# Music in the UK is a non vocational course.



## Jaws

After having a conversation about this a couple of days ago, I thought I would put it here as well, as many people seem to be unaware of this.

Music study at either conservatoire or university in the UK is a non vocational course. 

Anyone thinking of studying music here should consider very carefully why they prefer a course at conservatoire instead of university. It is quite possible to get a playing position in an orchestra with a degree in any other subject. I know of professional players with degrees in Modern languages, Maths, History, Chemistry, and English/Music. There are so few playing jobs in the UK these days that studying at a conservatoire doesn't give anyone an advantage. 

I am trying to make this clearer to everyone because conservatoire courses here in the UK tend to be 4 years for a first degree, but university is only 3 years, the saving in fees alone is £9000 and at the end students will be competing for the same types of mostly non music related jobs.


----------



## Sonata

Wow, that's unreal.


----------



## davinci

Jaws said:


> After having a conversation about this a couple of days ago, I thought I would put it here as well, as many people seem to be unaware of this.
> 
> Music study at either conservatoire or university in the UK is a non vocational course.
> 
> Anyone thinking of studying music here should consider very carefully why they prefer a course at conservatoire instead of university. It is quite possible to get a playing position in an orchestra with a degree in any other subject. I know of professional players with degrees in Modern languages, Maths, History, Chemistry, and English/Music. There are so few playing jobs in the UK these days that studying at a conservatoire doesn't give anyone an advantage.
> 
> I am trying to make this clearer to everyone because conservatoire courses here in the UK tend to be 4 years for a first degree, but university is only 3 years, the saving in fees alone is £9000 and at the end students will be competing for the same types of mostly non music related jobs.


Does a person studying at conservatoire get more exposure? ie: more popular concerts/recitals than a university.


----------



## Ramako

davinci said:


> Does a person studying at conservatoire get more exposure? ie: more popular concerts/recitals than a university.


Almost certainly, even if they are studying music at the university. What's more, at a conservatoire, they will be able to dedicate themselves towards practicing their instrument in a way that is simply impossible at a university, i.e. becoming better.


----------



## Ramako

Jaws said:


> Music study at either conservatoire or university in the UK is a non vocational course.
> 
> ...
> 
> I am trying to make this clearer to everyone because conservatoire courses here in the UK tend to be 4 years for a first degree, but university is only 3 years, the saving in fees alone is £9000 and at the end students will be competing for the same types of mostly non music related jobs.


University degrees seem to be more often than not 4 years these days, particularly in the science subjects. Two years ago I applied for four 4-year courses, and one 3-year course. For music there seem to be only 3-year courses though.

Of course a university degree is better for getting a 'normal job' than having studied at a conservatoire.



Jaws said:


> Anyone thinking of studying music here should consider very carefully why they prefer a course at conservatoire instead of university. It is quite possible to get a playing position in an orchestra with a degree in any other subject. I know of professional players with degrees in Modern languages, Maths, History, Chemistry, and English/Music. There are so few playing jobs in the UK these days that *studying at a conservatoire doesn't give anyone an advantage*.


Do you have evidence for this? Because I find it hard to believe that there is no advantage at all. Just curious.


----------



## Jaws

Ramako said:


> University degrees seem to be more often than not 4 years these days, particularly in the science subjects. Two years ago I applied for four 4-year courses, and one 3-year course. For music there seem to be only 3-year courses though.
> 
> Of course a university degree is better for getting a 'normal job' than having studied at a conservatoire.
> 
> Do you have evidence for this? Because I find it hard to believe that there is no advantage at all. Just curious.


I don't believe that there can be because I know of so many people who are playing professionally now, or who have been pro players who have degrees that are not in music, as well as people who have music degrees where the courses did not include performance opportunities. One person studied medicine got their first degree, played in a top professional orchestra for one year and then went back into medicine. I have been told of a person who works as a doctor but who also freelances as a pro player.

In the UK there is no actual qualification for playing professionally. To get into an orchestra you have to pass an audition. It appears that what you studied is less important than how you play.


----------



## Jaws

davinci said:


> Does a person studying at conservatoire get more exposure? ie: more popular concerts/recitals than a university.


