Photography College Dilemma

[NLewis]

If you decide you need a BA, I would get a "double major." It doesn't take any more work, just more concentration in courses. Since you probably already have a lot of art credit, I'd look for a place in a large city that is a good all-round school. Maybe UCLA, NYU or something like that. Your other major can be history, economics, business or what have you.

As you have already ascertained, the most important thing for photography is industry experience and contacts. Find a place where you can work as a photo assistant part-time for a serious photographer, preferably a commercial photographer like a fashion/advertising/editorial photog. You would learn more carrying lights for Annie Liebowitz for a year than you could learn at a decade at some university course. Plus, you would get paid, at least $8/hour or so.

At the end of the day, the most important thing is industry exposure, and some evidence that you can deliver the goods. This means an impressive portfolio. The industry exposure teaches you about the business side.

Is this the best photo of a girl ever?



Not really, but it sold a lot of jeans, and I bet the photographer made a bundle.

[Frank Version Two]

I think there is a difference between an education and a skill but we mix them up. Photography, graphic design, even painting, are skills, not disciplines of study no matter how much the collegiate academics want to gussy them up into pretending to being.

The only reason there are college photography programs is for the schools' and professors' benefit -- the colleges wanted to expand during the Baby Boomer years so they created entirely artificial programs with little practical or educational value. Graphic Design (my profession for many years!) is another such "fake" created by colleges "out of thin air".

Seems to me that people learn skills and call it their education but they are pretty ignorant of the world. A good old-fashioned disciplined "Liberal Arts" program - i.e. not like Hampshire College where my daughter went -- makes the most sense to me. For nearly everyone who is self-aware.

True there are no jobs recruiting Liberal Arts majors but having a well-rounded holistic education prepares one to take on almost any challenge. Including finding a successful and happy career....

Simply learn skills from on-the-job practice (the best way) or blow a few bucks on places like the Maine Photo Workshops or Anderson Ranch or some community-based seminars-workshops-practical courses. Harry Callahan, who later sold out and taught at RISD, said that a photographer should be able to be proficient with about a year's worth of practice and study. That sounds right to me too.

If you are interested photojournalism, study history. Become skillful at photography, languages, geography, and business.

If you are interested in the arts, study literature. Become skillful at photography, art history, and business.

[Andy Kibber]

Originally Posted by photomoof

That is list price, very few good students pay those prices, even though $35,000 is pretty much the going rate these days if you pay full freight at somewhere like MIT (36,140) or Yale ($35,300).

The number came from one of the OP's earlier posts. I was shocked that anyone would consider paying $40,000 for art school tuition.

Originally Posted by photomoof

No one should be taking out $200,000 in loans for an undergrad degree.

I agree 100%.

[Frank Version Two]

OK, I'll grant you that.

I just live under the shadow of RIT, the largest college photo program in the world. And with the exception of a handful of exceptional top students, I am very unimpressed by the students, professors, and the entire program. My instinct -- heavily clouded as it is -- tells me that those top students would be great no matter where or what they did school-wise.

[NLewis]

The benefit of an undergrad education is mostly ephemeral, but nevertheless meaningful. It is a necessary (though not always sufficient) element to enter the professional/thinking class. Most degrees from most higher-end colleges (Yale, Harvard) have no practical value, but their graduates go on to high-ranking positions nevertheless. It is a sort of social convention. The few degrees that are immediately practical tend to be very technical in nature, often as a preliminary to technical grad school (microbiology, computer science, medicine). Most "liberal arts" graduates never get a real education, in terms of learning about the world in a sophisticated way or "learning to think," that is mostly university propoganda and marketing, but it can still be a good stepping stone to some sort of adult life.

I don't think that a liberal arts education "teaches you to deal with almost any challenge." Mostly it just teaches you to get through some arbitrary university courses. However, people understand that the liberal arts education system is what it is, because they were there too, so they will give you a chance even though it might seem like your liberal arts education isn't relevant. That's the point at which you get the education on dealing with new challenges!

Thus, I think it is worthwhile to have an undergraduate degree, but as noted, unless you have a specific technical interest, like computer science, then a good "liberal arts" education is not a bad way to go. For photography in particular, I think a person would be best off studying something "liberal artsy" in a place like New York, Los Angeles or Boston, and practicing photography primarily by interacting with real working photographers and building your own portfolio, mostly on your own time.

