The Value of Degree Courses

[ImagineerTom]

I have to ask the question then... if "degree" courses are predominantly / essentially about research and theory and not about learning actual practical skills and current industry methodologies then what is the point in a degree in any practical subject? With things like law / medicine / science / mathematics where your ultimate job is going to essentially be a theoretical or research based one where understanding of theory & dry facts is essential then I can see why undergoing a training program to teach you how to do that really well is a great idea. But when it comes to production/event management and frankly almost every theatre skill there's no need for ongoing research or theoretical modeling in 99.9% of the jobs available (the number of people in our industry who actually do research and development in any way comparable to the science industries could probably be counted on just your fingers) so surely any "training" that isn't predominantly practically based and teaches the specific skills you will need when working in this sector is nothing less than a folly?

[J Pearce]

I understand your meaning, but surely as one who researches and designs new technology you can see the value of the skills developed in a proper academic degree? I would hope that the industry values workers with higher level thinking, rather than people who do what they do because it has always been done that way and that is how you do it.

When I discuss research skills I don't necessarily mean sitting in a library reading the latest academic paper (though there's certainly no harm to done in doing so), or working in a lab modelling different outcomes, research can also be trade journals, visiting other shows, networking etc., what some might refer to as the 'enquiring mind'.

 

Universities may teach practical skills in their sessions, but hopefully what they are actually teaching is not the skill but the mechanisms by which you learn that skill.

[Shez]

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.

During the first year of my M.Eng, they taught us to solder. Interestingly, most of my fellow students had never done it before whereas I'd spent a lot of my childhood building electronic projects. We also did welding, sheet metal folding, terminating SWA cable etc. Does someone with an electronic engineering degree need those practical skills? Not necessarily. But they're useful to know and getting that hands on experience gives one a broader understanding of the field. If I'd gone in to a "proper" engineering job, I probably wouldn't have spent much time soldering. But a touring theatre tech will be more useful with that skill. So who should teach it to them?

[ImagineerTom]

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be designers, thinkers and creators - but I'm not sure what the benefit is in teaching people whose job is going to be essentially practical such vast quantities of (essentially useless) research and theoretical skills at the expense of practical skills which they will actually use and need. On that logic we should teach all theatre degree students Latin & Ancient Greek because it does sort of vaguely help you understand complicated words and provide a useful half-way house for understanding foreign language as well as a grasp of the evolution of the theatrical form.... but it's going to be absolutely NO help whatsoever in 99.9% of the jobs theatre people actually do on a day to day basis.

[J Pearce]

I think here we reach a difference in life beliefs. I am a firm believer in education just for education's sake, for an enlightened and intelligent society, rather than education being solely used as a means to prepare people for the world of work, and then work until retirement or death doing the same thing because that is all that they know. Why shouldn't technicians be trained in design, or even Latin? I agree that it should not displace practical training that does prepare them for work, but why shouldn't we have an industry full of inquisitive workers, eager to know and understand more about what they do every day?

 

(Mods if we're straying too close to politics please intervene)

[top-cat]

I have to ask the question then... if "degree" courses are predominantly / essentially about research and theory and not about learning actual practical skills and current industry methodologies then what is the point in a degree in any practical subject? With things like law / medicine / science / mathematics where your ultimate job is going to essentially be a theoretical or research based one where understanding of theory & dry facts is essential then I can see why undergoing a training program to teach you how to do that really well is a great idea. But when it comes to production/event management and frankly almost every theatre skill there's no need for ongoing research or theoretical modeling in 99.9% of the jobs available (the number of people in our industry who actually do research and development in any way comparable to the science industries could probably be counted on just your fingers) so surely any "training" that isn't predominantly practically based and teaches the specific skills you will need when working in this sector is nothing less than a folly?

 

Tom, have you ever considered that somebody might do a degree simply because they are interested in a subject, and interested in asking "why"?

 

My degree is not hugely related to my job, nor a job I've ever had. But I saved the money up working rubbish jobs, and took the 3 years out of my life, to spend my full time furthering my knowledge of the subject and researching areas of it that I hadn't previously thought about and looking at what influenced what... etc. It was great, and I am glad I had the opportunity to spend 3 years focussing on the thing that I loved, rather than diving straight into the workplace and working through to retirement. It also gave me a very important 3 years to grow up and realise what I wanted in life, had I not done it, I expect my career path would have been somewhat different to what it is now.

