Every few years, the drumbeat of the skills agenda grows louder in higher education.
Those of us who teach media courses are reminded (again) that universities are held responsible for the screen sector’s talent pipeline. Policymakers and industry voices call for greater ‘relevance’ in our course content, and stronger ties between academia and the screen industries.
Yet, genuine collaboration has remained elusive, in part, because of layers of misunderstanding about both HE and the media industries. A better quality of conversation is now needed.
So, let’s start by clearing the ground and challenging several of the persistent myths that have undermined progress in this area. By myths, we simply mean common assumptions that are not always entirely false but collectively oversimplify and distort what is both possible and desirable for collaboration between these sectors.
Universities exist primarily to serve the needs of employers
Wrong. Universities serve a range of stakeholders and beneficiaries, but their priority is their students. Certainly, we put considerable energy and resources into improving our students’ chances of finding suitable work, but the model of employment has changed. Today’s graduate is unlikely to be heading for a stable, consistent, long-term occupation.
Work in the screen industries is based on contingent work arrangements and ever-evolving skillsets. If employability is to mean anything it is in the notion of career readiness – being prepared to manage an individual career over time. Of course, we want to ensure that industry can draw on a broad skills base for the graduate workforce, but we do so by prioritizing the immediate and long-term interests of our students, rather than the shifting “needs of the employer”.
The screen industries do not require a graduate workforce
Wrong. Despite there being no formal qualification requirement for many jobs in the screen industries, a degree matters a great deal. It is true that the graduate nature of media work is often downplayed within the industry, not least by the culture of “paying one’s dues” – the idea that whatever their qualifications, new entrants must prove themselves in the menial aspects of the job before they can progress.
But over 70 per cent of the workforce are graduates (and a higher proportion of new entrants). In the words of a recent report commissioned by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Creative Diversity, “a degree will not guarantee an individual a job in the creative industries; but an individual is unlikely to get a creative industries job without a degree.”
Media work requires media graduates
Wrong. Media degrees are not a prerequisite for most screen industry roles. While certain degrees may offer added value for specific positions, the primary qualification sought is simply a degree.
Media employers appear to be more interested in what used to be called “graduateness” – a broader set of skills, attributes, and intellectual capabilities not limited to subject-specific knowledge. Graduates who work within the screen industries, therefore, are drawn from the full gamut of science, social science and humanities degree programmes.
The value of a media degree is determined by how well it prepares students for entry-level media jobs
Wrong. Given that graduates working in the screen industries are not drawn in any systematic way from media courses, it must follow that media courses are not necessarily any better placed to provide successful new entrants than are others. Conversely, skills developed on media courses make for graduates employable in a range or roles and sectors.
This is not to argue that these courses have no distinctive value for media industry employers. On the contrary, as employer-led entry-level training provision has been eroded, subject-specific knowledge, critical insight or practical media skills and experience can provide a valuable grounding for many media roles. Yet to fixate on ‘industry relevance’ is to miss the point that media work is now integral to all economic and cultural development and extends far beyond the screen industries.
Practice-based and “practical” courses exist primarily to produce “set-ready” graduates for specific industry roles
Wrong. This may be the pitch that many universities make to potential students and it may be the reason that students give when asked why they chose their degree programme. But both the complexity of student motivations and the critical purpose that practice plays within pedagogy are frequently misunderstood.
Many students who choose courses that foreground their practical components identify themselves as practical people who learn in a practical way. For many such students, these courses provide a path through HE that others do not. Thus, in opening the door of the university to a wider constituency, courses that contain practical elements ensure a richer diversity of talent for employers to draw from. Put simply, the value of university-based media practice is less as an end, than as a means.
Universities are a barrier to industry diversity
Wrong. The greatest challenges for those from minority groups are their lower employment prospects following graduation. The UK screen industries have historically been affected by a conspicuous lack of diversity. This has remained a problematic feature of the sector and is currently getting worse.
A more diverse industry is clearly an important goal towards which greater HEI-industry partnership and collaboration could profitably be focused, but this is unlikely to happen if the idea prevails that universities are the principal barrier.
Beyond the mythos
While collectively incoherent, these myths have tended to dominate initiatives for sector collaboration and partnership. Education and industry alike need to move beyond these unhelpful misconceptions to develop collaborative ventures based on authentic reciprocal relationships and a recognition that while employers bring industry insight and expertise, universities are leaders in education – a field in which industry is both a contributor and a beneficiary.
But for this to happen, there must be greater honesty and pragmatism about both the nature of work in the screen sector and the responsibility of universities to develop the broader career readiness of their students.
For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see our recently published open access article: Higher Education and the screen industries in the UK: the need for authentic collaboration for student progression and the talent pipeline
