Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/29159
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I've asked dozens and dozens of people similar questions, but I am interested to hear the response from SE.

At the time of the 20th century, a time with some of the greatest journalists and golden ages, the best writers were without degrees in journalism; and quite a few more were without degrees at all. I find it interesting that George Orwell would be unable to find a job at any newspaper, including local ones without much in the way of circulation. Some people, including the late Christopher Hitchens, say that it's unnecessary; but looking at jobs from journalism(dot)com, it seems to be invariably a requisite.

What is even more interesting is that some require no degree that proves your ability to write, interview, acquire sources, etc.; simply a BA in any field -- this is to say that someone with a degree in classical music is prepared to interview Iraqi freedom fighters on the front lines in Syria while having sniper bullets wizzing past their face, much like Ben Anderson of Vice, but an ex-military person who might have actually fought in M.E. wars is not.

Journalism has always been a field that is benefited from apprenticeships -- regardless of your degree in university (specifically one that pertains nothing to writing in general), nothing prepares you for overseas war-time journalism. I've read the stock arguments, e.g., about it showing some level of determination and integrity. (This, of all of the arguments, is the silliest; everyone who has been to college, or knows college students, knows that they are often times the laziest of people, and are aware of the parties, cramming, and ignoring of any discipline.)

I suppose this is far too much of a rant than it is a question, but I wanted to add some substance to the question, as the question is personal to what I'm writing. Perhaps your rebukes will be of some use. Thank you.

Original score: 4