Too many music degree programs

[LeTromboniste]

The problem is that there is a rather high cost of obtaining this degree

Again, high tuition in some countries is not a a problen with music degrees, it's a problem with the those countries. It's a society choice to not fund higher education and require students to foot the bill, and to adopt a mercantile vision of education where the value of a field is determined first and foremost by how much money one can make. That's not a universal principle.

I think the issue, Dana, is the expectation for placement in occupations going in. Or the perception, true or false, that teachers might be stringing students along.

I don't think many people initially go into music performance with a pure desire to pursue learning for learning's sake. Or to take on that much debt to learn a hobby. They go in because they want to win auditions or make connections to get into the scene.

It's more complicated than that. Of course we want to win auditions and make connections to get into the scene. But I don't think it's true that most people go into it with an expectation that we wil in fact win auditions or get into the scene. We go in because we want to do this, and we hope we will succeed, and want to at least give it a shot. But most people I've ever known in any of the schools I studied at were also very aware that there are no guarantees and that most of us will not end up having a career in music, or not only in music. Its not uncommon to hear music students say things along the lines of "I'm giving this X years and if I haven't won a job or established a strong professional presence in that time, I'm going back to school for something else". Or for people to immediately start another degree after they graduate college to have a backup plan already in place.

It's also not entirely uncommon for people to do that, only to end up back in a music career, by the way. One of my best friends when I was at the mandatory pre-university college we have in Quebec (I'll make a separate post about that system) was accepted for undergrad in the supposedly top studio in town for their instrument, with tons of scholarships, because they were extremely good and showed a ton of promise. The teacher turned out to be really toxic and put insane pressure on their students that could really break the motivation and love of music in people. My friend ended up not even trying for auditions and not going to grad school, convinced they were not "good enough" even though they absolutely were. Instead they started an engineering degree. But they then quit that and went back into music where they now have a career in the military bands. My best friend did a bachelor and master in music, then started a law degree. Now they're probably the busiest player of their instrument in the country. I could go on and on, I know so many people who stopped and did something else, and then ended up back in music, at the very least as a part-time professional occupation.

Obviously you need to go to school to get better. So you can't be so selective or exclusive for people just getting into college. The issue might be solved if an entrance audition was required every semester, and the standard kept going up each semester. Is that something that happens at conservatories?

I think the Conservetoire in Paris does juries that basically can fail you out of the school if you haven't progressed enough.

That's normally the case, in my experience. Might not be the case everywhere, but I always had juries at the end of every year (honestly as a teacher I think having one every semester would be too much, you'd get no possibility to work out technical problems with students, because they'd constantly be preparing for an exam. Even one a year a find too much, personally). In some schools they do one re-admission exam mid-bachelor to allow to continue.

What should any of us care if someone pursuing a performance degree has what it takes to have a career in music? And which of you is enough of an arrogant fool to think you can judge that?

This. That's my biggest problem with this whole conversation. Nobody, not even Renee Fleming, gets to decide for everyone what "succeeding" and "having a career" means and whether someone who's still years away from even starting one has "what it takes" to get there. So many things can happen in those years.

This is a complex issue, a lot of it has to do with a broader vision of society, not just specifically about music programs. But one thing it's not about is a lack of musical talent and potential.

[LeTromboniste]

In Quebec, we have a unique structure to our education system. Compared to the rest of North America, people graduate from their Bachelor at the same age, but we graduate highschool after grade 11 instead of 12, and undergrad is 3 years instead of 4. In-between, we have to attend a pre-university college (CEGEP, which stands for "college of general and professional education) for two years*. Those schools are tuition-free. Half the credits you take over those two years are general classes everyone has to take (French and English literature, philosophy, physical education, a couple general electives), and the other half are specific to your study program. In some fields it's still fairly general (for example for STEMs it's all the stuff that everyone needs to get), for other fields it's already quite specialised (in music, it's essentially bachelor-level classes, with private lessons, small and large ensembles, ear training, analysis, music history).

*the pre-university course is a minimum of two years, but one can stretch it out over three while still being considered full-time. They also offer "technical" three-year programs that qualify you to enter the workplace directly as a "technician", or continue on to university. In that case you still have the same general education requirements, but 2/3 of the credits are specialized, hence the extra year. Where I studied, they offer an intensive technical program for jazz and pop composition, performance and recording.