It depends. Some conservatoires restrict membership of orchestras to students in the first year. However some university students get to play in orchestras, chamber music, recitals etc. Some universities have very strong music clubs that are open to everyone not just music students.


----------



## davinci

_Does a person studying at conservatoire get more exposure? ie: more popular concerts/recitals than a university._

I'm commenting on my own quote... here in the states, performers from conservatoire may appear on TV, such as Public Television. University performances only on YouTube. In Philadelphia, there is a weekly show on PBS showing performances from *The Curtis Institute.* (a very prestigious conservatoire...Lenny Bernstein studied there). This is probably the path to a professional orchestra in the US.


----------



## PetrB

The existence of the RCM, London, controverts just about all you propose as a harsh reality. Thousands audition to audition -- those hopefuls from all over the globe --, one thousand, or hundreds, are chosen to be allowed to audition: from that, no more than one hundred are admitted. The upshot? That institution does not accept an incoming student unless there is some very demonstrable ability which the jurors think can 'get the student all the way to professional.' The rigors of keeping up with the work and the level demanded at the RCM are internationally known.

I'm amused that you think any Uni or Conservatory is a trade school, or should be a trade school, with a virtual guarantee that there will be a job in the field of the student's study when the student graduates. 

Those schools are not trade schools, never have been.

It is those students who hedge their bets, another degree + music performance, who cut themselves a bit short, less music, less theory, less ensemble playing requirements all the way through.

I wonder, too, what exactly you mean by 'top notch' orchestras - of which by definition, though there are many good orchestras in the U.K., only a very small handful are truly 'top notch.' (If there are ten 'top notch' orchestras in the world, and the Vienna, Berlin, Concertgebouw, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, etc. are on that list, all the remaining 'top notch' orchestras will not be British 

Your ability to play, sight read, and ensemble playing experience are what win orchestral post auditions - not your secondary degree in Science, Sociology, etc.


----------



## Jaws

PetrB said:


> The existence of the RCM, London, controverts just about all you propose as a harsh reality. Thousands audition to audition -- those hopefuls from all over the globe --, one thousand, or hundreds, are chosen to be allowed to audition: from that, no more than one hundred are admitted. The upshot? That institution does not accept an incoming student unless there is some very demonstrable ability which the jurors think can 'get the student all the way to professional.' The rigors of keeping up with the work and the level demanded at the RCM are internationally known.
> 
> I'm amused that you think any Uni or Conservatory is a trade school, or should be a trade school, with a virtual guarantee that there will be a job in the field of the student's study when the student graduates.
> 
> Those schools are not trade schools, never have been.
> 
> It is those students who hedge their bets, another degree + music performance, who cut themselves a bit short, less music, less theory, less ensemble playing requirements all the way through.
> 
> I wonder, too, what exactly you mean by 'top notch' orchestras - of which by definition, though there are many good orchestras in the U.K., only a very small handful are truly 'top notch.' (If there are ten 'top notch' orchestras in the world, and the Vienna, Berlin, Concertgebouw, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, etc. are on that list, all the remaining 'top notch' orchestras will not be British
> 
> Your ability to play, sight read, and ensemble playing experience are what win orchestral post auditions - not your secondary degree in Science, Sociology, etc.


I agree with the ability to play, sight read, and ensemble playing is what passes auditions, that is why here in the UK there are so many professional musicians who did not study music.

It is also true that many people audition for courses at the RCM, and for other parts of the world this is probably a good idea, if they can get a playing job in their country. However the reality is in the UK that there are very few playing jobs available. How many musicians have retired in the last year in the UK? No new full time orchestral jobs are being created.

What do the UK RCM graduates do in the UK? The answer is many of them do lots of part time jobs. There are very few career paths for a music degree apart from teaching class music in a state school. If someone intends to teach class music in a state school I can't see any reason for studying for a degree at a conservatoire rather than a university.

By top professional orchestras, I was meaning orchestras in the UK that have full time positions rather than those that are made up of freelance players for specific performances. So I would refer to the big London orchestras as this. They are extremely difficult to get into as well.


----------



## PetrB

Jaws said:


> I agree with the ability to play, sight read, and ensemble playing is what passes auditions, that is why here in the UK there are so many professional musicians who did not study music.
> 
> It is also true that many people audition for courses at the RCM, and for other parts of the world this is probably a good idea, if they can get a playing job in their country. However the reality is in the UK that there are very few playing jobs available. How many musicians have retired in the last year in the UK? No new full time orchestral jobs are being created.
> 
> What do the UK RCM graduates do in the UK? The answer is many of them do lots of part time jobs. There are very few career paths for a music degree apart from teaching class music in a state school. If someone intends to teach class music in a state school I can't see any reason for studying for a degree at a conservatoire rather than a university.
> 
> By top professional orchestras, I was meaning orchestras in the UK that have full time positions rather than those that are made up of freelance players for specific performances. So I would refer to the big London orchestras as this. They are extremely difficult to get into as well.


I think you were just patently naïf about the 'open chair' situation for (full time, full season) top-notch orchestras in general: it has pretty much always been that way!

One could liken all post WWII universities, conservatories, etc. to a pyramid scheme, i.e. the numbers signed up and paying are all hoping for those few (filled /closed) positions held by the pros and profs. Especially true in the arts, the more 'abstract' areas of study - philosophy, etc. The only 'real job' available on a philosophy degree is as a professor, teaching it as a subject.

(One position -- philosophy teacher -- at that uni, filled, guaranteed by tenure: say, forty students graduating each year... the math on that is all one needs to know 

I must say, though, that those who pursue the arts, or those other more 'esoteric' disciplines, those who truly pursue it, have chosen an area where the time, money and training involved are so out of sync with the probability of a decent-paying 'regular' job, that only those who are completely driven actually take it on and follow through -- a kind of focused madness, in that the same time, money spent on training for about anything else other than 'art' has a much higher probability of a practical payout.

So.... only those 'who must' rather than 'want to, think it a jolly idea, etc.' should pursue it. Going for music performance, composition, acting, painting, fine writing, etc. has never had a likely highly practical outcome. To think so is to be a naïf


----------



## Jaws

PetrB said:


> I think you were just patently naïf about the 'open chair' situation for (full time, full season) top-notch orchestras in general: it has pretty much always been that way!
> 
> One could liken all post WWII universities, conservatories, etc. to a pyramid scheme, i.e. the numbers signed up and paying are all hoping for those few (filled /closed) positions held by the pros and profs. Especially true in the arts, the more 'abstract' areas of study - philosophy, etc. The only 'real job' available on a philosophy degree is as a professor, teaching it as a subject.
> 
> (One position -- philosophy teacher -- at that uni, filled, guaranteed by tenure: say, forty students graduating each year... the math on that is all one needs to know
> 
> I must say, though, that those who pursue the arts, or those other more 'esoteric' disciplines, those who truly pursue it, have chosen an area where the time, money and training involved are so out of sync with the probability of a decent-paying 'regular' job, that only those who are completely driven actually take it on and follow through -- a kind of focused madness, in that the same time, money spent on training for about anything else other than 'art' has a much higher probability of a practical payout.
> 
> So.... only those 'who must' rather than 'want to, think it a jolly idea, etc.' should pursue it. Going for music performance, composition, acting, painting, fine writing, etc. has never had a likely highly practical outcome. To think so is to be a naïf


Not all that long ago I had a conversation about conservatoire education with a professional player here in the UK. He said that years ago people at conservatoire expected to play in an orchestra when they left. There were more playing jobs, because there were more orchestras. One orchestra that I auditioned for finished about 6 months after the audition. Luckily I didn't get the job. There are now fewer orchestras and fewer playing jobs, however there are still as many conservatoire places as there were when there were more playing jobs. Add to this that school careers departments don't give any advice about what the chances of getting a playing job are, and you can see why I am concerned about the level of information available to young people considering going to conservatoire. If you then take into account that the A level exams in the UK have become easier and easier to pass there is a danger that some young people (and their parents) are being deceived into thinking that if they are only going to get 2 Es at A level they can go to conservatoire and get a playing job after their training.

I wish that it was true to say that only those who feel that they really must go to conservatoire do go, but the evidence is that this is often not the case. It is now too expensive for people to be left to make mistakes because information is not available.

