Phildo wrote:
"Someone Out In Space" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:22:02 -0400, "Phildo" wrote:


http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/php/tonmeister.php

He would be much better off trying to find a university in Italy that
offers
the same course.

There's not Only some courses to become a "sound technician", but I
was looking for something higher, that let me a wider range of jobs
involved in sound recording, acoustic, and stuff like that.


Your better bet is to work your way up. A degree can only teach you the
theory and experience means far more.


In that case, you're quite right. In my experience of degrees they
include a vocational element, and the fact (your fact - I haven't
checked) that the Tonmeister degrees offer no practical grounding or
on-site placements renders them of limited use.


Unless his English is good he will find life very hard
there.

What do you mean? For the language or something else?


The language. You will be faced with a barrage of technical terms.

Not a reason for not doing it. I know many students whose first language
isn't English do very well with technical subjects.


There used to be a requirement to be a very capable musician as well
but I don't know if that is still in place. Used to be grade 5 on one
instrument and grade 8 on another, at least one of which had to be
keyboard
based.

Well this is the biggest problem for me I think.

The site says: "The Tonmeister course is structured in such a way that
it assumes that all first-year students have a reasonable level of
musical performance ability, and good theoretical knowledge and
understanding of Mathematics, Music and Physics. Our entrance
requirements are therefore good A-level passes in those three subjects
(typically AAB), and ideally a pass at Grade 7 or 8 (ABRSM, Trinity or
Guildhall) in musical performance."

First of all I don't know what is an A-level in something. School
system here in Italy is really different.


In the UK we finish school at 16 with what used to be called O levels but
are now called GCSEs. We have the option to then go to a 6th form college to
do A-levels which are more advanced. A levels today are about the equivalent
difficulty of what O levels where when I was at school as they have REALLY
dumbed down the exams to try to show the failing education system is
actually improving.

I'm not sure which subjects you are referring to, but your experience is
very different to mine. When were you at school? My experience is based
on doing them in the late 70s.

Although they say AAB at Surrey you are more likely
looking at AAA or even a 4th A-level to get in.

Depends. Universities are well known for their curious entrance criteria.


Well, in September I'll get a degree in Aerospace Engineering here in
Italy, so I think I have the knowledge of Phisics and Maths, I just
don't know how to demonstrate it for English system.
Music. Well I can play guitar, bass and I'm learning piano, but by
private lessons, so I don't have any attestation about my music
knowledge. And where can I find what I'm supposed to know to have an
A-level in Music? And where and how can I demonstarate my knowledges?
This is the main problem for me now.


Grade 8 is a VERY high level of performance in an instrument and they
usually require a keyboard based instrument. It is a really tough course to
be able to get on to and until recently was the most over-subscribed course
in the UK with very few of the people applying actually getting in.

Forget studying sound at anything but a basic level and get your skills on
the job. Qualifications don't really mean anything in this business.

For some people it's a chicken and egg situation. In my experience a
qualification helps get a job. It *doesn't* get you a job. But if sound
engineering doesn't involve an academic grounding, and there aren't any
courses with a vocational element, then I defer.

Also, what sort of sound engineer do you want to be? Do you have any
particular discipline in mind?

One of the advantages of education - helps you decide.

Rob

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Phildo wrote:
Your better bet is to work your way up. A degree can only teach you the
theory and experience means far more.


In that case, you're quite right. In my experience of degrees they include
a vocational element, and the fact (your fact - I haven't checked) that
the Tonmeister degrees offer no practical grounding or on-site placements
renders them of limited use.

I never said any such thing. Please take your words out of my mouth as I
find them most distasteful.


Unless his English is good he will find life very hard
there.

What do you mean? For the language or something else?


The language. You will be faced with a barrage of technical terms.

Not a reason for not doing it. I know many students whose first language
isn't English do very well with technical subjects.

And I have known several who found it a real barrier. The course is
difficult enough without having to translate passages you do not understand.
A thorough grasp of the language the course is taught in at that level is
essential.

In the UK we finish school at 16 with what used to be called O levels but
are now called GCSEs. We have the option to then go to a 6th form college
to do A-levels which are more advanced. A levels today are about the
equivalent difficulty of what O levels where when I was at school as they
have REALLY dumbed down the exams to try to show the failing education
system is actually improving.

I'm not sure which subjects you are referring to, but your experience is
very different to mine. When were you at school? My experience is based on
doing them in the late 70s.