It is a really good system, as it gives a smoother transition into university, at least an extra year before people have to choose what they'll do, and more flexibility in terms of transferring and changing fields. For music it gives a chance to already be immersed full-time in a music school for two or even three years before even starting your bachelor's degree. This gives a solid head-start (for example my 1st year undergrad ear training classes at Université de Montréal were at the level they do in the final, 4th year at McGill, where the programme is based on students coming directly out of 12th grade from the US and English Canada), but also this naturally already gives a chance for people to realise they might not actually want to go on, and change course before they've spent a single dollar of university tuition, who can then go to university in another field, or if switching to another specialised field, transfer to another CEGEP programme for one year to get the specialized courses they need before university.

[GabrielRice]

Just going to put this here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/10/tech ... =url-share

Among college graduates ages 22 to 27, computer science and computer engineering majors are facing some of the highest unemployment rates, 6.1 percent and 7.5 percent respectively, according to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That is more than double the unemployment rate among recent biology and art history graduates, which is just 3 percent.

1. Live performers cannot be replaced by AI.

2. Music is a unique discipline in that it requires a balance of individual and collaborative work (with the possible exception of truly solo instruments). The interpersonal skills we develop by playing chamber music carry over into nearly any occupation we might find ourselves in.

[TomInME]

I was just about to link that same article. Skills-based, market-driven "education" failing spectacularly.

The thing that makes that (and performance degrees) not OK is when the students are permitted unrealistic expectations about the final outcome. Coding majors were sold a narrative that they would have good odds of a great job after graduation, now most of them are getting nothing. This will be the same story for a lot of other fields that corporations are currently pushing trustees to promote.
And the same thing can and does happen with music performance degrees: "oh, you're getting better all the time" "you're sounding good" when in reality the student is not on a trajectory that has any chance of reaching orbit. It's fine if the student has full knowledge and chooses to continue for their own personal reasons, but it's not fair at all when they're being encouraged to double down without knowing the real score.

[TomInME]

And there's a fundamental conflict of interest between the music programs (who need to maintain enrollment or lose their jobs) and the students' need for a clear perspective on reality.

[TomInME]

1. Live performers cannot be replaced by AI.

True, but they can and have been replaced by synthesizers and compositions re-scored for fewer instruments (musicals,etc). It's only in the luxury market (and/or volunteer organizations) that we see full orchestras anymore.

Compare today's performance market for trombone players with that of 50 years ago. This market contracted, while the supply side increased. Hence: too many performance degrees.

I'm not saying these degrees are worthless - I've enjoyed great benefits from mine - today I get to play in a brass ensemble made up of many individuals with performance degrees and it's a great-sounding, fun-to-play-in group.

But financially, the benefits are far out of proportion to the expenditure. The market considers most of these degrees worthless monetarily.

[JohnL]

Unfortunately that sounds too much like "trust us, we're the experts" for the average American. I get why someone who has done literally thousands of rivets in an airframe might think they know more than someone who spends all day in the office, but it's the lack of conceptual understanding of things like metal fatigue and pressurization that lets them think that. They have training and skills but little knowledge.

In my experience, giving people with a predisposition to question experts more information doesn't do much good. After all, that information is coming from the experts that they think they know better than. They just go their merry way, doing whatever is expedient for them at the moment.

Note that this attitude is EVERYWHERE. You made reference to the culinary field a while back. Have you ever read through some of the restaurant inspection reports from you local health department? Most places do pretty well, but there's a few that can be "troubling". What worries me the most are the establishments that have the same violations over and over again.

[ghmerrill]

Again, high tuition in some countries is not a a problen with music degrees, it's a problem with the those countries. It's a society choice to not fund higher education and require students to foot the bill, and to adopt a mercantile vision of education where the value of a field is determined first and foremost by how much money one can make. That's not a universal principle.

Here's the universal principle: "To each according to his desire. From each according to the ability of others to pay." That's a mild re-phrasing, of course.

[tbdana]

Are we selling kids short in this? Does any music student really think that a performance degree is going to get them a gig and a career as a performer? Surely students are aware of the odds, and they go into it anyway, with faith in themselves and a drive to succeed.

A parallel with even worse odds is theater programs. The unemployment rate among actors is worse than musicians. Yet all those kids go to theater school knowing the odds, because they simply love doing it and they're willing to bet on themselves, so they take their shot. "You miss every shot you don't take," as Michael Jordan once said.

Speaking of which, should we limit the number of schools that can have basketball programs because the odds of landing an NBA career are infinitesimal?

Lots of restaurants fail. Should we limit the number of licenses to open restaurants because most fail?

Even when I was young, back in the dim reaches of time, every student contemplating a career in music considered whether or not they ought to study something else to "have something to fall back on." It's not like these risks are unknown. And it's not just the myopic notion of symphony auditions and seats. Someone goes on to have a hip-hop career, or become a pop star, or create music for video games (which is extremely lucrative, by the way).

