Isn't teaching "Professional Photography" morally wrong?

[Frank Petronio]

Not in the same way that fine art programs teach painting, sculpture, or fine-art photography -- where the students know going into it that they probably won't find work in their field upfront -- but at the so-called professional schools that teach commercial photography -- like Brooks, Art Center, RIT... isn't it unethical on the school's (and the teacher's) part to pretend that their students are really going to be professional photographers?

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?

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?

So, benefitting and profiting off the hopes and dreams of naive 18-year olds -- ain't that wrong? How would that not be exploitation?

[Walter Calahan]

Yep

[erie patsellis]

The other side of the coin, there are a ton of us that have been shooting for decades, and now find ourselves basically unemployable without a degree, strange as it seems. I can't even get someone to look at a book until they've vetted my background, and the lack of a degree (per their requirements) removes me from the pool right off, without even looking at the body of work in the portfolio.

Unfortunately, a lot studio work is typically done in house these days, and HR depts have to come up with standard set of requirements, which in every case I've found they won't waver from.

So what's a guy that loves photography to do? Get the AAS or AFA/BFA, mostly through demonstrated competence, thankfully. The thought of sitting through basic and intermediate photography classes, being taught by TAs who weren't even born when I started shooting for a living thrills me to sleep.

[Gene McCluney]

While it may be difficult to justify getting a commercial photography degree with assurance of employment. The tools and techniques can be useful if you are primarily interested in self-employment and need "bona-fides" to be considered for a project assignment.

The nuts and bolts of getting the degree does "in no way" indicate that you are qualified to produce a body of work on demand for a given commercial project.

[windpointphoto]

A friend of mine who owned a wedding and portrait studio told me he could run an ad for people to be "professional" photographers and pay them minimum wage and he'd get 200 people apply. An ad hiring garbage collectors for 25.00 per hour would draw squat. It's the ego and status I guess.

[Ash]

The course I'm doing comes under the title of "Foundation Degree Professional Photography". The name changed earlier in the first year to add the "Professional" bit. I'm the student rep so I kinda feel I gotta protect my investment here ;)

After two years you can then top up a third year specialising in the field of photography you wish to enter.

This course is run by a course leader who was a professional photographer for about 20 years or so, including working for album art such as The Jam. He was teaching at a London university before moving to teach this course. Our tutor last year has had a body of work published in SOURCE (a good few pages actually) and has an MA in photography, while our guest lecturers this year are both professional photographers who teach one or two days a week as extra income. One of those lecturers also teaches at Bath university.

We have 'jobs' set by members of a Professional Liaison Group that are required to be finished within a set timespan of anything from a week to 6 hours. We have frequent workshops, lectures on professional practice and copyright. Basically we are getting all the training on how to run ourselves as freelance photographers or else protect ourselves within a business that we may work for.

Alongside this opportunities for 'real' work crop up as well. Some internally for college, such as PR shots for resources partnerships, or in my case photography to be on the college website of the board of governors. Next week I'll be shooting alongside the local newspaper's head photographer, taking photographs at the town's football club that will feature on the "Big Screen" in the town centre - that job is set by the BBC. In the summer I also had a day shadowing an architectural photographer for the English Heritage. All this experience builds up a client base and contacts, and any work produced gratis for these people has benefited people who completed the course and such were given paid assignments after leaving the course.

In a sense it depends on the course. You could say the same for any profession "those who can't, teach" however even our technician is a wedding photographer and spends his weekends doing those jobs as he has always done.

Students that finished the second year of this course have already been enrolled either on the final year of the degree at the main university campus, or else are doing their own thing. Once student received an opportunity last year to photograph at STEAM museum. His images have now been bought into a deal for 130,000 postcards to be sold at the museum in the foyer. He has already started selling himself as a photographer and he has only just started the third year.

As a university course, we can also have our work as part of an exhibition. Last year we had a small local exhibition that received coverage in the local paper, and at the end of the second year the "FREE RANGE" exhibition in London is also available for our participation - we've just started looking at prices and logistics.

I'm on the start of the second year and my CV already has English Heritage, BBC, Canon (as I work for them part time as a sales rep) and a number of smaller nightclub venues I have done work for.

Because of the layout of the course, tonight I'll be shooting at a venue for a contact of mine - and I can tie in the 3-4 hours I spend taking photographs for him as evidence to show my engagement with the 'real' world of photography.

[Ed Richards]

> Not in the same way that fine art programs teach painting, sculpture, or fine-art photography -- where the students know going into it that they probably won't find work in their field upfront

Don't you believe it. They each believe they will be the exception.

I like the theory that MFA programs are run by the restaurant industry to assure a steady supply of educated waiters who will work cheap.

[BrianShaw]

So, benefitting and profiting off the hopes and dreams of naive 18-year olds -- ain't that wrong? How would that not be exploitation?

Sounds like a pyramid scheme to me. Education should be outlawed!

[Brian Vuillemenot]

It's not just photography programs- it seems like the percentage of graduates who work in the fields they trained for is pretty low in many different disciplines. The one exception is health care, where it is quite easy to find a job. Having gone to grad school as a biomedical researcher, very few of the graduates from my program (probably about one third) continue on in research. And this is after four years of undergrad and five years in grad school. The same is true with music majors- how many music majors graduate and actually become professional musicians?

The higher education industry exists to make money, not to prepare students for careers. It's pretty shocking to me that many college tuitions are now about 50 grad per year. Where is the money going?!? And after a student (or his parents) invest the 200 grand for a bachelor's degree in music, how long will it take to make the money back waiting tables at Starbuck's?

[Ash]

The higher education industry exists to make money, not to prepare students for careers. It's pretty shocking to me that many college tuitions are now about 50 grad per year. Where is the money going?!? And after a student (or his parents) invest the 200 grand for a bachelor's degree in music, how long will it take to make the money back waiting tables at Starbuck's?

Student Loans in the UK are only repayable once you hit a wage bracket suitable for the money to be repaid. In this sense if you got a degree and never got past minimum wage for the rest of your life, after 40 years your loan would be written off.

[Michael Alpert]

Frank,
I understand your outrage. I wonder, though, at what age a person becomes fully responsible for decision-making. If it's not eighteen, what age is it? Since students go to these schools voluntarily, albeit sometimes without complete information, I would say that your "morally wrong" language might be applicable to the student as self-deceiver as well as the school as trickster. I have an undergraduate degree in "Humanities" with a concentration in "Medieval Studies," so you can guess the practicality of that schooling. Still, I learned how I wanted to live during those years, and I feel that I was educated (or at least semi-educated) in the art of thinking. I gained tremendously from my experience of the school, my classmates, my teachers, and the city-life I was enamored with. So, given my background, I personally am disinclined to be too absolute in my condemnation of any legitimate school.

[Thomas Greutmann]

I don't think teaching a profession - any profession - is morally wrong. At least if the teaching holds up to the standards of the profession.

Neither is learning a profession and becoming a professional morally wrong.

But there is always a risk that you will not find work in the profession that you have learned, for various reasons: too many professionals looking for too few jobs available, professions that become obsolete over time (typewriter mechanics), and probably a dozen other reasons, mostly supply-and-demand related. It does not happen only in photography.

Can you prevent students from choosing the "wrong" profession? By "wrong" I mean a profession where you have a high risk of not finding a job. I don't think so. Students at age 18-20 will choose what they are really interested in, what may be socially acceptable in the peer group or what advisors (good ones and bad ones) will advise. It just so happens that certain professions (photography among them) are a lot more socially acceptable within peer groups than others (nerdier ones, such as mechanical engineering, computer science and so on). Students will hardly ever factor in the supply-and-demand of the profession into their decisions. I don't think they really can (I certainly couldn't when I was a student and was making decisions about my future) and I don't think they should.

The best thing a student can go for is a profession that she/he is really, really interested in. Students driven by their motivation will have a high chance of succeeding in their profession, whatever the profession and whatever the supply-and-demand is. Even if it is a nerdy profession (which I happen to have learned). And a photography student driven by her/his motivation will succeed as well.

However, I see there is a surprisingly high percentage of students who are not really, really interested in any particular profession. They will be more likely to go with the peer group standards. A German comedian has coined the term "Generation IMM" for this group, IMM stands for "Irgendwas mit Medien", something with media. Photography, art design, multimedia design and so on would would fall into this category. And you probably see more supply than demand in these fields than in others.

But I don't think teaching media professions is immoral. As I mentioned, I believe that success depends on motivation, and teachers will not be able to judge the motivational drive of their students. They should not even try to. They should teach their profession in a professional way and give every student a chance. People/students should and will make decisions about their, and sometimes "wrong" decisions.

[Dan Fromm]

Frank,

Staunch libertarian that you are you should know better than to suggest thinking for others. Professional photography is not the only trade that may be going down the tubes. Useful insights can be gained from other fields that have been way way down the tubes for quite a while.

Here's an example: Systematic ichthyology has been down the tubes for a couple of decades. I remember going to the Fish Behavior meetings in 1983. They tried to have a job fair, failed. All sellers, no buyers. Not one buyer.

There are at least two orders of magnitude more new entrants into doctoral programs per year than there are job openings per year. And every one of those kids knows the odds. Each also believes that he/she/it has the stuff (brains, determination, stamina, connections, luck) needed to make a career in the field. They're all deluded. They can't all be right. All the evidence is that most are mistaken.

Why not let them try? So what if most will fail? Aren't the decision and the resources spent failing theirs?

Cheers,

Dan

[ASRafferty]

I'm not sure I see a moral problem with offering an education in how to work at something (and Ash's post is admirably thorough about everything that can mean), as long as one stops short of promising a prospective student that graduation brings with it employment.

Granted, many programs don't stop short, and, for what it's worth, are being sued on a regular basis for promising what they couldn't possibly deliver (a job!) -- and are being sued so frequently that many state legislatures have taken the initiative to criminalize such promises.

By the same token, though, many programs are exceedingly careful about managing student expectations with regard to what the student can gain (and, again, as Ash says, it's considerable). Nonetheless, some students can't be dissuaded from the conviction that graduation entitles them to a living. They lose their lawsuits.

