlemen's vegetables have damaged a company's reputation. There are also quite few questions above that are only rather loosely related to the stated research topic.

[ImagineerTom]

There is an argument that would suggest a belief that 'all you need to do' is pay to do your Technical Whatever degree and everything will fall into place. Students need to be reminded that this isn't the case.

Sadly, as has been reported many times both anecdotally and in the press the people to blame here are the universities & training centres who seem to have built their entire marketing and promotional strategy around claims about what amazing graduate employment levels they have (neglecting to actually specify how many are in course-appropriate graduate jobs) and how much more money graduates earn than non graduates; again implying that simply taking this course = better job. Whilst I'm the first to bemone lazy students I can understand their confusion when it's the education professionals (who for the past 10 years they've been told to trust implicitly as the primary source of absolute knowledge and truth) suddenly turn in to used-car salesmen and tell them half-truths about the next round of education.

[top-cat]

As I've said before, degrees are academic qualifications, not vocational. This is part of the problem - especially where universities fill the courses with a lot of vocational coursework that can make the course seem practical more than theoretical. The degree is a research based qualification and does not imply hands-on ability, only the ability to research and present in depth. So when somebody pipes up with

 

someone not knowing how to use a soldering iron and/or repair XLR cables despite having done a technical course

to me it really only displays that that person has a fundamental misunderstanding of what that qualification represents. Frankly if I spent 27,000 pounds going to a higher education establishment and they started by teaching me to solder, I'd be a tad hacked off. That's not the resource you are paying for. I would expect that more on a BTEC Electronics course at my local college.

There is a lot of bitterness, often from people without degrees, towards people with; in an industry where they are not 'necessary'. But I do think that is often simply because those without do not really understand what the qualification represents. If you are expecting your graduate to turn up and be any more experienced on the job than a non-graduate, you have misunderstood the qualification. But you may well get somebody who is a lot more articulate in conversation and has a much better understanding of issues in the live music industry. (That said, some of the questions and surveys we get on here, I'm becoming of the opinion that live sound engineering and theatre production degrees are being handed out free in cereal boxes - but then this is why it is, as has always been, important to look at where the degree comes from, not just what it's in).

The Brit Row qualifcation isn't a degree, and this is reflective of my point. Their course is geared towards training people for employment, rather than training people to research, study and form critical arguments about issues in the live sound industry. This is the key difference. It is, as Tom said, unfortunate that the qualifications are being mis-sold to young people who are being made to think that having the skills to critically analyse live sound issues will land them a FOH touring gig straight away.

For things like the white noise story, there are a--- holes in all corners of the industry, with and without degrees. It's not the degree that makes you an a---hole. A---holes will act like this, regardless of what level they are educated to.

I think there may be many people out there who would actually really enjoy doing a live production degree or similar, where they get to study and consider in more detail the issues they face in the business. Degree aren't just for early 20 year olds, and I'm sure there are many people who would enjoy being able to take that critical look at things, rather than taking the approach that all the learning you ever need is how to use a soldering iron or wire a plug. I have a friend who was working as head of security at major international events and then went on to study it, and really enjoyed the process.

[Stuart91]

to me it really only displays that that person has a fundamental misunderstanding of what that qualification represents. Frankly if I spent 27,000 pounds going to a higher education establishment and they started by teaching me to solder, I'd be a tad hacked off. That's not the resource you are paying for. I would expect that more on a BTEC Electronics course at my local college.

 

The problem I've encountered is where someone has pitched for a job: "Employ me, I've got a degree from <insert college name here>". It's then become clear in subsequent conversation just how little they know and that they have virtually no practical experience.

 

My wife completed a very expensive medical degree. One of the things they were taught fairly early on was how to insert drip needles properly. (Particularly memorable because they had to practice on each other). Now, why bother teaching them that? It's a nurse's job! But there are times when a nurse isn't available, or it's all hands on deck and even the most highly qualified doctor in the room still has to pitch in and put in a line. In the same way, if a graduate is expecting to never have to resolder an XLR, or perform basic troubleshooting, they're in the wrong industry.