I am just trying to help people not make very expensive mistakes.


----------



## Head_case

I'm not so sure Jaws.

There is almost 25% unemployment in Spain - of which there is an unprecedented number of university graduates. The rest of Europe has high unemployment, but not as bad as in Spain. 

Shall we say, that university is a waste of time and money, and that people would be better just getting a job?

Perhaps if a musician makes it on X-Factor, it doesn't entail that the rest of the conservatoire applicants are suddenly redundant. 

We are living in an era of deconstruction: everything of value; like conservatoires; universities, and even education are being stripped and broken down and treated by some as a waste of time. It's only natural to think like this when the zeitgeist is antagonistic towards valour; integrity and the tradition of the arts. 

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or not; partly since I don't care for orchestral music (I only listen to string quartets or solo instruments like the flute or harp mostly); secondly since the economic recession and terrorism in the aeroplane industry is making even those orchestras with budgets, think twice.


----------



## Jaws

Head_case said:


> I'm not so sure Jaws.
> 
> There is almost 25% unemployment in Spain - of which there is an unprecedented number of university graduates. The rest of Europe has high unemployment, but not as bad as in Spain.
> 
> Shall we say, that university is a waste of time and money, and that people would be better just getting a job?
> 
> Perhaps if a musician makes it on X-Factor, it doesn't entail that the rest of the conservatoire applicants are suddenly redundant.
> 
> We are living in an era of deconstruction: everything of value; like conservatoires; universities, and even education are being stripped and broken down and treated by some as a waste of time. It's only natural to think like this when the zeitgeist is antagonistic towards valour; integrity and the tradition of the arts.
> 
> I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or not; partly since I don't care for orchestral music (I only listen to string quartets or solo instruments like the flute or harp mostly); secondly since the economic recession and terrorism in the aeroplane industry is making even those orchestras with budgets, think twice.


In the UK we have degree courses that actually are a waste of time. Media studies is usually a course that is in this class of degrees. It is well know that some courses are done by people who can't get to do anything else at universities that people go to if they can't get into anything better. Our government wanted to get more people into higher education. Many people now have degrees that are worthless in terms of employment, but they tend to come from backgrounds where a degree is understood to be a way of getting a better paid job. But when everyone has a degree the qualification can be devalued. What is important now for employment is not what degree you get, so much as where you get it from. Certainly a degree where the person originally only had 2 Es at A level will not be considered to be of a high standard.

30 years ago, today's two Es at A level would have been the same standard as two subject exams taken at age 16, and A levels were about the same standard as the exams at the end of the 2nd year at university taken today. The level for a pass at A level had to be lowered so that more people could be accepted onto degree courses, but just as music playing jobs have not increased, true degree level employment has not increased, so many of today's graduates will be taking the same jobs that they would have 30 years ago without degrees but now starting their working lives seriously in debt due to university fees.

Anyone attending a conservatoire with two Es at A level at today's level for A levels, would not have got into anywhere to do a degree 30 years ago. They would have probably left school at 16. Now they are going to most likely get the same level of job but with a huge debt to pay off.


----------



## PetrB

My perspective is that of an American, where there is not such a seemingly very permanently high unemployment rate (Europe is over-populated and population saturated!) The 'controls' of helping ensure its citizens are training for something which will practically lead to a job is sensible, while still more of a nice idea than a hard reality.

If there is to be any hand-holding about what your next move should be, including college and its costs, it should be your own hand you hold, not looking to your society or government to be watching your back. Up until the 70's or so, if you were a British student with so many units at a high grade in the O and A level schooling, you would not be allowed to go to uni to major in anything else but what those 'gymnasium' level units pointed toward! (Strong suite and good grades in the maths or sciences? That is what you would have to major in unless you wanted to pay a full, non-subsidized tuition.) That, my friend, was 'practical' and 'trade school' oriented! Minding the use of tax-based funds, the student had only a much more costly choice if they wished to do anything else, ergo, they were more rigidly to conform, be the service of the most base pragmatism. A greater latitude of self-determination comes with a greater responsibility to learn to depend upon yourself, even in making good choices about what upper education you plan to get.