Learning something that would make you valuable to someone willing to pay you for what you know doesn't magically make that person appear. I don't think the fact that some schools and some students gloss that distinction between "employability" and "employment" is a particularly strong argument for doing away with programs that do what they promise to do. It may be a pretty strong argument for doing away with students who expect the schools to make the impossible possible. But the moral responsibility for staying in reasonable touch with reality lies on both sides.

[Louie Powell]

I'm an engineer (now retired). In all candor, I only learned two things in engineering school that were useful in a career in engineering - - but were they ever essential things!

The first is that you have to be prepared to work your ass off.

The second is that you need to find a way to have fun doing it.

And I suspect that applies in any other professional situation - if the school inspires a passion about the field (so that they will have fun) and helps the student develop the self-discipline need to work hard (self-discipline itself may not be teachable), then its up to the student to build a career.

[aduncanson]

I live on the edge of a commercial area. Lately I have noticed that there are probably 7 or 8 vocational "colleges" within a mile of my home. I suspect that most of them deal in disappointed dreams, confer useless certificates and survive off of federal funding and student loans. I read that one of the the worst fields may be that of professional chef where students graduate with huge amounts of debt and maybe an entry level cooking job at a "casual dining" chain restaurant.

I can easily imagine that photography could be worse. What to do?

[John Brady]

Hi Frank, when I was seventeen (a long time ago) my father came in my darkroom to chat. I told him I had been doing a lot of soul searching and had come to the conclusion that I wanted to go to RIT and study photography. Without hesitation he looked at me and said "I'll buy you a shovel and teach you to dig ditches you'll make more money". We never talked about it again. I was a pretty good ditch digger for a while though.

He's still alive, maybe he could be a guidance counselor for some of these young bright eyed kids.
John
www.timeandlight.com

[Daniel_Buck]

colleges (especially art colleges) as far as I am concerned are a money making business, and not much else. I went to Art school for general multimedia, and while I did learn some things, majority of what I learned was things that were not directly taught, because I took initiative to meet with professors and make friends with them, and learn from them directly. Fortunately for me, I had most of the tuition and things paid for by scholarships :-) I am working in the multimedia field now, as a 3d/2d visual effects artist on commercials and films. But alot of people from the schools I have a feeling are not working in their chosen field.

[Andy Eads]

I'm a bit perplexed by this thread. I'm a professional photographer. I got my degree at Brooks. I went in with my eyes wide open and got what I was after. I've been employed in photography since graduation in 1976. I'm not rich but I was able to put two kids through college and enjoy a decent standard of living.
The first week at Brooks we were asked to look to the person on our left then right. Only one of us would be employed in photography five years hence. They were straight up about it. As far as teachers are concerned, the group in the 70's had both in-depth knowledge and they were truely teachers. That is, professionals who understood how to teach relavent lessons so the students would retain the information.
I think one problem with the notion of a "professional" education is that you will be fully prepared at the end of the course of study. My father held a Ph.D. and impressed on this young boy that learning was life-long. The burden of being a life-long learner is on the individual, not the school.
Lastly, I was in the crop of Vietnam era veterans making their way through school. 80% of us graduated compared to the 20 to 25% of the 18 year olds who started. We knew exactly what we wanted and how to get it. We wanted to get on with our lives.
I have no regrets and lots of good will toward my alma mater and my "professional education."

[robert lyons]

i do not think the question is really is it morally wrong......but what exactly can one expect from studying and in what context are they endeavoring to secure a higher level of education?
in terms of teaching photography it has been mandatory at the college level to have an M.F.A. (the exception is if you are a very successful artist) .....and i believe that there is a lot to be said for studying and being part of an M.F.A. program. i think one must look at the their own reasons for becoming part of a program......sometimes it is for access to hardware, sometimes to have a sense of community...and sometimes to "create" the time in which to work.
all this being said i would like to pose a question....how many people would be interested in pursuing an advanced degree (MFA for example) if it were possible to do so in a low-residency program so you could continue with the rest of your life at the same time?

[Geert]

The higher education industry exists to make money, not to prepare students for careers. It's pretty shocking to me that many college tuitions are now about 50 grad per year. Where is the money going?!? And after a student (or his parents) invest the 200 grand for a bachelor's degree in music, how long will it take to make the money back waiting tables at Starbuck's?

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.

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

[Eric Leppanen]

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.

[Kirk Gittings]

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.

[Drew Wiley]

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.

[Gordon Moat]

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 (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[jnantz]

SNIP



Not any form of education will ensure anyone to become a professional in it...

G

BINGO!

going to any school, undergraduate, or graduate teaches the student how to think.
it gives them tools, that's it ...

[Paul Fitzgerald]

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.

[Brian Ellis]

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.

[Jim Galli]

So, benefitting and profiting off the hopes and dreams of naive 18-year olds -- ain't that wrong? How would that not be exploitation?



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.

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.

[John Whitley]

isn't it unethical on the school's (and the teacher's) part to pretend that their students are really going to be professional photographers?

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>

[W K Longcor]

OK -- my knowledge is about school 40 + years back. I got my BS from RIT in "Professional Photography" in the 1960's. Much of the photographic data taught was REALLY out of date - but it WAS a good foundation. The classes in "Business" were AWFUL -- had NOTHING to do with running my own business. But, I had a foundation and learned. I continued to take classes and seminars over the years. I did own my own studio -- doing commercial -- product photography. Most of what I did -- you have never seen. I did have some ads in consumer magazines. Got to tell you it was a thrill having a full page photo in an ad in National Geographic! So now, I am retired ( couldn't face working digital -- loved my 4x5 and 8x10) -- I am still working, in a family business, that has nothing to do with photography.
Not everyone who wants to get into the photogrphy business will succeed. But, I truly believe that those with a formal education have a better chance of making it than those who don't -- and that is all most of us can ask for -- a chance.

By the way, the VERY, VERY best class I ever took at RIT was NOT a photo class. It was a "public speaking" class. My memory isn't what it should be -- I think the professor's name was Mr. Gray. If he is still around, and anybody knows him -- tell him he had more to do with this student's successes in life than any other college professor!;)

[C. D. Keth]

By the way, the VERY, VERY best class I ever took at RIT was NOT a photo class. It was a "public speaking" class. My memory isn't what it should be -- I think the professor's name was Mr. Gray. If he is still around, and anybody knows him -- tell him he had more to do with this student's successes in life than any other college professor!;)

Mr. Gray doesn't ring a bell but, honestly, I avoid public speaking like the plague. I don't even like saying the phrase out loud.:D

It's good to hear that RIT has turned it around, especially with the advent of digital imaging, to be one of the schools that can teach technology as it becomes available to the professional, not 5 years after. They generally do it with lots of donations from companies to the point that RIT often gets new camera donated before they are available for sale. They're not new tech but not long ago RIT received a donation of 30-odd leica rangefinders from leica. They came complete with a CLA and clean bills of health.

Anyway, I think W K Longcor has a point that someone going into it with a good formal education has the best chance of making it, with lots of hard work and dedication being a given.

I went to RIT for film production and while a degree does nothing for you in the film world, the things that taught me did allow me a good chance to go out and get started as a camera assistant right out of the gates. In fact, I started assisting when I was still in school. Not everyone from my class is doing so well, I'll admit. Even now, a year and a half after graduation, a lot of them are working at starbucks or waiting tables. A fairly select few of us are working our asses off doing what we want to do.

[W K Longcor]

I might add that not all "photography students" who don't make it as photographer are failures. Seems that I remember a fellow student at RIT in the 1960's was having some financial troubles ( some things never change) -- he got a job in a fast food joint. Since he was a college man -- and somewhat smater than the rest in the place, he became assistant manager. He got so busy - and was making some good money, that he quit school. By the time I got my degree, he was a full manager in a burger place. I heard a rumor some years later that he owned several franchises for these burger places in up state NY. Now, If he didn't go to RIT maybe he would have just gotten a job as a photogs assistant and never amounted to much. ???:rolleyes:

[Photojeep]

Ok, here goes...

I am the Commercial Photography Program Director at the College of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas, Nevada. I am a successful commercial photographer and I've been told I'm a pretty good teacher.

In my duties as Program Director, I am regularly asked what employment opportunities exist in commercial photography. I tell them simply, "they get out of it what they put into it. There are no guarantees. Period." I tell them of the successes of past students but that they also worked their butts off to get where they are now. I tell them that I had to work mine off for over five years before I started making any decent money in photography! I also tell them that even if they go into the medical fields or business or engineering there are no guarantees they will get a job. But does this mean no one should study medicine? Or accounting? Or law? (Okay, I'll give you law.)

Is being a commercial photographer a hard way to make a living? You bet your ass. Are they going to become "professional photographers" when they graduate? Who knows; at least not right away. Our profession's biggest competition is not one another. It is the kid in the mail room who just got a new digital camera and will shoot photos for his boss for $20 and a pat on the back from the boss.

Frank, if you are saying I am immoral because I teach my students the skills they will need to create commercial photoraphs, you are simply wrong. Morality has nothing to do with it. If I am wrong about your premise, please correct me.

Our school is state funded and thanks to our current state budget kerfuffel, our entire college may have to cut our programs by as much as 25% (which will make education haters happy I suppose). Our college is not a money making enterprise. It was never intended to be and never will be (find me a governmental institution that is a money making institution). But if a school exists to make money, it has every right to. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head making them sign up for classes. If students are promised things the school cannot deliver, that would constitute fraud and there are laws to deal with that.

We teach people photography. Some of our students continue and go into the commercial photography field and some go sell mopeds. What one does with one's education is their business. But to say it is immoral is ridiculous.

If any student anywhere thinks that by getting a degree in ANYTHING means they are being guaranteed employment they are either sadly mistaken or have been lied to.

Best regards,
Randy Becker

[Dave Aharonian]

What Randy just said!

I teach a course at a photography school and in no way do I or does the program give students the impression that they will emerge at the end as professional photographers. As somebody earlier mentioned, they are told the reality of how difficult it is to be a photographer and my understanding is that this information is discussed when students are applying to the program. I tell my students that out of my class of 40 people, only two of us are now full-time working photographers.

Its anybody's choice to attend the program and they are told repeatedly about the reality of being a photographer.

Unethical? No way. But I do tell me students it may be unrealistic!