 

If the purpose of a degree is to put people through a syllabus, sausage machine fashion, then the current setup is fine. But if the object is to turn out competent, well rounded individuals who could be considered employable, it's vital that they have a grasp of some of the basic skills that their clients and employers would be relying on them to have. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch, out all the time in a course, to have a few quick practical assessments, and possibly some remidial classes for those who haven't got a grasp of the basics?

 

Every time there is a story along the lines of "We had a graduate from x, they didn't know the difference between a speakon and a powercon", it devalues the degree and the institution awarding it, amongst the very people who arguably matter most. It's surely worth taking a bit of class time to try and remedy that?

[top-cat]

See this is where you're still getting it wrong. The degree is NOT a vocational qualification and this is NOT (necessarily) designed to prepare you for the work place.

 

Going old skool, besides industries where having a degree is pre-requisite like law and medicine; people studied subjects like maths or history. These subjects aren't attached to industries, so there is no work related training you can do. These live production courses have sprung up in recent years to make money off middle class young adults pushed into the higher education scene by Labour's scheme to get everyone educated - including those clearly lacking the intellect to study traditional academic subjects at red brick establishments.

 

This is why basic skills do not need to be taught. These courses are not pre employment training and are not geared to produce a particular type of professional. Degrees are academic courses solely aimed at getting students to engage in research and critical analysis of a chosen subject. The courses which do offer it have their own reasons as people such as indlyd and kitlane will no doubt explain, but the qualification reflects the study and analysis skills I mentioned, not physical work skills.

 

My degree is pitched at national skills level 9 I think. Level 9 does not mean however that you are levels 1-8 too. The different levels require different criteria. When I did my NRC at level 2 I mentioned this with the external person from the awarding body, how it was that level 3 supervisors running arena load ins were, on paper, of inferior qualification to a newly graduated trainee rigger. It was explained that the levels system are not necessarily "higher" than one another, each level shows a different skill set. And thus a degree isn't a higher award than a level 2 work based course, it simply shows a different set of skills within the same discipline; hence there is no requirement to teach level 2 skills within a level 9 study.

[Stuart91]

See this is where you're still getting it wrong. The degree is NOT a vocational qualification and this is NOT (necessarily) designed to prepare you for the work place.

 

The problem then is that this isn't being made clear to the graduates. I've come across many who think that their piece of paper qualifies them for roles which require practical and technical knowledge/experience that they have clearly lacked.

 

These live production courses have sprung up in recent years to make money off middle class young adults pushed into the higher education scene by Labour's scheme to get everyone educated - including those clearly lacking the intellect to study traditional academic subjects at red brick establishments.

 

A lot of these "degrees" would have been called something else in previous decades. And a degree in Live Production or some related discipline will be aimed at a practical outcome - they're not engaging in the course of study out of a disconnected, abstract academic interest, they are hopefully going to become practitioners. So I don't think letting them graduate with glaring gaps in basic technical knowledge does anybody any favours.

[indyld]

It's fairly simple.

 

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/FHEQ08.pdf

 

If you read the descriptors for Level 5 and Level 6 in the FHEQ, it aligns with what these dreaded, nasty degree holders are expected to be getting up to. How those levels are applied to a subject are down to the course design and there is nothing that says a Bachelor's Degree must be completely research based in the sense that is implied here (I.e the student must only seek and think, never 'do)'. However, TC is correct in suggesting that those that disparage the degree holders are really looking at it wrong way.

 

There are many ways in which this framework is adhered to and, at the end of the day, nothing says that your newly acquired graduate WILL have even come across a PowerCon just because they have taken part in a higher education based on a production subject. Hell, I know 'freelancers' that don't know what one is. This does not make the degree 'wrong'.

 

What I can tell you is that BA Hons holders are not only expected to engaged with their subject at Level 6, they only get a limited amount credit for Level 2 skills and simply demonstrating those alone, tick-box BTEC style, does not a degree make. Even slightly. The main reason that they learn and need the skills is so that they can engage with their chosen subject at the appropriate level in the FHEQ. In a similar way, Creative Writing students learn particular subject based skills. Engineering students learn to do calculations and test materials in a lab but mathematicians or materials scientists they aren't.

