What would you do? (education related)

DKT said:

ha! you got me...I decided I was "thinking too much" and decided to let it go....hence my revised post up there....oh well...

Click to expand...

No problem. You wouldn't trade your life for mine; I wouldn't trade mine for yours. 'Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord' (Anyone know where that comes from, incidentally? Someone said they thought it might be Spanish). Erie is doing exactly that, and the very best of luck to him. The people who piss me off are the ones who say to me, "Oh, I wish I could do what you do," but also want the standard of living, pension, security, etc., that you enjoy. They know what they want to take but won't pay for it.

Cheers,

Roger

Robert Oliver said:

Every time I do presentations to students about photography I tell them to get a business degree and learn photography by doing, practicing and reading.

Be a business person first and a photographer second.

There are some very good photographers that are out of business and some very bad photographers who are making a fortune because they are good business people.

Click to expand...

Dear Robert,

Or better still a law degree. It may be dull but it's not as bad as a business degree.

Something else worth telling them is that a lot of financially successful photographers are one-trick ponies, forced by their clients to stick in one narrow category. I know one who specializes in glassware; I met another who specialized in petrol stations (gas stations, filling stations, call 'em what you want). Being an amateur and shooting what you want is much more fun.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks said:

No problem. You wouldn't trade your life for mine; I wouldn't trade mine for yours. 'Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord' (Anyone know where that comes from, incidentally? Someone said they thought it might be Spanish). Erie is doing exactly that, and the very best of luck to him. The people who piss me off are the ones who say to me, "Oh, I wish I could do what you do," but also want the standard of living, pension, security, etc., that you enjoy. They know what they want to take but won't pay for it.

Cheers,

Roger

Click to expand...

Roger--well I actually have a similar philosophy to Erie's. I have always been that way, so I never really desired to make more money than I could live on and be happy doing what I wanted to do.

The tradeoffs in the job--well my benefits now are pretty good compared to the outside world and the downsizing etc. I have a retirement plan, major medical health & I can cover my family on that as well, I get paid sick leave and vacation leave. I also get longevity pay. I get cars, travel per diem expenses, all equipment supplied, all insurance liability covered, etc. It's just working for someone else who not only owns everything, but they own everything you produce as well--this is often what turns photographers away though, work-for-hire is not seen as a perk for many creative people, until they reach a point in their lives where maybe they want health insurance or a steady paycheck. I never started from the other vantage point though. I wanted that from the very beginning.

I'm at the halfway point more or less. I can take retirement in about ten years. I'll be 50 then. My retirement plan is to become a photographer like the rest of you.

I enjoy the work, but it's changing, and I have changed with it. I still enjoy it, though, because unlike some, I don't have issues with digital imaging. I see things as being fluid, always moving, and I learned to let go a bit , because it will drive you crazy if you try to control things too much, since you can't actually do that. everything changes, nothing really lasts, or stays the same. so it's very similar to what I read in Erie's post. I think it's like Joseph Cambell I think, who said "follow your bliss". that works for me.

I don't think that I have very good advice though to give to students or people wanting to get into the industry--because this outlook, is not what it being taught in the business type schools or in the professional organizations either. The interns we have had, they didn't want any part of it. They were uninterested in the work. This is pretty much why we quit taking interns, because we were tired of dealing with them. It just creates more work for us, because they don't want to do the jobs that photographers have to do. I don't know why, or what it is they teach people now in photo programs, but it's vastly different than it was when I came up, which was like a caste system of assisting. now everyone wants to start at the top, only that work at the bottom still needs to get done. these jobs I describe--they're all the parts of photography as a business folded into one. You do all the work from the top to the bottom. They don't teach this stuff in photo schools, whether it's a BFA or an AAS. You learn on the job. I don't know anyway else to say that, but if the people trying to get into the business aren't enthused about even the little things like that, then what can you tell them as advice? there's more to it than studying "business".

so I offer up all that as advice I guess, but I think it's quite different than the rest of you all here.

Roger Hicks said:

I don't know about California law, but under English law there's a way to make sure that a letter cannot be used in evidence: you write WITHOUT PREJUDICE across the top of each page.

Cheers,

Roger

Click to expand...

Roger:

Be careful with this advice. In Canada (and I think probably the UK and USA as well) the "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" label is really only usable in situations involving a settlement offer, and is only effective when attempting to exclude from a court's consideration the contents of prior unsuccessful settlement negotiations.

In addition, it only has applicability to civil disputes, and has no applicability to issues concerning criminal law.

Finally, what employer is going to want to accept a job application form, where the applicant is trying to make it impossible for the employer to rely on the information contained in it?

