A Medill Mistake in the Middle East?

The deed is done: Northwestern University will open journalism and communications schools in the Middle Eastern nation of Qatar.

The Trib reports:

The deal, first reported in the Tribune in April, will offer foreign students an undergraduate curriculum similar to the one taught in Evanston. The first 40 students are expected to enroll next fall.

The schools are to be a part of Education City, one of a few major Western-influenced education compounds in hot cities (no pun intended) in the Middle East.

But I've gotta ask: Can Medill handle opening up a sister school in a foreign country when it can't even handle it's own identity at home?

No matter how you feel about the outsourcing of American higher education to the Middle East -- "The Qatari government will pay all start-up and operational costs, including construction of a new building and faculty and administrative salaries," the Trib reports -- the most important question is whether Medill is really ready for this kind of investment.

Oh, and same goes for the students in Doha: "Northwestern will charge students the same tuition they would pay in Evanston—$35,064 this year—and admissions standards will be the same, officials say." -- an enormous sum by any measure, no matter the exchange rate for the dollar.

Do Middle Eastern journalism students deserve a Medill degree? Unequivocally and without a doubt. There are fine journalism prospects in every country, especially so for a nation so close to so many of the world headlines in 2007. But with identity crisis at home, does Medill deserve to beat out Boston University and Missouri for a spot in Education City?

Or more importantly: Does Medill really deserve the fine Middle Eastern journalism prospects its moving to attract?

Maybe. But to me, this is like selling a prototype concept car to the rest of the world before the kinks are worked out for the American public. It's just not right, and I have yet to see proof otherwise that the j-school is putting the cart before the horse.

Using Your Journalism Degree To Name The School You Got It From

Man, is it just me or is this flap over Medill's name stupid?

(If you've missed it, Medill School of Journalism -- the first in the nation -- is exploring a name change, "to better represent the school and what it offers." Romenesko's comments lit up with the possibilities.)

I try to keep the topics on this blog to be more serious in nature, but the more I read about this, the more I think -- man, this is stupid, stupid stuff. There are 101 things wrong in the journalism world, and here we are worrying about a name. It's kind of like George Bush forming a committee to rename the White House while we're in the middle of the war in Iraq.

Talk about priorities.

My undergraduate alma mater, New York University, did the same thing to its school of education. The former "Steinhardt School of Education" -- which housed classes in classical music, education, communications, and more -- into the "Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development," which is not only a mouthful, but shows the poor organization of a university that already has a College of Arts and Science and shows the poor initiative in naming a school after what basic skills all universities should offer: culture, education, and (hopefully), human development.

So, I ask this, the future "Medill School of Journalism and Integrated Marketing Communication": Do you really want to be the next Steinhardt?

Reactions have already been posted by students on the Daily Northwestern and faculty in conspicuous places, and it's not good. Reading them got me thinking: OK, so Medill wants to change what journalism means in the 21st century. Got it -- and we can debate whether marketing should enter journalism in another discussion. But does all that require a name-change, too?

Can't we just redefine what journalism is? Isn't it already being redefined as we speak?

It appears to me that Medill is losing focus -- and apparently, judging by Nancy Schwerzler's comments linked above, losing graduates to law school, too.

There's always been the push-pull of being in the journalism industry, but it's starting to seem as if Medill's moves are pushing the focused journalists out and in the process, making the degree irrelevant.

Journalists are already jacks-of-all-trades. That's largely what "journalism" is defined by. Do we really need a $40,000 piece of paper that expresses that, too?

A Mess At Medill: 'Basket Case' Education Awaits Journalists

If there's one thing a journalism school needs, it's a good reputation.

Already plagued with being left out of the U.S. News & World Report Graduate Schools guide as well as having little to no visibility on a national level, journalism schools can only rely on the quality of their institution -- and a reputation, especially among the public's disdain for a biased press, is paramount.

So it makes me a little sad to read a few days ago that the faculty and the administration at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism -- you know, arguably one of the "top 3" along with Missouri and Columbia -- is at an impasse in the form of, well, reform.

Chicago Reader's Michael Miner reports that the faculty senate at Northwestern has formally accused the university's administration of abolishing democracy at Medill. Only the worst can come of it, Miner writes:

"The backdrop to this blunt resolution is a series of internal and external audits in recent years that judged Medill--which enjoys seeing itself as a journalism school without equal--as an academic basket case."

A basket case. I'm pretty sure most news organizations try not to hire those! (operative word: "try")

The problem stems from Medill's future vision, Miner writes. "A new curriculum is going to be introduced over the next four years, and although professors have been consulted individually, one told me, 'We don’t vote on anything. We have no vote. Anybody who dissents is labeled "antichange." ' Another outsider heads up the new curriculum project--Mary Nesbitt, who'd been director of the women-in-newspaper-management project at the Media Management Center until Lavine brought her over."

Now I'm not sure of the details surrounding this alleged stifling of democracy, but what I do know is that right or wrong, those involved in this conflict must look at the bigger picture. Northwestern itself has a sterling reputation and its journalism school just as much. To have such a strong conflict -- and escalate it to public levels, even if we're talking about journalists here -- risks a journalism school's reputation. And if we can't trust a journalism school to churn out quality journalists, well, we're really in a pickle then, aren't we.

So, Medill faculty and administration: Please take the time and listen to each other. You're a bunch of people who advocate democracy on the page -- let's start practicing it. Because clearly someone's feeling cheated. And sooner or later, it's going to be the students.

