I have a masters degree in music and it payed off without a student loan. I made enough money (teaching) during my 7-year education to spare my parents paying for it.Originally Posted by Brian Vuillemenot
I quit being a professional musician about 10 years ago.
Not any form of education will ensure anyone to become a professional in it...
G
Unless misleading or fraudulant representations are being made regarding future employability, I don't think there is anything morally wrong with teaching photography or any other discipline. Ultimately the student is responsible for his/her choices, no one else. We pick the vocation that seems to be the best fit, and we all takes our chances.
When I attended the drama school at UC Irvine long ago, the primary freshman textbook (written by the dean of the school) essentially advised students NOT to enter the field of acting. The odds of professional success then (and now) were even worse than those faced by professional photographers (only 10% of SAG members have ever worked; only 5% have worked consistently; only 1% make a good living; etc.), and the dean made no bones about it. Similarly, in the freshman pre-med orientation meeting, set in a huge lecture hall filled with 500+ medical school hopefuls, the professor had one in every 10 students stand up. Those few students, the professor said, were the only ones likely to make it to medical school.
A professional education is ultimately a purchase, just like a car, handbag or other material item. It is up to the buyer, and no one else, to research whether it is likely to be worthwhile. Caveat emptor.
You can teach students about professional photography, but they only become professionals through hard work after school is finished. No one graduates as a professional unless they have been building a clientele while in school which is rare.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Some schools are much better than others. The Calif Academy of Art is SF does a pretty good job of connecting students with teachers who are also successful business
examples in their respective subjects. My older brother went to Brooks academy in the
60's and immediately did fairly well in commercial and stock photography. A kid who
swept floors for me, but otherwise got some career encouragement, entered a digitial
program in UC Davis and a year later got a top advertising position in a fortune 500
company. But he could draw and do film photography as well as digital. But the most important advantage he had is that he had people skills and could swim in the corporate environment. Most young people fail at the latter. One thing that many learn too late is that when you're doing your own kind of creative work, you're your own boss; but in commercial photography, you are simply a tool to make your client or his product look better, and you'd better learn the boundary fast. I find both these approaches to photography interesting, but alas, don't have the time or energy to pursue both at the same time anymore.
That's one of the reasons Brooks got sued by former students. However, the details of the settlement are not public.
At least when I went to San Diego State University the school and professors were very up front about the lack of employment opportunities. Despite that, there were many idealists there. Ten years after I graduated there are barely 10% of my fellow graduates in any type of creative profession.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
SNIP
BINGO!
going to any school, undergraduate, or graduate teaches the student how to think.
it gives them tools, that's it ...
Frank,
No. Any trade that is taught at a school level would be 5 years back-dated and obsolete in a real-world job, why would photography be any different?
"I mean maybe a few will succeed as working photographers, but how would you feel about other professional schools cranking out doctors, lawyers, or engineers with such low placement or success rates?"
Someone needs to fill those soul sucking, mind numbing cubicle jobs.
"Isn't it a huge flaw in the argument that these schools provide a professional education when the teachers themselves are struggling professionals who turned to teaching to support themselves?"
At least they are making a paycheck to plan their life around. Photography has always been "a rich man's hobby and a poor man's job."
"So, benefiting and profiting off the hopes and dreams of naive 18-year olds -- ain't that wrong? How would that not be exploitation?"
Simply, they're hiding from the real world, they're not fully grown yet and they do actually realize it.
I don't see any moral problem, as long as the school doesn't promise jobs or mislead students in other ways. There's lots of areas of study that have peaks and valleys in employment and many others that have only valleys. Anyone who studies in these fields knows or should know that the prospect of making a living in them is slim. I would think the prospect of making a living in some aspect of commercial photography is actually better than areas such as theater, music, film, etc.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Frank, I'm surprised at you. I thought you were a better conservative than that. Personal responsibility. The school can give them the knowledge and the tools. It's up to them to take it from there. There's no guarantees. Next thing you'll be whining for the fairness doctrine.
I never went to school for photography but make a decent living at it. It has something to do with the fact that I have a decent intellect, an old fashioned work ethic, and I get up sober every day and go to work.
Huh? I see a bit of a straw-man argument here. I just hit the RIT page and there's no mention whatsoever of a "Professional Photography" program. There's BFA, Advertising Photography; BFA, Fine Art Photography; BFA, Photojournalism; and others. It's one thing if any institution distorts the employment opportunities for their graduates (and any responsible institution will be tracking alums post-graduation). But I see no obvious evidence of that, so I'm not sure I get your point...
<absurdity>Is it then your argument that disciplines that have tough employment criteria must have disingenuous naming for their academic programs? Really, if we get too hard line here we'll end up with degrees in "Unstable Theoretical Physics likely to decay into System Administration or Plumbing."</absurdity>
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks