Who needs professional education?
2nd September 2007 by Michael Zimet
Warning: This is a long post, but I hope you’ll read to the end. I’m deeply concerned and wonder if you are, too.
Who needs professional education?
According to one college guide, PR practitioners apparently don’t. In its Best 366 Colleges: 2008 Edition, The Princeton Review states, “Any major that teaches you how to read and write intelligently will lay good foundation for a career in public relations.” (emphasis mine)
Worse still, in describing a major in Business Communications, they write:
You’ll learn how to interview, make presentations, deliver a ceremonial speech, or explain a policy analysis. You’ll get practice in nonverbal communication, like visual aids, to underscore your points. You’ll analyze audiences in order to compose an appropriate speech for them. You’ll examine numerical data, such as survey results, and translate that data into helpful information. You’ll learn how to communicate policy changes to your employees and discover the best ways to use the Internet for the dissemination of information. You’ll learn how to communicate in a crisis and how to develop and maintain good public relations.
Ouch! With the exception of the last sentence, that’s a terribly superficial understanding of what we do.
Jack O’Dwyer challenged Princeton Review about all this. Their response was chronicled in PR Conversations but sadly was lost due to a technical snafu. Fortunately, Judy Gombita had saved it and reposted it here.
The PR world is already rightfully abuzz — like an angry nest of hornets — about the Review’s portrayal. It was first reported in O’Dwyer’s PR News (subscription required) and has since been picked up in a number of respected PR blogs, such as PR Conversations and David Reich’s my 2 cents, and the indignation level is high.
Ours should be, too.
Although I don’t normally duplicate postings, I wanted to share here a comment I made a short while ago on my 2 cents…
The Princeton Review just doesn’t get it.
1. Their ratings may be an accurate reflection of their survey findings — but they only survey current students, not graduates in the real (read: working) world. They obviously don’t seem to understand that current students are in no position to assess how well a given major is preparing them for a chosen career. It’s only after years of experience that people can judge whether their education had any value in their preparation — or whether a more specialized major adds value to a particular career choice.
2. “Popularity” should have nothing to do with an allegedly objective assessment of a career or major. (The Review lists the “ten most popular majors.”) Otherwise, why not list “sex therapist” and “comedian” as potential careers and/or majors? They would surely rise to the top of the list. (”Gosh, Mom/Dad, I see that doctor and physicist aren’t very popular majors; I’d rather switch to something that’s more popular.” Ouch!)
FWIW, I have a degree in the communications field — but my coursework included electives in English, business and other fields that leave me sufficiently “well-rounded” to be comfortable going into other fields, if I ever choose to do so.
Come to think of it, how does the Review define “well-rounded”? If, as it seems with the Review, it’s simply taking enough “different courses,” you could wind up with minuscule amounts of education in myriad areas, making it questionable whether you’d be a good candidate for many positions. That may work well for some people in some fields. But in general, if that’s sufficient for today’s employers, why bother getting a college education in the first place?
What’s wrong with this picture?
(Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect to those who have achieved success and/or fulfillment in our field without a relatively specialized profession-oriented education. But for the Review to paint the picture with such a broad brush does many educators, institutions, accomplished professionals and aspiring communicators a great disservice.)
We should be asking ourselves several questions:
1. Does a communication major/degree provide a better foundation for our profession than a more generic English or liberal arts degree?
2. How do we feel about The Princeton Review’s portrayal of our profession?
3. What (if anything) should we do about it?
September 2nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
1. Does a communication major/degree provide a better foundation for our profession than a more generic English or liberal arts degree?
I think anyone would be hard pressed to say a general degree provides a better foundation than a specialized degree in just about any industry. But let’s look at English degrees as an example:
Many English majors have a focus in literature. How would that prepare them for a career in Public Relations? It doesn’t. I work as a freelance business writer on the side of my PR work, and through that, I’ve become acquainted with a variety of former English majors. Even when it comes to something more general like “writing,” those with general degrees are earning less money and advancing much less quickly. The reason is simple: clients prefer specialists properly trained to give them exactly what they need. Someone with an MBA and only so-so writing skills will still often be paid more than an excellent writer with no direct experience or expertise in the subject matter.
In general, I’d say it’s the same in PR… at least with the independent professionals such as myself. Now with firms or corporate clients, perhaps it’s different, because the company can train the candidate to what what they want, how they want. But it’s a different story when dealing directly with clients; at least in my experience.
Personally, if I were hiring someone to work with me, they’d have to have a PR degree. I’m sure others disagree, but as far as I’m concerned, getting a general degree shows a lack of dedication to a line of work, and that’s not the kind of person I’d be willing to work with. It would have been a different story when PR degrees weren’t available to the degree where they are now, but that’s just not the case anymore.
2. How do we feel about The Princeton Review’s portrayal of our profession?
Frankly, their opinion of the profession should be worthless to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. They very obviously have no connection to the industry, and aren’t in a position to know what’s involved or make a judgment call on what’s an appropriate line of study, and anyone who would give value to their call on something like that probably should go back to letting mommy and daddy choose their college for them anyway. Harsh? Maybe. But as far as I’m concerned, if you can’t think for yourself, you’re not ready for college and choosing your life focus yet.
