..... this months sounding off? A self justification and yet - at the same time - a massive contradiction?

For this listener - even more evidence of putting tight caps on places in University courses (not just music tech but heck..... needs it more than anything). Even more so on "University" courses.

I think he's giving the time-honoured advice - if you're going to pay out for a full-time course, make sure it at least leads to a degree in a non-joke subject (and I'm afraid diplomas in "Music Technology" and the like count as joke subjects.) I'm a little worried about his doctoral studies in "music production" though. If he believes what he says, shouldn't he be qualifing in music, or in electrical engineering?

i think he's musing on the essential difference between , teaching people how to learn, how to research, how to adapt, or develop, their own ideas, and training people to do a specific task set.

how vocation specific courses in general do not really produce smarter , more thoughtful people, simply ones that know how to do a specific set of tasks, whereas some of the more traditional courses, do in fact teach you a lot more than just the notional subject matter ....

what his actual point is, i'm not entirely sure.... other than the self evident one , that the two types of course approach, despite both being "degrees" are of very different later usefulness in more generalised employment markets.


but then we already knew that did we not?

--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.

It's Justin Bieber that worries me the most.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Edited by jellyjim (19/09/10 10:09 PM)

I liked his point that nobody lols at you and says "History?!? A *history* degree?!? what sort of job are you going to get with that?? Presenting 'Time Team'??"

Instead, they think you're probably a smart enquiring mind and give you a job in the civil service.

However they don't do the same for Music Technology courses, cos the latter tend to be vocational and not aimed at using your brain.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

I liked his point that nobody lols at you and says "History?!? A *history* degree?!? what sort of job are you going to get with that?? Presenting 'Time Team'??"

Instead, they think you're probably a smart enquiring mind and give you a job in the civil service.

However they don't do the same for Music Technology courses, cos the latter tend to be vocational and not aimed at using your brain.

---

Well, what they say about history is true in relation to the CS: that's where I used to work, and the ability to research, write and present arguments was critical in several of my roles. I later did an MA in Audio Production and while I got a lot out of it (because I went in knowing what I wanted to get out of it), and while it was enlightening and fun, the academic rigour of such courses is questionable. Hardly anyone on my course knew how to write and essay and present an argument, but many of them could record and mix very well indeed.

In that respect, the music production courses are indeed vocational - even if the big wide world out there requires everyone to be freelance and there are no careers. When in the CS, I would never have recruited to a serious job anyone whose only academic experience was a music tech degree — even if it was for a post in the DCMS — and I reckon I'd have been perfectly justified in that decision too

Quote Mixedup:

---

Hardly anyone on my course knew how to write and essay

---

or prufe reed for spellin and grammer errers

that said, i found much the same poor literacy and linguistics skills issue on my "proper" engineering degree course.... ( as a mature student in the early 90's) however, people very much DID learn how to think, and how to research, and we even had a philosophy module.... (to deal with the more esoteric concepts found orbiting around the word "quantum" ) which interestingly, was shared with 2nd year English students, who also had to grasp these concepts, for some mind boggling reason....

but the standard of many student's English grammar, spelling, and composition, was appalling.... i spent many hours helping other students rewrite their presentations , both in terms of a more fluent use of prose in describing their actions, observations and ideas, and in simple syntax.

these were Electrical and Electronic engineering students, on a proper B.Eng(Hons) course, in a proper university.... with an over subscribed course, and relatively high entry requirements.... (certainly in comparison to the archetypal new "uni" MTech course)


Some of these people were really, REALLY clever, intelligent , thoughtful, and insightful, yet couldn't string more than half a dozen words together on a page without seeming to lose a good 50-60 IQ points, and all their individuality.

now then, i know my lackadaisical attitude to typing and forum conversation implies that i might not be the worlds best person to offer such help, but i promise you, when presentation matters, i bother.... and despite my faults, i was in a far better state linguistically than 99% of the rest of my cohorts of the time...

One is forced to wonder about how such things come to be.

Quote idris y draig:

---

now then, i know my lackadaisical attitude to typing and forum conversation implies that i might not be the worlds best person to offer such help, but i promise you, when presentation matters, i bother.... and despite my faults, i was in a far better state linguistically than 99% of the rest of my cohorts of the time...

One is forced to wonder about how such things come to be.

---

If you think it was bad then - and I agree, that's my BSc and PhD time - it's MUCH worse now. Add to that - the overwhelming majority of music tech students are {not all but a shed load of them} techno drum n bass superstar wannabes "just trying to do me music maaaan"...... I dare {nearly} any of the courses to say that isn't true - and remember I have been a guest speaker at many of the courses. I can say with utmost confidence there is a certain branded "music tech university" who have a great many students who couldn't get into a phone box let alone a recognized uni.

Yes, I suppose I was thinking about a certain type of generalist civil servant. The government does employ plenty of scientists and specialists as well (not that I'm confident the current administration will maintain that policy, nor base their policies on any evidence they produce), and I've worked with many of them, as well as with many architects, surveyors and all sorts of other specialists that were contracted in for specific projects.

With almost all those specialists, I have to say that the general standards of literacy were very high, mostly because they needed to be able to communicate their specialism with lay people. They were also keen to take on board points from lay people to inform their work.

For some reason, a lot of folk who are keen to learn about audio production seem to think none of this matters. I only brought this up as I felt the comparison of vocational music degrees with more traditional generalist degrees like history or English was both irrelevant.

Perhaps a better point of comparison is a professional vocational degree: go do an architecture degree, or a degree in medicine now, and you'll be trained to present your ideas or findings to other people, to debate them and, if necessary, to revise them — because it's a skill that matters in every walk of life.


...sorry for taking this thread off at a tangent.

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote idris y draig:

---

now then, i know my lackadaisical attitude to typing and forum conversation implies that i might not be the worlds best person to offer such help, but i promise you, when presentation matters, i bother.... and despite my faults, i was in a far better state linguistically than 99% of the rest of my cohorts of the time...

One is forced to wonder about how such things come to be.

---

If you think it was bad then - and I agree, that's my BSc and PhD time - it's MUCH worse now. Add to that - the overwhelming majority of music tech students are {not all but a shed load of them} techno drum n bass superstar wannabes "just trying to do me music maaaan"...... I dare {nearly} any of the courses to say that isn't true - and remember I have been a guest speaker at many of the courses. I can say with utmost confidence there is a certain branded "music tech university" who have a great many students who couldn't get into a phone box let alone a recognized uni.

---

Too true. Part of the problem is that even 'assessed' courses are largely assessed on the curriculum, not on the admissions procedures, nor on how that curriculum is delivered, nor on how the academic parts of the course are marked. I'd venture to suggest that some institutions deliberately make the academic parts of such courses easy to pass — that their marking scheme is lenient on those parts of the curriculum — in order to focus on "the bit that really counts", and to keep the numbers coming through the door to fund the courses.

Curiously, the uni I was at seemed quite good on many parts of courses that routinely get criticised on these forums — though I have to say that the academic content was a waste: in my humble opinion, that part of a course should be done properly or not at all.

yup - fair enough. There is always a certain amount of "you get out of it what you put in"...... true of any education.

Quote narcoman:

---

yup - fair enough. There is always a certain amount of "you get out of it what you put in"...... true of any education.

---

I think this is partially true, although I'm not entirely sure that capturing / mixing good quality sound requires (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) the kind of Aspergresque level of dedication that is occasionally espoused on this forum.

Purely "sounding off" my own gut feelings on this, (I've yet to get the latest SoS from the news stand), it seems to me that the majority of people who get on in their chosen field, (leaving aside the perils of running your own freelance business), are those who want to know both the "how" and the "why".

For example, a man called Gottfried Leibniz did for my chemistry studies at Oxford not because I did not understand the how of partial differentiation (rather essential in physical chemistry) but I just couldn't grasp the why. It was not until many years later when I read a book by Eli Maor called "e: the story of a number" that I was introduced to Newtonian calculus which explained the "why" as clear as day.

Now this may all seem rather counter-intuitive as I have the kind of mind that feels very uncomfortable if I don't know why something works. Also anybody reading this line of argument will point out that not all of the "whys" in MRT are capable of being reduced to pure logic (or is that Logic??? ).

I guess the point is that knowing the "how" is very ephemeral is MRT. What makes, for example, "a great beat" is highly susceptible to fashion. Equally people who seek the "why" on its own get lost in theory. It's the right balance of both that makes the true professional in almost any field.

Reg

Not quite sure what he's saying, heck I don't even know what I'm saying half the time...

Good read though. I think the main thing to take from it might simply be the societal importance that is put in one thing over another and the basic stigma surrounding them irregardless of the individual and their specific knowledge and skill base. We tend to like someone who can adhere and get good grades regardless of how relative the curriculum may be. Essentially it is further evidence we tend to judge based on covers as opposed to getting to the core of the person...and I am generalizing here, and not talking specifics as I do believe there are as many people out there who do not do this and actually do get to the core...Heck I can't even say that if you put 2 different people in front of me that I would not lean towards the one with the History education over the music tech or at least subconsciously sway that way. When you are looking at a ton of paper's and having to pick people from that pile, I guess that is just what is going to happen...

It might also be that simply those courses just generally and consistently churn out more educated and well rounded people able to handle a wider base of things who by in part put forth better work, whatever that may be...the research and essay communication thingy probably can't be over-looked either as well the fact that a lot of people do not make it through such courses thus acting like nothing more then a massive weeding program, only the resilient will make it through, and thus lets others know they are able to persevere and stick to something and getter done...

Anyways, he makes a solid point and is good food for thought. I've often contemplated further schooling within a more "prestigious" subject of study, perhaps something I generally despise, and see how I make out with that for money making...so far anything I love has been a disastrous way to make da loot which ultimately results in a loss of love...So with that thinking in hand something i despise might actually result in a love...

Me and money have this relationship...so far it is a little rocky...yet I've negotiated million dollar deals before...of course that was for something I generally didn't care much about or for...yup, rambling again. apologies.

Now where to find the time and money...hmmm...i may be too far down this path to turn back, oh that's right, I have covered the path behind me leaving me choice but to venture forth regardless of what lay ahead...bah, love is over rated anyways!! Luckily I am in a position where I don't have to "work" to survive, for now, and can just keep on until something materializes...

A philosophy or psychology program would be pretty interesting, of course many people have hinted at Law, which I know I would be good at, but which seems a little boring.

What stuff (educational ) have others taken that they enjoyed and just generally found made them better in all facets of life and was a stepping stone to their personal success???

Quote A Non O Miss:

---

]What stuff (educational) have others taken that they enjoyed and just generally found made them better in all facets of life and was a stepping stone to their personal success???

---

I don't know about "enjoyed". But I was very fortunate to spend my schooldays in the era of grammar schools, where the concept of failure, or of being allowed to "succeed" at soft subjects was just not admitted.

Quote
What stuff (educational <img src=:

---

ttp://www.soundonsound.com/images/forum/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />) have others taken that they enjoyed and just generally found made them better in all facets of life and was a stepping stone to their personal success???

---

I studied the History of Philosophy and English Lit - it was incredibly useful latter on but not directly for a vocation

I thought the artictle was excellent as as Max and others have said I think that if you cant do a serious degree in electronics or similar then a degree that educates your mind and enables sharper thinking and problem solving is better value and more use than doing music tech IMO

--------------------
Matt
www.krcollective.org

Quote matt keen:

---

Quote
What stuff (educational <img src=:

---

ttp://www.soundonsound.com/images/forum/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />) have others taken that they enjoyed and just generally found made them better in all facets of life and was a stepping stone to their personal success???

---

I studied the History of Philosophy and English Lit - it was incredibly useful latter on but not directly for a vocation

I thought the artictle was excellent as as Max and others have said I think that if you cant do a serious degree in electronics or similar then a degree that educates your mind and enables sharper thinking and problem solving is better value and more use than doing music tech IMO

---

indeed. But that's not what he seems to be saying. My assertion is that most {but not all} of these "degree" course do not teach ANY part of their subject to an acceptable degree standard. They don't produce "minds capable of excellence"..... The Sounding Off article seems to be defending a level of proficiency produced by many of the colleges..... something my experience has told me to be way off the mark!!

Music tech - unless involving a heavy electronics and math content - is not a degree level subject. Most of them do not have such content. V=IR is not a degree!!!

I agree entirely.

There is and always has been a very distinct difference between vocational and academic training. Both have an important role to play and each suits some people better than others. That's perfectly natural and proper, and it allows 'the system' to get the best out of each individual.

In past times Universities were where the academic courses were run, and (poly)Tech colleges were where the vocational ones were delivered. The former delivered degrees,masters, PhDs, and so on, the latter HNCs and HNDs and various other respected but clearly different levels of qualifications.

What we have now is a confused system that doesn't seem to know what it's supposed to deliver, serves individuals very badly, fails to meet the needs of employers and industry, and essentially lets the whole country down badly too.

The UK once had a system that created, encouraged and developed real talent. As a result our industries lead the world for a century or more -- not just in terms of science and technology, but also in the creative arts.

While there are still pockets of this excellence, much of it has been lost and it seems to me that we are on a very steep downward slide. In the meantime, places like China and India have been modelling their educational systems on old-school British techniques and standards, and are very much in the ascendant. Many high-end UK universities have even set up 'local branches' in these countries to capitalise on this modern phenomena too!

Over the last decade or two there has been a very foolish (in my view) and obvious convergence of academic and vocational education into an amorphous whole. Every tech college now runs 'degree courses' which clearly aren't, and many if not most universities have introduced vocational courses cunningly disguised and often poorly delivered. Individual students struggle to recognise the differences in courses, as do the schools and, more importantly, the employers.

Much the same kind of confusion is being repeated all down the educational structure too, and can be seen in the standards of GCSEs and As/A2s.

I think the foundation of this lies in HMG trying to make the UK's educational figures compare more favourably with those of other leading countries -- particularly Germany, France and the Scandinavian countries -- but it has actually had the reverse effect and is proving disastrous in my view.

Closer to home, when I joined the beeb the training was broadly vocational, but with a strong underlying academic bias which equipped technical staff with a theoretical understanding of a very wide range of related concepts, including many which seemed irrelevant at the time. However, the benefits of this approach came to bear fruit years later as people progressed in their careers, and especially in the way they were able to accommodate changes in equipment, working practices and so on.

When I left the Beeb's full time employ over a decade ago the formal training had been reduced to less than 25% of what I had received, and was purely vocational in nature, teaching people which button to push -- not what happened when they pushed that button or why it was required.

Not surprisingly, and despite all our warnings, this approach came back to bite them hard, but it wasn't recognised for years. The cost-benefits were applauded at the time, but it has cost far more than they saved to fix the problem subsequently. And it was only recognised when it became increasingly apparent that a lot of staff weren't able to make the grade expected for promotion.

The same kind of thing is being seen now all over the country, across almost all industries and it will get worse...

We are becoming a country of telephone sanitsers and hairdressers, to quote Douglas Adams, and come the end of the world the UN will be putting most Brits on the B-Ark.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Good post Hugh!

When I was a callow youth, and got my first job in the test department of a HiFi manufacturer, my employer sent me to college. I was largely self taught in practical electronics, but they wanted me to have a proper grounding in electronic engineering.

Though an HNC/HND course it was pretty academic in nature, with a lot of maths and physics. It meant that I was able to progress from testing into design quite comfortably, and later in life move into avionics and then into telecoms.

I think the main thing that really differs from todays further education is that the (then polytechnic) college designed the courses in consultation with local industry. The courses taught the things that industry wanted, and moreover, pretty much everyone on the course had been sent there by a local employer. We weren't looking for jobs afterwards because the local electronics industry determined the size of the courses. Most people worked for one of the big local aerospace companies and a few, like me for small local outfits. The courses therefore were of necessity quite broad in scope, providing modules in analogue and digital electronics, computing, telecommunications, maths, physics and a fair smattering of management theory.

Now it's completely turned around. Courses are not linked to employment opportunities in any way and are far too specialised. colleges churn out endless graduates with a very specialised qualification that nobody wants. It's like training everyone in Switzerland to be trawlermen, or everyone in icecland desert farming.

--------------------
New album 'Fantasy Bridge' available now!
Making of Fantasy Bridge Diary

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

What we have now is a confused system that doesn't seem to know what it's supposed to deliver, serves individuals very badly, fails to meet the needs of employers and industry, and essentially lets the whole country down badly too.

---

Regarding GCSE / A Levels...

There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 recently in which Trevor Nunn (anonymously) took an English 'A' Level question on the play 'Hamlet' and it was marked by the examining board.

Now, Mr Nunn knows his 'Hamlet' having produced and directed it about twelve times with the RSC, The Globe and others with some of the cream of the UK's (and the world's) actors. This is a man who knows the play backwards.

He got a low B!

The reason being that he didn't answer the question in the way the examination board wanted. Trevor took the exam woman to task over the ambiguous (and meaningless) question arguing that he DID answer it well but she was bloody adamant - apparently he didn't answer it the way they wanted.

But there's the rub (see what I did there?!). Kids aren't learning the subtle intricacies of the play in order to discuss it intelligently in their exams but are being taught how to answer questions in such a way to tick all the right boxes for the examiner to get a good mark. So the teachers show the kids which boxes to tick and they get a good mark...

But are none the wiser about the actual play!

One specific example, of course, but it's typical of the useless and hopeless exam system we have here where, like so many things now, is not about 'content' but 'process'.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Great posts

I agree that what is needed at Uni level is the deeper teaching of principles and how they relate to other principles rather than just "tasks"
But I thought the article was coming down on this side I think I must be missing what narcoman has seen in the article


Bring back tech colleges is what I say.
The whole thing also does a huge disservice to people who are not in their element with academic subjects. I've got a mate who is a craftsmen - he couldn't tell you how he does the things he does all his skill is in his hands. He got the training he needed purely by chance there was nowhere for him to go to study at the time



PS Process can teach underlying principles but IMO needs to be taught after/at the same time as/ you have taught the content not instead of

--------------------
Matt
www.krcollective.org

Edited by matt keen (21/09/10 02:52 PM)

Quote matt keen:

---

PS Process can teach underlying principles but IMO needs to be taught after/at the same time as/ you have taught the content not instead of

---

I was referring to the examination board's box ticking 'process'.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

The reason being that he didn't answer the question in the way the examination board wanted. Trevor took the exam woman to task over the ambiguous (and meaningless) question arguing that he DID answer it well but she was bloody adamant - apparently he didn't answer it the way they wanted.

But there's the rub (see what I did there?!). Kids aren't learning the subtle intricacies of the play in order to discuss it intelligently in their exams but are being taught how to answer questions in such a way to tick all the right boxes for the examiner to get a good mark. So the teachers show the kids which boxes to tick and they get a good mark...

---

I'm glad a few other people are saying this and actually believe it, maybe I'm not fully out of touch with the World....yet

That's why they should just change the education system to a Las Vegas style wedding...pay your money at a booth, tick a few boxes and get your piece of paper...

The question I have is, was it or is it planned to do this or simply an inevitability within the whole structure of it? A slow progression moving away from each teacher teaching towards a rigid curriculum and trying to establish a broad and cohesive education system the same across a nation. As is said the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and all it takes is a bunch of angry parents behooved about the differences and a committee concerned with losing popularity to instill broad changes to appease them irregardless of its potential damage. It seems a natural and slow move towards a land of robots, programmed with the same information in a rigid way, punched into their brains like a code into a computer, taking away the individuality of the students and the teachers...As you say, more worries about the process then the content, when all that matters is the content really...some of my best teachers were the ones that if you didn't know them and saw them on the street you would probably think they were crazy and off their rocker. The kind that walk in with the recommended text book, look at it, tear it apart and toss it in the trash...Some of my worst teachers...straight out of the book worried more about pleasing the board and following the guidelines to the T....

I don't know, I could go on and on about this...thanks for this thread, good stuff....

Quote A Non O Miss:

---

As you say, more worries about the process then the content, when all that matters is the content really... The kind that walk in with the recommended text book, look at it, tear it apart and toss it in the trash...

---

I'm not sure what you mean by that, the process can make all the difference in making the same content successfully delivered or not.
Any style/s of delivery that is effective in delivering the necessary content is a good style (short of electric shocks or something). A style of delivery that suits some people won't suit all - learning styles (which is basic in teacher training).
It is usually good if a teacher is inspirational and mind expanding. But if they wander off on tangents to the extent they never get round to teaching the things you won't pass an exam without, I think most people would be aggrieved. Even if what you need to be able to do to get a good grade actually isn't of any use beyond passing the exam, it would matter to most people if they fail an exam even if they had some other life helpful input.
Certainly you can question whether the exam and what you need to spend time doing to pass it is of any benefit beyond passing the exam.

Edited by Neil C (21/09/10 07:51 PM)

Quote Neil C:

---

Quote A Non O Miss:

---

As you say, more worries about the process then the content, when all that matters is the content really... The kind that walk in with the recommended text book, look at it, tear it apart and toss it in the trash...

---

I'm not sure what you mean by that, the process can make all the difference in making the same content successfully delivered or not.
Any style/s of delivery that is effective in delivering the necessary content is a good style (short of electric shocks or something). A style of delivery that suits some people won't suit all - learning styles (which is basic in teacher training).
It is usually good if a teacher is inspirational and mind expanding. But if they wander off on tangents to the extent they never get round to teaching the things you won't pass an exam without, I think most people would be aggrieved. Even if what you need to be able to do to get a good grade actually isn't of any use beyond passing the exam, it would matter to most people if they fail an exam even if they had some other life helpful input.
Certainly you can question whether the exam and what you need to spend time doing to pass it is of any benefit beyond passing the exam.
The problem is getting a balance between giving teachers some kind of anarchistic latitude which at its best would be ideal but could also be rubbish but you wouldn't know because there was no measure, and some kind of standardized measure of achievement.

---

Hmm, well I'm not really sure either Neil...

It all depends on the legitimacy of that exam too. Not sure it can just be assumed that the exam is actually testing the right things, maybe it could be argued that an exam isn't even really needed. I can't remember anytime in real life where a school exam ever helped me to achieve or accomplish something. It's just a further labeling process that helps to herd and categorize people all based on something that may or may not have any relevance to anything.

I do totally agree that not everyone learns the same way. I always was better with those sort of esoteric all over the board type teachers, i found them stimulating, and I learned a lot. That being said the majority of my class didn't like those type of teachers, they preferred the ones who laid it all out and provided fill in the blanks booklets teaching nothing but the specific within a box info needed to get the best mark for the specific exam in question...

You are right though, there has to be some kind of balance between the two...The real question is, how can it be fixed without starting over from scratch and does anyone actually want to fix it?

Edited by A Non O Miss (21/09/10 07:47 PM)

I was editing before I saw your reply there, I wasn't expressing myself how I wanted.
I now end on the line which tallies with your first point.

Quote Neil C:

---

I wasn't expressing myself how I wanted.

---

Now THAT is something I know all to well...I often do it completely automatically and without any awareness, like I was made to be elusive or something...

Can I counter with the assertion that perhaps we are creating a generation determined to self educate in adulthood? Our "culture" is also a complex thing and decisions that don't make sense now may ultimately lead to a change unforeseen and yet beneficial.....they also could lead to horribleness and an Idiocracy.... but i am a glass half full man!

--------------------
My head hurts!

Quote turbodave:

---

Can I counter with the assertion that perhaps we are creating a generation determined to self educate in adulthood? Our "culture" is also a complex thing and decisions that don't make sense now may ultimately lead to a change unforeseen and yet beneficial.....they also could lead to horribleness and an Idiocracy.... but i am a glass half full man!

---

You can certainly train yourself in adulthood. I'm not so sure about education. It's easy to learn to do things, but if you don't know those things exist...?

Quote turbodave:

---

Can I counter with the assertion that perhaps we are creating a generation determined to self educate in adulthood? Our "culture" is also a complex thing and decisions that don't make sense now may ultimately lead to a change unforeseen and yet beneficial

---

I suspect that you're giving far too much credence to 'educationalists' and politicos who have been tinkering with teaching methods for decade from various hopeless reading schemes to propaganda ridden history lessons to 'flexibility' with grammar and spelling (i.e. ignore mistakes) to 'flexibility' with written legibility and coherence of written ideas (i.e. ignore it because they're 'expressing themselves naturally'), etc..

You cannot have an egalitarian education system because different children are, ermmm, different and if educationalists want every child to have an 'equal' education, the inevitable result is to dumb down to the lowest common denominator.

No-one has the balls to say that some kids are thick (and/or don't want to learn) and some are average and some are bright, some precociously so. You simply cannot give them the same education. In the past, this was ok because (as a rough generalisation) kids who weren't, shall we say, destined for the field of Academia got apprenticeships and did valuable work making things. The average kids got the blue collar jobs managing or accounting or organising, whatever ... or became electricians, electronic repairers, etc., (again valuable work) and the really bright kids went on to be the rocket scientists. Unfair? Maybe but when was life ever fair?

Now, however, everybody is entitled to a 'degree'. As a result, little polytechnics that once churned out cracking electricians, chiropodists, dental assistants, whatever, are now 'universities' handing out useless and meaningless (ahem) 'degrees' in Media Studies, Golf Course Management, Aromatherapy, Swiming Pool Technology, etc.. (*) Oh! And Music Technology!

Although introduced by that idiot John Major in the dying throes of his government (probably at the behest of his PR advisors to get some votes), the last governmental incumbents loved this because His Tonyness could boast that we have the best educated young people in the known universe with more kids in Uni and more kids with degrees than ever before under any previous government.

Total bollox!

The kids out there are no better or worse than and no different to previous generations but they have been sorely let down - especially recently - by an (ahem) 'education' system that is not designed to educate but to get box ticked results that made the last government look good to garner popularity and votes.

It is a fact that Lord Digby Jones, the CBI, the head of major retailers such as M&S, etc., have all said that many kids - despite the 'degrees' they have - are almost unemployable. Not because they're thick - far from it - but because they don't possess basic skills in arithmetic, writing, reading, written communication, ability to research and problem solve, lack of initiative, etc.. How can you employ some kid who has to write to your customers when they can't string a sentence together? And I can testify for this. My missus is a maths tutor and she tutors 16 year old kids (all bright and lovely kids) who don't know their tables or how to perform simple sums.

Furthermore, gone are the days of "What is 4,567 divided by 256? Show your working.", the questions are more like "You have to attend a meeting at 9.45am. A train leaves at 7.30am and takes 2 hours to get your destination. Discuss why it would be environmentally unfriendly to go by car. Any answer will do."

OK, I jest on that last one but you get the gist. The answer requires a written explanation and the poor kids can barely string a coherent sentence together... which is why my missus has been employed except that a lot of the time, they need an English tutor as well as a maths tutor (and I invariably get roped in to help them because as well as not knowing basic arithmetic, they often lack skills in basic grammar as well).

I truly hope this new lot have the cojones to rip it all apart because our young people (which to bring it vaguely musically on-topic, George Benson and Whitney Houston tell us are 'the future') are being severely let down by 'the system' we have.

(*) These are all accredited 'Mickey Mouse' degree courses now! There are more!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

I think self education is highly overrated...but if that is all one has, then that is what one must run with...

Quote hollowsun:

---

Now, however, everybody is entitled to a 'degree'. As a result, little polytechnics that once churned out cracking electricians, chiropodists, dental assistants, whatever, are now 'universities' handing out useless and meaningless (ahem) 'degrees' in Media Studies, Golf Course Management, Aromatherapy, Swiming Pool Technology, etc.. (*) Oh! And Music Technology!

---

Well I can speak on the Golf so for a first hand account...Over here it is a required course in order to become certified as a professional and essentially the only way to become employed in that industry.

I took this, shamefully face palming, and in all due respect to the teachers and school,it was a complete joke. Everybody was a great person, I had some great teachers, but the overall structure was flawed. The course was totally mickey mouse, and by third year I barely went because essentially it was as you say, dumbing down to the lowest common denominator and I pretty much was learning nothing. The only learning was from the odd teacher that stepped outside the box, and from being employed in the field, where things actually happen...

I now have a friend going through the same program, different school, and I know that it will do little other then provide him the piece of paper he requires to be employed within that field and receive the certification he needs to be considered a viable professional...wasting 3 good years he could be doing something and advancing...and guess what? The public does nothing but looks to see if someone is certified and thus uses that as justification that they are a worthy instructor or professional

Oh well, thanks to Google I don't need to know anything anymore...

Quote hollowsun:

---

My missus is a maths tutor and she tutors 16 year old kids (all bright and lovely kids) who don't know their tables or how to perform simple sums.

---

I have never learned tables although I did kind of try because my friend could do them.
I always multiply breaking down the multiplier and doubling up (doubling any not very huge number I find almost instant) and adding the single amount on for a odd multiplier. That's knowing one universally effective principle rather than having to remember lots of individual answers.
I don't see why it's of any importance to know tables if you can work the answer out very quickly by another method.

Quote Neil C:

---

I have never learned tables although I did kind of try because my friend could do them.
I always multiply by doubling up (doubling any not very huge number I find almost instant) and adding the single amount on for a odd multiplier. That's knowing one universally effective principle rather than having to remember lots of individual answers.
I don't see why it's of any importance to know tables if you can work the answer out very quickly by another method.

---

That might be considered an excellent example of the difference between education and training :-)

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

That might be considered an excellent example of the difference between education and training :-)

---

It would be, but I was never taught it, I just do it!

Quote Neil C:

---

I always multiply breaking down the multiplier and doubling up ..... I don't see why it's of any importance to know tables if you can work the answer out very quickly by another method.

---

But quite clearly you ~do~ know your tables, or at least some of them including the two-times table. How else would you know the answers when 'doubling up'

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Neil C:

---

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

That might be considered an excellent example of the difference between education and training :-)

---

It would be, but I was never taught it, I just do it!

---

Yup. Self-training taught you that you could get away with knowing only your 2 times table. Education would maybe have revealed wider fields of mathematics where further tools would have been useful. How do you cope with long division for instance?

The trained man says "I never need that, and if I do, I've got a calculator!" and stops. The educated man carries on "because it's there" and maybe, just maybe, discovers great things.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

We are becoming a country of telephone sanitsers and hairdressers, to quote Douglas Adams, and come the end of the world the UN will be putting most Brits on the B-Ark.

---

Witty, but unfair: the sanitisers and hairdressers have always been there; it's just that now they get to say they've got a degree. Go to any of the 'old' universities, and quite a few of the newer ones, and you'll still find plenty of courses that do what they're supposed to do, and plenty of intelligent, motivated people. One problem, of course, is that they can no longer afford to continue their education past undergraduate level, without first working for some years to clear the debts they've accumulated in the name of study. And when they've cleared those debts, they realise they can't continue to study, because they have to save £40k to put down as a deposit on a modest house, and have to start putting cash aside for a pension because no employer pays that for you — particularly not if the industry has gone freelance.

As for the accusation of 'Mickey Mouse' subjects, I think that's unfair too. I could see how 'Golf Management' or 'Music Technology' could be a perfectly legitimate subject for deep study and research; my problem is with the way in which it is taught, and the lack of centralised, recognised, enforced and rigorous standards.

I fail to see, for example, why even an arts degree in music technology can fail to deliver basic modules on acoustics, psychoacoutics, transducer design and so on. It's like promising to teach a would-be carpenter how to carpent(!)... but failing to teach them about the tools (s)he needs to do the job because 'it doesn't matter as long as it turns out like you want'. But most of music tech courses do — even when the students are crying out for tuition and guidance in this area; and despite promising accreditation initiatives like JAMES, standards remain voluntary and potentially costly.

Hi Hollowsun, Surely my point is that many kids have also lost faith and are doing many alternative things out there. This isn't an apology for a crap system, just demonstrating that kids will find a way regardless of OUR aspirations for them. If texting was an Olympic sport I know some contenders!! Dave

--------------------
My head hurts!

Quote Mixedup:

---

As for the accusation of 'Mickey Mouse' subjects, I think that's unfair too. I could see how 'Golf Management' or 'Music Technology' could be a perfectly legitimate subject for deep study and research; my problem is with the way in which it is taught, and the lack of centralised, recognised, enforced and rigorous standards.

