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.
Last edited by Michael Alpert; 20-Nov-2008 at 13:53.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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."
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?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks