Why are music and fine arts taught in university?

[Vaporous]

I think the the only reason you could give for teaching the arts as humanities is that they are supposed to be "culturing influences" which stimulate imagination and expression, helping to "shape you as a person" like the humanities are supposed to. Past that, its just to give the people who don't get into conservatories and academies something to do/ make the school look better by having a decent orchestra.

[Darth Wong]

I think the the only reason you could give for teaching the arts as humanities is that they are supposed to be "culturing influences" which stimulate imagination and expression, helping to "shape you as a person" like the humanities are supposed to. Past that, its just to give the people who don't get into conservatories and academies something to do/ make the school look better by having a decent orchestra.

That "shape you as a person" conceit of humanities educators is nothing more than the residue of the 19th class structure. Universities were finishing schools, where young men would learn to become "cultured gentlemen", ready to take their place among the wealthy elite. It's an anachronistic throwback today.

[Spin Echo]

I'm hearing a lot of talk about innate talent, fine motor control, hand-eye coordination, etc. This sounds like physical skill. So somebody should explain to me once more why music and fine arts is not skilled labour.

I'd imagine the same thing separates me versus an MRI technician, theory. A music major must not only be able to play an instrument (usually multiple instruments), they need to know the theory and history behind the music: why some chords sound happy while others sound sinister, how the music of one era influenced the next, and so forth.

[Saurencaerthai]

As a side-issue to the current debate over humanities courses in university, it occurs to me that music and fine arts should not be taught as humanities courses. First and foremost, of them are really studies of any aspect of the human condition; they aneitherre both skills.

Second, they are directly vocational skills, once again unusual for humanities courses which are meant to "prepare you for life" but not actually give you directly marketable skills.

So, with these conditions in mind, why aren't music and fine arts taught as a form of skilled labour rather than university humanities courses?

I suppose it depends on what aspects of music that are being taught. If you are talking about classes such as composition, performing ensembles, lessons, ear training and such, I would whole-heartedly agree, those are vocational training. On the other hand, classes such as ethnomusicology or music history would still fit the bill for humanities, since they are studying an aspect of the human condition.

In all honesty, I think the reason that some universities place music, dance, and fine arts under "humanities" is simply because they would rather have them all under one wing than to have an additional division. At least at my alma matter, we have separate schools which are part of the university, but still behave very much like their own entity in some regards. Arts and Sciences (our term for liberal arts) was very much detached from the music school.

[Darth Wong]

I'm hearing a lot of talk about innate talent, fine motor control, hand-eye coordination, etc. This sounds like physical skill. So somebody should explain to me once more why music and fine arts is not skilled labour.

I'd imagine the same thing separates me versus an MRI technician, theory. A music major must not only be able to play an instrument (usually multiple instruments), they need to know the theory and history behind the music: why some chords sound happy while others sound sinister, how the music of one era influenced the next, and so forth.

So music and fine arts in university has to incorporate a lot of history? The bit about how to generate certain moods is not exactly something people have to go to university to learn.

[Vaporous]

I think the the only reason you could give for teaching the arts as humanities is that they are supposed to be "culturing influences" which stimulate imagination and expression, helping to "shape you as a person" like the humanities are supposed to. Past that, its just to give the people who don't get into conservatories and academies something to do/ make the school look better by having a decent orchestra.

That "shape you as a person" conceit of humanities educators is nothing more than the residue of the 19th century class structure. Universities were finishing schools, where young men would learn to become "cultured gentlemen", ready to take their place among the wealthy elite. It's an anachronistic throwback today.

They do teach music history, but other than that, I can't see anything else. "Lets have a place where you don't need to pay conservatory cash to play music." is a reason to have the courses, but not one to consider it part of the humanities.

As an off topic aside which relates to what you said, I also notice you had "prepare you for life" in quotes in your op. What do you think the purpose of teaching humanities courses is, or ought to be?

[kheegster]

So, with these conditions in mind, why aren't music and fine arts taught as a form of skilled labour rather than university humanities courses?

Fine arts and music are way beyond simply skilled labour. Anyone can learn some skilled labour job, but not everyone can become a good artist or musician.

OK...I'll cut through to the issue you have a problem with.

Shinova made his post in reference to jobs[/i]. You can take any non-retarded, able-bodied person off the street and put them through vocational school to teach them how to do carpentry, plumbing, metalwork etc, and once they're through the course they'll be able to find work in the respective trade unless they're an utter moron. This can be accomplished in a couple of years without very much effort on the trainee's part.