Matt

Challenge courses?

Erie:

This may or may not have applicability to you, and there may have been references to this earlier in the thread, but if your past experience overlaps with the subjects of one or more of the courses that form part of the educational paths you are considering, many educational institutions will allow you to "challenge" some of your courses - i.e. essentially write the exams and submit some of the assignments, and if you are successful, they will grant you credit.

There are also programs and institutions which will consider granting you certain credit for demonstrated prior experience and knowledge.

I would definitely explore those options, if I were you.

Good luck.

Matt

MattKing said:

Roger:

Be careful with this advice. In Canada (and I think probably the UK and USA as well) the "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" label is really only usable in situations involving a settlement offer, and is only effective when attempting to exclude from a court's consideration the contents of prior unsuccessful settlement negotiations.

In addition, it only has applicability to civil disputes, and has no applicability to issues concerning criminal law.

Finally, what employer is going to want to accept a job application form, where the applicant is trying to make it impossible for the employer to rely on the information contained in it?

Matt

Click to expand...

Dear Matt,

You're almost certainly right, though I don't recall it as quite that restrictive: that's half-memory from a third of a century ago.

On the other hand, what are the employers going to do if everyone does it?

I'm no great fan of Ayn Rand, but the phrase 'consent of the victim' springs to mind.

Cheers,

Roger

MattKing said:

.......

Finally, what employer is going to want to accept a job application form, where the applicant is trying to make it impossible for the employer to rely on the information contained in it?

Matt

Click to expand...

Matt,

Excellent point. Please also note that many employers require you to fill out a job application AFTER they've made you the offer!

So there you are with offer in hand for a job you want - and you're going to scratch-out the "truthfulness" statement! :rolleyes:

DKT said:

I don't know anyway else to say that, but if the people trying to get into the business aren't enthused about even the little things like that, then what can you tell them as advice? there's more to it than studying "business".

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Our views are (as so often when these things come up) far closer than is immediately apparent, and could be more enjoyably discussed over a bottle or two of wine than in the falsely adversarial context of an internet forum, even one so congenial and civilized as this. This goes for much more than just the small quotation given above.

Cheers,

Roger

I'm afraid creeping credentialism is slowly draining a lot of vitality from the US. Two generations ago most jobs did not require a degree, but did require a period of some form of apprenticeship, usually not so labelled. Thus, for example, journalists started out as copyboys. In part because of the overwhelming aversion to risk that has come to pervade american life, companies increasingly require a degree in a designated field for any job, even those for which no reasonable academic preparation exists. This leads to all sorts of dissonance. I once worked in a Gov't agency where the entire recruiting committee consisted of senior people who, by the standards that Congress had imposed after they started their careers, would not have been eligible to be interviewed upon graduation from college. I have met others whose sole obstacle to further professional advancement is the lack of a particular degree. Sadly, one of the more sought after degrees has become Business. I say sadly, because I have yet to see a business school impart much usable knowledge that couldn't more easily be obtained through a more academic discipline. I am also reminded that when my grandfather retired from a Fortune 50 company half a century ago, he taught in the business school of the local university. At the time, he was the only member of the business school faculty who had any experience outside academia.

As for Roger's question about why the two countries are so different, I think it ties to the litigious excesses on this side of the ocean, some of which are connected to the reasons cited by George. A second factor is the difference in scale between the two nations. Due to the higher mobility and greater size of the US, reputations are a lot less commonly known. And given the litigious nature of our society, references are not as reliable as needed. All of these factors push employers toward a paper based, objective, process for weeding out applicants. And that in turn forces people to acquire pieces of paper that substitute for the need to evaluate actual performance.

As I think further, this trend probably goes back to well before World War II, given the reference in the Wizard of Oz.

copake_ham said:

Matt,

Excellent point. Please also note that many employers require you to fill out a job application AFTER they've made you the offer!:

Click to expand...

not the gov't ones. you wouldn't even get an interview without the application. if you look at the link above--that job description is pretty cloe to mine actually and what I had to fill out. when I applied for a Fed job, well about 18 yrs ago I guess, the application was so long I felt like I was doing my taxes.

the job applications pale in comparison to some of the stuff you have to sign afterwards. like having to ask permission to do side work on your own time. every year I fill out forms saying I own all my own equipment, and if I do a sidejob I have to get permission first. I once filled out a 5 page form of nothing but check boxes next to every conceivable bodily motion, muscle stress or position that a person would encounter during the course of their duties, for I presume safety purposes. or all the forms about monitoring. I had to fill out something once that said that I understood that I couldn't talk about side work with coworkers or solicit sidework on the job. I presume someone got caught somewhere for running a business on the side, and so everyone else had to pay for it by signing this thing. The kicker was that I signed it--a week later I got a call from the people making us sign this (in another building far away) from someone I didn't even know--they looked me up through the network of staff photographers, and I was the first one they called. yep--you guessed it--they wanted to know if I did any side work. HA! I was like, are you kidding me? Is this is a set up? forget it. I told them to look in the yellow pages, and hung up....really bizarre sometimes.

so, fill out the applications, get your job. it's not the end of the world.

my opinions only/not my employers.