If you are interested in fashion photography, for example, you would learn more just by booking a no-name model every weekend for $60 (or heck just find a girl willing to do it), shooting for a couple hours, then spending the week editing, post-processing and making prints, than you would learn in any class. 50 weekends a year X $60 is $3000 a year. You could probably even find some aspiring stylists and hair/makeup people to help you out at no cost. They need the experience and portfolio too.

If you are more into photojournalism, you could do well by inventing a photo project like Sebastiao Salgado, and go shoot it. He spent 18 months in Africa with Doctors Without Borders, documenting a famine occurring at the time. The point is, he just made the project up out of thin air, as a neat idea, then went and did it. His project turned into a huge book and museum exhibition, but even if it didn't amount to anything more than a neat portfolio, it would be the kind of project that would really teach you about taking pictures. 18 months in Africa doesn't cost anything, maybe $10,000. It doesn't have to be 18 months, two weeks or a month is good too.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Many unpaid "internships," outside of those recognized and offering college credits (or non-profit volunteers), are against Federal law in the US at least.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/bu.../03intern.html

“If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law,” said Nancy J. Leppink, the acting director of the department’s wage and hour division.

I'm delighted to hear it. If the 'employer' has any respect for his 'interns' he/she will want to pay them anyway, even if it's a pittance.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by NLewis

The benefit of an undergrad education is mostly ephemeral, but nevertheless meaningful. It is a necessary (though not always sufficient) element to enter the professional/thinking class. .

No it isn't. Read novels by Sir Terry Pratchett. Anyone who denies him access to 'the thinking class' is unclear on the meaning of 'thinking'. An undergraduate degree is a cheap (in the worst sense) passport to what Americans call 'the middle class'. The English definition of 'middle class' is more complex and less defensible.

Apart from that, I very substantially agree with you.

Cheers,

R.

[NLewis]

By "thinking" I meant someone who makes money with some sort of cognitive behavior, like a doctor, business manager, banker, journalist, marketing or advertising person etc. This might be different than what might be called the "thinking class" in Britain. To be honest, I don't think there are really any thinkers anymore, as a definable social grouping, just people trying to make a buck as an "intellectual."

"Middle Class" in America used to mean, basically, that if you were over 35 you owned your own house. This might be from making cars at GM. I suppose these days the "thinking job class" and the "middle class" are the same, since the "blue collar middle class" is disappearing and actually about gone now.

"Middle class" in Britain at first meant people between the peasants and the aristocrats, which is to say, business owners who weren't landowning nobility. These people would be considered "wealthy" today.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by NLewis

By "thinking" I meant someone who makes money with some sort of cognitive behavior, like a doctor, business manager, banker, journalist, marketing or advertising person etc. This might be different than what might be called the "thinking class" in Britain. To be honest, I don't think there are really any thinkers anymore, as a definable social grouping, just people trying to make a buck as an "intellectual."

"Middle Class" in America used to mean, basically, that if you were over 35 you owned your own house. This might be from making cars at GM. I suppose these days the "thinking job class" and the "middle class" are the same, since the "blue collar middle class" is disappearing and actually about gone now.

"Middle class" in Britain at first meant people between the peasants and the aristocrats, which is to say, business owners who weren't landowning nobility. These people would be considered "wealthy" today.

Again, I'd disagree slightly, while still agreeing with the broad thrust of your argument. There are still (a few) opportunities for journalists without degrees, and indeed photographers if they're good enough. Of course for politicians and novelists (whom one might hope to engage in 'some sort of cognitive behavior') there is no educational requirement at all.

Likewise, the petty bourgeoisie who owned small shops, etc., might be very nearly as poor as their customers: read The Classic Slum. But equally, in the UK, 'middle class' can be tied to education (above all), to accent, to the newspapers you read, and to lots more, which is why I say that the American version is more defensible.

Finally, I'd say that there are plenty of thinkers, and maybe even a 'thinking class'. It's just that thinking seldom pays well, and indeed, often may not pay at all except in the dole queue. Mindless conformity pays better. (Note on the last: I've been both an accountant and a schoolteacher, though not for many years, and lived in the UK, USA and France).

Cheers,

R.