If there is an army of kids willing to take the plunge to compete for a handful of jobs, is it correct to gatekeep them, limit opportunities, and decide which ones won't even be permitted to take a shot?

[GabrielRice]

The thing that makes that (and performance degrees) not OK is when the students are permitted unrealistic expectations about the final outcome.

I live in this world, and I do not see this happening. Everybody going to school for music knows that the likelihood of getting a single full-time performing job is very, very small.

I have 4 jobs that I can reasonably count on for annual income, and a lot more single engagement freelance work. I own a home with rental income, drive a reliable car with no loan payment, and have a reasonably comfortable lifestyle. Granted, I am old enough that my situation is more difficult to achieve for people even 10-15 years younger, but my situation also simply does not show up on job survey statistics.

[tbdana]

I suggest that lots of music programs might be good for music, as it widens the pool of available talent. This high level of competition among a great many people makes for better musicians, as the ones who make it have to beat out hundreds rather than a handful. Just a notion.

[TomInME]

I suggest that lots of music programs might be good for music, as it widens the pool of available talent. This high level of competition among a great many people makes for better musicians, as the ones who make it have to beat out hundreds rather than a handful. Just a notion.

The same is true for professional sports. With many of the same consequences, if not more. (probably less money spent on advanced degrees, but also many lives harmed by permanent injury)

And we haven't discussed opportunity cost: the potential in other areas that people give up when they focus on a low-probability career.

[tbdana]

And we haven't discussed opportunity cost: the potential in other areas that people give up when they focus on a low-probability career.

I guess the question I'm asking is who has the right to decide for any particular student whether or not they should be permitted to take that risk. Shouldn't we leave it up to the student and his/her family?

[TomInME]

The student, of course - but it should be a fully-informed decision. I doubt that very many music schools publish stats on the average income - and number of jobs - in the performing music field, and what percentage of their graduates are making a full-time living in that field.

[ghmerrill]

is it correct to gatekeep them, limit opportunities, and decide which ones won't even be permitted to take a shot?

"Gatekeeping" gets done all the time. You got into law school. Many others failed to do so. Some people get into medical school , many people fail to do so. I didn't get into graduate school at Princeton or Harvard (now THAT was really unfair and limiting!). Some people become NBA or NFL players. Others don't. This doesn't really "limit opportunities" in any reasonable sense of that phrase -- or in any sense in which various other factors in life "limit opportunities".

I'm suddenly reminded of a colleague I had when I was teaching in the university. He had a Ph.D. from a (at best) mediocre school and was a specialist in "American philosophy" (a rather niche area in the history of philosophy). But he'd played football during his college days and dreamed of playing for the NFL. He somehow managed (in the early '70s) to wangle a try-out at some kind of open event held by the Chicago Bears. At this point he was in his mid-30s. He was crushed when the Bears immediately cut him from consideration. I guess that opportunity was limited. He eventually transitioned into the burgeoning area of "business ethics", transferred from the philosophy department (which had several pretty widely published and active people in that area) to the business school, and had a very successful career over there (including a long-standing stint on NPR). One gate got slammed shut on him, but another opened. Such is life.

There are over 600 music programs (college/university/conservatory) programs in the US. It's not clear to me that any gatekeeping is being done at all, or is likely to be.

[tbdana]

There are over 600 music programs (college/university/conservatory) programs in the US. It's not clear to me that any gatekeeping is being done at all, or is likely to be.

I read the premise of this thread as suggesting there should be fewer music programs available.

[robcat2075]

I read the premise of this thread as suggesting there should be fewer music programs available.

Back to Renee Fleming's original thesis... there are too many schools charging Julliard-level money to students who do not have Julliard-level talent yet graduating them as if they did even though they will never have Julliard-level prospects.

Most college majors have "weed out" courses in their curriculum that give freshman a dose of reality for what they are in for and what they have to be able to do. Something they have to pass to continue on.

[LeTromboniste]

I read the premise of this thread as suggesting there should be fewer music programs available.

Back to Renee Fleming's original thesis... there are too many schools charging Julliard-level money to students who do not have Julliard-level talent yet graduating them as if they did even though they will never have Julliard-level prospects.

Most college majors have "weed out" courses in their curriculum that give freshman a dose of reality for what they are in for and what they have to be able to do. Something they have to pass to continue on.

Again, schools charging too much for music degrees is not a problem with music degrees it's a problem with schools charging too much. That's a society choice. You can't have education be a for-profit, semi-privatised industry where competition between schools and between departments within the same school is encouraged and an inherent part of the system, and then complain that schools are charging too much or accepting too many students or offering programs that don't realistically fill a need. You want fewer music programmes? Then have a German or French style system, regulated, publicly-funded and not for profit, where only a few publicly-run conservatories are allowed to give university degrees, with limited enrolment, and government oversight. Except that would get called "communism".

[Burgerbob]

The logical endpoint here is:

American capitalism sucks

[WilliamLang]

Agree with Aidan 100%. Also, nothing will change until we change. Encouraging the arts rather than looking at it as a dead end, acknowledging that we're humans and that's more important than systems and technology, and (however slowly!) helping the creation of more paying gigs is the way forward.

The main reason that I disagree with Renee's statement is that the music pedagogy industry is not yet good at building people up, especially in the singing world, which is based much more on the "natural instrument" than the cultivation of skill. The pedagogy side of the world is much better at setting up a system of sieves that people filter through, much of the time by privilege, in my humble opinion.

[Floridatrombonekenneth]

Also, music programs are essentially trade school programs.

Music programs are not essentially Trade School Programs, and neither, for that matter, are STEM programs.

You can use your degree program to go into that field of study, or use the degree to find other work. I know numerous peers and students with music degrees who have found rewarding careers outside of the arts, without having to get additional degrees.

Very much agree with the above statements by Aiden and William.

[tbdana]

The logical endpoint here is:

American capitalism sucks

Not to derail this thread, but...

[robcat2075]

Again, schools charging too much for music degrees is not a problem with music degrees it's a problem with schools charging too much.

a distinction without a difference since exceedingly few students enter these schools to NOT get a degree and exceedingly few of these schools want to admit students who want to NOT get a degree.

Part of the economic plan of these schools is to keep the student enrolled, and paying, for the full curriculum.

It is impossible to make such a school on the cheap. The full-program degree and the high cost are intertwined.

But in Europe the student is not charged?

Great, but someone IS paying for that. That someone is eventually going to ask, "why are we paying so much to create so many classical musicians when so few of us listen to classical music?"

The European individuals i have recurring contact with have no more interest in classical music than the average American does.

The elected governments in Europe have been questioning the expense of subsidizing classical music...

A plan to cut half of Germany’s radio orchestras

[StephenK]

[But in Europe the student is not charged?]

Certainly are charged plenty in England.

[harrisonreed]

Didn't England leave Europe? I feel like it used to not be an island before Brexit.

[LeTromboniste]

Again, schools charging too much for music degrees is not a problem with music degrees it's a problem with schools charging too much.

a distinction without a difference since exceedingly few students enter these schools to NOT get a degree and exceedingly few of these schools want to admit students who want to NOT get a degree.

Ugh? Tuition being expensive vs tuition being cheap (or free) is a distinction without a difference?

Certainly not the case being made here lamenting the high student debt required to get a music degree as a reason music programmes should be cut and students should not study music.

The elected governments in Europe have been questioning the expense of subsidizing classical music...

A plan to cut half of Germany’s radio orchestras

What this refers to is one ultra-conservative party leader of one state of Germany suggesting to his own party that Germany should look into cutting some of the German radio ensembles. That's hardly "the elected governments in Europe". It's the US equivalent of the Speaker of the Texas state House of Representatives telling the GOP they should look into cutting some program in the US overall.

But in Europe the student is not charged?

Great, but someone IS paying for that. That someone is eventually going to ask, "why are we paying so much to create so many classical musicians when so few of us listen to classical music?"

The "someone" paying for students to do their job (which is to study) without actually having to pay to do it, in (some) European countries, is society. Because society has collectively decided that having an educated population is worth the investment, that opening public services like education to parasitic profit-making is perhaps not the wisest of ideas, and that society as a whole benefits more from there being no financial bar to higher education than it would by sparing the government from that spending.

Different society choices. Would the US adopt such a system? Of course not. But let's not pretend like student debt and high tuition is a problem with no solutions. The crux of the argument presented here in favour of cutting music programmes seems to essentially be "it's monetarily worthless, students go into debt because of insanely high tuition, with no career prospect, so music programs should be cut". Yet both the tuition being high (and therefore leading to high debt) and the career prospects being so scarce are both problems that are 1) not unique to music degrees specifically, and 2) the result of political and societal choices. These problems have other solutions, one just needs to have a tiny bit of imagination.

[ghmerrill]

Didn't England leave Europe? I feel like it used to not be an island before Brexit.

I've never thought of England as part of Europe, and I'm pretty sure the English never did either, if they were being honest (not even in the good old days when all the monarchical families were intermarried and the Houses of Hanover, Saxe-Coburg, and Gotha ruled England). And I'm also pretty sure that the Europeans haven't thought of England as part of Europe. So I think England was never ever in Europe (aside from the times they had their armies marching around in France and maybe Spain) and so couldn't have left it.

I could be wrong about this, of course, and it's true that in a certain strict geological sense England is part of Europe -- but in that sense, it certainly never left it, nor could it. Then there's Europe in the broad sense as opposed to Europe in the narrower sense ("continental Europe"). Take your pick on that one. But yes, apparently since Brexit, the view among Europeans as to whether England is "part of Europe" has taken more of a beating.

I'm pretty sure that it was always an island (aside from during some of the ice ages when it was still really an island, but with a really good bridge to it). This geography stuff sure is fun.

[LeTromboniste]

[But in Europe the student is not charged?]

Certainly are charged plenty in England.

Although with a programme of government-backed loans for tuition and living expenses, with repayment amounts based on income, and automatic forgiveness of the outstanding balance after 40 years (previously 30). Not a perfectly open and accessible system, but still nothing close to the insane tuition and debt in the US, and at least the contribution asked of the student for their studies is then collected after their studies over decades and proportional to their actual income, instead of collected up front.

[StephenK]

That is true, the loan, or 'debt' in England really operates more like a graduate tax than a loan. However the amount of 'loan' available is means tested against parental income, so parents can be expected to make very significant contributions also.

[harrisonreed]

Didn't England leave Europe? I feel like it used to not be an island before Brexit.

I've never thought of England as part of Europe, and I'm pretty sure the English never did either, if they were being honest (not even in the good old days when all the monarchical families were intermarried and the Houses of Hanover, Saxe-Coburg, and Gotha ruled England). And I'm also pretty sure that the Europeans haven't thought of England as part of Europe. So I think England was never ever in Europe (aside from the times they had their armies marching around in France and maybe Spain) and so couldn't have left it.

I could be wrong about this, of course, and it's true that in a certain strict geological sense England is part of Europe -- but in that sense, it certainly never left it, nor could it. Then there's Europe in the broad sense as opposed to Europe in the narrower sense ("continental Europe"). Take your pick on that one. But yes, apparently since Brexit, the view among Europeans as to whether England is "part of Europe" has taken more of a beating.

I'm pretty sure that it was always an island (aside from during some of the ice ages when it was still really an island, but with a really good bridge to it). This geography stuff sure is fun.

Come on. You think Rome *sailed* their army to England when they took it over? D-Day? It definitely *used* to be part of France geographically. How else would all those wars have happened?

[tbdana]

Come on. You think Rome *sailed* their army to England when they took it over? D-Day? It definitely *used* to be part of France geographically. How else would all those wars have happened?

I'm very impressed with the the history lessons I'm getting here.

[TomInME]

Back to Renee Fleming's original thesis... there are too many schools charging Julliard-level money to students who do not have Julliard-level talent yet graduating them as if they did even though they will never have Julliard-level prospects.

And even Julliard probably has graduates that don't make a full-time living in music. And students who don't graduate.

I think there's a major distinction between educating students about music as an art form vs training students to perform music at a professional level. And it's not unlike the distinction between teaching students about sports as entertainment, recreation, and physical activity, vs training them to play a sport professionally. And it's not unlike the distinction between teaching concepts vs procedures. Education vs training. Thinking vs doing.
And there's always a limit to how many doers are needed, but I would argue that the world needs far more educated thinkers than it currently has.

Fleming is not wrong: the supply of trained performers far exceeds demand. It's not that too many music degrees are being handed out, it's that too many are focused on professional training rather than understanding music as art.

[ghmerrill]

Come on. You think Rome *sailed* their army to England when they took it over?

Yeah, that all makes sense now. I always thought all those reports of the Romans sailing to England were apocryphal. Why would they do that? And definitely that whole story of Agricola being deterred from invading Ireland because of the sea-crossing logistics was just an excuse to avoid dealing with the crazy Irish. Besides, anyone can see that if you start from Scotland you can just about walk across to northern Ireland. I believe I've seen reports of monks doing that (those stories of hide boats can't really be true). Not to mention that you could pretty much just swim across from England if you do a mid-way stop at the Isle of Man. So much of what we "know" about history has been distorted for a variety of reasons.

[ghmerrill]

Fleming is not wrong: the supply of trained performers far exceeds demand. It's not that too many music degrees are being handed out, it's that too many are focused on professional training rather than understanding music as art.

That sounds a bit like a lot of the students I knew, when I was in graduate school, who got degrees in art history. I always wondered what they did. I can understand a few dedicated to becoming museum curators and probably about the same number thinking of careers as international art forgers or thieves. But the rest were a mystery.

