I have a big, fat radical idea for the MU School of Journalism:
Start early.
Do more journalism.
In other words: Instead of only one or two required semesters for students at any given newsroom — how about three full years?
Click on the image to view/download the full PDF file.
In light of recent discussions and in anticipation of tomorrow’s forum (flier above), here are the facts, the problems and my totally radical ideas.
The facts
Don’t know how the MU School of Journalism works? Here’s a fast run-down:
- Under the “Missouri method,” students in the print/digital news, photojournalism and magazine sequences must report for The Missourian/VOX Magazine for at least one full semester. Depending on their sequence/in-sequence track, students can then work for The Missourian/VOX in reporting, photography, editing and/or design for another semester or two or three. By the same token, students in the radio-television sequence must report for KBIA and KOMU, each for at least one semester. This amounts to “real-world” newsroom experience before graduation.
- Most students do not begin their sequence coursework until they’re either second-semester sophomores or first-semester juniors. This means that, while they’ve done some very basic reporting in their required, pre-sequence classes, students will have not had any intensive reporting/storytelling experience until they are practically halfway done with college. (Unless, of course, students are enterprising and proactive enough to work for the campus newspaper, the college radio station and other small outlets.)
- Journalism faculty are working on a new required, pre-sequence class that would teach freshmen and sophomores basic multimedia tools — such as the fundamentals of photography, video, audio and software like FinalCut.
As far as I know, this has been the working model of the journalism school for many, many years. Students first take a lot of gen-ed courses and acquire a basic understanding of journalism through classes with titles like “The Principles of American Journalism,” “Cross-Cultural Journalism” and “Communications Law.” In their last two years in college, students actually do journalism.
The problems
Last Monday in my “Photo Editing and Picture Desk Management” class — which is instructed by Missourian director of photography Joshua Bickel — we went a little off-topic when we spent the entire class period talking about the journalism school, The Missourian and journalism school curriculum.
We disagreed over what each newsroom can feasibly do and what can be reasonably expected of a student over four years of coursework. But more importantly, most of us agreed that this journalism school is far, far behind other journalism schools in embracing and innovating in digital media, social media, technology and other fast-growing areas.
Jason, who recently attended a News21 conference in Arizona, asked why we at The Missourian at least aren’t innovating in different modes and deliveries of storytelling. He cited The Las Vegas Sun, whose sports section is now entirely on-line and caters to its audience by producing interactive stories that readers actually enjoy — and not just straight-up news articles. “Why can’t we expect our student reporters at The Missourian to do something along those lines?” Jason asked.
I answered that Missourian reporters and photographers simply aren’t actively at the newspaper for a long-enough period of time to move beyond basic reporting and become more intimate with subjects and more comfortable with advanced storytelling techniques.
Which leads us to…
My totally radical ideas
Halfway through the discussion in class, Joshua asked us what, in an ideal world, we would want from the journalism school.
Here’s what I would want:
- Stop forcing students to sludge through two years of required, pre-sequence courses that, for the most part, do little to enlighten and excite and do more to induce sleep and frustration.
- Instead, force students to sludge through those “I believe in the profession of journalism” courses… in their first semester of freshman year.
- Teach second-semester freshmen basic reporting, multimedia and other hands-on journalism-y skills in a lecture/lab structure. (Currently, all pre-sequence students must take J2100: News Reporting in their sophomore year.)
- Students then spend the next three (or more) years of their collegiate careers in whatever newsroom best fits their media preference.
- The entire time, students are fulfilling gen ed and other upper-division requirements.
This applies to all sequences except strategic communications/advertising, since I have no idea how that sequence works. Therefore, print/digital news and magazine students would work at The Missourian/VOX for three solid years, broadcast students would work at KBIA and/or KOMU for three solid years and photojournalism students would work at whichever newsroom best fits their individual needs.
This would also allow more flexibility and collaboration between the different sequences and newsrooms. Currently, inter-newsroom relations are tense, if not dead. There’s little to no collaboration between The Missourian, KBIA and KOMU, and students in any designated sequence are hardly permitted to take intermediate-to-advanced courses in another sequence. Under my radical idea, students could work at two newsrooms at the same time or switch back and forth. The only constraint would be sheer time; otherwise, the structure of his/her in-newsroom work would depend entirely on the student’s interest.
Naturally, this radical idea hits a few snags pretty quickly. Not all students travel at the same pace — some enter their sequence earlier than others, some transfer into MU in the middle of the year, etc. — and media-specific coursework would have to be restructured partially if not completely to accommodate this three-years-in-the-newsroom plan.
Additionally, some students may not even want to work in any newsroom for three years while in college. But to that, I say, “Deal with it.” If you want to be a journalist, this is what you do. Even for a student who plans to go into independent/advocacy journalism or free-lance, I think that learning to work within an innovative, progressive newsroom model is still a basic necessity.
The pros:
- Students get a lot more experience under their belts and a larger line on their resumes upon graduation. The journalism school always boasts that its students have real-world experience before they graduate — unfortunately, that experience is typically limited to one year. Under my radical idea, the experience becomes three years.
- Three years in the same newsroom (or two) means the students gain better grounding all around. They become better reporters because they know their subjects better (and their subjects are more comfortable with them). They become better storytellers because they know their beats and subjects so well that they’re freer to be more innovative in their mode and delivery of storytelling. They become better coworkers because they’re stuck with the same people for three years and have to learn how to be professional, efficient and team-players.
- Students can tailor their newsroom experiences, with limitations. I wouldn’t personally enroll to work in two newsrooms at the same time, but if a student wants to do so and is reasonably confident of his/her time management skills, who’s to stop him/her? Also, students could hop between newsrooms to get a more varied experience in different news media. No more sequence restraints or constraints.
The cons:
- This isn’t going to happen. At least, I don’t see it happening in the next 10 years. From what I can tell, there’s a lot of red-tape bureaucracy from Jesse Hall and a lot of politicking within the journalism school itself. Each of these is a huge hindrance to the change and innovation necessary to get the journalism school back into competition with other journalism schools around the nation.
- A huge rehaul in curriculum, journalism school structure and, most dauntingly, faculty members’ ways of thinking is required for anything like this to happen.
- The newsrooms would overflow. Having three years’ worth of students in one newsroom, all at once, is just a lot. Shifts and beats and everything else would have to be configured, but who knows? This could become a “pro” if students learn to enterprise beyond beats and get more in-depth with the community.
- Again, some students simply may not want to spend three out of four college years in the newsroom. Again, either deal with it or get out. It’s hard, time-consuming work that will suck your soul and destroy your personal relationships, but that’s what you sign up for when you go to journalism school and, eventually, go out into the real world.
In conclusion
Why do I care about this? I’m graduating in almost three months. Better yet, why should you care about this?
We should care because, believe it or not, the quality of journalists in forthcoming years depends largely on the quality of journalism schools from which they graduate. I’m not asserting that good journalism schools make good journalists or that good journalists come only from (good) journalism schools. Nor am I asserting that journalists learn everything they know about journalism from journalism school.
But a journalism school that is so far behind in the times, technology and innovation of today can hardly help the next generations of journalists. I am not condemning the MU School of Journalism as “bad” or “poor quality,” but let’s face it — it is lagging behind other journalism schools, and the longer it takes to reshape curriculum and structure, the farther behind it will fall. Already as an almost-graduate, I feel hardly ready to tackle the exponentially changing journalism and news industry. If no changes or innovation occurs in the next year, the next two years of journalism graduates will be at least five years behind everyone else.
Would my radical ideas solve everything? Absolutely not. But implementing a three-year newsroom system with more flexibility and collaboration would foster innovation and provide journalism students with a far more complete and valuable experience before graduation.
Addenda
I did not include these following remarks in my above arguments because everything would have become too muddled.
The journalism school must also implement more classes in business practices, personal branding and entrepreneurship. At least in the print/digital news and photojournalism sequences, many students are geared up to join newspaper staffs — which are currently laying off staffers by the dozens if the newspapers aren’t folding altogether. The more proactive and enterprising students are learning about personal branding and other practical uses on their own. But the journalism school needs to step up and help enable soon-to-be graduates to work and earn money outside of college and without relying on the shrinking newspaper industry.
The journalism school powers-that-be should also consider evaluating its entire directory of faculty and staff. Anyone who is not on-board with the changing times or who impedes efficiency or the learning process in the newsroom should have his/her employment re-evaluated. I don’t believe in letting a long-standing faculty member go simply because there’s someone fresher and newer on the market, but journalism instructors and editors who hesitate against progress and innovation are doing no favors for students. Period.
Words and Light 
I like this post! I crammed the hands-on journalism classes in one year of school, including during the summer. I learned about the profession of journalism in those classes, but really felt what it was about while working at KOMU for four years.
I do not think there’s such a thing as too many reporters in a newsroom. There’s more people to bounce your ideas off of – more people to come up with ideas, and more people to create diversity and backgrounds in the newsroom.
“Again, some students simply may not want to spend three out of four college years in the newsroom. Again, either deal with it or get out. It’s hard, time-consuming work that will suck your soul and destroy your personal relationships, but that’s what you sign up for when you go to journalism school and, eventually, go out into the real world.” Couldn’t have said it better.
Thanks Kat; good to hear from an alumna!
My concerns with too many reporters in a newsroom are these:
1. Three years’ worth of students in any given newsroom mean more than 300 reporters per newsroom at any given time. That’s just a lot for a newspaper, broadcast station or other in the small city of Columbia. As I wrote earlier, I would hope that students would take it upon themselves to go beyond Boone County and work on longer-term, in-depth pieces.
2. Having so many reporters in a newsroom could mean that more reporters see their stories going online-only or that the newspaper (and newscasts) expand in length. I would hope the latter happens.
3. Guaranteeing that each student gets his/her needs attended to, with that many bodies working for a news org at any time, is just logistically difficult.
But again — this is my radical idea for an ideal world. And this world certainly isn’t ideal.
Well said Chris. I look forward to the discussion tomorrow night. My only worry is that this forum is just a ploy of sorts. A dumpster, if you will, for us ‘rowdy’ j-schoolers to toss our ideas/concerns into. Giving us a false impression that our school cares.
I want to see change, but deep down, college is a business, and if the business can continue to operate in a profitable way (change costs time and money), then where is the incentive to implement change?
The Missouri School of Journalism damn well knows it’s not #1 anymore, yet it continues to sell itself that way to prospective students and parents. Then, it fails to provide an arena that fosters creativity, innovation, and collaboration – all of which are integral to the survival of Journalism.
I share that worry, Jason. I attended the RJI meeting at which students just came and spouted their concerns and ideas, and a faculty member was present and kept notes… but I’m not sure what came from that.
I would hope the incentive lies in adequately preparing students for the big, wide, scary world, since that’s what the j-school is practically failing to do. How many journalism graduates — that we know of — are actually practicing journalism and succeeding? How many have lapsed into other communications fields or sectors completely unrelated to news?
It’s not easy to disagree with anything in this post. Certainly students would benefit from three full years in the newsroom, and certainly the Missouri School of Journalism could be teaching more new media while breaking down silos. However, I think there are a couple things that need to be kept in mind.
It’s clear that you, personally, obviously could have taken advantage of a sink or swim model—you arrived at MU with experience taking photos and the courage to get involved at an early stage. But for every person like you in the school, there’s someone who thinks inverted pyramids have something to do with geometry and whose photo portfolio stretches only as far as their PowerShot can zoom. As you mentioned above, not everyone enters the school at the same level. There’s catching up to do. Fortunately, I’ve never heard of anyone being turned down after volunteering to get started at one of the newsrooms before their time to take a reporting class. Those who have the gumption have the opportunity to express it.
The reason the fundamental journalism courses exist is to make sure there’s still a distinction from the citizen journalists and bloggers that many once believed would overtake our industry. For some, the gist of the journalist’s creed (all of the purity of industry stuff) is a no-brainer. But as we’ve seen time and time again, every publication and editor is just a Stephen Glass or Jayson Blair away from a career-ending blow. Instilling the values and basics of such an intangible and inexact skill set is critical to the development of a strong journalist. Without those basics, you have an engineer who doesn’t know calculus—a pharmacist who doesn’t understand anatomy. Unfortunately, journalism isn’t as cut and dry as chemistry or math. In nearly every story, there’s a judgment call. Experience is necessary in helping make those calls, but without an idealist background, how can we expect freshmen and sophomore reporters to make the right call every time?
Thanks for commenting, Tony; I appreciate your feedback and insight.
That’s a good call about the sink-or-swim essence of my ideas. You’re right on in that I’m very much a jump-right-into-it kind of person. I actually entered MU with the intentions of going print, and I shot my first three months of Maneater photo assignments with a Canon PowerShot A95. I don’t think I ever got my photo game face on until well into my sophomore year.
I firmly agree with your assertions about properly educating journalists before they hit the newsrooms. I still think those fundamentals of journalism ethics, sensibilities and etc. should be taught — in the very first semester of a journalism student’s career at MU (as specified in my second bullet point of my idea outline).
But those classes need to be re-evaluated. Unless things have drastically changed since I took “Principles of American Journalism” and “Cross-Cultural Journalism,” those classes have good intentions but are taught/executed so poorly or inconsistently. Also, it goes without saying that those classes need to be updated to include developing questions and issues introduced by the digital age (again, unless things have drastically changed).
I’m not suggesting that students, upon their first semester in one of the newsrooms, should be expected to be bona fide journalists by the end of one semester. (However, I feel like that’s the case, in the current one-or-two-semester system.) Spending three years in one or two newsrooms should be a constant growing process. Mistakes will be made, but that’s why those newsrooms are there — and students would benefit more from lessons reaped from those mistakes if they had to exercise those lessons constantly/for the next one or two years.
But yes — the journalist’s creed is not outdated, and it should be taught. And it and those foundations of good journalism should be taught in a student’s first semester of coursework.
This is really good stuff, guys. You have some awesome ideas. I want to inject just a couple of things.
One, in response to the question about the forum held on curriculum in the fall — I was the faculty member there taking notes, and I can promise they were distributed widely. This spring, the faculty will vote on a complete overhaul of our curriculum paths, and a lot of the inspiration came from the student input that was gathered. I know it can be hard to tell because the pace of academia isn’t what any of us wish it were. But the change that has been talked about since I got here six years ago seems to be actually on its way.
Two, about the idea of spending three years in a newsroom — I so agree that students would benefit from starting earlier, and I was befuddled that they weren’t when I arrived here. The answer I’ve always gotten in response is that we have so many students who are weeded out in those first couple of years. Something like one-sixth of all Mizzou incoming freshmen say they want to be journalism majors. There’s just no way we could possibly teach that many people at once. If you can think of criteria to weed out low performers or less serious students earlier, you might have a case.
I wish I could be there tomorrow night. I hope you hold nothing back. This forum, like the one in December, came out of a desire on the part of individual faculty members to hear from students. It’s not an administrative ploy, and real people with a desire for change are listening.
Hi Joy —
Thanks for letting us know what happened to those notes from the forum! I always wondered what happened to them.
I definitely understand the weeding-out value of the pre-sequence courses: I think only one-third of my FIG from freshman year is still in the journalism school, and I’m fairly certain I’m the only one still in editorial/non-strat comm. I just wish those courses didn’t have to exist in their current state. I feel like many of the students who decide not to continue with journalism because of weed-out courses do so not because they disagreed with the principles being taught, but rather because the courses were so poorly taught.
As of now, I have no criteria or feasible idea in mind to weed out less interested/qualified students. I could run the idealistic treadmill and suggest that the very idea of working in a newsroom for three years during college could dishearten quite a few, and perhaps after the first year of working in a newsroom, still more would decide to pursue a different path. But there aren’t any guarantees to either possibility. If I think of any remotely feasible criteria/method, I’ll be sure to blog and broadcast it.
Thanks again for your feedback. I’m sure you’ll hear all about tomorrow’s discussion!
I think making it clear exactly what the expectations are for working in a newsroom, and breaking down the number of hours required, could be one way to “weed out” the less dedicated members. I’m thinking a schedule or “typical” breakdown of the majority of time spent working for one of the news outlets. I know that when I found out how much work I’d have to put in, and how little drive and passion I had for hard news, I wanted out! As horrible as that sounds, I still have an appreciation for the teaching I did receive, and I definitely respect journalism, but I realized that “news” just wasn’t my thing.
I’ll admit that the main reason why I switched from magazine to strat. comm. is because I didn’t like news and I had no interest in writing. I’d rather design, though I am grateful that I have a background in journalism. Not to mention I didn’t (and still don’t) have a car, so it would have been hard for me to feel effective at the Missourian.
I think these are all great ideas, Chris. I want to speak a little from someone who is in the Strat. Comm. sequence, because I think even we would benefit from a similar model to the one you proposed here.
I’ll start by breaking down the “sequence” courses, for reference:
First semester in sequence: Principles of Strat. Comm., Strategic Research, and Strat. Design and Visuals I
Second semester in sequence: Strat. Writing I
Third semester: Miscellaneous electives related to strat comm (design and visuals II, strat writing II, public relations, etc.)
Fourth semester: Capstone, more electives
Currently, the strat. comm. courses feel very disjointed and, well, stale. We learn the principles, how to research, how to use the Adobe products, and how to write copy, but what we learn is the very basic and there is little to no encouragement or incentive to go more in-depth. Like the other sequences, you have to be a self-starter and do things your own way, but there’s not really anything coming from the actual courses to make anyone grow. It’s all very rote and basic.
Not to mention the only chance strat. comm. students have of working in a “real life” environment comparable to The Missourian, KOMU, KBIA, or Vox is to work for MOJO Ad, and even that is so competitive that the majority of students don’t make it in. They’re currently trying to “rebrand” capstone as “AdZou,” but to be honest I think most people would rather work for “MOJO Ad,” because it’s more prestigious, and they actually do real work. And I’m not saying this because I didn’t get into Mojo; that’s not the point. The point is, I don’t think the J-School does enough to ensure that the majority of their students are engaged enough that they -want- to stay in the school.
I switched to strat. comm. because to be honest, I didn’t like news and I felt like there was no other way for me to go. And I’m glad that I switched, and I’m glad that I have a background in journalism because I think it makes me more flexible and a better advertiser. At the same time, I’m jealous of those who have experience from the Missourian, etc. because they have real work they can put into their portfolio. I, on the other hand, have student work, and the reality of advertising is that most people don’t even want to see student work.
So I think that even your idea could be adapted to work quite well with Strat Comm. Give us real clients from the get-go, give us more of that so-called “Missouri Method” hands-on learning. It will make us all better in the long run, and probably keep people motivated to do a good job.
And don’t get me started on the lack of innovation. I had to laugh a little at the upcoming “Innovation” course offered in the fall. I’ve been working at Newsy.com this semester and I’ve learned so much in these past two months about the state of online marketing that I’m shocked the J-School is so behind. I think we can all sense the winds of change, it’s just a matter of time before the heads of the school catch on and actually take advantage of them. The J-School is definitely falling behind.
Hey Lauren! It’s really great to hear from a strat-comm student. I had no idea how the sequence works until I read your comment, and I wish I were a little more well-rounded with the sequence so I could write an adequate/sufficient response.
But it is disappointing to hear that the scope of the “real world” model is limited across the board and in every sequence. I’m still riding high on the idealism train, but would it be too much for j-school to partner up with local businesses and have students work on their advertising? I can’t fathom how any of that works or would work, but I cringe at so many of the local ads on TV and in the papers, and wonder if current strat-comm students could do better.
Again, though — it’s too bad that this kind of frustration/disappointment is applicable to every part of the j-school.
I don’t think it would be too hard for J-School students to do marketing for businesses. I’m sure they’d appreciate the help! So far, our capstone courses (and Mojo Ad) have real clients from all over the country, which is a great way for us to get experience working on a real project with a real client. It’s supposed to be a “culmination” of everything we’d done before, but without constant practice we get rusty on things. I barely remember how to research because I haven’t done them since I was a first-semester junior. We’re taught mostly design and writing, and research is kind of brushed aside because “no one wants to do it,” when it’s really important.
