Opinion

Edelman’s Marshall Manson explains why he is not a fan of PR degree courses

Date: 28 November 2011 11:11
  
Stay in touch with PRmoment.com

It’s all Adam Smith’s fault. Smith, of course, is the father of economics, a discipline that has taken a justifiable beating in recent years. But in this case, the fault with Smith lies not with his paternity, but with his ideas about the division of labour. Specifically, Smith suggested in his book Wealth of Nations that people in the labour force – that is to say, us – would together contribute more if each took on a more specialised role and, as a result, built up greater expertise and experience.

Of course, Smith was right. The idea of specialisation was a key force in the industrial revolution and has had a profound impact on the educations we all received and our working lives every day.

But like many great ideas, I’m afraid we have taken Smith’s too far.

Our education system is now overly focused on turning out graduates with professional qualifications, educated in a body of knowledge relevant primarily to the profession the student has chosen. While this approach undoubtedly adds depth of knowledge, it doesn’t deliver real expertise or experience. That can really only happen in a professional setting. Learn-by-doing is still an essential element for entering almost any profession. At the same time, over-specialised learning is inherently limiting.

Academia is a slow, detached world, so curricula evolve at geologic pace. Meanwhile, professions like PR and marketing move swiftly on, changing and adapting continuously. Students in these disciplines are often learning from a body of knowledge that was rendered effectively obsolete before they even entered university.

Meanwhile, the training they do receive is often too narrow, sometimes because the value of kinds of knowledge outside of the curriculum rapidly increases within the profession. For example, the rise of social media and digital communications has caused PR to become much more quantitative in recent years, but too many PROs are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with basic algebra, and studied no maths (not even statistics) in University.

With the pace of change moving so fast in almost every aspect of our lives, we could all do with a broader base of knowledge in order to understand the changes and make the most of them. Professional communicators ought to understand this better than anyone: We often find ourselves adapting our thinking and vocabulary across a wide range of clients and industries in the span of a few meetings.

This requires that we be effective problem solvers, creative thinkers, persuasive in argument, and intellectually curious.

In short, we should follow Smith’s example more closely. Smith was a generalist, whose knowledge across a huge range of areas informed and improved his primary vocation. He was a university professor specializing in moral philosophy, and also managed to find time to be a keen astronomer, historian and lawyer.

Educational curricula that are too specialised tend to crowd out learning in non-specialised subject areas. And often, these areas can be incredibly useful in building up the kinds of skills that PR people need. Courses in philosophy, logic and law can build skills and understanding in persuasion. Computer science and maths can aid problem solving. Arts, music and architecture can contribute to creativity.

Of course, all of this ignores an important practical reality that professional training is viewed as essential for nailing down one’s first job. Too often, that’s because agencies like mine are too narrow in their review of qualifications for grad schemes and internships. This should stop.

The reality is that when I interview candidates at any level, I almost never look at what they studied. I’m much more interested in their enthusiasm, experience, and inquisitiveness. I long for colleagues whose educational attainment focuses on learning to inquire, to think and to argue, rather than a set of skills.

With the former, one can learn the latter.

Enjoyed this article? Click here to read more Opinion features

Share this article


Stay in touch with PRmoment.com

Comments

It's a contentious one, but I do tend to agree. I'd much rather see what someone can do; how passionate they are; and and what genuine experience they have, than consider the subject of their dissertation.... I'm not a big fan of PR degrees, but that's just my opinion: show me what you can do, what you've achieved, and how much you want a job, and why.... then I'll make a real judgement on you!

Name: Cath Shuttlewood
www.sy1consulting.co.uk
Date: 29 Nov 2011 01:57 PM

I’ve no idea if PR degrees these days are relevent but I’m sure Heather Yaxley and others who teach them will soon tell us. However, not being a fan of something you've never experienced, Marshall, seems to me to be a pretty feeble basis for an argument. Enthusiasm is a much over-rated virtue in PR; it’s too easy to fake and can easily tip over into the kind of gushing optimism that gives the PR world a bad name. Personally, I'd favour the English grads - preferably those who've shown some further academic interest in psychology, marketing or communications-related subjects. On the positive side, at least he's got the balls to criticise his own employer’s approach. The summary of this piece could easily be ‘hire for attitude, train for skills’ which is as old as the hills as a recruitment strategy.