Now take the same Joe Sixpack, and even with several years of training it's difficult to make them play decently, since the average musician would have started at age 4-5 and been playing for over a decade by the time they even finish high school. Musicians also have to practise very hard. My professional musician friends practise at least 6-7 hours a day, which on paper is less than a full-time job but it is physically taxing. When I was trying to get into music school as a teenager, just 3 hours of practise would make my fingers hurt like crazy.

Hence, my analogy with sport is not to suggest that the average person can't play sports well, but that only a small fraction is even close to good enough to make a living out of it. If I trained and played soccer extensively since childhood (and goodness knows there are plenty of people like that), it's highly doubtful that I would be good enough to play at even the lowest professional level. Similarly, with the hordes of kids who learn musical instruments (admittedly most of them are unwilling subjects), only a small number have the will and ability to play at a high level, and an even smaller number can make a living out of it.

Anecdotally, I know what it really takes to be the 'elite' in both science and music, since I hang out with Ivy League-level scientists in day job, and also know of several classical musicians in London, a couple of whom are famous enough to sell out concert halls wherever they go. I don't think music and art are more 'important' as regards to society compared to science or engineering, but I've met fewer people whom I think can make it in the arts, than whom I feel can make it as professional scientists or engineers.

[kheegster]

I'm hearing a lot of talk about innate talent, fine motor control, hand-eye coordination, etc. This sounds like physical skill. So somebody should explain to me once more why music and fine arts is not skilled labour.

Perhaps I have a different definition of 'skilled labour', but that usually implies manual work that requires some training to do, e.g. plumbing, electrical wiring etc. as opposed to unskilled labour like moving boxes or mopping floors.

Off the top of my head I can't really think of many skilled labourer positions which demand a priori characteristics apart from an average intelligence and a fit body.

Again I have to bring up the analogy of sports... how many people can be trained to pitch a baseball at 90 mph, or run 100m in under 10 seconds? It's even more difficult to make a musician or artist because of the inherent subjectivity involved in defining what is good.

[Spin Echo]

So music and fine arts in university has to incorporate a lot of history? The bit about how to generate certain moods is not exactly something people have to go to university to learn.

Generally they incorporate 4-5 history courses.

How else do you suggest learning about harmony and counter point and intervals and such besides attending courses? Yeah, you could read a book, but I could also read a book on quantum physics. Look at the syllabus for a music theory course. Somehow I doubt plumbers or hairdressers have that much theory.

Out of curiousity, do you play an instrument?

[Sriad]

I'm hearing a lot of talk about innate talent, fine motor control, hand-eye coordination, etc. This sounds like physical skill. So somebody should explain to me once more why music and fine arts is not skilled labour.

I'd imagine the same thing separates me versus an MRI technician, theory. A music major must not only be able to play an instrument (usually multiple instruments), they need to know the theory and history behind the music: why some chords sound happy while others sound sinister, how the music of one era influenced the next, and so forth.

So music and fine arts in university has to incorporate a lot of history? The bit about how to generate certain moods is not exactly something people have to go to university to learn.

People don't HAVE to go to a University to learn material stress and failure, advanced applied math, design review, or the hundreds of other things it takes to be an engineer but it is certainly more efficient to teach them all in a structured order and in one place, from professors who are held accountable for the quality of their teachings.

Of course, people don't die if a poorly trained musician fails to resolve a chord satisfactorily, but if your argument at this point can be reduced to "they could learn it somewhere that's not a University" it's time to throw in the towel.

The cerebral elements of preparing a song for performance include but are not limited to:
-Understanding the idiomatic and word-by-word translations to correctly emphasize words, and so you don't embarrass yourself if someone who speaks the language is listening. Even if the piece is in English already, understand the poetry.
(I'm going to be using the word "Understand" an awful lot; this is deliberate. The difference between knowing and understanding is the difference between awareness that Euler's Identity is e^pi*i=-1 and being able to derive it from more obvious trig identities.)
-Become familiar with the harmonic structure of the piece and understand the vocal melody's position within that harmony at all times. Knowledge of the piece's structure is important at this point to establish phrasing.
-Similar to above, understand what all other musicians are doing at any given time to correctly tune with them and get out of the way where musically appropriate, or identify one another's mistakes during practice.
-Understand the piece's context within a composer's body of work. An independent art song, a piece excised from a song cycle, or an operatic aria have different implicit contexts even if the notes are similar, and the audience will know.
-Understanding the composer's place in musical history. Bach should be performed very differently than Brahms even though they're both German keyboardists who start with B. For many pieces, especially baroque, original improvisation is expected; writing it requires (again) historical and theoretical knowledge.
-Physiological and kinesthetic knowledge beyond simple dexterity. A singer needs to know why and how their respiratory system and voice box do what they do so they don't fuck themselves up when they sing for hours a day. It isn't just endurance that needs to be built up; even with the purely physical elements of singing every performer will be slightly different and need to understand how to get the best execution from their voice.