[LeTromboniste]

It's not that too many music degrees are being handed out, it's that too many are focused on professional training rather than understanding music as art.

Sure, because musicology bachelors are not going to be labeled a useless degree that too many schools are offering and shouldn't...

[ghmerrill]

I was just about to link that same article. Skills-based, market-driven "education" failing spectacularly.

Something is failing spectacularly, but it's not what you think.

Reality check ...

I'm kind of skeptical about what's going on here -- based on my own prior experience working with computer science departments via a few internship programs for CS students I was involved in at three major universities over a period of about 15 years. Just some observations that make me wonder exactly what's up ...

As a matter of fact (and in my experience and the experience of my wife and children, including one with a CS degree who has subsequently held significant development positions with IBM, Amazon, and several othe firms, and is now a manager of development for an AI firm), CS students are not trained to code. CS students -- in my experience -- are some of the worst coders you'll come across and they they aren't trained in the best principles of software design and development, but and are expected to pick up "coding" by themselves. I had the same experience when I shifted out of philosophy into software engineering in the late '80s. The C.S. department I did my Master's in offered NO courses in coding and in fact required NO courses in software development or design.

CS programs focus on teaching a lot of underlying theory, such as database design, algorithms and algorithm design, finite state automata theory, operating system theory, etc. Just take a look at a curriculum and see if you can see any practical or "skills oriented" courses. So it's difficult for me to believe that we're seeing a failure of skills-based, market-driven "education" failing ... because that's not the sort of education being delivered to the students in this case -- at least in terms of the experience (at both the graduate and undergraduate levels) with which I'm familiar.

I can well believe, however, that students felt "gaslit" about their career prospects -- precisely because the training they got wasn't what employers need in order to drop such a student into a productive job slot. It's exactly EXPERIENCE that they DON'T have.

Having run an internship program (actually physically on a university campus) primarily for CS students at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, the first thing I had to do in each case was to teach my interns how to actually "write code" -- although what I mean by that isn't just actual writing of the code itself but the DESIGN aspects of creating a useful application, and determining things like the REQUIREMENTS for that, and how to TEST what you're doing.

As an example, when my son was part-way through his CS degree (being paid for by IBM, which was great), he was struggling with creating some things for a project. I taught him (in about an hour) how to use a debugger and program analyzer, and he was astonished! But that was NEVER covered in any of his courses. He said "Why haven't they taught us this approach from the beginning?" I said "Beat's me. That's not what they're about." I could go on at some length giving more and more examples of this kind of failure in what is supposed to be a kind of engineering program, but isn't.

Anyhow, I've rambled on long enough about this. But my suspicion is that the real issue here isn't that the students in question have been limited by a skills-based education, but that they haven't been required to learn ENOUGH (or even any?) genuine skills.

Think of going to a music school with the hope of joining a professional band (like a military band) or orchestra -- but taking only music theory courses for four years and being to told to practice your instrument on your own and maybe every once in a while play a tune for an audience. Then you apply for a job as a professional band or orchestra musician. What do you think your chances are of getting past even the first attempt to get an audition?

THAT -- I suggest -- is the situation these CS graduates are in. And yes, they're in shock when companies aren't lined up to offer them well-paying jobs.

(I would contrast this with my experience with statistics students who seemed to come out of each level of their education with an increasingly large knowledge base and relevant set of useful techniques that they knew how to apply.)

[NathanSobieralski]

I always wondered how university systems at large would square the quick pace of commuter and software development with the absolute glacial pace that (in my experience) constitutes degree program changes.

[JTeagarden]

one person's analysis, 47% of US orchestral musicians come from just four schools. Julliard alone makes for more than 20%

I read the underlying study, and it doesn't seem to capture whether the indicated school for these roughly 2,200 US orchestral musicians is where they went as undergraduates, or for graduate school: There are many instances of trombonists cutting their teeth at a lesser-known school as an undergraduate, and then going on to graduate school at someplace "fancier."

If this is common, then there might some statistical hope to becoming a full-time orchestral musician if you don't attend a top-10 music school as an undergraduate; if not, or if the study reflects where undergaduate study took place, then you might want to recalibrate your dreams, in light of the hefty price tag and long odds.

This could be akin to the pipeline to the NFL, where something like 96% of all players come from Division I programs, and 51% from only 20 Division I schools.

[ghmerrill]

I always wondered how university systems at large would square the quick pace of commuter and software development with the absolute glacial pace that (in my experience) constitutes degree program changes.

Well, there is that as well. But the other thing I neglected to mention is what the competition for those jobs is and where it's coming from.

Why should a company hire a newly degreed (and inexperienced) candidate right out of school when there's a global supply of degreed and experienced candidates who will work for a lot less than American salaries, wages, and benefits? Some of this "offshore" labor is, to be sure, not of the highest standard. But some of it is. And everyone pretty much "works from home" -- or from some remote location. Both of my kids do (one as an employee of a pretty small tech company and the other as an employee of a giant international insurance/risk-management company). One of the software development groups that my son currently manages is in Brazil -- and they're VERY good.

So that's another significant reason why graduates of CS departments in the US are facing some hiring headwinds -- not that the jobs aren't there, but that there is a pool of experienced and less expensive labor that's readily available. And there are other business benefits to hiring contractors rather than full-time direct employees. That's another way in which comparing the role, promise, and success of music schools to other schools isn't particularly productive.

I think that performing musicians -- at least of the sort being discussed here -- don't face this type of competition.

This also makes me wonder if the newly graduated CS majors have actually explored the contracting route, or are all focused on getting that long-term "permanent" job (you know -- sort of like shooting for tenure) with the big corporation or that exciting start-up that will shower them with cash and benefits. Often, they're just ignorant of the possibilities there. While my wife was at times a direct full-time employee of several companies (including Fujitsu for a while), she mostly did contract work for about 20 years, and loved the freedom and variety it provided -- and the ability to simply not renew a contract where she'd become dissatisfied with management.

[JohnL]

This could be akin to the pipeline to the NFL, where something like 96% of all players come from Division I programs...

Division I or just FBS? I suspect the latter.

[TomInME]

It's not that too many music degrees are being handed out, it's that too many are focused on professional training rather than understanding music as art.

Sure, because musicology bachelors are not going to be labeled a useless degree that too many schools are offering and shouldn't...

They know more about music than those of us who spent 5-10 years being taught the intricacies of making vibrations in a brass tube.

[JTeagarden]

This could be akin to the pipeline to the NFL, where something like 96% of all players come from Division I programs...

Division I or just FBS? I suspect the latter.

D1

FBS: 87.86% (2,164 players)
FCS: 8.16% (201)
Division II: 2.44%. (60)
International: 1.14% (28)
Division III: 0.28% (7)
NAIA: 0.08% (2)
Community college: 0.04% (1)

[sf105]

Having run an internship program (actually physically on a university campus) primarily for CS students at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, the first thing I had to do in each case was to teach my interns how to actually "write code" -- although what I mean by that isn't just actual writing of the code itself but the DESIGN aspects of creating a useful application, and determining things like the REQUIREMENTS for that, and how to TEST what you're doing.

As an example, when my son was part-way through his CS degree (being paid for by IBM, which was great), he was struggling with creating some things for a project. I taught him (in about an hour) how to use a debugger and program analyzer, and he was astonished! But that was NEVER covered in any of his courses. He said "Why haven't they taught us this approach from the beginning?" I said "Beat's me. That's not what they're about." I could go on at some length giving more and more examples of this kind of failure in what is supposed to be a kind of engineering program, but isn't.

at grad school and later at a top London CS department, I briefly taught a course on how to program really. Neither course survived the intervention of the faculty, most of whom didn't know how to.

The academic CS treadmill is about publishing and papers that include implementation are much more expensive to write than theory papers, so very few departments are big enough to build real experimental systems. It's closer to a Music Theory degree than a performance degree.

One thing that's impressive about most conservatories is that the faculty are well-known performers (although, like academics, many don't know how to teach). They've proved themselves in their trade.

S

[TomInME]

Be sure you're reading the percentages correctly. The original graph showed that 20% of orchestra musicians had degrees from Julliard, not that 20% of Julliard graduates have orchestra gigs. The 1980 NYT article was able to track 36 graduates and 24 of them had some type of full-time music work - a 66% placement rate. But that means fully one-third of graduates from the most prestigious school in the country didn't find work in their field. The prospects for graduates of less-prestigious schools would trail off rapidly from there.

The football stats are what percentage of current NFL players came from Division I, II, III. Rather than the percentage of players from those programs who turn pro each year. Only 1.5% of NCAA football players (who survive long enough to become draft-eligible) turn pro: https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/3/6/es ... etics.aspx
And while that percentage is likely higher for Div I than Div II, it's far from 100%. The NFL has 32 teams with 53 players each: a total of less than 1700 players, while the NCAA has more than 77,000 players.
FBS alone has 15,000-20,000 players, but the NFL drafts less than 300 players total each year, meaning that even if you compete in the top tier of college football, your odds are somewhere around 2% of turning pro.

Total up all the music performance majors in all the schools in the country, vs the number of full-time job openings related to music performance, and it might not be quite that dark. But I would bet on it being pretty ugly nonetheless.

[robcat2075]

What do serious schools say about their serious programs?

What is their pitch for your one or two hundred thousand dollars?

From the University of North Texas, the largest public university music school in the U.S., with 1600 students:
(Estimated four year cost: $140,000)

Tune your instrument at the world-renowned UNT music program.

Music Performance allows musicians to focus on violin, viola, violoncello, double bass, harp, guitar, flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, saxophone, trumpet, French horn, trombone, euphonium, tuba, percussion, or multiple woodwinds. Current and former students have won prizes in major instrumental competitions of every genre, and are appointed to professional positions in orchestras, wind symphonies, and universities/conservatories spanning the world.

No mention of whether any have resorted to busking on the street, but In the following, I have italicized what appears to be a veiled hint:

Why earn a degree in Music Performance?

The Bachelor of Music with a major in performance and a specialization in orchestral instruments provides students with the tools necessary to develop their technique and musicianship through the study and performance of music from various periods and genres; to familiarize students with various aspects of the performance profession.

Our program also prepares students for continued study in master’s graduate performance degrees at the highest quality institutions and helps especially gifted students prepare for immediate entry upon graduation into the professional arena as performers and teachers. We encourage students to investigate an expanded array of professional opportunities in the field of music and prepare students for professional careers in music through student participation in external performances, lectures/master classes and cultural exchanges.

And what do you have when you finish your degree ?

Marketable Skills

Performance communication
Excellent memory capability
Command of music computer programs
Pattern understanding
Improvisation and analytical capabilities

Ouch.

[peteedwards]

From the University of North Texas, the largest public university music school in the U.S., with 1600 students:
(Estimated four year cost: $140,000)

Ouch Indeed!
35+ years ago UNT cost me ~$800 per semester on a $800 scholarship (I was from out of state but any scholarship qualified you for in-state tuition). I paid my own way working part-time, with zero student debt.
I got my worthless performance degree and now I'm an engineer (no degree). No regrets, but there's NO way I could do that now.

[ghmerrill]

What do serious schools say about their serious programs? ...

A lot of this seems similar to the traditional bait trolled out by philosophy (or sometimes "communications", or even history) departments to attract majors: it's a great major for helping you get into law school, and you'll learn things that will help you there. This definitely works, at least on some demographic, and successful cases and testimonials can be found supporting it. And in fact there is some significant degree of truth in the added claim that the degree provides you with broad and transferable skills -- IF you actually take the right courses and avoid the easy fluff ones.

In the case of music performance programs, I remain highly skeptical of claims about broader or transferable skills getting taught.

[BGuttman]

I've talked to a few HR recruiters who old me that musicians were good candidates for computer jobs. Of course this was before the days of a glut of computer science majors.

My issue is less the number of music graduates and more the very high cost of the degree relative to the earning power of the jobs. Us old folks remember when it cost more like two to three months of the parent's salary per year of school and there were scholarships that covered most of this cost anyway. Now a year of school costs a year's salary for the parents and scholarships are fewer.

What we need is a national goal like landing a man on the moon with the government spending lots of money to train people and do research. Currently we have no such goal and the current government is totally uninterested in research to keep us technologically in the lead.

[ghmerrill]

What we need is a national goal like landing a man on the moon with the government spending lots of money to train people and do research. Currently we have no such goal and the current government is totally uninterested in research to keep us technologically in the lead.

The government is already spending lots of money to train people and do research. Huge amounts for research in a broad variety of disciplines. Both government (and more efficiently, private business -- but often also through government grants) are keeping us in the technological lead. Just read research papers and look at the acknowledgements of support.

And I think we do have national goals, but they're not generally visible to the public. Instead, they're buried in committee and program documents and funding policy approvals. You'll see them being exposed at various levels if you attend meetings of organizations like AAAI, IEEE, ASEE, etc. Take a look at something like "The National Artificial Intelligence Research Institutes program and its significance to a prosperous future" (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... aaai.12153) and you'll see just one recent example of this in just one field -- describing "the keystone program implementing the U.S. federal government research and development (R&D) strategy to advance a cohesive approach to studying AI-related opportunities and risks." That's just one example. Search for other things like "Recent federal research grants for space and space travel research." and you'll see similar research support programs.

There really isn't a dirth of grants from the US government for either fundamental or applied research in a broad range of areas. Don't worry. Your tax money is being spent in those areas.

[JTeagarden]

Truly dediciated musicians would make good anything: If you are familiar with the concept of the Big Five personaility traits, musicians would tend to be high in Openness, Conscientiousness, and Agreeability, which are great qualities for most careers.