Last year I checked the current A level papers against my old O-level papers
from 1985 in maths, physics, music, French, chemistry, geography and English
(language and lit). The O-levels were harder by far in every case. My father
was a teacher and always moaned about how the exams were being dumbed down
when he heard the government crowing about the new levels of excellence they
had achieved so we decided to see for ourselves.

Although they say AAB at Surrey you are more likely
looking at AAA or even a 4th A-level to get in.

Depends. Universities are well known for their curious entrance criteria.

I was being specific to Surrey and the Tonmeister degree course.

Forget studying sound at anything but a basic level and get your skills
on the job. Qualifications don't really mean anything in this business.

For some people it's a chicken and egg situation. In my experience a
qualification helps get a job. It *doesn't* get you a job. But if sound
engineering doesn't involve an academic grounding, and there aren't any
courses with a vocational element, then I defer.

We are discussing sound engineering here or hadn't you noticed?

Also, what sort of sound engineer do you want to be? Do you have any
particular discipline in mind?

One of the advantages of education - helps you decide.

Not really. You can do something at university then get out in the field and
discover you hate it. Much better to get some real world experience and work
out what you want to do before wasting your time.

I reckon a one-year basic sound engineering course such as the City & Guilds
182 followed by a few years of working in the industry would serve him far
better than a degree.

Phildo

Phildo wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

Phildo wrote:

Your better bet is to work your way up. A degree can only teach you the
theory and experience means far more.


In that case, you're quite right. In my experience of degrees they include
a vocational element, and the fact (your fact - I haven't checked) that
the Tonmeister degrees offer no practical grounding or on-site placements
renders them of limited use.


I never said any such thing. Please take your words out of my mouth as I
find them most distasteful.


You said "A degree can only teach you the theory". Were you including
the Tonmeister degrees in that statement?




Unless his English is good he will find life very hard
there.

What do you mean? For the language or something else?


The language. You will be faced with a barrage of technical terms.


Not a reason for not doing it. I know many students whose first language
isn't English do very well with technical subjects.


And I have known several who found it a real barrier. The course is
difficult enough without having to translate passages you do not understand.
A thorough grasp of the language the course is taught in at that level is
essential.

Er, yes. Although Cambridge recently awarded a first to an 'illiterate'
student.



In the UK we finish school at 16 with what used to be called O levels but
are now called GCSEs. We have the option to then go to a 6th form college
to do A-levels which are more advanced. A levels today are about the
equivalent difficulty of what O levels where when I was at school as they
have REALLY dumbed down the exams to try to show the failing education
system is actually improving.

I'm not sure which subjects you are referring to, but your experience is
very different to mine. When were you at school? My experience is based on
doing them in the late 70s.


Last year I checked the current A level papers against my old O-level papers
from 1985 in maths, physics, music, French, chemistry, geography and English
(language and lit). The O-levels were harder by far in every case. My father
was a teacher and always moaned about how the exams were being dumbed down
when he heard the government crowing about the new levels of excellence they
had achieved so we decided to see for ourselves.


That's interesting. So the A level curriculum has slid beneath O level,
which leaves AS level at (say) (old) CSE 4?

Although they say AAB at Surrey you are more likely

looking at AAA or even a 4th A-level to get in.


Depends. Universities are well known for their curious entrance criteria.


I was being specific to Surrey and the Tonmeister degree course.


OK, I don't know about Surrey's admissions policy, and I defer to your
knowledge. My experience is that allowance is made for life skills and
so forth. If Surrey doesn't, then that's that.


Forget studying sound at anything but a basic level and get your skills
on the job. Qualifications don't really mean anything in this business.


For some people it's a chicken and egg situation. In my experience a
qualification helps get a job. It *doesn't* get you a job. But if sound
engineering doesn't involve an academic grounding, and there aren't any
courses with a vocational element, then I defer.


We are discussing sound engineering here or hadn't you noticed?



Yes, hence the reference.


Also, what sort of sound engineer do you want to be? Do you have any
particular discipline in mind?

One of the advantages of education - helps you decide.


Not really. You can do something at university then get out in the field and
discover you hate it. Much better to get some real world experience and work
out what you want to do before wasting your time.

I think we're going to have to agree to differ. Education is a part of
the 'real world', at least in my opinion.


I reckon a one-year basic sound engineering course such as the City & Guilds
182 followed by a few years of working in the industry would serve him far
better than a degree.

And on that, although I know nothing about sound engineering but based
on my knowledge of vocational qualifications, I would be inclined to
agree. Much as I hate the C&G approach to assessment.

Rob