[Frank Petronio]

One might expect an ambitious graduate of Southern Nevada to head to Vegas to shoot weddings and glamourous ladies, and those from the midwest to go barnstorming as school portrait photographers.... all honest and viable jobs, good for them.

But back to Brooks, RIT, Art Center, and the other "big name" schools that emphasize the big-city advertising and editorial photography work in their recruiting and publicity. My point is that those students should probably be suing those schools for misrepresentation -- for "selling" naive 17- and 18-year olds (and their parents) on $40K per year, four year plus "educations" that are nearly meaningless in the real world.

If only a handful of every class "makes it" then how can they feel good about what they are doing?

Or the reality that the teachers themselves have turned to teaching because the business itself is so tight?

It seems to me that perpetuating the myth of a school promising success is wrong.

Kudos to those of you who set the kids straight. But if it's an expensive school, I bet it is funny how students don't hear those hard cruel facts until... after tuition is paid ;-)

FWIW, the only person I could sue over my photo education (or lack of) is looking at me in the mirror...

[Gary L. Quay]

I have a degree in English / Creative Writing, with extensive coursework on history, philosophy, and art. Do you want fries with that?

But, seriously, we all want to change the world when we're young, and why deny someone's dreams over some silly thing like reality. Reality isn't where aspirations come from. If we were all realists, we'd never have landed on the moon. Heck, we may never have come down from the trees. Twenty years after graduating from Penn State, I just completed my first competently written novel, and I produce lovely photographs that make people say, "Wow." My day job workin' fer the railroad pays the bills. My college money was well spent, even though I don't yet, and may never, make a living off of what I went to school for. The fact that I graduated college at all has opened doors for me along the way, and I have all of that knowledge to draw from.

It would be morally wrong to deny anyone the chance to dream of what could be.

--Gary

[rappersdelight]

morally wrong? no way...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqXm6NS8HIc

[Frank Petronio]

Gary -- I'm talking about "commercial" photography programs. People going into the fine arts (or creative writing) know what they're getting into in most cases -- but the "commercial" programs represent career paths... at least in the way they are marketed.

[Louie Powell]

Gary -- I'm talking about "commercial" photography programs. People going into the fine arts (or creative writing) know what they're getting into in most cases -- but the "commercial" programs represent career paths... at least in the way they are marketed.

Frank has a valid point. I'm sure that the schools would be very quick to assert that they aren't making claims that their graduates are 'guaranteed successful careers', but that still doesn't mean that the kids (or their parents) who read the promotional material from the schools aren't arriving that that conclusion. Advertising is often misleading, and often because the target audience wants to be mislead.

For example, watch TV for a while for one of those prescription medication ads. The FDA requires them to include all the precautionary disclaimers (and in some cases, the disclaimers occupy more of the ad time than does the promotional content), and yet viewers who are desperate for a solution for their problem tend to not see/hear the disclaimers and only hear the part that 'promises' a cure.

[neil poulsen]

After a fulfilling and profitable career as a statistician with all the formal education I could ever want, I got a two-year AAS degree in Professional Photography from the only institution in Oregon that offers such a degree. (All the other degrees are in fine arts.)

It was perfect, the right length of time and just the right focus. I had a blast! My primary purpose was to be more involved in photography during my later years, and to make some money along the way. But I also felt that this program would provide a good foundation for fine-arts. After all, I would be getting all the fundamentals to do any kind of photography that I desired. This program included lighting, stock, field photography, portraiture, business aspects photography, web-building, both color and black and white processing, photographic styles, digital, and the list goes on. My concentration was architecture, I interned with a local architectural photographer, and I've had a very rewarding relationship with that individual over the last few years. Frankly (no pun intended!), I think that fine-arts programs go a bit overboard on the search for thyself stuff.

We were told in the orientation meeting prior to classes, all this degree really does is teach you how to be good assistants! That's honesty. But in any case, isn't it up to the students after being prepared with the fundamentals, to make what they can of any degree? Isn't it up to high school grads and others to seek information from their community about what directions in college may or may not lead to employability? (I always offer this advice to young people.) Aren't we all in charge of our own education? Should we be led, or should we lead? Do colleges and universities really offer curricula in areas where there's no student interest? (I doubt it.)

I think that the future of any profession depends on the creativity of it's members. Photography as a profession is going through sea changes. As one photographer observed, it's becoming a cottage industry where semi-professionals step in with their digital cameras and provide many of the images that people need. The high bar in some photographic fields is how much one can afford. High end digital equipment is very expensive.

I do think that colleges and universities could do a better job of tailoring their education to current needs. At the same time, it's my experience that community colleges are very sensitive to current needs, offering programs in any number of employable professions.

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . back to Brooks, RIT, Art Center, and the other "big name" schools that emphasize the big-city advertising and editorial photography work in their recruiting and publicity. My point is that those students should probably be suing those schools for misrepresentation -- for "selling" naive 17- and 18-year olds (and their parents) on $40K per year, four year plus "educations" that are nearly meaningless in the real world.

...

It was not too many years ago that some former students did sue Brooks. In that process, Brooks lost their accreditation. I know that ended in a settlement, so the details might no longer be publicly available. In that time, a friend of mine was dating one of the students who was suing Brooks, which is how I heard of the matter.

In the situation of Art Center, I know that school well, since I went up their numerous times for seminars while I attended SDSU. I had considered going into a graduate program there, but the amount of cash required to do so is quite high. They are very corporate, and overall do well with corporate placement of graduates. However, they never indicated to me that graduating from Art Center was any guarantee of success. I don't think you could compare their ads to Brooks, and I never saw them as misleading. Obviously there are many students who go to Art Center imagining the riches awaiting them upon graduation, but I have never seen any literature from Art Center that implied a guarantee of success.

When I was still attending National Portfolio Day, where the top 30 (or so) art schools in North America do their recruiting, I never heard any of those schools over promise on results. All of them informed potential students about how wonderful the facilities and faculty were at the schools. Sometimes certain significant graduates were pointed out, perhaps with a mention of company hiring someone. Success rates were given as percentages, though I don't recall ever hearing placement/employment claims greater than 1/3 (and that was the Art Center Transportation Design department).

One needs to be somewhat of an idealist to even consider a creative profession. A little too much of reality, and many will not even bother. Once graduated, a little more reality pushes many out of creative professions. This career path eats people up, and spits them out. Start out an idealist with lots more money, and they will look at the top schools, but they can be chewed up and spit out just the same later on down the road.

All higher education schools and universities are in the business of making money. They need to advertise to attract potential students, and keep the cash flow going. Creative and Art schools are not the exception in advertising, even if the career path is tenuous.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Gary L. Quay]

Gary -- I'm talking about "commercial" photography programs. People going into the fine arts (or creative writing) know what they're getting into in most cases -- but the "commercial" programs represent career paths... at least in the way they are marketed.

I don't think this changes anything about what I said. We all should enter into programs like these with realistic expectations.

--Gary

[AutumnJazz]

This thread is actually incredibly useful to me...as I'm in high school, and I want to become a photojournalist.

Would going to RIT or Syracuse be an intelligent choice?

(I would like to also major in Chemistry, in case I am unable to get work as a photojournalist...)

[David A. Goldfarb]

One NYT pj that I know studied photography at NYU, but says he wishes he had majored in history or poli sci, which would have been more useful to him.

[AutumnJazz]

Well, I love history and politics so I'll likely take as many classes in them as I can.

Is there such a thing as a triple-major? :P

[ASRafferty]

I got my doctorate at Syracuse 30 years ago, but I think tackling a "triple major" would be just as likely to kill you now as it would have been when I was there. :)

I started in the Newhouse School, thinking it would prepare me for a career in broadcasting. After my first religion course (required), I fell in love with thinking about the stuff I learned there. I resolved right then that I'd do whatever I had to do to pay the rent, because I knew I'd never be able to stop, whether it earned me a living or not. Wouldn't have mattered a damn what Syracuse had promised me about my future employability.

Wherever you wind up, I hope you fall in love too. That's much more important.

[Michael Alpert]

Frank,

I gather from all the responses to your post that the commercial photography schools have been quite forthright and worthwhile for many people. In higher education, only one candidate out of six who begins teaching on a tenure track is actually awarded tenure (this year the ratio is probably much less favorable!). It's far from an ideal world, and I wish there were a better system in place. At the same time, I find that college undergraduates are much more savvy about their prospects (or lack thereof) than you are, apparently, assuming. This year all the MBAs who thought they were golden have discovered what tin means.

[Kuzano]

Frankly, when you consider the majority of careers in our society that truly need very little Higher Education, I think you can extend your question to the whole of higher education. Granted, there are things I would not want to have a person doing OJT (On the Job Training) for me, such as NeuroSurgery (Appendectomy OK).

However, when you take many occupations and figure out the break even point on the cost of education, vs. the point when recovery is met and one starts making more money, there are people in the world with sheepskins on the wall who may potentially break even on the cost of their own education, just prior to retirement. Particularly if, since they are sold on Higher Ed, they then ram it down the throats of 2 or 3 of their own progeny, at least for the first couple of years.

Sadly, higher education has been sold to us as an assurance of higher incomes and higher stature in society for hundreds of years. Breaking that thought process may be insurmountable.

Yes, it is immoral, the way some photography schools teach student. About as immoral as our whole system of Higher Education around the world. Waddaya Gonna Do???

Non Degreed, and ahead of the game for that decision.

I would like to clarify here that I worked on the U of O campus for over 15 years, not as an employee in higher education, but as a financial officer in an institution working with personal finances of educators, other employees of the University, Grad students and others paid within the Higher Ed system. I also continued to work with the personal finances of these people as they moved from academia into post education occupations.

[Frank Petronio]

Michael, I only took a couple of photo classes, it was never a major so I'm not disappointed. My reason for the thread was to bust the balls of a former Dean at RIT ;-) You know, from back when deans had balls.

Autumn Jazz -- yes I've heard the same thing from other photo-journalists, study History or Poli Sci or a subject to photograph, not how to photograph.... There is a blog on the Magnum site with advice about this very subject. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone at Magnum with a "proper" photo education.