But yes, I think it’s feasible for students to partner with businesses for advertising and marketing. The businesses could get a comprehensive campaign and the students could get some good experience.
“research is kind of brushed aside because “no one wants to do it,”” — Holy ****, that is scary.
Thanks again for all your feedback, insight and information, Lauren. It’s definitely good to get a strat-comm student’s perspective. I’m surprised/disheartened to learn that there’s hardly any “real world” experience involved until capstone. I really hope that, when the editorial faculty discuss innovation and changes, strat-comm faculty members are also on-board.
Excellent comments and ideas! Logistically, it could potentially be a nightmare with that many kids in the program. But here’s a brilliant idea to solve the problem of having over 300 kids in the newsroom – make the program progressively smaller as the classes increase in difficulty, make it more competitive. Keep our standards high. The best of the best. Make kids dream about coming to Missouri to study journalism again, because we have been the best and should stay the best.
I had a choice when I was looking at graduate schools. Ohio wanted me, even offered up scholarship money to entice me to attend their program. But I knew that it wasn’t the right place for me. I wanted to be a journalist, not just a photographer, so I chose Missouri. I knew the reputation of being the best and dreamed about coming here. I want more kids to have that dream, to be driven to live up to Missouri’s history.
Also, I feel like we have too many students who get pushed along to the next step in their sequence with barely passing grades just because they’re so far along in college their instructors don’t know what else to do with them. Our professors should get tough! From what I’ve heard about Angus McDougall, he was a hard-ass to the students, but look at the results. His students worked their tails off, and they were better for it.
Anyways, I’m writing this while procrastinating on the million things I need to do for classes and Vox. Maybe I’m an overachiever and I have an unnatural expectation for others to do the same. But still, I agree – we need to get our mojo back and start working ahead of the times.
I agree — the j-school and its affiliated newsrooms should always keep standards high. But I don’t think the answer is to ensure that only “this number” of students ultimately graduate with a journalism degree. Each semester of students varies in strengths and weaknesses, and I don’t think imposing a hard number on the passing rate of each class is quite fair.
Certainly, the coursework could become substantially harder and expectations become substantially higher with each passing semester. That way, it’s still up to the students and their own individual resolve as to whether or not they stay in the program.
“Also, I feel like we have too many students who get pushed along to the next step in their sequence with barely passing grades just because they’re so far along in college their instructors don’t know what else to do with them.” — Seconded. I’m all for nurturing the journalist in a student who hasn’t quite grounded him-/herself, but at some point, standards have to prevail. (Although, maybe I’m just being too hard. I really am a sink-or-swim person…)
I know you’re busy, Erin — thanks for reading and commenting! Now get back to work!
As a recent graduate of the Cronkite School at ASU, I can tell you that kind of innovative thinking is what more students need to be doing. I think all your ideas are awesome and I hope they get implemented.
Thanks Perri! One of my fellow interns last summer goes to ASU, and one day we compared/contrasted how our schools are handling the developing technologies, methods and approaches. I was excited for him that his school is proactive and totally on the ball, but really dismayed that mine is so behind the times.
I don’t know exactly what struck me as off about this blog post to begin with. The supposition that the Mizzou “journalism school is far, far behind other journalism schools in embracing and innovating in digital media” with no evidence to support this claim? The assumption that learning about the ethics involved in journalism makes students “sludge through two years of required, pre-sequence courses that, for the most part, do little to enlighten and excite and do more to induce sleep and frustration.” The exclusion of the convergence sequence and the Reynolds Journalism Institute in a post that is directly pointed at the adaptation of our school to the way information is currently consumed.
Before I came to Mizzou I probably would have taken the claims in this post and its responses as fact. Now that I’ve been here a few semesters I know better than to believe what I read.
