Dan Goldgeier recently posted a piece asking, “Are you smarter than an ad student?” Being a recent college graduate in the field of strategic communication (fabulous timing, to be sure), I’ve found myself asking many of the same questions that Dan puts forward. Most importantly: did my advertising education prepare me for success in such a struggling industry? To be fair, I cannot know the answer, as I am unfortunately part of the growing pack of the unemployed. (Or is that my answer?) However, looking toward my more blessed colleagues of the graduating class of 2009 in advertising, and by assessing what I feel I’ve learned from my college courses, I have come to a few conclusions about my experience with the state of advertising curriculum and its effectiveness.
*Note: I do give Dan an IHF for actively pursuing this topic for the right reasons. In the past few years, I have seen so many ad professionals pushing young ad students down to make themselves feel more important or skilled in the communications field. Dan, on the other hand, recognizes the fact that the advertising industry as a whole will continue to struggle if new talent isn’t taught what is necessary. (I’m not requesting hand-holding, only knowledge, thank you very much.)
Back to the issue.
Dan states, “Four-year colleges and universities do practically nothing to prepare students for a career in advertising, particularly as a creative.” I do agree with him on the creative standpoint. I studied at the University of Minnesota in hopes of becoming an art director, and I clearly remember being sat down by my Psychology of Advertising professor who told me, “You’re in the wrong place.” I was shocked, stunned, and a little angry at his statement, which I found harsh at the time. However, after a few more years of study, I would find that he was undeniably correct in his choice of words.
The University of Minnesota offered me a great education, and I would never claim otherwise. However, as a creative advertising student, the curriculum is lacking- to say the least. There are only 2 creative courses in our School of Journalism and Mass Communication: Creative Strategy and Copywriting (which is sort of a misnomer… as it also focuses on art direction and most other aspects of the creative process) and Advertising Portfolio Development. These classes are a great starting block for young creatives-to-be, but cannot teach them everything they need to know to be successful. Lack of classes isn’t to be blamed on the staff (many of them have begged time and time again for more creative courses), but rather on lack of funding. The J School has not had a full staff in a decade, and more courses would require more teachers, a luxury that the school cannot afford.
I do disagree, however, on Dan’s point that “Most of the professors at these schools have little in the way of relevant, recent industry experience, nor do they provide much insight into how today’s ad agencies work on a day-to-day basis.” I found, in my experience, my professors to be extremely relevant, qualified and insightful. (Let’s be honest- you can’t get much better than John Eighmey, Earl Herzog or Jennifer Johnson.) They didn’t try to force outdated textbooks on us or lecture all hour on worthless information. They engaged us to come up with solutions to the new problems that the industry is facing. (And BELIEVE ME… they DEFINITELY made sure we understood the inner-workings of agencies.)
In fact, Jennifer Johnson went out of her way to help me try to solve the lack of creative curriculum when we founded the University of Minnesota Student One Club, which provides students with an avenue for portfolio development and creative brainstorm outside of the classroom. Her dedication to her students is relentless, to say the least.
Later, Dan commented, “I cringe when ideas go to an Assistant Account Executive who doesn’t have an informed notion of what they’re helping to sell and who they’re selling to. It doesn’t benefit anyone to see a junior creative team present a wonderful, well-crafted idea that just happens to be the completely wrong tone for a target they can’t seem to relate to.”
To that point, I would argue that the HR people have obviously chosen the wrong account candidate in this situation. If there is anything stressed in our coursework at the J School, it’s research and strategy. Even though I was more focused on creative, I couldn’t help but be schooled in the teachings of knowing the target, what motivates them and how to display the value that the product/service can have in their lives. (Which, in my opinion, has made me a better creative as well.)
However, despite my belief in the strength of the U of M’s ad program, I have always said that I have learned more about advertising through the National Student Advertising Competition than I ever have in the classroom. To tirelessly work on a campaign for a year on your own time for no credit beyond the pride of knowing you did your best is really the way to know more about the industry and whether you’ve got what it takes. It also doesn’t hurt having a genius like Howard Liszt overseeing everything you do and giving you insights into what needs to be done. (Another phenomenal, RELEVANT teacher.) This is not to diminish the importance of my formal education, but rather to show another benefit of four-year education for ad students.
I did enjoy Dan’s final remark: “However, there is one skill they do learn at college: How to drink. And drinking skills can indeed get you far in advertising.”
Thank. God.