[AutumnJazz]

My real reason for wanting to get a PJ degree at RIT or Syr is that I've heard that they have great intern-type opportunities, and that they have great speakers who actually know the field.

I prefer to teach myself how to photograph, which is what I've always done. All anyone ever taught me was how to use a camera, although I do go to museums...a lot, which I'm sure has helped me with my composition.

I want to go to school for PJ for some experience, and possibly a better chance at getting a job because of opportunities to work for papers or something.

[Frank Petronio]

Read these:

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/11/17/the-perfect-storm-has-arrived/

Basically, photo-journalism is changing faster than most photographers and certainly the newspapers, news media, and more than ever the schools can react to.

Since even the top PJ people are dumbfounded, I really wouldn't place much stock in some retired PJs safely ensconced in a teaching job to show you the way.

It's a brand new market -- just like the 1930s when modern PJ began -- and whoever finds the best way first will survive.

[AutumnJazz]

Well, honestly, something I would love to do would be to get together with a group of like-minded people to cover world events through the written word, photography, and video, through some kind of open/free website. (That is to say we'd start a website to provide news for free.) The 5D Mk. II, at this time, would be my ideal PJ camera.

But at this time, I'm poor and in high school, and I've been watching how the field is changing...I still have another year before I start applying for schools.

So, where are the good history programs? :)

[ASRafferty]

Well, as long as you brought up Syracuse, check out its Maxwell School of Public Affairs... right across the street from Newhouse. :)

[Frank Petronio]

Middlebury has some of the best historians, economist, poli-sci, environmental sciences -- they excel at international studies -- everything your need -- if you're smart enough!

Vassar is pretty good in this regard as well.

[Photojeep]

I also forgot to mention earlier that I have a BS in commercial photography from SIU, Carbondale, Illinois. I was never promised ANYTHING from them. My counselor was a joke and didn't stay long there anyway. I can also say that my photography degree actually helped my shooting career.

I also encourage everyone I meet to take different courses in different subjects and to attend as many guest lectures as they can. Exposing yourself to different people's idea and thoughts is a great way to improve yourself. Could I have gotten as far as I have with no formal photography education? Possibly. Would I be the wonderfully rounded insiteful person I am today without my formal photographic education? :D Probably not.

Yes it's true that photographers do not necessarily need formal education in the "photographic sciences" to succeed. However, it has been my experience in doing this for over 30 years that those who "did it on their own" generally have to go a longer time before they are/act/feel competitent in the craft of photography. It is my opinion that those who learn the nuts and bolts of the craft of photography are farther along than those who have not. Obvious over-generalization but true nonetheless. Once you have "internalized" the craft, then you can concentrate on what the client wants: an image that satisfies their particular need. Now, just taking classes or graduating won't by itself take one there. But they will be much closer than if they had not pursued the formal path. There are obvious exceptions but again, this holds true.

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that whether or not one actually uses the education/training from one's degree, employers of all stripes are using the fact that one completed a degree as a "litmus test" for job applicants. Perhaps it is a way to see if a candidate has the wherewithall to actually finish something that takes more than casual effort. Several of my family members have been told that they needed a college degree to be in the running; and it didn't even matter what the degree was in.

Oh and Frank, here in 'Vegas we actually shoot more than weddings and showgirls! We've been known to shoot real "commercial" stuff too! ;)

[Lenny Eiger]

In some respects it's valid and in others, it's a dumb question. I have a Masters degree from Pratt, where many of the lessons I learned about Photography were also lessons in life. I don't regret it one bit. I also taught for many years at Parsons, Cooper, New School and the Academy of Art. I still teach workshops and mentor students.

I am responding to the question in how it applies to the Fine Arts - only. While my father was a successful commercial photographer, it's just not my focus, and its a very different conversation.

There are 2 questions that follow from the "is it moral" query. The first is "What is life about?" If you're answer is that life is about money, then Photography, and Art in general is a stupid, or simply foolish, exercise. So is most of what people do on the weekend, whether it be fixing up old cars or painting a room in the house...

The other question is "What is the value of culture?" When we look back at ancient civilizations we often say - look how advanced they were - look at the level of their technology and look at the level of their art. History books are filled with pictures of Greek pottery and sculptures by Michaelangelo. These are noted as examples of advanced level of culture. Ours, by comparison, falls very short, most especially in the US.

If we look at the pursuit of art, or culture in any form, as valuable then why not include the pursuit of Photography? Of course, that ought to be Photography that has some meaning, some use for people, other than the photographer, to understand something about themselves. Conversely, if we throw out photography, we can throw out the theatre, dance, literature, except for non-fiction, certainly philosophy, etc. I think the world gets pretty dull. We don't move forward as humanity if we don't think about what we are doing.

What's wrong is not that the teaching of the subtleties of a medium of art isn't necessarily, or even likely, financially rewarding. What's wrong is that our vapid, lackluster culture doesn't value it properly. That's where the anger and demand for change ought to be directed.

Among other things, Dorothea Lange taught us about the nobility of the human spirit, Robert Frank showed us some of our hippocracies, Walker Evans showed us the true struggle of the people he photographed, Frederick Evans, showed us how to work with light as a subject, O'Sullivan and Watkins showed us the grandeur and beauty of the Western landscape. These things are valuable. How would anyone know how to connect with the land we live in without someone taking you on a hike and showing you a few of the world's marvels? Without it, we would just have oil derricks everywhere, and where there aren't oil derricks, we'd have strip malls. There has to be another option.