Are the comments in the piece infuriating? You betcha. But I’m more surprised by the few people I’ve seen acting shocked by it. The truth is that the PR industry has failed miserably at building awareness of their own value and roles… ironic, isn’t it? Actually, we’re so collectively bad at that, that scores of PR professionals still don’t even understand their own changing role in PR on the Web. So I’d say the comment are sad, but really not surprising… hopefully a wake up call.
3. What (if anything) should we do about it?
Worry about educating the PR community first and foremost about the changing PR landscape. Only then will we, as a group, be able to educate a wider audience about the importance of what we do, and the best educational background for practitioners.
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 am
I’ve heard comments in France that students coming out of communications degree programmes here can draw lots of pretty diagrams, but have no idea what it is all for. I think the test of any education should be how well it prepares students to do the job (not to disparage the liberal arts approach, which when done correctly, does teach a good portfolio of skills).
I for one have a political science background. I used to make fun of communication majors (clearly bad PR on the part of my university’s comms department). What I’ve realized is that political science is great training for communications because politics is all about motivating people to change their behaviour (whether voting, drafting specific laws, etc.) I learned the theory of communications from IABC and wide-ranging reading.
Part of the problem is that the word communications means so many things to so many people. That leaves us wide open to misunderstanding. Imagine how much more respect we’d get if we were called Organizational Behaviour Optimization Specialists. That sounds like something that you need specialist training for! But I don’t think vocabulary is the key. I think it’s about doing better PR for ourselves.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
As a former Princeton Review instructor, I’m a bit embarrassed about all of this.
But, as I am, like Kristen a poli sci grad with a sociology minor, I thought that the journalism and PR electives I took at the University of Wisconsin gave me sufficient preparation to take on the early comms roles I had with political campaigns, and that my overall social sciences education has otherwise served me well and given me some insights that have proven useful twenty years later.
The overall question of “vocational” vs. “academic” education is an important one, however. In the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, separate institutions offer “vocational” degrees (journalism, PR,communications, graphic arts) and “academic” degrees (poli sci, literature, sociology), with the academic “universities” having much more prestige. Do we as communicators want to be on the record with a preference towards “vocational” vs. “academic” education–or do we want to focus on Accreditation as a ‘terminal’ credential accessible to communications pros of any background?
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
Mike, I’m curious: is this distinction between “vocational” and “academic” a formally defined (e.g., EU) convention, or do European institutions simply assign each degree program to one of those two categories?
I have two concerns:
1. I question the benefit of assigning seemingly arbitrary labels to different courses of study. The effectiveness and value of a focused curriculum depend as much on the caliber of the program/courses themselves (i.e., faculty and content) as on the students’ efforts to absorb the knowledge and new skills (read: preparation) they’ll need to apply in the working world.
2. What is the benefit? In the States (and perhaps elsewhere?), many people view “vocational” as a lower-level, less rigorous level of study than “academic” courses. I know for a fact that many U.S. high schools use this distinction; “academic” is often applied to classes meant for college-bound students. When used for college majors, it strikes me as inherently unfair.
As for Accreditation, I view it much as I would any board certification: it signifies a high level of professional achievement, experience and ability. I wouldn’t describe it as “terminal” (which implies the end of a process) — it’s yet another step which many ABCs supplement with continuing education and development.
I’d prefer to focus on identifying and promoting the best ways for aspiring communicators to prepare for the profession. This may indeed be a situation where “one size fits all” does not apply — but it would be interesting to explore how to facilitate some degree of global consistency for a global profession.
It’s definitely something to include in our Advocacy initiative.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
The distinction between “vocational” and “academic” post-secondary education in Europe is an official one, though the relationship between the two is becoming blurrier. In the UK, the institutions once had separate nomenclature (academic “Universities” and vocational “Polytechnics”), the Polytechnics were renamed Universities in the Thatcher era…and are now often disparagingly called the “New Universities” (or “old polytechnics”).
In the Netherlands, the institutions remain separate. Interestingly both the universities (WO) and the more “vocational” hogeschools (HBO) offer “bachelors” degrees, and both types of institution can offer communication programmes, though the HBO programs tend towards more practical training in PR/Journalism/Business Communication and the WO programs more academic and theoretical.
Other countries may have more rigid distinctions between types of post-secondary education (Germany, Belgium come to mind), others less so (Ireland?)…
Mike
September 5th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I’d like to briefly address Jenn Mattern’s comment that “getting a general degree shows a lack of dedication to a line of work.” As Jenn anticipated, I wholeheartedly disagree, and I strongly hope that the majority of others do as well. I earned an English degree from a liberal arts college even though I wanted to become a journalist. I was, in fact, dedicated enough to the line of work to seek out and speak with writers, editors and hiring managers of newspapers in my city about liberal arts colleges vs. J-schools. Every single one said that, all things equal, they would hire a graduate with a general degree over a graduate with a journalism (PR, communications, etc.) degree. You may argue that all things are not equal and that J-school students have more journalism experience, but this is not necessarily true, as liberal arts students can gain the same experience through extracurricular activities, supplemental classes, internships and jobs. Many of the men and women I spoke with also compared J-schools to trade schools (in a negative way).
I did take their advice into consideration, but my choice to attend a liberal arts college was based on many different factors, including extensive research into the courses offered by liberal arts English programs and J-schools. The fact that I chose a liberal arts college does not mean that I did not put thought and effort into my decision. It’s hardly true that every English major put as much thought into their degree as I did, but it’s hardly true that everyone who gets a general degree lacks dedication. The fact that people believe statements such as the offending one quoted is not only offensive, but highly discouraging to individuals with general degrees who are as talented and qualified, if not more so, than those with specialized degrees. Jenn, I think your attitude is doing both employers and job-seekers a disfavor.
September 6th, 2007 at 5:23 am
I’m free to have my opinion on the matter, and you’re free to disagree Anne. I’m certainly not going to apologize for something I believe based on a lot of experience and observation across colleagues in multiple fields of communication and their educational background just because someone may feel offended. I certainly didn’t expect everyone (especially those who have gone the general route) to agree or “like” what I said. As far as I’m concerned, if you know what you want to do with your life, you ought to be able to show it with specialization in some form or another, and if you choose a general degree path, you’d better find a way to make up for that lack of specialized formal training in some other way. If you personally feel that you have, then that’s great, and why you care about my personal opinions baffles me. Be confident in your own work and talents if you’re so sure of them, and spend your time proving it in your work instead of letting someone’s opinions on a blog rub you the wrong way.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:31 am
[...] agree with someone who went the general route (our mysterious friend only to be known as “Anne“. Oooh, [...]
September 6th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Jenn, some people would consider it a crime of the soul to know at 18 years of age that one wanted to be a public relations executive when one grew up.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Then, as I’ve already stated David, it would be their responsibility to “find a way to make up for that lack of specialized formal training in some other way,” whether that be through a later secondary degree or certification as a colleague suggested elsewhere to quite an extensive amount of experience beyond the training of a single employer or two and their chosen methods.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
So, hopefully you welcome a “youngster’s” opinion in this matter.
It sounds like we have a challenge before us:
1. To better collaborate with universities and organizations like Princeton Review to better comprehend what we do and the value we offer to business success.
2. As part of our Advocacy position, find ways to also directly reach the young professional as they enter the work force to instill any learning they may have missed in the classroom.
I’ve been working hands-on in the communications field for six years now. I graduated with a very strong Corp Comm and Public Affairs degree from SMU, and I am very proud of the breadth of skills they gave me. But I will say, equally proudly, I have sought out and earned every bit of the education I have to date.
I took an internship in a different field every summer — not a university requirement, although it should be. I have since been very involved in IABC, taken advantage of every company training program available, and a year ago I was promoted to manage a team of three.
Not to brag, but I do believe, you make yourself. Education needs to give you a foundation, principles, the tools as they say, so then the intelligent individual can figure out how to put it together. So, yes, universities can still be doing more to provide a better real-world experience, and that probably means having better relationships with communications professionals to be visiting lecturers, etc. And potentially IABC partnering with some council of educators to be more directly connected to curriculum decisions.
But this also means having great managers and mentors around you to challenge you as you start out in the real world. And I have found many through IABC.
I know I’m in the minority, and I love it most of the time, but I am also disappointed I have not found more young professionals in our association. I mean, under 30, like me. I think they are missing out, and I think all you seasoned professionals could do more to encourage your younger team members/employees to experience IABC, for this exact reason, to continue to learn, grow and become an even more well-rounded communicator. When I started out, it was a huge deal for me to pay that full amount, on the near-full credit card [sheepish grin], but it is completely worth it.
September 7th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Living in a country (France) where education is generally very specialized, regardless of what field you are going into, I have come to believe that excessive specialization is bad. That being said, the best systems probably provide a balance of the two. I think we definitely need trained specialists with very specific job skills. But we also need people with analytical and adaptability skills that aren’t related to any specific job per se (management and strategy skills, if you will). I think a world of technicians would be horrible, but so would a world of managers. Any organization’s communications function will need a mixture of these two to be truly successful. Too much specialized education can mean churning out people qualified for yesterday’s jobs who don’t have the ability or skills to adapt to a new context and not having any leaders with the vision to fix the problem.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:57 am
[...] 04:05 Gary Schlee chimes in with an audio comment. He mentions these links in his commentary: The Princeton Review, Gary’s A Class Act blog, PR Conversations, and the IABC Advocacy Commons. [...]
September 24th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
You don’t need to have a degree in p.r. to practice p.r., but I think some basics of public relations should be a part of every marketing curriculum and also part of any general business degree.
What can we do to correct the damage done by the Princeton Review piece? We’re doing it now by writing about it. It’s shame we don’t have an effective and respected association to represent us, but we should also push PRSA to make some noise about this, for what it would be worth.