Neil Garner is a professional trainer I have known (and respected) for over a decade. He used to train the trainees I looked after at the BBC – and was a perfect judge of character as well as a wonderful communicator, enthuser and sage. Here are his thoughts on the difference between education and training.

As a freelance trainer of many years standing, I work with both Universities and people in our industry (running bespoke training events for them) and would like to point out that the aims of the two are almost mutually exclusive.

HE and University is about education… this means that courses have to have academic value and rigour, and the college/university authorities guard this rightly, because it is a heritage which goes back centuries. It means thatundergraduate life about personal development and discovery. The courses require the students to study and learn independently, without massive amounts or intervention from anyone, just a guiding hand from tutors. The result is that university education is about asking questions… and the students will be given time in which to explore and develop their ideas and themselves. In due course they may find the answers for themselves.

Training on the other hand is about achieving commercial goals… getting a person to a point where they can do something they are required to do, by the most cost effective means. Bearing in mind that time is possibly one of our industries most valuable commodities, it probably means as fast as possible. The result being that a training course provides answers…  it will spoonfeed information, skills, knowledge or concepts to the trainees as required to achieve the desired outcome. Through this training, the trainee can go away and immediately put the learning into use. With time and practice of doing what they learned, the trainee will also gain experience and therefore develop personally.

I suspect that in real terms our industry will always need both… the universities to provide people who can prove (by their degree status and the work they have done) that they have the ability to be self starters and to learn quickly and effectively and take initiative.

Industry trainers and training bodies to provide the specific skills and knowledge which industry needs. To take the graduates and non- graduates alike to the professional level required.

Over the years, in my role as a trainer, I have seen large numbers of new recruits to the industry, some of whom have come with ‘relevant’ degrees, some with ‘other’ degrees and some, of course, who have neither. In practice I have found that actually, there is almost no difference between the categories and that those with ‘relevant’ degrees have only a marginal advantage at the beginning. Often however, this is more than offset by the drive and enthusiasm of those without, who may have spent large amounts of spare time getting involved with similar activities and the feeling that they have a disadvantage to overcome. I believe, that where the graduate benefit shows through, is at a much later stage, when they are better prepared to move to the higher level jobs, but this is a legacy which much harder to quantify and may only seen at later stage when training, time and experience have also been given.

In real terms this opens a debate which other more ‘mature’ industries probably had many years ago… what can we realistically expect from the HE and Universities sector and how does our industry intends to
provide training. It is worth pointing out that, for example, a degree in accountancy will only shorten the training period for Chartered Status by 6-9 months and be the equivalent of a ‘foundation’ course. The other 2-3 years and all the professional exams still need to be taken… Many other ‘professions’ are similar.

Bearing this in mind, does it matter whether our employees have degrees in media studies, medicine or management accountancy? Do we value the label of BA, BSc, etc.? Would trying to change degree courses to be much more ‘training’ focused actually ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’?

Traditionally the creative media industry is split into different categories – Film, TV, Radio, Photo Imaging, Publishing, Computer Games, Advertising, etc. The boundaries and divisions of these seemingly stand-alone sectors are based output; the final format or product. They have historically had their own supply chains, their own workforce, and their own audiences.

The merging of these sectors is often called “convergence”.  But the true impact of the digital technology is much deeper and more profound than the meshing of content or platforms. The increasing ubiquity and shrinking cost of this technology is leading to a rapid merging of the processes, products and profits of these sectors.

In the attached .pdf I point to a different way of looking at and describing the creative media industry to examine, explain and foresee these changes currently happening. Your thoughts, comments and discussion are, as ever, welcome. Click the following link to download the document: Concept – Construct – Connect

This work is the product of conversations with dozens of colleagues and friends. However, discussions, thoughts, visions and debates with four key people brought it to fruition: Chris Chilton, Dan Gable, Andy Gibson and Fiona Kilkelly. (more…)