 

There is no reason why the content you learn in your degree cannot nest in your brain whilst you go 'back' to entry level to start your first job. But as others have said, I think it's positive to have people thinking "why do we do this?", looking at other industries way of doing things, analysing the differences. There are a lot of things we do in this industry that could probably be done better, but we do them the way we do because that's the way we were shown and everyone else was shown. But it doesn't mean they couldn't be improved. If the next generation of technicians are of the mindset where practices are challenged and given a moment's thought, maybe we will see the industry moving forward, and we will not still be using techniques founded on 1970s rock n roll tours, in 2020, because everyone is happy doing what they were taught by the guy before them.

 

On a side note, the other (and frankly main) reason there are degrees in this subject and a variety of significantly more useless ones; is because it costs 27 grand to go to university. The education sector is extremely profitable and if you run the courses that people want to do, you can make money. Plenty of honest courses exist, but plenty are fairly cack in content and meaning and serve only to line the pockets of the shareholders by exploiting the modern college-leaver's concern that they will struggle to find employment without a degree. But that's just capitalism.

[ImagineerTom]

You're talking to someone with A-Level in Physics, Geography, Latin & Greek, who has a computing degree (a 2:1, it still counts :-p) - I'm totally cool with learning stuff for the sake of learning it, for interest or even as a way of just filling your life (I have a school friend who has managed to remain in education his entire life and never done a "proper" job) but the problem I see here is that theatre courses / degrees are being sold as "the skills" needed for a particular job when clearly they're not. If the course was called "the theory of event management" or "lighting design theory" and sold to students on what brilliant (theoretical) knowledge they will have then that would be fine; but they're not - they are given titles which imply they are as integral to working in this industry as a law degree is to working in the Legal profession, whilst on the course the student's aren't reminded that this is an essentially theoretical exercise and that the real world will be different and the entire course is marketed in a way that quite blatently says "do this course and you'll get a job and make lots of money". In other disciplines the university courses have evolved in parallel with the professions so that upon graduation students KNOW that what they have is nothing more than a theoretical skill set and that to actually undertake a career in that sector requires many more years of practical experience at the most junior level to learn these basic skills; after completing a medical degree you KNOW you've only got theoretical knowledge and are looking at 4-5 years of (structured and planned) "on the job training" before anyone will actually let you loose unsupervised doing practical medical things; get a law degree and you know you have only theoretical knowledge and will have to do 2 or 3 years as a low level office clerk, loads more practical exams and training before anyone will let you go out and call yourself a lawyer / barrister / legal professional. Get a science degree and you KNOW you're going to have to be a junior member of someone else's research team and spend many more years learning practical, real-world skills before you are going to be anything other than the office junior.

 

However the degree's relating to the theatre and creative industries (don't get me started on the circus degree) are mis-sold, plain and simple.

[J Pearce]

On this it seems we agree, sadly University marketing departments are often somewhat removed from the academic departments, and have different aims to fulfil.

[Simon Lewis]

I think we can all agree that "Marketing" inhabits a different part of the galaxy... ;-)

 

 

However, what if a degree programme could integrate subject specific, pertinent education with useful, targeted, hands on training...?

[Just Some Bloke]

I spent a few years of my life teaching at an FE college and, as part of the job, was required to take a PGCE. The best lecture I ever attended as part of this was when the "curriculum" lecturer went off topic to discuss why we teach what we teach in schools. Her thesis (which I bought into 100%) was that it's in the government's interest to make us learn specific things like history, physics and geography for example, rather than teaching us how to learn. The best thing for the pupils would be to spend primary school learning how to read, write and count etc. then spend secondary school learning how to learn. If we were taught how do good research at secondary school rather than at university, then we could learn whatever we want to learn both at school and at home. The teachers would show us how to take the information we found for ourselves and work out if it was biased or untrue or only part of the argument and to search out the alternate view of the same subject. However, if we did question everything we were given then we'd start to do that with official pronouncements too and that would not lead to a stable government. Thus, forcing us to learn the names of Henry VIII's wives, rather than just knowing where to look them up, becomes much more important in curriculum design.