Name: Andy M Turner
www.sixsigma-pr.co.uk
Date: 29 Nov 2011 04:02 PM

PR degrees are neither too specialist nor restricted to skills development. They vary, of course, but all look at the context in which PR operates which can include marketing, law, economics, politics, psychology and the like. And while a vocational course has to teach relevant skills, any University worth its salt should teach its graduates to think, inquire and research. Most PR degrees also include professional placements - some as long as a year. I wouldn't suggest restricting recruitment to PR graduates, but the right ones will add significant value. Finally, many universities' use of new/social media is stunning.

Name: Paul Noble
www.noble-ink.com
Date: 29 Nov 2011 06:24 PM

Marshall makes a good point. But there are many issues surrounding "teaching" PR and hiring the right people to practice it. PR could be seen as set of generalist skills that all professionals in communications could and should possess. Where it gets trickier is when these skills need to be combined with particular knowledge of a certain area. True, some of those with broader skills can apply them across areas, but others often require more than a passing knowledge or interest. My own area of specialism is at the technical end of the pharmaceutical industry. Could a person with just the skills that Paul Noble (no relation) outlines adapt in my field? Possibly, but many years of experience show that a degree in life sciences and even a PhD make for a better fit. Food for thought Marshall as I have yet to see an academic course that covers it all.

Name: David Noble

Date: 30 Nov 2011 02:03 PM

I agree wholeheartedly about the need for a much greater breadth of knowledge, but I'm not sure that vocational degrees are the culprit. PR degrees might be fairly new (last 20 years in the UK) but vocational degrees aren't. Yet the students leaving vocational degrees today have (and I know it is a generalisation and definitely not true of all) a far weaker 'general knowledge' and understanding of the world around them. But I'd probably place more blame on schools and mass media for 'dumbing down'. The internet is a great place to learn things, but the problem is that it too easy to just look at the stuff you're interested in, thus you become shut off from a proper appreciation of politics, culture, economics etc.

Name: Stuart Bruce
www.stuartbruce.biz
Date: 30 Nov 2011 02:26 PM

Fair point, Stuart. There's an overall deterioration in education, and I would suggest that's the case across the western world.

Name: Marshall Manson
edelman.co.uk
Date: 30 Nov 2011 02:35 PM

How do you prepare someone for a career in PR? The nature of Public Relations, and one of it's most attractive characteristics, is constant change. The work is always evolving (I won't bore you with how different my job is today compared to 1992) and a key part of PR is being open to that change. I think a discussion on PR degrees is a red herring. If I think of the best PR practitioners I've worked with they've come from a range of educational disciplines. PR is all about people. A great person will be a great PR practitioner, education helps but it's down to the indivudual, in my humble opinion. I don't see any issue with a PR degree, nor with someone with a degree in agriculture who wants to change career. Let's not pretend this is rocket science - or that anyone can do it. :)

Name: Tom Murphy
www.tpemurphy.com
Date: 30 Nov 2011 02:44 PM

I'm currently studying PR & Comms and I'm in my 2nd year of it. I do completely agree that what we are learning is not as up to date as I would have hoped and have resigned myself to this. Instead I'm using the degree for two things, to show that I knew from the age of 17 that PR was for me and the summer holidays. I'm given 5 months off and a student loan, meaning it is feasible for me to go and get work experience. If I didn't have the loan I could not afford to do this as companies do not pay enough to cover the real travel expenses. This now means that on my CV I have a vast amount of work experience across a broad range of industries and have already decided which areas aren't for me. I do also think that if a person wants to do PR and is studying it at Uni that they need to be keen to keep up to date with how the world is moving, or realistically, the PR world isn't for them.

Name: Ellen Reed
www.princessandthepucci.typepad.com
Date: 30 Nov 2011 03:08 PM

Over and above their studies, people entering PR today need to actually give a shit about what they do and what they intend to achieve with their careers. If you don't love media, you aren't clever and aren't prepared to work your arse off then this isn't the job for you.

