Kelvin is bang on with his comments and I'm glad he's spoken out so plainly about the matter instead of edging around it sensitively. I can understand how frustrating his comments might be to those on jounalism degrees/NCTJ courses, but what he says is the truth; or at the very least, contains a great deal of truth to it.

All the high-up media professionals I've encountered agree that actual work experience is a million times more valuable than any course and that they are far more likely to employ someone with placements on their CV than someone waving around a qualification. None of those high-up journalists have done NCTJ's themselves, they got where they are through dedication and skill.

As another user commented, NCTJ courses are a bit of a swindle - they're very clever at what they do, marketing themselves as absolutely essential for getting into the market, but they really aren't - especially if the area you are interested in is features/magazine/reviews writing. By doing an NCTJ/journalism course you are paying a great deal of money to be spoon fed 'how to do journalism'.

Good writing is a 'knack' - some people have it, some people don't. As hard as you try and teach someone what 'good writing' is, they are never going to be of the same standard as someone who 'has the knack'.

The best experience really is getting stuck in and doing as many placements as possible - this way you not only learn all the vital skills in a REAL journalistic environment, but you also make CONTACTS, one of the most crucial means of entering this crowded market. Write for student papers, blogs, anything to get yourself out there and to keep 'in the game' as it were. Again, as another poster mentioned; you don't need spend endless heaps of cash and time - journalism is not a job your can lazily buy yourself into with a qualification. NCTJ/journalism courses might have some merits, and hey, for some people they might work - but they are by no means the essential gateway to the career they are often made out to be.

There will always be a place for those with the passion, determination and skill.

While MacKenzie is a total arse, this quote is completely true;

"There’s nothing you can learn in three years studying media at university that you can’t learn in just one month on a local paper."

So many graduates I've seen come through my door and not have the first clue about actual newspapers, some even do 3 year degrees that don't cover shorthand. Madness. A degree in journalism is really unnecessary, a one year masters or similar is more than enough. I really do believe you either get it or not, while you may be able to teach people to write consistently well, a lot of journalism courses I've seen do not do this and you get people who come out the other end who simply can't do the job. And I'm certainly not going to waste my time and resources teaching 21/22 year olds something they should know in the first place and could have learned at 16.

As a magazine editor (newspapers are somewhat different) I've never taken much notice of people's qualifications; their covering letter, CV and portfolio say far more about their abilities. It's a false dichotomy, though. Nobody says the reason to do a journalism course is to wave a qualification around. The reason is to actually learn stuff, which will then show in your work (whether it's for a student paper, freelance one-offs, on your blog or just for your portfolio).

I taught on a journalism course last year and was pleasantly surprised at the breadth and depth of what was presented to students, from basic grammar revision through facts about how the business works to the much-derided "media studies stuff". It's all valuable; the last thing society needs is newsrooms full of people who've never thought about what journalism is or ought to be. And Kelvin may be forgetting that publishers don't hire three-deep teams of subs any more to turn what illiterate hacks mumble down a phone line into printable copy. Being able to write correctly and intelligibly and structure a story is not something most people learn at school these days, so it has to come from somewhere.

It's inevitable that some people will scrape through courses with significant gaps in their skills in one area or another, which is why savvy employers won't take qualifications as a guarantee of competence. That doesn't mean the courses aren't worth doing. Student mags are worthwhile too. I set one up and ran it, taught myself desktop publishing and figured out the basics of editing and commissioning, and that got me my first job (my uni course was relevant but not vocational). Of course it's not the same as a proper job, but it's all good experience, and taking the time to do it shows you're committed to journalism. The worst candidate is the one who's ticked all the boxes but isn't really that interested.

By the way, I didn't know what a "nutgraf" was until I was asked to teach it, and I still don't know what an "F principle" is. These little tricks and tips can be useful, but people shouldn't bandy them about as if they're universal core knowledge; they're either folklore from corners of the industry or stuff an academic made up. One thing I don't like about "trained journalists" is that they think they've been taught the one correct way to do things. Doesn't exist.