 

Maybe, if we taught some of the things they teach at university when we were in secondary school then we could all go out and get experience as casuals and junior techs without missing out on a full education?

[top-cat]

However, what if a degree programme could integrate subject specific, pertinent education with useful, targeted, hands on training...?

 

I appreciate that there are courses which can do this, such as yours! That said, it will always be scrutinised. What you can learn in a classroom controlled environment is simply not the same as what you will learn on real life gigs in front of real life people and clients who want to squeeze every last penny off the bill and get it done a day quicker than can be reasonably expected. Unfortunately what can be the 'right way' in the classroom may not be the 'right way' in their first place of employment, and this I think is one of the criticisms courses face. It can be much harder to get somebody to learn something a different way than to teach somebody something they don't know at all, and I think sometimes this is why employers want to take unqualified new starters even if graduates are on offer. They worry they'll want to come in and do things differently.

 

 

My point was only really that you cannot expect a university graduate to have hands on training / experience behind them, since it is not a requirement for the qualification which they hold.

 

You can however expect a Level 2 holder to have hands on training / experience behind them, as that is precisely what they qualification demonstrates. However it does not demonstrate any ability to research or critically analyse material from that subject.

 

There is a lot of people blaming universities for mis-selling things, and I don't disagree. However there are also IMO a number of employers out there asking for qualifications who do not really understand what the qualifications actually represent. And that a an employer demanding that applicants have degrees because they should be able to *do* X, Y and Z is no better than the student who can't do it or the university who taught them.

 

 

[indyld]

The best thing for the pupils would be to spend primary school learning how to read, write and count etc. then spend secondary school learning how to learn. If we were taught how do good research at secondary school rather than at university, then we could learn whatever we want to learn both at school and at home.

 

...

 

Maybe, if we taught some of the things they teach at university when we were in secondary school then we could all go out and get experience as casuals and junior techs without missing out on a full education?

 

There is now more of this 'learning to learn' thinking in some parts of secondary education although it could still be a lot stronger and more widespread. Certainly, the transition into HE isn't an easy one for students and one could argue that a certain amount of HE time is 'wasted' developing them as independent learners. If more was done earlier, even greater strides could be made by the time learners get to HE. Summer schools may be part of the this, either in the cognitive domain or in particular skills. Things that have to be dealt with early on to allow study to continue. This already happens a lot with overseas students and English as a foreign language.

 

Learning to learn is the single most important skill for anyone in the 21st century, particulary in areas of rapid change including production technology and practice. Teaching a student how to use the Grand MaxMA IV is of limited value as this particular skillset relating to a single console is likely to be of little use when everyone moves on next year. All software, same.

 

Much better to teach them how to develop themselves and strategies for self reliance in learning, along with the ability to analyse, synthesise, create and make critical decisions in both life and work. This is then completely scalable for each learner and gives them a lifetime of opportunity IF they are motivated to continue to develop themselves.

 

Student That Doesn't Get It: When are we going to taught how to do cool stuff with the Diddly Blat iColor IIIs?

 

Me: Today! When you download the manual, get hold of the free controller and spend the evening trying to make it work with the visualiser you have also downloaded. If there is anything you can't work out, check out their online forums and support centre. If there is still something you can't work out, ask Jane in Year 2, she knows loads about them and has done all this already. If there is still something you still can't work out, email me and I will send you a link that you should have found. I would tell you to read a book, the library has hundreds of them. Unfortunately, they are all up to date but none of them mention the Diddly Blats as they only came out three months ago.

 

Now, back to analysing this Caravaggio.....

 

Student: Do we not need to know how to use the Diddlys for the assessment then?

 

Me: Oh no, you need to know how to use them. You will be assessed on your ability to select the correct Blat, set them up and use them creatively as part of a collaborative piece which will be delivered professionally and safely. With any luck, your final product will be as well lit as this painting cos you don't get many marks for just knowing what DMX stands for.

[J Pearce]

Rob, this forum needs a like button...

