Are colleges delivering the right people

[Guest lightnix]

Paul Need's recent thread on the trials and tribulations of finding someone to fill a General Assistant's post made me wonder (as I hinted back there) whether the colleges are delivering the right kind of graduates to the industry.

 

Please note that this is not a student-bashing thread. I don't doubt for a moment the dedication and hard work of most students, but it strikes me that at least some educational establishments may be trying to teach people to run before they can walk (a feeling which I believe is shared by others). No course can teach anybody the whole job, maybe 75% of it at best, the rest can only be learned over time, maybe many years and to hear that "a certain" FE college is advising it's students not to apply for jobs which are supposedly "beneath them" makes me feel that they are doing a disservice to both the industry and their graduates.

 

There is more entertainments industry training available now than ever before, but how much of it is relevant to employer's needs? Let's face it: there simply isn't the work out there for all those degree-qualified lighting designers and I suspect that the same goes for at least stage mangement as well. Is there any point in running up a five-figure student loan debt on a degree course, when a "lesser" qualification, like a C&G or BTEC (maybe backed up with some short courses in rigging, scaff tower building and fork-lift driving) may do more to get people into work, earning money and gaining valuable experience more quickly, without dashing their expectations?

 

There is a view that great LDs / SMs are born, not made and that no amount of training can change that. From personal experience I would agree - I mean, I can light some kinds of shows fairly competently, even quite well. The basic principals of lighting have become very well ingrained in me over the years, but wouldn't dare suggest for a moment that I have the artistic ability to tackle a West End Musical or opera and I don't think any amount of training would change that.

 

I also wonder what colleges do in years where decent applicants are thin on the ground. Do they sacrifice quantity for quality and run a smaller class, or do they just pad out that particular year with a few no-hopers in order to get the fees in?

 

Apart from that, even if you do start your career "at the top", where do you go from there?

 

All thoughts and opinions are welcome as usual, but I'd really like to hear from some employers on this one. They often complain about "overqualified" graduates (although that may just be paranoia about employing people who turn out to know more about the job than they do), but at the same time rarely speak out on the kind of qualifications they actually require, let alone contribute anything towards creating them.

 

OK, let's hear it...

[JimWebber]

Although I don't really know any "Theatre" type graduates that well, my experience of electrical engineering graduates is not brilliant.

 

Although these students may be very well versed in theory aspects, they just do not know how to actually do the job.

 

I teach Royal Navy Students, who are educated to HND/Foundation Degree level, about the maintenance and repair of weapons systems.

 

It amazes me, how many of these students try testing fuses on the "Amps" range of a multi-meter, or do not know what way to turn a bolt, or ... etc. They do not even appear to have any real grasp of their own safety. That is the bit that really scares me.

 

Just recently I had to stop a student checking for a voltage (All be it a low one (12V)) whilst holding on to the metal part of the probe.

 

This is NOT a rant against ALL students. Unfortunately, many are leaving college/university very highly educated, but with a pitiful lack of common sense.

 

One "Theatre" student I met, on their sound module, was not even taught about impedances, Microphone and line level signals. Admittedly it was early in their degree, but I get the impression people are taught how different bits of equipment are used, but know very little about the way they work.

 

In both my Theatre life, and my working life I meet so called trained people who believe that if the connector fits in the socket, it will work, whilst not thinking about what signals are present or required at that connector.

 

(Added weight to not putting 12V/24V/WhateverV down an XLR connector I suppose)

 

I'm ranting now, so will stop, but I will just say that there are some good students/graduates out there, but there are also some bad ones.

[benge]

At my uni (North East Wales Institute) my lectures all used to work in the industry.....

 

One of my lectures still currently works in doing small gig within the local area.

 

As part of my course they teach you the understanding and repairing of sound equipment.

 

However I do agree with the above.... a lot of students aren't taught the basics.

 

As regards to Paul J Need's job at 10 out of 10, I would have loved to applied for it, but I'm in the middle of uni so I don't really want to drop out. I also don't mind starting from the bottom and being someones tea boy, cos I know that sooner or later they'll let me do something more than making tea.

 

Edit..... My remember to spell check before I hit Post

[Stutwo]

The topic title might be a little misleading. I work as General technician and Arts developer at an Arts College in Tyne and Wear, and I'd have to say that if you expect an Arts college to produce capable theatre technicians you're barking up entirely the wrong tree. Perhaps you're talking about further up the education chain but an Arts college is usually a Comprehensive with Arts college specialist status.

 

The technical side of productions or music just isn't in the syllabus or remit of our Arts college. If someone is interested in it, fine but they'd be doing it entirely on their own initiative and without formal support. We have the funding for all the wonderful new kit and technology to produce better shows and music, but that's all it's there for. In my place we haven't had a kid show an interest in lighting/sound or recording for years, which means they had to find someone from the industry (me) to come in and advise/operate/buy the extra gear.

 

I've started looking for people in the college (ages 11-18) to train up to start operating and creating their own shows but as yet it's been a struggle, as teachers who aren't interested in the arts see no reason to release the kids from lessons. I offer out of school training but that goes down like a lead balloon.

[Ken Coker]

A full reply will flow from my PC shortly...........I know an anxious nation will be waiting. In the meantime:

 

It is important to differentiate between education and training.

 

As Lightnix point out, trying to find out what the industry wants is a difficult job - and it is important to realise how wide the industry is.

 

We need to look at the way schools prepare students for work/FE or HE. It is clear from a large number of posts elsewhere in the BR, that:

 

a) The level of careers advice offered in the school system is abysmal.

 

b) Schools are not equipping students with the basic skills they need to progress - either in work or in further education. (I speak here as someone who has just finished five years as a school governor.)

 

More to follow after I have thought for a bit.

 

Cheers

 

Ken

[JimWebber]

I also don't mind starting from the bottem and being someones tea boy, cos I know that sooner or later they'lll let medo something more than making tea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was similar thinking that got me through my apprentiship, whilst I was making tea, and carrying out all the sh**ty jobs, My thinking was that in a few years time, other people would be making ME tea, and I would have an important job to do, whilst teaching MY apprentice.

[Ken Coker]

I meant to post this link last week in another topic, however it might be useful for background here.

 

http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/s...1526008,00.html

 

This is a view of education in the army.

 

Cheers

 

 

Ken

[Andrew C]

However I do agree with the above.... alot of students arent tort the basics. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.......

                         

a) The level of careers advice offered in the school system is abysmal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No change there then!

 

How about an analogy or two:-

 

Student graduates with a degree in nuclear physics; are you going to let him design the next generation of nuclear power stations as his first job?

 

Or a medical student? They are kept on a short leash in a hospital for years before being allowed to "go solo"

(Having seen this lot "partying" I'm surprised anyone survives there first encounter with a junior doctor.)

[Just Some Bloke]

However I do agree with the above.... alot of students arent tort the basics. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like that "a lot" is two words not one, that "aren't" needs an apostrophe to denote a missing letter and that "tort" is a legal term wheras "taught" is the past tense of "teach".

 

:)

 

Seriously, if you want to be a freelancer of any kind, you're going to need to know how to write letters and CVs. If you can't spell it will cut down on the amount of work you will get, because no-one wants to employ a thicko (pardon my French!) and that's what poor spelling suggests. Sorry guys.

 

A little more on topic though:

 

I once worked as a production LX on a band night for which the lighting was designed by a recent graduate (Stage Management course, specialising in Lighting Design). The day before, the LD took ill and had to send down all the focus notes for us to do as he wasn't going to make it himself. 50% of the focus notes were impossible to achieve. He had forgotten about the pros arch; he couldn't fit as many lanterns on a bar as he'd asked for; he had one lantern hitting another lantern; he had stuff too close to other stuff; his patching didn't work etc etc etc.

This guy had PASSED his course but his desgn was un-workable. He needed to have worked in more venues, done more shows and, simply, made the mistakes before and learned from them. Paul's job would have been great for that guy and he might well have made it as an LD after a couple more years' experience. What he didn't need was to be told not to apply for jobs that were "beneath him".

 

How can training establishments do better? Take their students to as many different venues as possible - we always welcome student groups round our venue at no cost. Encourage them to work as casuals and give them time off to do so whenever it's possible - some colleges insist on students who want to become sound engineers when they leave, attending a class on wardrobe rather than taking a casual call on the local pro theatre's sound crew. Make closer links with local venues. Go and see West End and/or No.1 venue productions and make the students write a report on what they learned from them. Why don't all colleges do all of these? Because it's all about funding. None of the above attract extra funding. 100% attendance at all classes does.

 

...and worst of all: when a student passes a course the college get extra funding. This is a huge disincentive to fail anyone. They are better off passing everyone who managed to last out the course, than to say "actually, I'm afraid you're just not up to it". That's why virtually everyone passes nowadays. When that is the case, how can employers possibly know which graduates are any good?

[w/robe]

I lecture on a technical theatre degree as well as employing recent graduates from other courses from time to time.

 

There are good and bad courses and good and bad students and also courses/students who are strong in some areas but not others. I would hope that any student of mine would be clear on which end of the tea making chain they are, but there will always be some who think they know better.

 

If you are about to employ a graduate always talk to the lecturer before you take them on, I would never lie about their abilities to then see them fail. If you want the pick of the graduates from a certain institution then develope a relationship with them, offer to have students on placement (try before you buy) or go in and give specialist lectures.

[Andrew C]

I heard on the radio this morning that one of the teaching unions is calling for the banning of the word "Fail" and want "Deferred Success" to be used instead. It beggers belief! :)

[J Pearce]

That is an insult o the students that put in the work and get good grades.

The thought that someone could do nothing then get a 'deferred success' instead of the fail they deserve is appalling.

[w/robe]

None of the above attract extra funding. 100% attendance at all classes does.

 

...and worst of all: when a student passes a course the college get extra funding.

 

 

 

 

This is not true on the degree course that I work on

[paulears]

I come accross the term NYT in assessed work every day - Not yet passed! WTP - working towards a pass, is another

[Guest lightnix]

I heard on the radio this morning that one of the teaching unions is calling for the banning of the word "Fail" and want "Deferred Success" to be used instead.  It beggers belief!  :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Full story here

 

The government has had the sense to reject the idea. I missed it on the radio, but apparently John Humphries ripped the living p*ss out of the woman suggesting it.