The Value of Degree Courses

[kerry davies]

Are we looking at this from a regressive angle? I may have been guilty of over-stressing the importance of hands-on experience and vocational training because that is what I know and is how we, as an industry, actually got here. Maybe the question needs to be; where do we go now?

 

Life is becoming automated to an incredible degree. People "plug'n'play" in all sorts of areas unimaginable when I were a lad. It has become impossible for those who design stuff to know what it will be doing once the kit is out in the field. We are using technology intended for ABC to do XYZ (video as LX?) simply because we have found that it can. Are we getting to the point where an "earn and learn" degree consists of part-time study over longer periods while working in the field? Medicine does something along those lines.

 

Jobs of all kinds are being automated and offshored. The legendary "Polish Plumber" of cheap imported labour now applies to dozens of fields. Are we looking at the world of work through antiquated and rose-coloured spectacles? The entire education/work thing is changing dramatically and we need to change our approach likewise. Education-for-life, learning for learning's sake will always be valuable and desirable but education for jobs is dying out. Lawyers, doctors, scientists and similar will always need intensive academic study but does a sound technician?

 

You young fellers will live through something I never experienced and is similar to my great grandfather's change from a rural to an industrial society. Everything will change. Democracy came about through the industrial revolution along with steam trains. Globalisation means that a Qatari prince has more clout in Tower Hamlets than all the voters there combined. It is no longer a case of academia versus vocational training. It is a case of forget the past, what do we invent now?

 

Rob, I encouraged one of my community volunteers who was an unemployed clerk to use CAD for his one-day event layout. He then decided he wanted to be the event safety "officer" so I set him off toward a NEBOSH cert. He now has a massive house in Brighton and half a dozen guys working on private and government contracts for office layouts. Combining two skills he learned for one thing led to him inventing a whole new thing to be an "expert" in. That is where skills training has the edge on job-focused purely academic education and I am glad that people like you and Simon see that. Some academics still do not.

[top-cat]

I think learning CAD is definitely one those things which, if it can be done in university, is a great thing. It is not easy to learn CAD once you are out in the world, the demo / student versions never work properly and you do need a fairly decent PC. And time, lots of time.

 

I used to think my CAD skills were OK, then I went into a major exhibition centre's production office to draw a plot with the in-house CAD team. I then decided I wasn't very good at CAD. This guy drew a 100+ point rigging plot complete with trusses and drape lines quicker than I could set up a new sheet.

 

I think university is a good place to learn a lot of those things which you need to sit down and get to grips with through doing it again and again, rather than picking up through practice. Whilst studying I did the PRINCE project management training which was really good and quite expensive if you do it privately but the university put it on for free. I also went in the studios and got my Pro Tools certification which basically went on to pay a good lump of my tuition fees teaching it privately at the weekends.

 

I would say I do envy people who study things like Rob's course, Simon/Kit's SLLET course, etc; because, like it or not, they are teaching great skills which you can put to immediate use if you are not somebody who wants to follow the 'start by pushing boxes' career path which despite being sworn on by the old and bold is simply not the career path everybody wants to take and it is narrow minded to think it's the only one available. The information on how to find jobs, who to speak to etc though; and the industry connections - that is where your money really goes.

[indyld]

The information on how to find jobs, who to speak to etc though; and the industry connections - that is where your money really goes.

 

As you mention those things, it seems a good time to briefly break down how our final year students spend their time (and money). Engagement theoretically breaks down as:

 

* Production Practice 600 hours (actually they do way more than that). Basically 3 full scale productions across the year in leading roles such as PM, Set Designer, Costume Designer, SM, LD, SD etc. All these roles not only involve a lot of responsibility, creativity and planning but they also require managing a team of students from the lower years. Despite all the tutors being professionals coming from industry careers, we only mentor the students - they run the productions. We expect them run to a professional standard using relevant processes. (N.B actually, they are run to the 'ideal' standard. Students can learn about the amount of 'lashing it up' out there when they go on placement)

 

* Research and Professionalisation 200 hours. The Dissertation. Research based engagement with a student chosen topic in particular focus. Written output. More recognisable as 'academic' (although the it is expected that production work will demonstrate research to inform practice)

 

* Work Placement 200 hours. Minimum of four weeks engagement (many do more) with decent quality industry placements such as the NT, RSC, BRB, Cardiff Theatrical Services (WNO). This isn't the first time the students have been 'out there' as many of our assessed production practice roles in Year 2 are not on university productions but on professional ones with our partners such as the Theatre Royal. Many of the placements turn quickly into contacts and further work upon graduation, including that all important "first break."