It is always wise to look about in the job market before one signs up for a four year or longer study toward a degree in that discipline. In the late 1970's in the states, the music departments of state unis were filled with music education majors. Trouble was, while they were in school, there was already a significant demographic shift which was happening; young parents were having dramatically smaller families = so many less students in the primary and and high school stages that whole classrooms were being closed, current teaching staff dismissed, thinned due to lack of demand. [No One was advising those eager freshman signing up to be Mus. Ed. majors of that fact... there were then less and less jobs in that field, even less by the time they would graduate.]

In the states, though, being on one's own is very much part of the national ethos: people here are much more aware they must look into things themselves, where their European counterparts have been used to a lot of 'parental' advice and controls / protections from their social structures.

For good or ill, Britain follows America in most sociopolitical trends by about ten years -- ergo you now have the heights of ridiculous lie down and let someone run you over political correctness, the Muslim immigrant who voluntarily applied for and took the job in the butcher shop who is now making a row because he has to handle pork! Americans, at the same moment, are just now slightly recovering their common sense about how ridiculous some P.C. is, and paying less attention to 'the silliness.'

No matter how much 'in loco parentis' dynamics are in your current society, I would plan on less and less 'hand-holding' and start preparing to be on your own. Doing your own research into any situation you are about to enter, school or workplace, is anyway always best. That is probably the best thing to tell others, i.e. don't look for your society to protect you about bad choices re: schooling and the current job market.


----------



## Jaws

PetrB said:


> My perspective is that of an American, where there is not such a seemingly very permanently high unemployment rate (Europe is over-populated and population saturated!) The 'controls' of helping ensure its citizens are training for something which will practically lead to a job is sensible, while still more of a nice idea than a hard reality.
> 
> If there is to be any hand-holding about what your next move should be, including college and its costs, it should be your own hand you hold, not looking to your society or government to be watching your back. Up until the 70's or so, if you were a British student with so many units at a high grade in the O and A level schooling, you would not be allowed to go to uni to major in anything else but what those 'gymnasium' level units pointed toward! (Strong suite and good grades in the maths or sciences? That is what you would have to major in unless you wanted to pay a full, non-subsidized tuition.) That, my friend, was 'practical' and 'trade school' oriented! Minding the use of tax-based funds, the student had only a much more costly choice if they wished to do anything else, ergo, they were more rigidly to conform, be the service of the most base pragmatism. A greater latitude of self-determination comes with a greater responsibility to learn to depend upon yourself, even in making good choices about what upper education you plan to get.
> 
> It is always wise to look about in the job market before one signs up for a four year or longer study toward a degree in that discipline. In the late 1970's in the states, the music departments of state unis were filled with music education majors. Trouble was, while they were in school, there was already a significant demographic shift which was happening; young parents were having dramatically smaller families = so many less students in the primary and and high school stages that whole classrooms were being closed, current teaching staff dismissed, thinned due to lack of demand. [No One was advising those eager freshman signing up to be Mus. Ed. majors of that fact... there were then less and less jobs in that field, even less by the time they would graduate.]
> 
> In the states, though, being on one's own is very much part of the national ethos: people here are much more aware they must look into things themselves, where their European counterparts have been used to a lot of 'parental' advice and controls / protections from their social structures.
> 
> For good or ill, Britain follows America in most sociopolitical trends by about ten years -- ergo you now have the heights of ridiculous lie down and let someone run you over political correctness, the Muslim immigrant who voluntarily applied for and took the job in the butcher shop who is now making a row because he has to handle pork! Americans, at the same moment, are just now slightly recovering their common sense about how ridiculous some P.C. is, and paying less attention to 'the silliness.'
> 
> No matter how much 'in loco parentis' dynamics are in your current society, I would plan on less and less 'hand-holding' and start preparing to be on your own. Doing your own research into any situation you are about to enter, school or workplace, is anyway always best. That is probably the best thing to tell others, i.e. don't look for your society to protect you about bad choices re: schooling and the current job market.


I agree with all of this. The problem is that the information needed for people with degrees from conservatoires is not available, which is why I am trying to bring it out into public information. The only way you can find out about music earnings is to ask a professional player how much they make. The music conservatoires do publish what sorts of jobs their students take, but they don't say how much they earn doing these or whether they are full of part time, so it is very difficult if not impossible for some people to find out any information about study at a conservatoire. Interestingly many professional musicians are discouraging their children from studying music.


----------



## PetrB

Jaws said:


> 1.) The problem is that the information needed for people with degrees from conservatoires is not available...
> 2.) The only way you can find out about music earnings is to ask a professional player how much they make.
> 
> 3.) Interestingly many professional musicians are discouraging their children from studying music.


1.) How many get 'jobs,' how much they make, is that much more extremely variable than, say someone planning to be an accountant. What stats may be had would vary widely -- it has always been so. You are still quite mistakenly looking at an arts training and career, and what stats about those careers as mundane / 'everyday normal.' _They are not, never have been, do not fit the format of the expectations you have as to 'how they are handled, information tracked, and what info is available to you.' You're expecting bureaucratic monitoring of one of the most erratic and unpredictable of 'trades' - the careers in that trade included._

2.) Yep. And there _you will get as many varied answers as the number of working musicians you ask. _Some have part-time pro contracts, teach, take odd gigs freelance: others are all free-lance mix all the time.

I feel dutifully compelled to say that _with your outlook and seeming dominant concerns, a career in any of the arts is not for you._ They are all too irregular, not predictable, having to punt on a routine basis, roll with all kinds of ever-present variables. _No shame in knowing that is not for you, but from your focused energy in this thread, something more 'dependable' and 'secure' is what you crave - a career in the arts will not provide that, period. _

3.) No s__t, Sherlock! _They discourage it because they know how impossibly difficult it is, and that only those who are driven, after being so discouraged, would dare go ahead anyway._ The parents, having done just that, are merely doing the same: if their child, with reasonable ability, pursues it after that, they will understand -- and not worry about their child's 'future security.'

Like I said, it is only for those so driven they think not one jot about 'surety of getting a job,' or the lack of insurance of the steadiness of the job position(s). I truly believe No One Else should even think about a career in the arts: without that drive, blithe to all practicality, there is very little hope for any kind of even moderate success. "Eye on the salary, security?" Choose something else, really... because you are not cut out for the vagaries that are a career in the arts.


----------



## Head_case

> In the UK we have degree courses that actually are a waste of time. Media studies is usually a course that is in this class of degrees. It is well know that some courses are done by people who can't get to do anything else at universities that people go to if they can't get into anything better.


Perhaps these pecuniary and material values are not shared universally (thankfully) by musicians. If they were in it for the money, they might as well do pop music. Although I do understand what you are saying, about how judgmental people are towards those who do Media studies degree, and generally deride them (even if I don't share this attitude with you).

After all, dialectical materialism has its relationship with capitalism, which in turn, roots itself back in the very self-centredness which caters for caring for oneself above society, seeking pragmatic "you've got to earn money" above other values. Such a mentality, is also rooted in conservatism; thus the profound suspiciousness of socialised support networks for the unemployed. When such a mentality goes to the extreme, of denouncing those unemployed, who are in need of support to get back on their feet, this kind of conservatism is worse than leaving the unsupported to fend for themselves.

I'm grateful that there are conservatoires and institutions, which work towards furthering the love of music, rather than thinking about whether they can make $$$ by the end of the year. Of course, this is a consideration: a far more secondary one, which can catch up with conservatoires and orchestras, as they have been doing.

Many of the people I work with, have those 'useless' degrees in media which are easy targets for slating. The fact is - they are still employed; it is not the Media Studies graduates who are short of work. That's not a problem, since the entertainment industry and reliance on multi-media in the digital age is going through a boom: not a recession.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/new-europe-spain-graduates-emigrate

Although Media Studies as a degree is something you might not see any value in, the unemployment in Europe applies to doctors...engineers....lawyers...nurses...highly qualified professionals who are forced out, not because they made a bad decision choosing a university degree as you might suggest; nor because they expected the state to care for them. Far from it: the economy of the state collapsed: nothing in their life could have prepared them for that. Engineering is not what it was when engineering students were studying. The times change, and without a crystal ball, no graduate can predict what will come to be, in 30 years time.