[Bobbsy]

I think Rob/indyld sums it up pretty well. A university degree isn't going to give you much practical knowledge about actually operating gear or working with a crew. Indeed, it might be argued that, for a career in lighting or audio you might be better of doing an engineering degree in electronics or computers or acoustics.

 

However, a drama degree of some kind CAN provide a lot of useful background as well as what indyld describes as "learning to learn".

 

Cards on the table. Forty-ish years ago I graduated with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Drama and wanted a technical career (in my case, in television). Did any of the courses I took give me practical technical knowledge? Nope. The knowledge and experience I had came from crewing shows--the university did 4 main stage shows a year plus numerous small studio theatre ones. In addition, the venues were hired out and students could earn spending money by crewing these outside hires. In addition, I had a part time job at a local TV station.

 

At the end of my four years I had a pretty reasonable amount of experience (all totally out of date now of course!) and was able to convert that part time TV job to a full time one pretty seamlessly.

 

However, that not the end of it. I'm always amazed at how often the academic stuff comes in handy, if only because it helps me speak the same language as the creative types. If a director compares his wants to a famous painting or something from a film or whatever, my Art History and History and Criticism of the Cinema course come into play. If the director uses the word "Brechtian" I'm not confused. And so on. I genuinely think that my ability to "speak all artsy fartsy" has got me continuing gigs in the past because directors feel I speak the same language as them.

 

Now, the fly in the ointment. In my day, my annual tuition was about $400 (I was in Canada) and it was maybe another $200 for books. I was able to live at home and I managed to get a scholarship to cover a fair chunk of this. On top, my parents had taken out a $1000 savings bond when I was born and this was cashed in to help pay for my education. Basically, I finished my four years and got my degee with no debt.

 

Nowadays, the idea that students can end up 30,000 or so in debt is frightening and I'm really not sure that, as valuable as I've found the education, I'm not sure it's worth that level of cost. If I was going to be a lawyer, yeah, maybe--but a sound designer? You'd have to be a darn popular sound designer.

 

I could say a lot more about governments not investing in the future of the country but that would be violating the no politics rule that I'm supposed to enforce!

[indyld]

I think Rob/indyld sums it up pretty well. A university degree isn't going to give you much practical knowledge about actually operating gear or working with a crew. Indeed, it might be argued that, for a career in lighting or audio you might be better of doing an engineering degree in electronics or computers or acoustics.

 

 

Can't really say that I can agree with that, given than on our course all students actually leave with an enviable bucket of skills in all areas of production, from being able to call a show to scenographic techniques, CAD to pattern cutting. These come alongside the 'degree' stuff that many may understand: research and critical thinking etc. Added to this, because of the nature of the curriculum, their studies are heavily biased towards team working, creative collaboration and leadership to name a few more. They put on a silly number of productions every year using professional process and so are well versed with working on a crew.

 

As we are discussing hard skills, I thought I would list them. Then I thought better of listing ALL of them, due the fact that students learn professional skills in SM, Technical, Scenic and Costume subjects and I could be writing all afternoon. So, instead I will pick on a handful that ALL students can demonstrate, regardless of their strongest subject area:

 

* Programming of a professional lighting console (we use MagicQ in our theatre and Ion at the TRB) in real conditions on real shows.

 

* CAD (2D and 3D). These skills are demonstrated by even my "least interested in CAD" students to a level that puts plenty 'in industry' to shame.

 

* Audio editing using Audacity and Audition.

 

* Sound and video programming using Qlab. We have recently had a current student go out to the Middle East as a Qlab 3 freelancer because his skills outstrip the pros on the high profile show.

 

Note that I said ALL students demonstrate these skills and that this is a tiny portion from my teaching area. Similarly hard skills are acquired in all other subjects areas. To what extent the student takes these further depends on their subject interest.

 

They can all use a sewing machine AND write a 5000 word dissertation, though generally not at the same time. :) If I had managed to list all the skills, people may forgive an individual student having a Powercon moment which seems small fry compared to the high level qualities AND skills they do have.

 

(Edit to add: Shortly after one graduation, one of our creative / design-y type students thanked us for her learning in CAD as she was using it to pay the bills, drawing up stuff for a successful set designer that lacked the CAD skills as many professionals of a certain age do.)