 

* Professional Portfolio. 200 hours. This is the employability bit: finding work, getting work and keeping work. It is vital that students leave not only employable but also with the skills to navigate the world of work, in our industry or not. The engagement includes business planning, personal developing planning, marketing, job application and interview packages and an understanding of how to manage a portfolio career.

 

 

The above is a final year that follows two other years of challenging and stimulating education where learners get more value than they pay for. It may be easier to see why for the first year of the 27K fee regime, applications were 50% up when the sector average was going down. Talking of value, three years (or 3600 hours of engagement which is expected of a full time student) at the current rate equals £7.50 an hour.

 

Of course, I can only speak of what I know and may appear evangelical. I'd prefer to call it 'emphatic' because I seek to bring a few bits of insider reality and some facts to a discussion that can often be led by anecdote and personal attitudes. Kerry is right to question if we should forget the past. The future is something that none of us teaching the next generation can even hazard a guess at. All we can do is to give them the education to help them invent it and navigate it.

[top-cat]

 

 

The above is a final year that follows two other years of challenging and stimulating education where learners get more value than they pay for. It may be easier to see why for the first year of the 27K fee regime, applications were 50% up when the sector average was going down. Talking of value, three years (or 3600 hours of engagement which is expected of a full time student) at the current rate equals £7.50 an hour.

 

Very good value, but not necessarily representative. My course worked out at about 40 an hour, because it was largely self-study based. It did get my back up slightly that I was paying "tuition fees" for what mostly seemed like admin. And poor admin, at that.

 

But I have since come to realise it's just a different way of doing things, there have been just as many perks of becoming very good at self study as there would have been with being taught. As you said before, if you learn to learn, you can teach yourself anything.

 

My dissertation was probably more like 500 hours, partly because I am dyslexic and can't write more than a paragraph without getting very tired and unable to concentrate, but also because my course rotated much more around that dissertation so the work I produced was very comprehensive. I had it bound and several people you would have heard of in the music industry have read it and said good things about it.

 

 

 

[Junior8]

I think learning CAD is definitely one those things which, if it can be done in university, is a great thing. It is not easy to learn CAD once you are out in the world, the demo / student versions never work properly and you do need a fairly decent PC. And time, lots of time.

 

I so agree with that - but then hey it would have been much better for me now if back in 1969 I'd been taught to type rather than spending fruitless time in Metalwork!

 

For me the real issue in training in this field is lack of honesty by even quite major providers, who when recruiting are economic with the truth about what job opportunities actually are. OK at my age I can look back and see that the various degrees and qualifications I have taken have been worthwhile for their own sakes and I am certainly a better thinker for them. But do you see things that way at 18? Should you? Whatever the philosophy behind the degree and its content the plain fact is that when the students have finished the course they have to go out and earn a living. If you know, or have strong suspicion, that the majority of your graduates won't end up being able to do what they thought they'd be able to do when they started out, because there are simply too many of them, isn't that ethically very dubious to say the least. OK it may keep you in a job, it may make money for the institution and - if they go through the final year described above - it will turn out well qualified folk. But that isn't really the point is it? Isn't there at least an argument that you are turning out what a marxist would call a 'reserve army of labour'?

[indyld]

 

Very good value, but not necessarily representative. My course worked out at about 40 an hour, because it was largely self-study based. It did get my back up slightly that I was paying "tuition fees" for what mostly seemed like admin. And poor admin, at that.