Name: Steve Earl
www.speedcommunications.com/blogs/earl
Date: 30 Nov 2011 03:18 PM

Good discussion - and you may be surprised to find that I mostly agree with Marshall (NB I teach PR students). I think that employers should always judge candidates on what they are capable of achieving, not on what they have once achieved on paper. I expect us to face a challenge to justify why our courses are three or four years long when we also deliver the BA-equivalent CIPR Advanced Certificate in just 8 days teaching across one year. Marshall has explained why: learning is a rich and deep experience, and it's much much more than just acquiring knowledge.

Name: Richard Bailey
www.prstudies.com
Date: 30 Nov 2011 03:26 PM

Topical. I believe that just bringing a piece of PR-decorated paper to the table is not enough. It's important to establish a base somewhere though, but it is equally as important to know what industry of PR the student wants to head in to. Currently, I'm studying a MA in PR after graduating in Sport Journalism, this gives me extra focus at the expertise I want to concentrate on. Then can apply my learnings to that.

Name: Steven Woodgate
www.stevenwoodgate.org
Date: 30 Nov 2011 03:43 PM

A really interesting piece Marshall and as someone with a PR degree I could agree and counter argue some of your points. I would add whilst you don't need a PR degree to work in PR I think being focused at the age of 18 and knowing what you want to do with your career should not be overlooked. The emphasise on work experience, commitment and drive are key to the success of any professional and those are championed in many PR degree courses that I’ve had experience of. That is not to say those skills aren’t relevant or focused upon in other subject course but I do firmly believe that PR degrees, whilst not a necessity are a good complimentary asset to getting a foot into an industry and having acquired certain skills from the get go. It is however comedic that someone at the top of one of the industry’s most high profile organisations doesn’t champion the degree qualification based on industry core skills...I’m not sure of many other industries where that would happen. Maybe it’s an opportunity for Marshall to work with key institutions to get more graduates into the mix that provide the wow factor he is looking for?

Name: Helena Red

Date: 30 Nov 2011 03:51 PM

One further follow up note from me: Since I drafted this column, our London office has changed its approach to its grad scheme. So rather than favouring university graduates, the scheme will now be open to all comers, degree holders or not. As such, it is evolving from a grad scheme into an apprenticeship programme. (And before you ask: Yes, it's paid. No unpaid interns for us.) You can learn more, and hear from our current crop at http://edelmanapprenticescheme.com/

Name: Marshall Manson
edelman.co.uk
Date: 30 Nov 2011 09:11 PM

Fabulous idea Marshall! This country needs to move away from the mentality that everyone gets a degree.... with Uni courses costing more and more, I believe that career focused apprenticeships will become increasingly popular, worthwhile and widely valued - and rightly so!

Name: Cath Shuttlewood
www.sy1consulting.co.uk
Date: 30 Nov 2011 09:28 PM

My main problem with PR degrees is that entry criteria is low and these courses aren't available from Russell Group insititutions.

Name: James Crawford
www.pragencyone.co.uk
Date: 01 Dec 2011 06:58 AM

Marshall: Good knockabout stuff. Suggest you look at the number of Bournemouth PR graduates employed at Edelman in London. To add to the fact overload: of the 52 BAPR students who graduated recently, 48 (92.7%) are in real PR industry jobs including at Edelman. The other four are also employed in banking, insurance and brand management. As for entry criteria, at BU you need to have at least ABB at A-Level. There are seriously bright young people studying public relations.

Name: Tom Watson

Date: 01 Dec 2011 10:47 AM

Interesting perspective Marshall. One of the most impressive consultants I've worked with here during my time at Edelman had a PhD in Philosophy. I asked him how that helped him counsel clients - aside from credentials - and he told me that (to your point in the article) it helped him frame his perspective, be persuasive in his argument to support it, and then apply a disciplined communications approach to it to ensure that others understand it and that it holds up against scrutiny. Aspects of that are very applicable to PR, communications and marketing and often times we lack structure or a disciplined approach in our thinking and execution, which could be great practice to push ourselves to learn more in the math, philosophy and related disciplines. Thanks for the fun conversation - great points for consideration.

Name: Dan Webber
www.edelman.com
Date: 02 Dec 2011 01:10 PM

Post a Comment
Name Comments
Website
Email
Tick to receive comment notifications for this article  

Enter the words above: