Does anyone know what Justin Paterson is actually saying?

[narcoman]

..... 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.

[Exalted Wombat]

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?

[Studio Support Gnome]

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?

[jellyjim]

It's Justin Bieber that worries me the most.

[ramthelinefeed]

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.

[Mixedup]

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

[Mixedup]

Hardly anyone on my course knew how to write and essay

or prufe reed for spellin and grammer errers

[. . . Delete This User . . .]

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.

[narcoman]

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.

[Mixedup]

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.

[Mixedup]

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.

[narcoman]

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

[RegressiveRock]

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

[A Non O Miss]

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???

[Exalted Wombat]

]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.

[matt keen]

[quote="
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]

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

[narcoman]

[quote="
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 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 [/quote]

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!!!

[Hugh Robjohns]

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

[MarkOne]

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.

[hollowsun]

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'.

[matt keen]

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

[hollowsun]

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'.

[A Non O Miss]

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....

[Neil C]

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.

[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?