 

But I have since come to realise it's just a different way of doing things, there have been just as many perks of becoming very good at self study as there would have been with being taught. As you said before, if you learn to learn, you can teach yourself anything.

 

Indeed. To clarify, 3600 hours is 'engagement' with the degree, not 'listening to Rob blather on' and so this includes self-directed study. This is just standard for all full time 3 year degrees. A good proportion of non-lecture time is unlikely to be at home reading books (in fact, I'd be happy if they did more of that too) but instead at our scenic workshops experimenting with paint techniques or grafting away in the CAD suite trying to remember what Rob said about Snap To Intersection while you blink through the tears of frustration the day before your CAD project is due in. (CAD and crying, a ubiquitous combination)

 

Thing is, and I think this is where some people get a little confused, designing an excellent education isn't about the amount of time you get students to sit in a class while someone drones about about what a Powercon is. Great design starts with strong and relevant frameworks, assessment tasks that require the learner to engage with what the course designers believe they need to. Of course, students need teaching but actually they really need the opportunity and the confidence to learn for themselves.

 

Sometimes, we require them to learn things they don't want to such as those tech-y types that would rather fiddle about with a Pro Tools plug-in than go and discuss something with a performer. We require the 'done-it-all' LX keenos to engage with their paperwork and communication to lift them from the level they are stuck at because they would rather mess about with WYSIWYG than write a dimmer schedule or draw a section. Gawd, at some point you have to make them face writing a dissertation! This helps bright tech-doer Fred avoid limiting his career options to shoving barndoors in forever.

 

It would interesting to work out what that actual number is in place of the 3600 hours, as taking our course is not for the faint hearted if you don't want to sign your whole life over to it for three years.

 

Junior8 poses an interesting question. What 18 year olds want and think they need can be substantially different than what they need in later life and this is where good HE excels. Luckily, parents see the bigger picture and many of them turn up at open days skeptical and scared that little Johnny likes this theatre rubbish. They leave having seen the wider benefits for life and wishing they could enrol themselves. No one is going to end up doing what they started out doing. We tell them that at recruitment. That is the argument for education over simply training.

 

However, they also like to know that little Johnny will also learn something more tangible than critical thinking.

[top-cat]

I 3rd the post-18 thing, simply because whilst this forum does yield a number of very mature, very directed 18 year olds; I for one know that I wasn't one. I didn't have any idea how the industry worked and back then. So I studied something my family had history in because I wanted to do what a lot if not most 18 year olds from my hometown did - the same thing their dads did.

 

I only ended up in this industry because I took a job in it over the summer to put money in the pot for the following year. (And I didn't even like it!)

 

When you say about signing your life over for 3 years, whilst I openly agree that this whole industry is for hard workers who don't mind giving up their life (I don't know anyone who hasn't had to!), I am actually very glad my course was the opposite. It had low supervision time, and you largely got left to doing things by yourself. And a lot of people failed because they simply could not drag themselves away from their bed, the xbox, or the bar; for long enough to do the work. (And to be fair, for the latter half of my second year, I was one such person). But this also contained valid reasoning. It taught me time management well, and it taught me self-motivation in an environment where taking the easy option was ever there. It taught me how to deal with peer pressure (to stay for another one - there won't be anything important in this lecture anyway and you can always download the notes off blackboard) and how to motivate other people in group work environments. (Although I still think university group work needs a rethink, too many people lost me marks and bumped my mark down below what I deserved).

 

It also gave me the chance to do other things. And this is really important, I think, when perhaps it will be the first time you've moved away from home. I got involved in community projects, took the job that eventually put me where I am now, met a wonderful girl, and temporarily joined the aristocracy (not even joking). And I know we like to look at students who join for the 'student lifestyle' and I will be the first to say there's too many bad eggs in that system who do bring the image of HE students down. But in the 3 years that you are at university, the newfound freedom, the growing up in a semi-controlled environment, where you are culpable for your actions but they won't necessarily come back to haunt you to the same extent... this can be a very important phase in the transition to adulthood, which you would not have access to going straight into work.

 

Finally, the 3 years between childhood and working adulthood just gave me and others a lot of time to reflect. "Is this really what I want to do?". I went to study music because my dad had been an apprentice in the cutting shops of a major label and I wanted to do something similar. I was offered a job at Sony Music, in digital distribution, and turned it down. Simply because one of the best things that a degree in music business had taught me was that it was on the verge of bankruptcy and there was little on the horizon to save it; but the concert touring industry was looking much more promising!

 

My point here, slightly deviating from the main flow of the topic, is that the degree itself is only half the benefit of going to university. The other half is about being there, going through the development that is bound to happen when taken out of your comfort zone with no lifeline to home and put with people you've never met before and given the chance to create something special. And frankly I think it was that process that actually did more for me, than the certificate I was handed at the end.

[indyld]

Given the title of this split off topic, which originally started in another thread on skills as the standard "degrees in performance production subjects are worthless and anyone that has them must be no good because, well, it stands to reason....", one must ask:

 

Value of degrees to whom?

 

If it is generally accepted that higher education is worthwhile but not for everyone and that those who have participated identify the benefits as various, including what could be seen as the non-uni life stuff etc. then I'm confused as to the big question mark over learners willing to hand over money for it. It must be the HE snake oil machine in action. It can't be right, can it?

 

People believe in skills and believe in a higher education, particularly if they enjoyed one themselves in whatever subject, they believe in employability and opportunity but for some reason there must be something inherently wrong with aligning the FHEQ descriptors with a particular subject. Some subjects are ok, some aren't.

 

 

In 'our' business we are special, life isn't like that, in my young day we were used as human point marks and spat on by upriggers for a whole year before being allowed to even touch a Spanset... Degrees aren't for the likes of them... No one knows how to sweep a stage any more...

 

One minute it is being argued that degrees aren't what is good for industry. Next, it is that they aren't good for the learner. One minute skills are good. Next skills have no place in a higher education.

 

Luckily, I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind but merely asking people to think beyond what they already believe. :)

[ImagineerTom]

If it is generally accepted that higher education is worthwhile but not for everyone and that those who have participated identify the benefits as various, including what could be seen as the non-uni life stuff etc. then I'm confused as to the big question mark over learners willing to hand over money for it. It must be the HE snake oil machine in action. It can't be right, can it?

Well by definition one cannot have experienced the same life with a degree and without so claims that people with degree's think they are worthwhile are automatically biased as they have no comparable experience of any other way. I can also point you towards plenty of con-trick victims (I'm not calling you or your establishment con-men) who will at the time they hand over their money be very happy and entirely believe they're getting the amazing thing they have been promised but who then, some considerable time (often years later) discover they've been had and feel very differently, there are others who (precisely because they've invested so much money) refuse to accept they've been had and continue to insist that their shares in a goldmine are worth millions and that the nice young man from Nigeria will be sending them there £20m one day and that things haven't quite worked out right now but will at some point in the future.

Since we now have a whole industry dedicated to telling 18yr olds that further education is essential and that by signing up to a particular course one will have a 95% chance of employment earning £10k a year more it's also not surprising that they are clamouring to sign up.

If we can expand the discussion slightly to include stage schools and other higher education establishments offering "performance" related FE qualifications then it's worth noting that every year more people "graduate" with acting/performance qualifications than there are acting jobs advertised and available! There's not just anecdotal evidence any more that a significant chunk of people who have FE qualifications are not then able to get degree-relevant jobs and feel aggrieved on some level that their very expensive education was a waste of time.

[indyld]

If we can expand the discussion slightly to include stage schools and other higher education establishments offering "performance" related FE qualifications then it's worth noting that every year more people "graduate" with acting/performance qualifications than there are acting jobs advertised and available!

 

We are then off into a whole other realm about a media culture that teaches people to put a such high value of 'celebrity' and 'stardom' that they no longer have much ambition other than to be on reality television or hope to win a prime time kareoke competition. I leave the performing arts courses for others to argue their own case.

 

Luckily for my guys, while many of the performance graduates will still be too ugly for television, production graduates will still be able to manage projects, lead people, do risk assessments and use CAD. :)

[CraigG]

The opinions in this post are certainly very interesting to read, being one of those 18 year olds currently planning to start a theatre production BA this September.

 

I have taken it upon myself to ask around and talk to as many guys in industry, and those currently doing or having just finished degrees, as possible and the opinions certainly seem to differ among everyone.

 

The conclusion I've come to at the moment is that I think uni and a degree is the right thing for me. I have indeed always been brought up with the ideology that one must go to uni, and being at a school where about 150 people from my year will be doctors or lawyers it's certainly all I've heard. But besides that, I still think this is the route I want to take. Uni does allow you time to try out new ideas and concepts without the risk of messing up someone's multi million pound production, and I think for my way of learning uni will certainly allow me to develop ideas and as often mentioned above to find out a better way of learning how to learn and problem solve. One certain establishment sold it to me as: "We are not looking to train people to go out and work with the industry as it is. We will of course educate them in this, but we're really looking to create and inspire those who will make a new way of working, make those new innovative ways that are safer or cheaper or change our industry."

 

This said I still appreciate there's nothing like road experience, and I've tried to get as much real world experience as possible. People have certainly been very accommodating and supportive of this, and I've been had along to shadow at and get involved with shows at arenas and academies around London, which has been hugely invaluable and of course exciting to see shows coming together at this scale and talking to the guys about how they make it happen. I plan to carry on doing this whilst at uni, and like to think in this way I'll be well equipped with the theoretical knowledge from uni, but also thoroughly competent to actually work the shows too (whilst of course being aware I still have plenty to learn!)

 

That said, with such high tuition fees now, as well as living in London, it looks like I'll have over 50k debt by the end of the 3 years. With highly respectable companies such as Neg and White Light offering 3 year apprenticeships which they have explained to me, giving this training as well as warehouse and road knowledge, and instead I'm getting paid for the experience, I can't help but think with my wallet and for real world knowledge that that could be better.

 

So, that's the opinion from one who is about to maybe make a big investment in the matter.

[charl.ie]

Are the term times the same for technical theatre courses and other, more traditional degrees? I'm studying a degree in a completely non related subject, and we have a full 14 week summer holiday. While it's not formally specified, we are very much encouraged to spend that time productively working in industry at an internship or similar. To me, this provides an excellent balance between academic training in an environment where it is "safe" to fail, and the experience of working in the real world. If this is the case then surely there is scope for students studying technical theatre to find real experience and graduate having the best of both worlds?

[Pete McCrea]

And I think that's what all of us slightly further down the road are saying - take a degree, but also spend as much time as you can (evenings, weekends, holidays) getting real experience. Work for crewing companies, local amdrams, join the musical Theatre group, go and offer to sweep the warehouse of the local hire companies and just be around real world events to get to learn what really happens. Then you can couple this with the learning you do at the establishment.

[kitlane]

I would love to spend more time reading and responding to this thread but I am currently a bit busy. Sat in the control room of Derby Theatre during the interval of a dance show crewed and designed by a mixture of years 1 to 3 of two different undergraduate courses. They've been here since 0800 and will be here until the get-out is complete. Then back in tomorrow morning for lectures. And we do this several times a week (not dance shows -all kinds of gigs). The year 3 students are hadning in their dissertations this week but they are still here exercising and practicing their technical skills (and learning a few new ones no doubt)

 

The professional crew that completed the overnight re-rig included some of our graduates. One of the in-house technicians is one of our graduates. Almost every large hire company and production company in the country has some of our graduates. Having a degree that also includes lots of real-life experience doesn't seem to have done them too much harm.

[top-cat]

Almost every large hire company and production company in the country has some of our graduates. Having a degree that also includes lots of real-life experience doesn't seem to have done them too much harm.

 

Not to disagree with your post, but to be fair, every large hire company and production company in the country has people who didn't go to university at all.