I could go further into direct technical aspects of the music (vowel resonance, movement and facial expression, vocal placement and brilliance) which all need to be intelligently controlled rather than taught by route, but these start to become harder to distinguish from physical skill.

Maybe it isn't designing a nuclear reactor, but it's a damn sight more involved than "Cut wood and place nail where the architect tells you, hit, repeat."

[Knife]

OK...I'll cut through to the issue you have a problem with.

Shinova made his post in reference to jobs[/i]. You can take any non-retarded, able-bodied person off the street and put them through vocational school to teach them how to do carpentry, plumbing, metalwork etc, and once they're through the course they'll be able to find work in the respective trade unless they're an utter moron. This can be accomplished in a couple of years without very much effort on the trainee's part.

Now take the same Joe Sixpack, and even with several years of training it's difficult to make them play decently, since the average musician would have started at age 4-5 and been playing for over a decade by the time they even finish high school. Musicians also have to practise very hard. My professional musician friends practise at least 6-7 hours a day, which on paper is less than a full-time job but it is physically taxing. When I was trying to get into music school as a teenager, just 3 hours of practise would make my fingers hurt like crazy.

Hence, my analogy with sport is not to suggest that the average person can't play sports well, but that only a small fraction is even close to good enough to make a living out of it. If I trained and played soccer extensively since childhood (and goodness knows there are plenty of people like that), it's highly doubtful that I would be good enough to play at even the lowest professional level. Similarly, with the hordes of kids who learn musical instruments (admittedly most of them are unwilling subjects), only a small number have the will and ability to play at a high level, and an even smaller number can make a living out of it.

Sorry, but that sounds like a bunch of crap. Basically what you just said was to be really good at and make money at music you need a university level degree in it. You can of course point out all the musicians on the top sell chart that have these degrees?

It would seem to me, and I think I said this earlier, that it has more to do with the demand rather than the supliers. What makes a great singer/musician/artist is so subjective.

I also have an issue with how you compare art/music skills with others, say the pluming or carpentry. Again, a master carpenter takes years of practice and I would say some inate talent to create his/her wares and not every moron who can nail two boards together can be as good.

[Knife]

I think the the only reason you could give for teaching the arts as humanities is that they are supposed to be "culturing influences" which stimulate imagination and expression, helping to "shape you as a person" like the humanities are supposed to. Past that, its just to give the people who don't get into conservatories and academies something to do/ make the school look better by having a decent orchestra.

That "shape you as a person" conceit of humanities educators is nothing more than the residue of the 19th class structure. Universities were finishing schools, where young men would learn to become "cultured gentlemen", ready to take their place among the wealthy elite. It's an anachronistic throwback today.

You know, I was thinking just that as I went to sleep last night. What a 'well rounded' education was suppost to be. Something so a bunch of aristocratic shitheads needed to sit around the gentlemens club and express their own greatness about?

[Knife]

Could you clarify something for me Knife? You keep refering to being able to paint a picture or play an instrument as a skill. Isn't being able to take a derivative or take a spectrum of a material also a skill?

Anyone else getting the feeling this thread is mostly an exercise in sematics?

I don't get your point. At this point it's pretty obvious I consider it a skill. I just want some one to explain why the reverence and belief that it's such a great skill above and beyond others.

[Turin]

That "shape you as a person" conceit of humanities educators is nothing more than the residue of the 19th class structure. Universities were finishing schools, where young men would learn to become "cultured gentlemen", ready to take their place among the wealthy elite. It's an anachronistic throwback today.

Sorry if I'm coming in late on this discussion, but I think Mike is getting to the issue right here. What's been missing from this discussion is the history of this kind of education.