DKT said:

not the gov't ones. you wouldn't even get an interview without the application. if you look at the link above--that job description is pretty cloe to mine actually and what I had to fill out. when I applied for a Fed job, well about 18 yrs ago I guess, the application was so long I felt like I was doing my taxes.

the job applications pale in comparison to some of the stuff you have to sign afterwards. like having to ask permission to do side work on your own time. every year I fill out forms saying I own all my own equipment, and if I do a sidejob I have to get permission first. I once filled out a 5 page form of nothing but check boxes next to every conceivable bodily motion, muscle stress or position that a person would encounter during the course of their duties, for I presume safety purposes. or all the forms about monitoring. I had to fill out something once that said that I understood that I couldn't talk about side work with coworkers or solicit sidework on the job. I presume someone got caught somewhere for running a business on the side, and so everyone else had to pay for it by signing this thing. The kicker was that I signed it--a week later I got a call from the people making us sign this (in another building far away) from someone I didn't even know--they looked me up through the network of staff photographers, and I was the first one they called. yep--you guessed it--they wanted to know if I did any side work. HA! I was like, are you kidding me? Is this is a set up? forget it. I told them to look in the yellow pages, and hung up....really bizarre sometimes.

so, fill out the applications, get your job. it's not the end of the world.

my opinions only/not my employers.

Click to expand...

DKT,

Having once worked for the Fed Gov't, I understand that the application is almost always the start of the process.

However, in the private sector, many professionals are given job offers on the basis of their resumes and interviews with the hiring managers. Only then, after a job is actually offered*, do they meet with HR where a formal application is filled-out with the "truthfulness" statement together with other paperwork like insurance forms etc.

*In these instances, the Offer Letter will invariably state that the job offer is subject to verification of education, past employment etc.

And all, remember this - what employer would possibly be interested in hiring someone who refused to attest to their honesty? Few employers that I know of in legitimate business enterprises are interested in hiring dishonest people. It's just not good business.

Finally, I have seen in this thread where an individual who works as a freelancer has willy-nilly advised job applicants for regular employment positions to lie, falsify their credentials and despoil job applications. Beyond the fact that this is not a very wise job hunting strategy - it arises from some kind of atavistic mentality that the prospective employer is some kind of "enemy" of the prospective employee. It certainly bespeaks of someone who probably hasn't worked in a corporate environment in a long time, if ever.

In my next life I want to come back as independently wealthy
Steve

george--I know, that's true. I worked for a newspaper owned by one those big chain conglomerates that run everything now, and it was the same way. I got the job, then filled out the application, which was about I guess 3 pages maybe, I can't remember, it seems a long time ago. It was mostly all the payroll and social security stuff, insurance and personal contacts for emergencies and all that. Nothing to get worked up about in terms of "personal freedom". the other forms are all about liability really, or CYA things for both the employees and the employers. I suspect a lot of it has to do with people abusing the system--like lying on job applications for example--and then everyone has to pay because of a few rotten apples more or less.

Matt,
that's pretty much how I'm gettting credit for all the photography classes, it's the other, non-photography ones that are of greater concern to me right now.

erie

I thought ISO2k was another factor in job decriptions and qualifications.

And the 'stupid label guy' putting a stupid label on your back with your description (Dilbert).

I get a laugh over the signs with descriptions in machine shops on the machines...if you don't know a lathe from a drill press, so you NEED a sign on it? Maybe you should keep your hands in your pockets and watch from the bleachers.

OK, I'll make this one 'binge' OT posting...

Job qualifier stories:
1) I too worked for a newspaper once. Several (12) applicants for a position were taken out to lunch to a nice restaurant where the butter was preformed into elegant, but unnatural, shapes.

Three candidates were quickly culled, the two who popped the butter sculptures into their mouths, thinking they were mints and the third who tried to catch himself and fumbled it after seeing the first two react.

2) Already-hired employee (different place) spraying flammable aerosol solvent over a trash can was inspired to light the vapors with a cigarette lighter. Employee minus facial hair was dequalified and escorted to medical care then out the door.