People have been very vocal about their frustrations with the j-school. The idea that journalism students should be prepared to “sink or swim” is something I totally agree with. I think most of us that have been silent have been too busy “swimming” to consider what we would do if we “sank”. If you would like to see another perspective on Mizzou Journalism check out this link…http://ericazucco.com/wordpress/?p=694
Thanks for your comments, Quint. I read Erica’s blog post last night, and I think she raises good points. Here, I’d like to address your concerns individually but not necessarily in order.
1. I am very much a sink-or-swim person. The best way I learn is by jumping right into something and learning as I go. And yes, ultimately journalists have to be able to do that, due to the nature of the job. But journalism school is a place for learning, and some students learn best by taking everything in a little more slowly than you or I would like. For many students, J2100 is their first introduction to newswriting and storytelling, whereas others have already been practicing journalism — via their high school newspaper/broadcast station, The Maneater, KCOU or MUTV — for several years. The working-knowledge gap between these students is HUGE, and that’s something that the journalism school has to address. A student who struggles in J2100 may turn out to be one of the most innovative, efficient storytellers this school will ever see, but if that student is left to sink because the journalism school is built on such a hard-lined model — well, that’s doing a huge disservice to the student, and that’s the journalism school’s loss.
My idea to require three years in the newsroom does not necessarily entail a sink-or-swim experience. Students would spend their first full year of college learning all the fundamentals of journalistic newswriting, ethics, etc., and my hope for this idea is that the students who are still struggling by the time they start their first year in the newsrooms will receive adequate help from faculty — but they would still be expected to produce stories and get outside their comfort zone. By about the halfway point of their three-year newsroom experience, students would have to sink-or-swim, but some students would need that first semester (or two) in the newsroom to adapt and learn at their own pace before they’re swimming alongside the other students.
2. The MU School of Journalism is far, far behind other journalism schools in embracing and innovating in digital media. Sure, we now have the iPhone/iPod Touch requirement, and all students in print media sequences have to do at least one or two multimedia projects in their coursework. But neither of those means we’ve actually made any gains in embracing or innovating in digital media. Many classes require students to have Twitter accounts and a blog — but students aren’t taught how they can use those outlets to promote news discussion and their own personal brand. Yes, there’s RJI, but I haven’t seen any of those projects filter down and impact curriculum or even discussion, inside or outside of the classroom, apart from the iPhone app development competitions. I just scanned MyZou for what classes are available, and there’s nothing about the future of journalism or social media or developing technologies (except, perhaps, the “business models” class taught by Martha Steffens and a few classes taught by Jen Reeves).
Whereas, the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at ASU has on its Web site features as basic as social media guidelines (http://cronkite.asu.edu/node/735). If MU has anything as basic as this, then I didn’t know about it and it was extremely poorly broadcast. One of the courses students at ASU are REQUIRED to take is “Business and Future of Journalism,” and the school also offers specialization in digital journalism (http://cronkite.asu.edu/undergrad/ba_requirements.php). One of my fellow interns this past summer goes there, and he said students are working hands-on in multimedia within their first year of studies — students are immediately immersed and know what’s expected of them for the next four years. The Missouri School of Journalism can’t make that claim by any means. (That said, the new multimedia course for pre-sequence students, which is being introduced in the fall, should change things. I’m hopeful about that.)
3. I excluded the convergence sequence from my blog post because it’s so different from the other sequences. Convergence students bounce around from newsroom to newsroom, but I’ve been told — by several convergence students — that because they’re shuffled around so much within the space of one or two semesters, they don’t necessarily get as immersive an experience as students in other sequences get. Finally, from my understanding from discussion with various faculty members, the issues belying the convergence sequence are already being addressed, and separate from those discussions, I’ve heard whispers that the sequence itself is getting phased out.
4. I have absolutely no problem with students learning about the ethics and processes of journalism. In fact, I strongly advocate and believe in that. I described those underclassman classes as “sludging” because they are so poorly taught. J1100: Principles of American Journalism particularly stands out in my memory as frustrating, boring and poorly instructed. These classes need to be restructured so they have more impact on students, and they need to be re-evaluated annually to ensure that the material being taught is still relevant to developing questions and issues introduced by new technologies and methods.
Thanks again for your remarks. I hope I’ve adequately addressed the concerns you’ve outlined!