In the 19th and very early 20th centuries, academies existed which were solely for the education of the skilled artist and not for the paying public as a whole (disclaimer: I have no idea whether this applies to the musical arts, as my primary training is in architecture). Places like l'Ecole de Beaux Arts or the Academy of Rome served as places where someone with money (or more usually, a sponsor) could go to be trained in fields like architecture, painting, etc. The education included a heavy focus on history and general humanities, as it was felt that an artist had a responsibility to understand the works that came before him.

In the Modern era (early 20th century), you have a shift in this way of thinking. Schools like the Bauhaus changed the focus of the visual artist into that of a skilled craftsman, understanding the inherent connection between industrial arts (like master carpentry, metalwork, etc) and the purely visual arts (painting, sculpture). The Bauhaus primarily produced architects as a result of this focus, although many Bauhaus-trained architects crossed over into other more industrial arts like furniture design or manufacturing. The Bauhaus was pretty much fucked when the Nazis took over Germany, and although it was eventually re-constituted in the US, it's educational focus (or senior faculty, for that matter) wasn't the same.

What I'm getting at with this fairly long-winded post is that at one time in the modern era, there was a serious move towards just what Mike is talking about -- the conception of the artist as a skilled craftsman and not something that belongs as an appendage of the humanities department of a university. Modernism as an educational concept was pretty much done after WW2, however. You have a flood of people wanting to enter universities and a gigantic shift in the designed purpose of university level education. We have a throwback to the Academy of Rome but without the financial barriers or high admissions standards. It's like an extension of high-school now, which pretty much makes all but specialized professional degrees utterly worthless. And in my anecdotal experience even these degrees are becoming increasingly diluted.

[Death from the Sea]

one reason for teaching it at the university level could be that since alot of public schools are having to cut back on music and art programs due to lack of funding, teaching it at the university gives the student more exposure to it.

[brianeyci]

Innate talent or not is really besides the point. The question is this: when is a discipline worthy of having a university degree? I would say all disciplines should have an elite version with an undergraduate equivalent. I have far more respect for a university trained biblical scholar than a pastor. The only question is how many. My answer is very few, making music an elite education, which as far as I can tell it is already. The less vocationally useful, the less there should be. If music is not very useful, then maybe the graduating class should be single digits.

All the red herrings about how a person can be a musician without a university degree is bunk. A person can learn computer programming on his own like Bill Gates but that doesn't remove the need for software engineers. I see the Knife tangent as resulting in ignorance in what exactly a music education is, as if he thinks that any dipshit on the street can come out and emulate the skills and theoretical knowledge of a properly university trained music major, probably because he thinks that all music is subjective and therefore can't be analyzed. The former is true, the latter is not. I'm inclined to agree with Spin Echo in that it's one big semantic whore, unless we're discussing what a university degree is.

We've already agreed to what she is (at least all reasonable people.) We're just arguing about price, in other words how many should be in the graduating class.

I would daresay several others look at it the same way, making your "Nobody else thinks that!" wrong.

Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem too. If you think aerius, kheegster, shinova, me and others are claiming that music is more important than science, engineering and mathematics, either you're not familiar with our posting history or you're interpreting the sentence in the most backwardsass way possible in order to pick a fight.

[brianeyci]

Sorry if I'm coming in late on this discussion, but I think Mike is getting to the issue right here. What's been missing from this discussion is the history of this kind of education.

In the 19th and very early 20th centuries, academies existed which were solely for the education of the skilled artist and not for the paying public as a whole (disclaimer: I have no idea whether this applies to the musical arts, as my primary training is in architecture). Places like l'Ecole de Beaux Arts or the Academy of Rome served as places where someone with money (or more usually, a sponsor) could go to be trained in fields like architecture, painting, etc. The education included a heavy focus on history and general humanities, as it was felt that an artist had a responsibility to understand the works that came before him.

In the Modern era (early 20th century), you have a shift in this way of thinking. Schools like the Bauhaus changed the focus of the visual artist into that of a skilled craftsman, understanding the inherent connection between industrial arts (like master carpentry, metalwork, etc) and the purely visual arts (painting, sculpture). The Bauhaus primarily produced architects as a result of this focus, although many Bauhaus-trained architects crossed over into other more industrial arts like furniture design or manufacturing. The Bauhaus was pretty much fucked when the Nazis took over Germany, and although it was eventually re-constituted in the US, it's educational focus (or senior faculty, for that matter) wasn't the same.