 

My thoughts on this subject are more than well documented here on the BR and I'm not going to go over it all again. What would actually make much stronger research for the OP is the attitudes to the degree holders themselves, rather than the lack of skills or otherwise.

 

(edit to add: I'm not one for waving of any kind of appendages but I feel pretty well qualified to comment on this, having spent 20 years in production practice and now designing and delivering degree level curriculum. Having a foot in both camps, I see all the pitfalls as well as benefits.)

 

(edit to also add: I actually think this argument will fade out when the industry is being run by all the students I know from our place, Central, Rose Bruford, Welsh College, Derby and the rest. There are already plenty of them out there and more coming up behind. I don't hear them saying that their degree was valueless)

 

There is no secret squirrel here, anyone can read the course handbooks of these degrees. Of particular interest are the Module Descriptors and assessments within. By way of example:

 

http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/media/handbooks/BA%20Theatre%20Production%20Handbook%202013-14.pdf

[Simon Lewis]

And following on from Indyld's excellent post, here's what to expect from programmes that meet the Engineering Council's standard for professional engineering competence...

[top-cat]

If you read the descriptors for Level 5 and Level 6 in the FHEQ, it aligns with what these dreaded, nasty degree holders are expected to be getting up to. How those levels are applied to a subject are down to the course design and there is nothing that says a Bachelor's Degree must be completely research based in the sense that is implied here (I.e the student must only seek and think, never 'do)'. However, TC is correct in suggesting that those that disparage the degree holders are really looking at it wrong way.

 

There are many ways in which this framework is adhered to and, at the end of the day, nothing says that your newly acquired graduate WILL have even come across a PowerCon just because they have taken part in a higher education based on a production subject. Hell, I know 'freelancers' that don't know what one is. This does not make the degree 'wrong'.

 

What I can tell you is that BA Hons holders are not only expected to engaged with their subject at Level 6, they only get a limited amount credit for Level 2 skills and simply demonstrating those alone, tick-box BTEC style, does not a degree make. Even slightly. The main reason that they learn and need the skills is so that they can engage with their chosen subject at the appropriate level in the FHEQ. In a similar way, Creative Writing students learn particular subject based skills. Engineering students learn to do calculations and test materials in a lab but mathematicians or materials scientists they aren't.

 

My thoughts on this subject are more than well documented here on the BR and I'm not going to go over it all again. What would actually make much stronger research for the OP is the attitudes to the degree holders themselves, rather than the lack of skills or otherwise.

 

 

Rob, I wasn't suggesting that Level 2 information should not be contained in Level 6 courses. Obviously, if students are able to engage in practical activities in a generally practical industry, it will help them to understand the things which they are studying better.

 

My point was more that the learning objectives for Level 6 do not require any proof of ability in doing anything related to the subject. The focus, in terms of learning objectives, is on research and critical analysis.

 

So whilst many BA graduates may be able to solder or regognise a power con, it should not be *expected* of them, as practical elements such as these are not a requirement of the course. A Level 6 student might however be expected to be able to analyse the importance or relevance of introducing a power connector such as the powercon which is mostly industry-specific and what advantages it's development has brought to products employing it, due to the unique demands of the entertainment industry that would not be observed in other environments. This is the kind of skilset that the Level 6 qualification seeks to display ability of. And frankly, for all big huzzahs who want to bemoan live productions graduates, I would imagine that many of them would not possess any more than the basic ability to describe their own experience and opinion of the connector; and would not be able to properly gather, analyse and reference the material required to properly make that study.