(Much of what Jonesy says is true, if a few years out of date, so I'd listen to him, just with a pinch of salt.)

What's 'the F principle'?

I see, so the entire journalism department at UCLan is giving us the wrong information? Somehow, I think not. I'd rather take on board advice from them, thanks.

Yes, a workie "can" walk through the door. But I doubt that happens very often, to be honest. I would bet that actually, the vast majority of people employed by newspapers and broadcasters have a journalism degree of some kind under their belt.

It seems you have missed my point about subbing. I'm not saying learning those skills means you're automatically going to apply for a job which asks for them. I'm saying a trainee reporter would fare much better if they have the skills necessary to able to critique their own work before sending it to be subbed. Especially as a lot of subs seem incapable of doing that anyhow.

I'm not claiming this is always the case, or that I know it's always the case. But let's face it, no matter what 'experience' anyone has, what I've said is common sense. And thanks, I was planning to "get to work" anyway.

http://wordsmithh.wordpress.com/

And who are these 'industry professionals'? Because I would venture they're giving you incorrect information.

The prime consideration for any news editor/editor/assistant editor, in my experience, is that you can do the job.

Someone can come in to a newsroom with all the skills in the world, they can look great on paper, in interview, but be absolutely bloody useless once they're in, under pressure, and asked to turn something around. They may not be able to write. At all. Not be able to latch on to a style, or understand who they should call, or ask a question, in short, they may not be up to the job.

Yet a workie can walk through the door, with the same amount of shorthand they taught themselves, and blow everyone away with their ideas, their writing quality and a host of exclusives.

Ask any 'industry professional' if they'd give this person a job and I guarantee you the answer will be a resounding 'yes'.

And as for having to have subbing experience, you've clearly been speaking to the wrong people. A sub is a sub is a sub. A reporter likewise. Otherwise, you're applying for a subbing reporter job, or a sub job, not a trainee reporter job.

So I think that point is entirely valid. The problem is summed up perfectly in your post; you think you know. I don't mean to be patronising, but if it is them's the breaks, but you don't, so don't argue against people who do when you're clearly coming from a less well-informed position.

Take it on the chin and get to work.

"Take that in to a newsroom with you, not a certificate."

Seeing as we've been told by industry professionals that without prior knowledge of how to write and sub, you'd get laughed out of the room, I'd say that point isn't really valid.

Yes, anyone who goes in just having worked on a student paper is clearly foolish and stands no chance. But I don't believe many people are actually that naive.

The skills I've got now can be applied to a vast plethora of jobs, which I know I stand a good chance of getting. Yes, I have paid a fair amount of money, but that's the way it is now. I for one am glad, because I know I have a good chance of getting a great job, thanks to my UCLan course.

http://wordsmithh.wordpress.com/

This is such a justification for something which is, I'm afraid, totally unjustifiable! Journalism courses are an absolute swindle.

Many of the trainees employed in my newsroom do NOT understand the theory of writing a news story, do NOT have shorthand above about 30 words a minute and basically do NOT read newspapers. Yet those who have employed them - who are as much to blame in my opinion - claim they have the skills. They don't, and don't feed the myth that after your course you can hit the ground running.

It's not difficult to buy a book and teach yourself shorthand. It's also not difficult to read every bloody newspaper around every day - be it regionals, nationals, whatever - and start to understand how they differ, what their styles are etc. Take that in to a newsroom with you, not a certificate.

And take stories too. A completely unqualified reporter who comes in for work experience with three potential splashes up their sleeve (because they've done the above) will be snapped up. That's fact.

Tough as the job market is, there ARE trainee positions out there. And if you really want a job, make the effort and believe me, you will get one.

Don't turn up and think editing a student paper and writing music reviews makes you a reporter.

Kelvin, don't let the bastards grind you down, and budding reporters, you don't need to spend years and lots of cash to become a reporter, have faith and passion and it will happen.