To accomplish the depth of the photography these and other photographers accomplished one has to learn to develop some depth inside of ones' self. How does one do that as a photography student? You do it the way every other artist does it. You study, you learn your History, and you acquire a mentor who can guide you.

My favorite portrait I ever had the fortune to take was a 90 second exposure. You can look right into the woman's eyes and fall in. You can know everything there is to know about her at that point in her life from just looking at the photo. You can feel the closeness between us, and maybe learn something about your own ability for intimacy. I couldn't have taken this with the words, "You sit still, I'll be back in a minute." To get her to sit still for 90 seconds, I had to be still for that long, in fact, we breathed together, slower and slower. As a result the both of us became so present in our moment that something quite magical happened. You can like my work, you don't have to, you can agree or disagree with my methods, and my aesthetic. However, one has to agree that when the magic of Fine Art happens it often has something to do with presence. It's not about how many pictures one can snap in how few seconds. Ultimately, like it or not, at the end of the day its about what wisdom you, as a photographer or not, have to share with the rest of us.

Who's going to explain that to the next generation if we don't have institutions that will teach it?


Lenny

[AutumnJazz]

Ours, by comparison, falls very short, most especially in the US.

I take it you've never been to the Wadsworth or New Britain Museum of American Art?

[Donald Miller]

I railed against the night until I found that the darkness was within me.

[claudiocambon]

In some way I agree with you Frank, but I don't think the teaching of photography is wrong in principle, and certainly not in this climate, as long as it is an overall education in the aesthetic fundamentals of the medium. In other words, as long as a student is learning what it takes to make a good picture in general, rather than become a trained monkey in a particular field that is ceasing to exist as a market while they study, he/she should develop some of the visual flexibility, intelligence and self-awareness that it takes to survive in a rapidly shifting market that has never been that easy to survive in.

I agree with much of what Lenny says above. I will add that my teachers at Yale taught me as a beginning undergrad to use only one kind of b+w film and one developer (TriX rated at 100 or 200, D76 1:1 at 68 for 8-9 minutes!) and to shoot mostly in available light, but that was fine, because they taught me something far more important within that simple framework that I could not, and have not gotten anywhere else: to be utterly honest and tough with myself about what it takes to make a good photograph, to have visual integrity. This has been a priceless lesson I will take to the grave. I was educated to see, and, from there on out, whatever I did with that was up to me. I can't say that anyone ever made any promises about what kind of success I would have, and I would still maintain that any teacher worth his/her salt should transmit a healthy skepticism to their students. Anyone making false promises about what awaits their students should of course be thrown to the dogs.

I stopped my MFA because already in the mid '90s I saw that retiring faculty were replaced with 3 different new, hungry MFA's who each would teach one class. There is a problem when schools churn out more MFA's than there will be teaching positions for, but is that a photo department's fault, or somewhat the larger fault of a society that can't make room for someone with advanced training? To me, being overqualified and underemployed is a symptom of a society that does not value what it itself makes, and can make.

Blame should, however, in part be laid at the feet of the overall institutions who charge so much, who have outpaced inflation by 500% in the last few decades. Another reason I stopped my MFA was because I thought 40K in debt would be the end of my professional art career, not the beginning that the school said it would be.

[Lenny Eiger]

I take it you've never been to the Wadsworth or New Britain Museum of American Art?

You misread me - or I mispoke.

I have been to those places. I've also been to the American Wing at the Met, one of my favorites, and lots of other places. Almost all the photographers I mentioned were from here. I don't mean to cast any dispersions at American Art in general, or at anyone working in a serious manner today. There is a truly rich history. I love the PhotoSecession, the American Luminists and a whole host of others. I wish I was around to go on the King and Wheeler expeditions with O"Sullivan... and the Moran brothers... etc,. etc.

However, that said, the museums and most galleries are all agog with post-modernism. On occasion its interesting, and I can appreciate certain attempts - but to the exclusion of everything else? These days, everyone with a cellphone wants to call themselves a photographer. The number web sites one can visit is astronomical, but how many of them are worth the time to look? How many photographs have you seen lately that were informed - by anything? That spoke to us of - what? Endless snapshots. Endless sunsets.

On occasion, there is a serious photographer, and its a joy. But, as Frank will tell you, they often aren't supported financially by our culture. People are buying "art" from Kincade. The lack of art education has left them not knowing the difference. How much money has the Guggenheim given Mark Klett? To re-photograph! An interesting idea, certainly, but worth a show at the Museum of Modern Art? Is he the next Walker Evans? I don't think so.

I'm with you as far as History is concerned, 100%, but I think things things have gone awry.

Lenny

[paulr]

What could be morally wrong besides overselling a student's chances of landing a job?

Granted a lot of programs do this (in many fields) and it's shady, and it creates a buyer beware situation--but I don't see how it's specific to any one field of study.

You want training for a type of career, you seek it out. How lucrative that career is is your problem, not the school's.