Perhaps compassion is a more useful than being judgemental? Far from it, the unemployed are not factory clones who sequester resources from the state. There is something wrong with the state: this is a problem precipitated by human greed, which is, the natural outcome of a capitalistic system. Hence I say: maybe the problem with the economy, is not actually the fault of those graduates who are unemployed; it is the fault of a few, whose own greed has gone viral with consequences.

This is worthwhile hearing:












> 30 years ago, today's two Es at A level would have been the same standard as two subject exams taken at age 16, and A levels were about the same standard as the exams at the end of the 2nd year at university taken today. The level for a pass at A level had to be lowered so that more people could be accepted onto degree courses, but just as music playing jobs have not increased, true degree level employment has not increased, so many of today's graduates will be taking the same jobs that they would have 30 years ago without degrees but now starting their working lives seriously in debt due to university fees.


Your view is somewhat strained against contemporary pedagogy. I personally don't like dismissing the hard work which A level students had to undertake this year or last year. It's commonly bandied around that A level grade standards have fallen ...mostly by those who are not taking them, and are therefore out of touch with contemporary A level examinations. The alternative, the International Baccaleareate does not have the local United Kingdom limitations and this examination system has a huge advantage which is slowly being realised across the United Kingdom.

However perhaps the A levels you took 30 years ago are meaningless today: in 30 years, the world has since moved on however it is the 30 years experience that has since been accrued, which makes it worthwhile for employment, not the A levels themselves. The conservatoire experience, is a different mode of passage to opening different doors than through university.


----------



## Jaws

Head_case said:


> Perhaps these pecuniary and material values are not shared universally (thankfully) by musicians. If they were in it for the money, they might as well do pop music. Although I do understand what you are saying, about how judgmental people are towards those who do Media studies degree, and generally deride them (even if I don't share this attitude with you).
> 
> After all, dialectical materialism has its relationship with capitalism, which in turn, roots itself back in the very self-centredness which caters for caring for oneself above society, seeking pragmatic "you've got to earn money" above other values. Such a mentality, is also rooted in conservatism; thus the profound suspiciousness of socialised support networks for the unemployed. When such a mentality goes to the extreme, of denouncing those unemployed, who are in need of support to get back on their feet, this kind of conservatism is worse than leaving the unsupported to fend for themselves.
> 
> I'm grateful that there are conservatoires and institutions, which work towards furthering the love of music, rather than thinking about whether they can make $$$ by the end of the year. Of course, this is a consideration: a far more secondary one, which can catch up with conservatoires and orchestras, as they have been doing.
> 
> Many of the people I work with, have those 'useless' degrees in media which are easy targets for slating. The fact is - they are still employed; it is not the Media Studies graduates who are short of work. That's not a problem, since the entertainment industry and reliance on multi-media in the digital age is going through a boom: not a recession.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/new-europe-spain-graduates-emigrate
> 
> Although Media Studies as a degree is something you might not see any value in, the unemployment in Europe applies to doctors...engineers....lawyers...nurses...highly qualified professionals who are forced out, not because they made a bad decision choosing a university degree as you might suggest; nor because they expected the state to care for them. Far from it: the economy of the state collapsed: nothing in their life could have prepared them for that. Engineering is not what it was when engineering students were studying. The times change, and without a crystal ball, no graduate can predict what will come to be, in 30 years time.
> 
> Perhaps compassion is a more useful than being judgemental? Far from it, the unemployed are not factory clones who sequester resources from the state. There is something wrong with the state: this is a problem precipitated by human greed, which is, the natural outcome of a capitalistic system. Hence I say: maybe the problem with the economy, is not actually the fault of those graduates who are unemployed; it is the fault of a few, whose own greed has gone viral with consequences.
> 
> This is worthwhile hearing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your view is somewhat strained against contemporary pedagogy. I personally don't like dismissing the hard work which A level students had to undertake this year or last year. It's commonly bandied around that A level grade standards have fallen ...mostly by those who are not taking them, and are therefore out of touch with contemporary A level examinations. The alternative, the International Baccaleareate does not have the local United Kingdom limitations and this examination system has a huge advantage which is slowly being realised across the United Kingdom.
> 
> However perhaps the A levels you took 30 years ago are meaningless today: in 30 years, the world has since moved on however it is the 30 years experience that has since been accrued, which makes it worthwhile for employment, not the A levels themselves. The conservatoire experience, is a different mode of passage to opening different doors than through university.


