Do J-schools teach what was, rather than what is and will be?
A recent to-and-fro on the Toronto Freelance Editors and Writers list (sub req'd) was about whether traditional skills and concepts taught in journalism schools are ill-equipping graduates for the real world.
Naturally, some people (including current teachers) felt that basic research, interviewing and writing skills are eminently transferrable, even if grads don't wind up in a traditional newsroom (assuming such things continue to exist).
Others contended, essentially, that journalism teachers aren't up to date with the skills to teach about applications and software and functions that their students will be expected to know.
The latter view was represented by Canice Leung, a recent graduate from Ryerson's magazine stream and I quote (with her permission):
Naturally, some people (including current teachers) felt that basic research, interviewing and writing skills are eminently transferrable, even if grads don't wind up in a traditional newsroom (assuming such things continue to exist).
Others contended, essentially, that journalism teachers aren't up to date with the skills to teach about applications and software and functions that their students will be expected to know.
The latter view was represented by Canice Leung, a recent graduate from Ryerson's magazine stream and I quote (with her permission):
No disrespect to any of my professors at Ryerson, who are talented and enthusiastic journalists, but I don't think it's enough for teachers, editors, publishers to say 'This is how it is, now prepare for it' in some lecture hall or in the newsroom. They can get away with not knowing how to shoot and edit photos/video, web languages such as Flash, CSS, HTML or PHP, lay out pages in Quark and InDesign or navigate the world of social media/web 2.0. We won't. Many entry-level positions now require proficiency in Photoshop, the web, video, photo, etc. to even be considered, and that's only going to become a mandatory requirement when print finally croaks in five or ten years.I don't agree with Ms Leung about print croaking, but that's a post for another day. Her point is an important one, though one wonders how any journalism school can ever hope to get ahead of this curve or respond adequately to this perception.
I don't know all these skills, but the ones I do know were self-taught, which seems kind of ludicrous considering that — with the exception of social media — it was plain to see years ago that these areas would converge. I feel very bad for classmates who are beingpassed over for jobs despite their competent magazine skills, because they weren't prepared for the rest of it in school. (Side note: I'm glad Ryerson's j-school is changing its structure so students can dabble in multiple fields.)
Labels: journalism schools
posted by D. B. Scott at
3:59 pm
2 Comments:
In all honesty, I think more schools should get rid of streams, since all media will become one, if it isn't already.
Jeff Jarvis has a great post about this:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/03/19/whats-a-medium/
I taught journalism at Ryerson. When I started to teach for the school (about 1980), there were complaints from students about having to learn how to type, why do we need a typewriter, can I hand in my assignment in pencil, etc. etc. We laid on a typing course, as an extra non-compulsory subject for those who wanted it.
By 1985, the complaints were about having a learn how to use a computer, why do we need a computer in journalism, can I hand in my assignment written on a typewriter. We laid on a computer course, as an extra non-compulsory subject.
By 1992, the complaints were about having to learn how to use the Internet, why do we need email in journalism, can I hand in my assignment without having to find sources on the Internet. We laid on an Internet course, etc. etc.
We also began offering online journalism courses for those who wanted it, specializing in Quark, etc. We had complaints from students: do I really need this stuff? I’m going to be a sports broadcaster – what use is Quark?
We took a look at our courses, and we decided that what "new" stuff that students wanted were computer applications. The teachers wanted applications for journalism work, stuff like how pencils worked, how word processing worked, how to take pictures, how to run a video, etc. etc. But please sir, don’t limit us to just journalism applications: they wanted it ALL, not just the journalism applications.
As Ms. Leung says, “how to shoot and edit photos/video, web languages such as Flash, CSS, HTML or PHP, lay out pages in Quark and InDesign or navigate the world of social media/web 2.0., Photoshop,” This is a lot, and much of it is not journalism, although it can be used in journalism.
But everything can be learned apart from journalism….there are free-standing courses everywhere…students (like working adults) can learn on their own…RTFM…why should journalism schools have to teach the basics of computer applications? Why should they have had to teach typing (100 years ago it was penmanship), computer usage, Internet use? We should have been teaching them grammar, spelling, specific computer programs for journalism use.
We could not get them to take grammar courses unless they were failing. Quark and InDesign were too boring (they had no application outside journalism), etc.
So in a sense, from each wave of alumni, we get the “same old, same old” of being unprepared -- because we did not teach our students cutting edge general all-purpose computer applications. We just taught the boring ones, the journalism-specific ones.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home