Some of the comments are revealing:

"Current Medill Student" writes that "[Nesbitt] is very happy imposing her viewpoint on others, but, right or wrong, she seems unable or unwilling to listen to anyone else."

Robert Mentzer writes that he "just graduated from Medill's grad school and I found John Lavine's dictatorial management style appalling."

Another current student writes that the administration "has brushed aside all complaints that students currently enrolled in the school are getting a subpar education."

And another: "I feel sad that I, as a Medillian, am finding myself telling students who want to go to Medill to look other places, because of such poor organization and the lack of communication between the administration and professors."

It's hard to say there isn't something wrong when that many current and recent students sense a problem. It might even be damning.

Clearly, I'm a big advocate for the educated journalist. In fact, I'm a big advocate for working together to achieve change, in the form of synergy between journalism schools to raise the discipline's profile. But if we can't depend on our journalism schools to adapt amicably and benefit from withstanding internal and external pressure -- especially those at the forefront like Medill -- the whole system's at risk. In the non-journalism world, it's the equivalent of Harvard suddenly encountering great internal turmoil and tension. And with history as an example (President Summers, anyone?), we all know how well that reflects on the public perception.

As one of my old professors used to tell me: "Find a way." Medill grads out there -- what do you think?

Young Journalists Are Lost - Here's Why.

"There are no jobs in the journalism industry."

"Going to journalism school is a waste of time and money."

"You don't need any prior experience to be a journalist."

I hear this time and time again from naysayers in the industry, and I think it's bullshit. Know why?

Because there are jobs.

Because education is personal.

Because experience teaches lessons.

So many people in the blogosphere (yes, citizen journalists, I'm talking about YOU) dish rails like this all the time. It happens on blogs. It happens in forums. But most of all, it happens in the office and classroom.

This isn't the way to cultivate a new generation. We journalists sure like complaining about ourselves, don't we?

I've heard many big names give speeches about the importance of mentors. And that's great, despite the discrepancy as to if those changes are actually made.

But what are the entry requirements to be a journalist in the 21st century? Is it a college degree? (I think it should be.) Is it an internship? (I think one is good.) Is it a clip portfolio? (I think there should be at least three 300+ word pieces, no matter the publication).

Simply, the editorial journalism industry (note the difference from the media industry) needs to set a basic standard for entry into the field. And I think the generational disconnect between the "All The President's Men"-style journalist - that is, the Ticonderoga-slingin', steno pad-packin' rebel and the current version (the progressive march toward qualification by a mix of academia and craft) - is hindering this notion.

But really, let's get down to the basics: journalists can't even agree on the worth of a journalism education. More than 100 years after Joseph Pulitzer proclaimed that journalism should be a professional education - like that of medicine and law - we can't even decide that it's worth a liberal arts degree.

Hell, if lawyers are hated so much, how come we can hold them in such high esteem? Because they make so much money? (Boy, we hate them, but when shit hits the fan, don't we need them? Doesn't this sound similar to how journalists are perceived?)

Doesn't Brian Williams command a serious paycheck? Doesn't a publisher make solid pay?

This is 2007. College attendance has more than doubled nationwide since the '50s. And journalists can't even agree that a B.A. is necessary!

(I must say, however, that I am not encouraging hardfast rules or quotas. What I'm talking about is the ability for an engineer or a doctor to say, "well yes, generally you need to have a bachelor's degree or have gone to med school or have studied these courses" and for another to agree.)

Plus, there's all those bursting-with-sunshine journalism myths that I've heard most frequently as of late:

-You don't need a B.A. to get started in newspapers.
-You do need a B.A. to get started at a magazine.
-You need to be impossibly prolific to have any shot at a newspaper (Sewell Chang, anyone?)
-You need to be BFF with your superior at a magazine.
-Journalists are paid horribly. Unless you're a news anchor.
-You need to be really "pretty" to be in front of the camera.
-You need to have little or no ties for success - the better to be shipped abroad. That said, you also need to be fluent in eight middle eastern languages.
-You need to live and breathe the topic of your publication. (If you work for Glamour and choose your spouse over a pair of new shoes, you're out.)
-The only thing a journalism degree is good for is to make inroads at an alternative weekly.

And so on.

I'm really tired of hearing this. Journalists are so good at telling me what journalism isn't, and so bad at telling me what journalism is. Is it all to discourage competition? I don't think so, conspiracy theorists.

It's because there is no leadership. Not just on a personal level, as Chip Scanlan has mentioned - but from up on high. There are famous faces of those who practice their craft, but they're in it for them - or so it seems, doesn't it?

Will Katie Couric comment on this blog with her thoughts about her industry? It IS journalism, isn't it?

Maybe not. Maybe it's because the industry is actually guided by businessmen, and not journalists - the Jared Kushner effect. I don't know.

And we can't even decide our thoughts about j-school. Undergraduate or graduate or both? Who's the best - Columbia? Medill? University of Illinois? Newhouse? Cronkite? Scripps? CUNY? (Depends on where you're from, I bet.) And for what - Print? Broadcast? Radio? "New Media"? There isn't even a ranking for it. I know rankings can be stupid and misguided (yes, even USN&WR), but journalism needs them just to increase the awareness that journalism is a SPECIALTY and not just the purgatory that other profession's fallen end up in.

Without any of this guidance, young journalists are going to end up the same way the current generation is - a batch of mixed opinions and an overall lack of guidance for the profession.

Too many editors are worried about profits. Would it hurt so much to convene twice a year and talk about a lost profession?