---

Go on then! Rough out a 3-year course in "Philosophy and practice of golf management" for us! Some subjects just aren't BIG enough to be the core of a degree course. Trades are good. Professions are good. They can overlap. But there IS a difference.

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote Mixedup:

---

As for the accusation of 'Mickey Mouse' subjects, I think that's unfair too. I could see how 'Golf Management' or 'Music Technology' could be a perfectly legitimate subject for deep study and research; my problem is with the way in which it is taught, and the lack of centralised, recognised, enforced and rigorous standards.

---

Go on then! Rough out a 3-year course in "Philosophy and practice of golf management" for us! Some subjects just aren't BIG enough to be the core of a degree course. Trades are good. Professions are good. They can overlap. But there IS a difference.

---

FWIW, I've got no axe to grind here: I hate golf with as much passion as some people love it! However, I reckon you're being quite closed-minded. If you're just talking about training someone to run a golf club, then yeah, I'd say you have a point. But if it extended to an understanding of the sport science behind golf, equipment design, ballistics and so on, as well as course design, landscaping, ground maintenance, the commercial aspects of the thing, media management, and so on, then yes, I *do* think you could construct a perfectly viable degree or even post-grad course on it, and I think there'd be plenty of potentially transferable skills and knowledge that would make it a useful qualification — whether people recognised it or not. I know someone who — although hasn't gone to university — has done years of such research into archery, and revolutionised the design of bows, arrows, facilities for sight-marking and so on. And in the process has had to teach himself some very complicated maths (to the extent that he was able to come up with better solutions that his brother, who has a doctorate in Mathematics!). There would certainly be scope for a degree in that.

You don't *need* to do a degree in maths to get good at it. But it helps. And the same to my mind is true for any subject with an elements of science and research. Does that quality of course exist for the subjects you describe as 'Mickey Mouse'? Probably not. But that wasn't my point: they could exist, and if any courses do exist, they should be structured in a way that allows and requires people to gain a proper understanding of the subject, and to conduct original research.

You could call music tech degrees Mickey Mouse. The Tonmeister teaches the same subject, but in a rigorous way. In other words, the courses may be Mickey Mouse, but there's no reason why courses can't deliver the subjects in a better, more appropriate way.

Tonmeister, LIPA et al are NOT music tech "degrees". There are strong engineering and math components.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote Neil C:

---

I always multiply breaking down the multiplier and doubling up ..... I don't see why it's of any importance to know tables if you can work the answer out very quickly by another method.

---

But quite clearly you ~do~ know your tables, or at least some of them including the two-times table. How else would you know the answers when 'doubling up'

Hugh

---

I suppose I do to some extent, but it's not like a long rote learned list.
Well, two times 27 for instance, I don't know the 27 times table. I suppose I do just know that two 25's are 50 and that's a kind of part of a times table, but that's knowing that with 25's you will always have 0, 25, 50, 75 as the last two digits. Then from 27 - 25 being 2 I have 2 + or x 2 and knowing that is kind of times table I suppose, so I then have 4 to add to the 50.

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

How do you cope with long division for instance?

---

I never could do it really.

Quote narcoman:

---

Tonmeister, LIPA et al are NOT music tech "degrees". There are strong engineering and math components.

---

Plus (for Tonmeister at least) you need Grade 8 performance proficiency on a musical instrument.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Mixedup:

---

Witty, but unfair: the sanitisers and hairdressers have always been there; it's just that now they get to say they've got a degree.

---

That's the point! It makes 'degrees' kind of meaningless when everyone has one and artificially elevates subjects and polytechnics with minimal entry requirements which previously would have issued HNCs and HNDs (all perfectly valid for the professions intended) and devalues those subjects and universities with demanding entry requirements which traditionally issued degrees...

Much like it's kind of meaningless when every child leaves school with A-star GSCEs.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote narcoman:

---

Tonmeister, LIPA et al are NOT music tech "degrees". There are strong engineering and math components.

---

I disagree. That's *exactly* what they are. It's just that those examples do justice to the subject, whereas many courses that claim to be music tech degrees do not.

The point you make is no different from saying a history degree has strong politics, economics or sociology components. That does not make it an economics degree.

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote Mixedup:

---

Witty, but unfair: the sanitisers and hairdressers have always been there; it's just that now they get to say they've got a degree.

---

That's the point! It makes 'degrees' kind of meaningless when everyone has one and artificially elevates subjects and polytechnics with minimal entry requirements which previously would have issued HNCs and HNDs (all perfectly valid for the professions intended) and devalues those subjects and universities with demanding entry requirements which traditionally issued degrees...

Much like it's kind of meaningless when every child leaves school with A-star GSCEs.

---

Not really. It just makes some degrees more valuable in given situations than others. There are plenty of worthwhile qualifications around. There are no more sanitizers out there than there were before. It's just easier to spot them.

I suppose some of the older universities could take the Oxford approach and start granting honorary Masters degrees to people a given number of years after they complete their batchelors degree...

My point being, who cares what a qualification is called, as long as the courses deliver the education and training that they ought? In other words, why not turn these Mickey Mouse courses into courses that actually deliver, weed the entrant applications, and enforce more rigorous standards, than moaning about the fact that courses in those subjects exist at all?

Quote Mixedup:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

Tonmeister, LIPA et al are NOT music tech "degrees". There are strong engineering and math components.

---

I disagree. That's *exactly* what they are. It's just that those examples do justice to the subject, whereas many courses that claim to be music tech degrees do not.

The point you make is no different from saying a history degree has strong politics, economics or sociology components. That does not make it an economics degree.

---

The focus of those courses is not the use of technology. A great deal is acoustics and electrical engineering. It's not "this is how you do a loop in Logic".....

Have a look at them - there is a strong focus on learning the mathematics behind sound - fourier transforms and all that loveliness. They are entirely distinct, not only in level, but what they teach. The courses I am against are ALL of the "we'll teach you pro-tools and the routing in a desk and call it a degree"...... All of them. If they don't contain degree level maths or electronics - then they are not a sound engineering degree.

not so sure i'd hold LIPA in quite the same class as Tonmeister Narco.... not in the rigour and depth of background technical theory and practical application of it.

LIPA is still a shed load better than most....


i WOULD call tonmeister a PROPER Music tech degree.

and EVERYTHING else, a pale , inferior imitation.
some paler and less use than others.

Quote Mixedup:

---

There are no more sanitizers out there than there were before. It's just easier to spot them.

---

I disagree. The evidence and the complaints from industry suggests that there are significantly fewer UK people now studying for either traditional and versatile technical degrees or vocational engineering and construction skills.

Instead, there is a far higher proportion studying soft and superficially attractive but useless subjects instead -- like golf course management and music tech.

The result is that most people seem now to be employed in service industries rather than manufacturing industries and I don't think that's a good thing.

Which lead to which might be one of those chicken and egg things. Did manufacturing industries reduce forcing colleges to produce service people, or did the lack of manufacturing-capable people lead to manufacturers going offshore? Discuss...

Quote:

---

My point being, who cares what a qualification is called, as long as the courses deliver the education and training that they ought?

---

But that's the whole point. There are different levels and types of education and they need to recognised with different kinds of qualification. Giving everyone who completes a few years of academic or vocational study something called a 'degree' doesn't help employers trying to differentiate between applicants and find someone with the skills and competencies they require.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Instead, there is a far higher proportion studying soft and superficially attractive but useless subjects instead -- like golf course management and music tech.

hugh

---

I don't think it is the degree so much that matters. I did a music tech degree, it led to something, that led to something else. I now have a career doing something I enjoy, related (but not directly) to my degree. So I wouldn't call it useless. It depends on the person, how they apply themselves. A piece of paper doesn't usually equal a job in any subject. Sure, some see it as a soft option but...

I don't think it is fair to blanket all music technology degree's/students the way this thread has.

Quote idris y draig:

---

not so sure i'd hold LIPA in quite the same class as Tonmeister Narco.... not in the rigour and depth of background technical theory and practical application of it.

LIPA is still a shed load better than most....


i WOULD call tonmeister a PROPER Music tech degree.

and EVERYTHING else, a pale , inferior imitation.
some paler and less use than others.

---

I'd call it a music engineering degree. Tech is just the technology....

Yup - I'd agree. Mind you - what sound people call maths....... grumble mice etc etc

Quote Mowens800:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Instead, there is a far higher proportion studying soft and superficially attractive but useless subjects instead -- like golf course management and music tech.

hugh

---

I don't think it is the degree so much that matters. I did a music tech degree, it led to something, that led to something else. I now have a career doing something I enjoy, related (but not directly) to my degree. So I wouldn't call it useless. It depends on the person, how they apply themselves. A piece of paper doesn't usually equal a job in any subject. Sure, some see it as a soft option but...

I don't think it is fair to blanket all music technology degree's/students the way this thread has.

---

Not the student - but defo the "degrees".

A proper degree {and this isn't just music tech stuff} DOES put you in line for many career jobs. A prerequisite for ANYTHING engineering {from civil to electrical via chemical}, all law, all accountancy...... and quite a few more. It's what people accept as "degrees" that has changed.

Quote narcoman:

---

..... and quite a few more. It's what people accept as "degrees" that has changed.

---

Defo agree with you there. I also agree that everyone having a degree diminishes the value. But having worked hard for my degree it is painful to hear it slated so easily on SOS. As I say, mine has given me opportunities and prepared me for a wide variety of work. How much was down to me pulling my finger out than the degree itself is a different matter.

Did everyone see the news about the person who is suing a university because he does not agree with his grade. I think that is a dangerous route. I really hope he does not win the case, it would open the floodgates for chaos.

Hugh - it a huge and verging off-topic point, but I think it is possible to have a "post-manufacturing" society, based on knowhow, infotainment, tourism and heaven knows what else - including financial services, and make money at it. Did you know Britain's export earnings from financial services are larger than every other country in the world put together?

The days of Birmingham being the workshop of the world are long gone: we are all better off using cheap tin trays made in the Far East (or wherever else labour is cheaper than we are ourselves willing to work for these days). We are also happy - despite what the Daily Mail thinks - to import migrants to do jobs we would not ourselves get out of bed for at those rates. From hospital cleaning to fruit picking.

This is what a rich society can do, nowadays. Whether we should do it is a much wider debate. We are basically reintroducing a form of serfdom, some of it safely exported offshore where we don't have to look at it.

In that context, educating ourselves to "play" better is not an irrational market response.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (23/09/10 06:18 PM)

Quote Steve Hill:

---

we are all better off using cheap tin trays made in the Far East (or wherever else labour is cheaper than we are ourselves willing to work for these days). We are also happy - despite what the Daily Mail thinks - to import migrants to do jobs we would not ourselves get out of bed for at those rates. From hospital cleaning to fruit picking.

---

You're right -- this is heading off topic and I may have to moderate myself any minute...

However, while I do take your point, I struggle to work out how we pay for those people to make cheap tin trays and clean our hospitals (or whatever).

You're right that we have either priced ourselves (collectively and generally) out of those markets, or we see ourselves as above those jobs and refuse to do them. Far better to be given instant the stardom we all deserve on Xcrement Factor...

But what do the rest of us do instead to generate income?

Where are the skills that generate high-level incomes?

We are only a rich society because we made and sold a lot of high-tech (for the time) things in the past. That has era been in massive decline for decades. Where do people earn money now to pay taxes and fund the system? It's a bust country...

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Too negative Hugh: I've just edited my own post to mention e.g. financial services, which I did for a good few years. And law too - once you get past the superficial nonsense about "libel tourism" (affecting all of about three cases a year), you learn that e.g. shipping contracts all over the world are expressed to be under UK jurisdiction because people want to pay our lawyers and use our courts to resolve disputes. We're trustworthy and the judges won't take bribes.

We've come a million miles since the 1970s/80s in hospitality, and now boast some of the best restaurants in the world. We even make one of the best champagne-type sparkling wines (I was given a case of Nyetimber 1998 and I'll defy anyone to say it's not as good as damn near any "real" champagne).

We also excel in (very) high tech manufacturing, hosting most of the world's F1 teams (mostly round my way) and also things like pharmaceuticals.

We remain a very rich country. There's always room to debate how we share the cake, but the important thing is we still know how to bake a good cake.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Where do people earn money now to pay taxes and fund the system? It's a bust country...

hugh

---

The country depends on the finance industry to keep it running. That's why they were bailed out. We need them to make lots of money so they can pay taxes and keep things going.

NuLab just completed Thatcher's work.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

All the things that wasters are good at , we excel at! Keep the faith!

--------------------
My head hurts!

Quote turbodave:

---

All the things that wasters are good at , we excel at! Keep the faith!

---

Well yes, but if you want to be on the upside of the wealth distribution mechanism the evidence suggests a degree in law, accountancy, pharmacology or maybe even cookery is a better bet than how to get the most out of Garage Band.

We have individual choices about whether we want to "smash the system", or profit from it. And your views tend to mellow on that one once you have to provide for kids etc...

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Too negative Hugh: I've just edited my own post to mention e.g. financial services, which I did for a good few years. And law too - once you get past the superficial nonsense about "libel tourism" (affecting all of about three cases a year), you learn that e.g. shipping contracts all over the world are expressed to be under UK jurisdiction because people want to pay our lawyers and use our courts to resolve disputes. We're trustworthy and the judges won't take bribes.

We've come a million miles since the 1970s/80s in hospitality, and now boast some of the best restaurants in the world. We even make one of the best champagne-type sparkling wines (I was given a case of Nyetimber 1998 and I'll defy anyone to say it's not as good as damn near any "real" champagne).

We also excel in (very) high tech manufacturing, hosting most of the world's F1 teams (mostly round my way) and also things like pharmaceuticals.

We remain a very rich country. There's always room to debate how we share the cake, but the important thing is we still know how to bake a good cake.

---

...although we do have a habit of encouraging "outsourcing to other nations" eventually leading to foreign dominion in business areas we're supposed to be tops!!

Hey! Steve I have some extremely poor kids I'll have you know. Anyway I neither want to smash the system or profit from it.I want food , a family, my creativity and a smile on my face as often as possible......not to be a banker!!!! Dave

--------------------
My head hurts!

Quote narcoman:

---

...although we do have a habit of encouraging "outsourcing to other nations" eventually leading to foreign dominion in business areas we're supposed to be tops!!

---

Well yes - e.g. shipbuilding (as Elvis Costello probably observed). But if a domestic riveter is three times the price of a Korean one, where are you going to source the next mega container ship to bring in the next load of cheap Chinese manufactured goods?

Unless you can somehow monopolise ship design (impossible, I would say), the technology is going to be transferred, and in a free world that's probably a good thing and is lifting a lot of people elsewhere out of poverty. Our job is finding the next thing which keeps us above the waterline.

And handing out mickey mouse degrees like confetti may not be a winning strategy....

Dave - I don't want to be a banker either!

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (23/09/10 08:43 PM)

Maybe you're right Steve -- I often see the cup half empty rather than half full.

Quote Steve Hill:

---

But if a domestic riveter is three times the price of a Korean one, where are you going to source the next mega container ship to bring in the next load of cheap Chinese manufactured goods?

---

...and that's exactly my point. What's that unemployed riviter going to do now to generate income?

Can't see him making millions in the financial services industry, or become a lawyer. Not sure his skills would transfer well to the hospitality arena let alone traeding the grapes.

So it looks like F1 is his best hope and his riviting skills might well find a good home there... but wait, there are only 12 teams and they're cutting back on staffing levels too.

All the jobs you cite are highly skilled, degree level and largely academic jobs. Yes, those industries can generate huge worldwide incomes. But they won't employ the tens of millions of blue and brown collar workers that need jobs in this country.

I remains concerned for the long term future...

But we are way off topic here and I'm now going to moerate myself into not continuing this thread.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Well yes - e.g. shipbuilding (as Elvis Costello probably observed). But if a domestic riveter is three times the price of a Korean one, where are you going to source the next mega container ship to bring in the next load of cheap Chinese manufactured goods?

---

aye - but it's the typical short term strategy. Like nurturing your own business - you have to look at the bigger picture.... just like the current climate of "pay off the national debt".... even if it kills foreign investment.....

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

I remains concerned for the long term future...

---

in agreement here!!. Yeah - we're off topic - but it's all related to the original article.... a blinkered view of reality.

Every generation is concerned for the long term future. The lines are more blurred now because technology provides so many more options and creates more fears, but like water flowing down a mountain, we shall find a way!!

--------------------
My head hurts!

It's alright folks. The Music Tech courses train folk from China, India, Brazil and all the other 'emerging' economic giants. So they'll be just as screwed as us before long

There seems to be an expectation in this thread that education is entirely a vocational thing. Sure, a degree helps you with some careers, but you might equally well choose to do a degree for the joy of learning. No harm in a Music Tech degree there if it delivers what you want. You just have to be realistic about what that degree is going to do, or not do, for you.

Btw, on the Tonmeister point, what exactly IS technology? I'd have thought understanding and developing new technology in this field should require an in-depth knowledge of maths, acoustics, materials science and much much more. So I stand by my point that Tonmeister is a music tech degree that is done the way it should be. Just because others fail to do so but claim to, doesn't put the Tonmeister in a different classification — just a different class!

Getting off topic now, does anyone fancy starting a sticky thread where we could bash out an ideal taught-course curriculum for an undergrad or post-grad degree level course? Sounds like we could use some standards out there, and that we could use a few optional electives that people could choose from to allow them a bit more depth of study in a few areas. I'd love to see more on acoustics, studio design, and more research-based modules.

limit places within nationals to 500. Job done.... a natural evolution of top grade candidates building a top grade set of courses.....

Bristol Poly (in the guise of the University of the west of England) had an interesting pair of undergrad courses a few years back :

"Music technology" as one and "Technological Music" as the other.

"Music technology" was mostly electronics, acoustics, discreet maths, computer science and the like, (It did include playing at least two instruments to grade 5 or so and some sight reading), while "Technological Music" was how to noodle around in reason or whatever was the weapon of choice at the time....

The look on some faces that signed up for "Music Technology" without bothering to read the prospectus was classic.

As to doing degrees for interest rather then employment, amen to that, working on adding a Math degree with the OU at the moment.

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

I realise this is an old post. Came across it while doing some research.

I'm currently studying at LIPA. The course is actually called Sound Technology, the primary reasons being:

a) It doesn't contain any formal teaching of music performance or music theory (though it is encouraged and the opportunities/facilities are very much there)
b) The course doesn't focus simply on sound for music. Yes there are studio and live based modules, but we also study modules in DSP design, broadcast, equipment maintenance/measurement and sound to picture among others. There are dedicated theory modules that back up everything we do and form a lot of the work on the course. I can tell you from first hand experience that some of the maths involved is pretty challenging.

The whole institute is a microcosm of the entertainment industry, so collaboration between courses is actively encouraged (and in some modules essential to the work). We're not "lurking in the shadows" sound-tech types, but nor are we all MPC coveting beet makerz.

Still, the best thing about this course is the lecturers and the facilities. I've got a session coming up where I'm tracking through an SSL Duality onto tape (yes, tape) and RADAR simultaneously from two isolated live rooms. That doesn't even take into consideration the mic collection or the wealth of high end outboard we get to play with.

I get my money's worth on this course...

--------------------
Josh McArdle

nope - LIPA is one of the good ones.