The Readers Weigh In On Technician Education and Training
|
|
 In December 2009 I distributed one of my periodic newsletters and received a level of response from readers far and away larger and more passionate than usual. The subject of the newsletter was education as it relates to technical training within our industry and the responses were thought provoking and informative. Therefore, I'm going to step back from the podium this month and let other voices be heard.
One of my readers reminded me that the North Carolina School of Arts has produced many fine technical theater folks over the years. In fact, we have a few of them at Scharff Weisberg. Eric Rimes is teaching down there and they're doing a great job of teaching the technical fundamentals in an undergrad curriculum. I also learned of a very effective program in audio arts and acoustics at Columbia College, Chicago that one of my readers speaks of very highly.
Another reader responded "unfortunately the concept of being a wire-jockey, or Hippo programmer, isn't enticing enough to justify a large tuition commitment...that has to be reserved for promises of becoming a 'director' or screenwriter". Of course, the amusing part of that reality, which I totally agree with, is that the programmer or wire-jockey probably has much better earning potential, enabling them to re-pay their student loans faster. Note to all aspiring directors or writers still living with the folks.
This reader put a rather fine point on it, stating "We have reached a point where lighting designers are a dime a dozen, while a really good crew chief is worth their weight in gold!" The reader also makes a plea for a better emphasis on safety, particularly working at heights in whatever form training takes these days. He had actually taken part in a program to guide young people into technical careers back n the 80's, which indicates that this is not a new topic.
I received a shout-out for LaGuardia High School in New York and the robust technical theater program that exists there. That brings up a question: Are technical theater positions in high school filled by kids that want to be technicians or are they filled by kids that can't sing or dance but want to be involved anyway? It's been a long time, but that's the way it was in my high school.
There were a number of responses that espoused the point that "training begins at home" and point to various programs that shops have created to provide training to students whether or not they become affiliated with the shop. While I applaud any and all homegrown efforts and Scharff Weisberg has run countless training sessions over the years, we have to remind ourselves that we are not professional educators and we often lack the expertise to provide effective training on our own.
One reader, who's been in the business many years, described his son's experience at Adelphi University here in New York where "they stay within a very standard and established theatrical curriculum in the study of lighting, audio, set-design, carpentry, wardrobe, and stage management." The reader further states that despite the effective overall curriculum, his son would like to be involved in more "real-world" situations such as corporate or industrial in addition to the traditional theater experience. One final tidbit from this fellow was the recitation of a recent statistic that showed 66% of respondents to a survey in a live sound magazine were over 40 years old, which is incredible as this used to be a young-persons profession.
For a totally different perspective I quote another response of a rather different nature, but with some validity. "We're a blue collar people, working in a white collar world, with a T-shirt mentality. That's who we are. I do want to share this with the people who need to know and deserve for us to reach out to, but I also do not want the dilettantes to find their way backstage." Paraphrasing the rest of his response he states that we should let the training system rely on the school of hard knocks and use that to weed out the weak and the less than sufficiently passionate. While I agree that's necessary and is also a natural part of the process, being exclusionary means that we reject young people before we can weed them out, particularly if they're not even aware of the technical careers within our industry.
For the last word on the subject for this post I'm going to quote another reader who sent in this very thoughtful response: "I have an MFA in Theatrical Lighting Design from BU, and I have been on the faculties at Brandeis University and Emerson College in the performing arts departments. I will always remember what my BU mentor told me: "If you want to be a lighting designer, don't let anyone know that you are a good master electrician. " The thought was that, once identified as a talented "techie", one would never be able to break into the "upper echelon" design world. I have always asked acting students who were unhappy about taking stagecraft classes or being assigned to tech crews: while you're waiting to be famous, would you rather be a techie or a waitress in a doughnut shop? Maybe the question educators should be asking of their technical design and production students is: where does your talent lie and what is a sustainable career path for you to follow?"
Very true and reminds me of the decision I made way back in 1975 when I came to the realization that I didn't have whatever it takes to be a rock guitar god. However, I was the guy in the band who figured out how the sound system worked and the rest, as they say, is history.
|