In the UK over a quarter of people with degrees in media studies and music work in hospitality. I remain unconvinced that had they realised that this was going to become their future careers, whether they would want to be in debt for probably most of the rest of their lives in order to study something or even anything for 4 years.

Regarding the A levels, when I was studying at a conservatoire part time, a few years ago, there were students doing musical exercises in the 3rd year of college that I did for A level. So not only are my A levels still relevant but they were the same standard of education that some undergraduates are having to pay for, by having to do it at college and university.

I realised some time ago that the problem with making A levels easier than they were, means that young people are now having to pay for a level of education at university that used to be free at state schools. This is very unfair, especially to intelligent people who are from poorer backgrounds. It is also unfair to deceive young people into thinking that they are going to get further in life by passing them at exams that years ago they would have failed.

An example of this would be a young person with 2 Es at A level going to study at a London conservatoire because they are quite a good musician but are unable to get into anywhere else due to the low A level passes. When they leave the conservatoire with debts of about £70000 (if they haven't lived with parents during the course,) they will get the same level of employment that they would have without the conservatoire study, but will have to on their low income pay back the debt.

It is interesting to me that contemporary pedagogy seems to be out of touch with what employers know about the fall in standards in A level education in the UK. Or is it just that those working in education do not wish to admit that in order to get more passes at A level the standard of the exam has fallen, and it has become easier to pass?


----------



## PetrB

Can of worms you're opening there, laddie And yes, in many institutions, both gymnasium and university levels, the grading curve has been lowered to 'accomodate' that flood of never before went to college demographic. Schools your side or my side of the pond must demonstrate their effectiveness in teaching the students, that determined, unfortunately, by test results. 

Partly to blame was wanting to accommodate those who were never before college bound, and having made college the goddess all needed to worship to make a normal living. That is where the standards started to drop.

Lower the curve, a greater percent of higher grades, or at least shoring up what was falling.... meaning your high grade point, that bachelor's diploma, means far far less than it did thirty years ago: it is literally devalued by grade inflation. That's why, stateside at least, in most disciplines you are worthy to be hired to only sweep up unless you also have a masters degree.

.... and of course no school or society wants to advertise their higher schooling as well depreciated and simultaneously costing much more 

And it seems to me you are laboring under an old-garde euro mentality, "If I get a diploma in it, that must mean the society which funded it was being practical and that also means there is a job awaiting me in that field." Time to dump that notion, I suppose, forever.


----------



## Jaws

PetrB said:


> Can of worms you're opening there, laddie And yes, in many institutions, both gymnasium and university levels, the grading curve has been lowered to 'accomodate' that flood of never before went to college demographic. Schools your side or my side of the pond must demonstrate their effectiveness in teaching the students, that determined, unfortunately, by test results.
> 
> Partly to blame was wanting to accommodate those who were never before college bound, and having made college the goddess all needed to worship to make a normal living. That is where the standards started to drop.
> 
> Lower the curve, a greater percent of higher grades, or at least shoring up what was falling.... meaning your high grade point, that bachelor's diploma, means far far less than it did thirty years ago: it is literally devalued by grade inflation. That's why, stateside at least, in most disciplines you are worthy to be hired to only sweep up unless you also have a masters degree.
> 
> .... and of course no school or society wants to advertise their higher schooling as well depreciated and simultaneously costing much more
> 
> And it seems to me you are laboring under an old-garde euro mentality, "If I get a diploma in it, that must mean the society which funded it was being practical and that also means there is a job awaiting me in that field." Time to dump that notion, I suppose, forever.


The master degree in the UK is now regarded as needed for real careers. My suspicion is that a masters now is what a 1st degree was 30 odd years ago. This leads to another problem in that teachers in the UK can train without having a masters degree.


----------