What I'm getting at with this fairly long-winded post is that at one time in the modern era, there was a serious move towards just what Mike is talking about -- the conception of the artist as a skilled craftsman and not something that belongs as an appendage of the humanities department of a university. Modernism as an educational concept was pretty much done after WW2, however. You have a flood of people wanting to enter universities and a gigantic shift in the designed purpose of university level education. We have a throwback to the Academy of Rome but without the financial barriers or high admissions standards. It's like an extension of high-school now, which pretty much makes all but specialized professional degrees utterly worthless. And in my anecdotal experience even these degrees are becoming increasingly diluted.

Ah thank you. I can see where this line of reasoning comes from now. Previously I had thought it was the usual science or mathematics chagrin at being associated with humanities, such as communications being called a B.Sc. like mathematics. But if it's a question of why continue old traditions, I can see why a person should question the need for university music.

This post is probably the most enlightening in the whole thread, but I would balance it out with Simplicus' post of the university music experience and kheegster's posts. If conservatories want their musicians to be university educated instead of in a vocational school, why argue? The employer sets the demands, and if the demand is there the training should be there.

I really do not want university in North America to become like Japan, where it is so elitist a child has to take remedial classes and 16 hour a day school just to compete. Which is why it's crucial counter-propaganda be produced to tell children that skilled trades is far more useful (and you make more money even in most cases) in a skilled trade. If people considered vocational schools or even a high school diploma itself as worthy, they wouldn't see the need to go to university: except those with extreme talent who could not be satisfied with high school or extreme interest who wanted to learn more.

[Turin]

This post is probably the most enlightening in the whole thread, but I would balance it out with Simplicus' post of the university music experience and kheegster's posts. If conservatories want their musicians to be university educated instead of in a vocational school, why argue? The employer sets the demands, and if the demand is there the training should be there.

I would argue that the demand in this environment is artificially inflated. My point below I believe also applies to music/visual arts degrees.

Which is why it's crucial counter-propaganda be produced to tell children that skilled trades is far more useful (and you make more money even in most cases) in a skilled trade. If people considered vocational schools or even a high school diploma itself as worthy, they wouldn't see the need to go to university: except those with extreme talent who could not be satisfied with high school or extreme interest who wanted to learn more.

The trouble with that idea is that it seems like employers are setting the demand based on the prevailing attitude towards university education. For example, my firm hires only people with university degrees even for non-professional positions where this higher level of education is totally irrelevant (I'm talking like "marketing department peon" positions). Hell, more than half our secretaries have BAs. Only a total boob can't manage to squeeze out a Bachelor's degree in something these days in the US.

If I could magically reform the higher education system overnight, it seems like the best route to avoid devaluing university education is to have trades-style schools of varying levels of entrance difficulty, so that one could have your carpentry school and your master carpentry school (for example). Music and visual arts could have their own similar schools. And then you'd have university programs which involve basic education (2 years?) in either humanities or sciences as part of a stepping stone to a professional degree. Humanities folks move on to law or to a separate path for academia. Sciences folks move on to engineering or to a separate path for research science.

Half the trouble with the way things are set up now is that we're trying to shoe-horn every possible career path into a 4-year degree program.

[Darth Wong]

Generally they incorporate 4-5 history courses.

How else do you suggest learning about harmony and counter point and intervals and such besides attending courses? Yeah, you could read a book, but I could also read a book on quantum physics.

Reading a book and being tested on your comprehension of that book are two different things. In math and science, it is possible to be completely wrong. Not so for music; you can break all sorts of rules in music and it can still work. It can even be hailed as "innovative".

Look at the syllabus for a music theory course. Somehow I doubt plumbers or hairdressers have that much theory.

How about MRI technicians? Auto mechanics? Aircraft mechanics? Nuclear plant technicians? Nuclear power plant operators? Chemical analysis technicians? These are all examples of "skilled labour" people who go to tech schools rather than universities. Your snobbery is showing.

Out of curiousity, do you play an instrument?

No, although I did play piano for quite a few years when I was younger. Won a few awards, but I didn't keep up with it. Not saying I don't regret that; I probably should have kept up with it. But that doesn't mean it's not a trade skill. At the end of the day, it's still a vocational skill, and as far as I can tell, the only reason for putting it in university rather than trade schools is the fact that music people look down their noses at trade schools.

Universities are supposed to be for a small elite of professionals. Unfortunately, the reality, particularly for the humanities, is that they are a status symbol. Saying you went to university is another way of saying that your parents had enough money to send you to university, which is why the high-priced big-name schools have more prestige than the lesser ones even if there's no difference in quality of education. It's not really about education; it's about class and status. And seeing how many of the counter-arguments revolve around the idea that vocational skills training is for stupid people, it's pretty clear that this attitude is spread far and wide.

[Coyote]

I believe it to be a symptom of larger social problems-- the idea that unless you have a degree, you aren't worth a fart in a whirlwind; and of course the concept that as long you have "some kind of degree" you must be a good person and you can get hired to a "good" job.

It seems as though business reinforces that: two job applicants with outstanding skills, but one has a degree in a completely unrelated field to the job and the other has no degree. For some reason, the person with the degree will probably be viewed as a better choice, perhaps because of the idea that that person is able to "commit to finish something".

Parents buy into the "gotta get a degree for a good job/life prospects" and put their kids in a dilemma right out of high school: "if you go to college right now, I'll pay for/subsidize it, but if you put it off, you have to raise your own money". A high school kid looking at tens of thousands of dollars of cost will ride mom & dad's money train to college without really knowing why, so they pick some course or other that seems like it might be easy since it is not defined by hard parameters. I mean, how many Sociologists or Anthropologists or Communications majors do we truly need? Some, sure, but not the armies being churned out (IMO).

The artificial demand for degrees, the pressure from family to get these (mostly unneeded) degrees create a need that has no basis in reality.



[Edit]: Damn, I realize that while I stand by my above grousing about degrees & stuff, it didn't really address the point of the OP. Sorry....

[Coyote]

Art & Music as vocational skills as opposed to arts/humanities? I think the idea has merit, and one of the things that can be argued about it is that it takes a certain "innate talent" to do art & music (dance, etc) that cannot simply be "trained" into the untalented.

That said, the argument can be turned around. A mechanic or a carpenter probably should have some sort of talent for his work, too. I have no talent for mechanics or carpentry, finding them frustratingly tedious, although I appreciate very much the results of others who enjoy the work and do well at it. So in other words, their work could therefore be considered "art". And I don't think I'd have a problem with that myself.

Considering how hard a lot of artists work to make a living, and the specialized equipment, being considered blue collar might actually be a way of solidifying status... it's the hoidy-toidy set that would find the concept scandalous, but like Paris Hilton they need to have their egos deflated.

[Darth Wong]

I honestly can't see anything about the "no no, don't lump us in with trade school" arguments other than an underlying sense of "we're better than that rabble".

[brianeyci]

The trouble with that idea is that it seems like employers are setting the demand based on the prevailing attitude towards university education.

What's needed is a common sense revolution to change attitudes. First of all, political leadership whose goal is to break teacher's unions. Villify them. Create a crisis in the education system, to pander to the suburban vote. Next, a declaration that universities are greedyguts and they will bring the skills and knowledge down to high school level. That is, academic high school courses should be equivalent to a two or three year degree in high school. The most important would be creation of a whole new set of standard and new diploma. Hell, they could even call it a BA. A free BA, for all of America's children. Now to deal with high school as a babysitting service (which sadly there is need for) you'd need two different streams in high school, basic and academic or advanced. You can already get AP credits in high school, so why not go all the way.

As for trade schools, that may work, but probably won't. Most people do not want to do heavy physical labor which skills are associated with. No problem, no need for any education beyond high school if it's good enough. The key is people will not want or need anything beyond high school, if high school gave the same opportunities as university. Then, only the truly gifted or talented or inclined would go to university.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

If the free BA or the more advanced high school provides all the same things that today's equivalent BA would, wouldn't that still have a problem with the market being flooded with a bunch of high schoolers with advanced training that is now basic?

Let's say people don't go to college. What job market are their skills good for? Everyone has them. Is it a new one, or the same ones their old BA's were good for? If the latter is the case, aren't they still s.o.a?

Some of your ideas are interesting (some aspects of the tracking system, e.g.). Would you alter the structure of the semester year, though, to make it more like a college feel? When I was in high school, we were loaded up with 9+ classes in a single day. At least in college we can take fewer at a time, which allows for greater depth and more studying.

It seems like it would save money, but not help in the job market much. If I am misunderstanding, please explain to me. It's interesting.

[Zac Naloen]

It seems to me that the only difference between university music and vocational music is that at university it's less about playing the music, you already have to be accomplished to get onto the course, and more about understanding the music.

Which is essentially the difference between any Vocational vs Academical course.

Knowing Vs Understanding.