 

I don't know if it clear but my belief is that studying a degree is a good thing to do. The problems in my opinion are mainly that people who are fundamentally unsuited to long-term committed study (3 years is a good length of time) are pushed into it by a society trend; and indeed that people are offered, or at least expect, an unrealistic post-graduation situation with regards to employment in the sector in which they have studied. The content of the courses is, in the case of most respectable universities, driven by people who do have sufficient experience both in the subject area and in academia and thus perfectly suited to fulfilling the learning objectives whilst fostering a greater understanding and interest in the chosen subject. It is unfortunate that there are also plenty of less respectable establishments cropping up offering much more in the way of box ticking exercises and awarding certificates at the end. These are counter-productive but don't represent the wider higher education system. As I said before, if you are talented enough to be able to choose your university, one of the main considerations you make should not only be course content and the people delivering it; but the overall rating of the university, and the first-destination employment statistics - both, I believe, published by the Guardian (feel free to correct me? Is it the times?!)

[Simon Lewis]

....one of the main considerations you make should not only be course content and the people delivering it; but the overall rating of the university, and the first-destination employment statistics - both, I believe, published by the Guardian (feel free to correct me? Is it the times?!)

 

Unistats. If you are looking at any programme's webpage the Key Information Set data will appear on the page together with a link to the Unistats webpage. Of course, there are some things not reflected by mere statistics!

[alistermorton]

It's always been the way, though, hasn't it. When I started at EMI in 1979 we had to do an apprentice training course before going off to university, because the degree course wouldn't teach us to solder properly, to lace a wiring loom, to fabricate an instrument case etc.

 

We also learnt pretty quickly that "That's what I was taught on my course" isn't a very popular response to being told that you're doing something wrong because you've misunderstood what you were taught.

[indyld]

Although not as relevant to the more 'technical' and event engineering BSc courses, there is DramaUK (ex-NCDT) 'accreditation' for conservatoires and 'recognition' for HE courses including FDa and BA programmes. B.3.c onward of their guide lays out the requirements to gain a status with DramaUK in the Technical Theatre space. Again, these are all reasonable but also do not guarantee individual microns of practical knowledge such as the 'Powercon' situation mentioned above.

 

It is worth pointing out that a course having a DramaUK status does not mean it is definitely a great provision. At my gig as a still quite young programme at Bath Spa, we may go for recognition at some point if it is deemed to be of benefit to the students and the institution. This isn't automatically a 'good thing' in terms of fit for every degree programme. Of course, the 'old' providers such as the drama schools have offered Level 5 and 6 degrees for quite a while, many of them making only fairly minor changes to their curriculum and methods in order to satisfy the FHEQ requirements and that of any validating institution.

 

To flip this discussion somewhat diagonally for a moment, I wonder about the FHEQ level at which a few degree programmes are being validated at given what I know about their curriculum and assessment. BA Box Pushing does no one any favours. As TC says, not all degrees are born equal and not even within the relatively small space that is HE in performance production subjects. At the end of the day, the learner pays their money and takes their choice.

 

(One day I will probably write a great long post about transformational education, value to the graduates and society, what HE does for the individual etc. But I have marking to do, so it will have to wait :) )

[J Pearce]

I think it is really useful to differentiate between training and education. In my opinion the former is 'This is a powercon, this is how it fits, the blue end is...', the latter should develop the students' analytical and research skills such that when presented with an unknown situation within the context of their practice they can use their skills to work out how to use it, or where to find out how to use it, or even find a new/better/safer/better value way of using it.

 

True education should provide independent graduates who are capable of working out solutions to problems, or pushing the boundaries of current techniques.

 

The bigger question is does the industry want bright new sparks who will challenge current practice and move our industry forwards, or box shifters who do what they are told, don't question the status quo, and do everything exactly as their boss would? We need to answer that question before we can comment on whether current training programmes are meeting the needs of the industry.

 

[edit to add]

 

Additionally, basic training ('this is a powercon') only lasts as long as that technology, which at the moment for us isn't that long. Proper education that develops soft skills should last a lifetime, enabling the graduate to stay up to date with current practice through using research, analytical, and evaluative skills.

[alistermorton]

Exactly so, Jon. The education of a degree course teaches you how to research and design solutions that your practical training allows you to implement safely, possibly expanding the frontiers of how something is done.