Can a puppetry major survive a flagship’s financial crisis? Should it?

> first, the chances of success at learning it seem to be higher in a structured, rigorous program compared to independently

That seems an argument for all education to take place inside academia. Keep in mind that liking to read history books is not equivalent to a university degree in history.

> Furthermore, most STEM fields have job markets where salaries that can realistically make getting a degree a worthwhile investment are obtainable.

Yeah, that's ultimately it, it's seen as more valuable because you can make good money in tech. Though I'd argue that much of that may not be the case - are those with science and math education making money hand over fist?

>I am genuinely curious to hear where in the day to day of the tech industry you'd draw parallels to puppetry.

The line you're replying to is more general purpose (puppetry as a vehicle for storytelling in television, movies, theater, parties, festivals, concerts, one-on-one conversation, etc.) however to address your curiosity, a few thoughts since I'm between meetings:

Puppetry involves problem solving and story telling. Maybe we start off with the idea of bringing the novel War Horse to stage - you can't teach a horse to act, so you've got to do puppetry.

You choose a framework: is it shadow puppetry? Rod puppets? Marionettes? Bunraku? Hand puppets don't scale, you're not going to do that. The technology you choose will shape the end result, and it's tempting to go with something flashy and huge, but a seasoned puppeteer can make you cry just by using a sock on their hand.

(see also: https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/news/war-horse)

Some styles of puppetry are going to need more skill in manipulation or crafting than others, which is going to affect what hiring looks like, and what training looks like. Some of the easier styles of puppetry are more popular, and certainly work on smaller projects like a puppet slam - but won't be as effective at getting results on a large scale production.

Putting on a puppet show involves project management and collaboration. Depending on the size of the production, it could be a one-person show, although even those often have one or two people helping to run, for example, light and sound cues. A larger scale production could have a director, a writer, multiple crafters, multiple manipulators, a project manager... These are almost direct analogies to PMs, engineers, developers, department directors.

Projects can be small scale - a more personal puppet slam piece performed in front of an audience of 50, and a talking monstrosity of a cake as part of a Saturday Night Live set piece might involve similar amounts of work, but one's going to pay better than the other. On the far end of the spectrum, you have projects like The Dark Crystal series on Netflix - which is analogous to an enterprise project. Multiple systems operating together, up against tight deadlines while simultaneously taking years to complete, compromises are made that few who see the end result will ever see or recognize...

And in both tech and puppetry, a lot of the people who put in the hard work never get recognized :D

the argument for liberal arts education I always heard goes like this: "college is not to learn a specific skill, but more to better yourself for the real world" and I can't help but think how devoid that is from reality today. Maybe back in the 60's and 70's you could go to college to "broaden your horizons" but today only the wealthiest can afford to do that, everyone else needs a "reason" (that is what sort of job are you getting on the other end).

I think those classes are from a bygone era of when college was affordable and you could take a course "just to learn". Higher ed today is very different, I almost look at colleges are higher level trade schools if you're in CS, Engineering, etc.

I think at this point, the world is probably too complicated in many ways (even comparing to 50 years ago) that the best way to “learn about the world” is probably to pick your corner of specialty and start from there.

In other words, I don’t think that “broaden your horizons” is the issue. But rather that liberal arts education is not the way to do that.

Many thanks for the reply; you make some excellent points.

I agree completely on the "theory" side of things. One of the reasons CS degrees have value is in these foundational aspects. While they can be learned outside of that environment, it's challenging and most people don't take the time to do it.

I think there's a "happy medium" between pure apprenticeship and what we (mostly) have, today. You brought up the model used in medicine -- I feel this model is more like the mixed apprenticeship/university model with a lot of hands-on work in the field under apprentice-ship like conditions with increasing responsibilities/exposure to actual patients. Of course, my exposure to how all of that works begins and ends with medical dramas on TV so I may be imagining that "ideal scenario".

My own situation was quite unique and I feel it was pretty ideal for myself and the company that I spent my college years working for.

I'd started building small business networks for folks in my teens and at 19 interviewed for a job supporting network rollout at a regional-LEC-turned-national telecom. I'd just started college full-time in hopes of completing my degree in 4 years -- I'd have to push this to 6-8, instead, but for accepting a longer time in school, I'd get experience working in an IT department[0] and they paid for my tuition/books.

The tuition reimbursement policy was generous -- it covered at least two classes a semester with books, four semesters a year at 100% if you scored at least a 3.2 (or pass in pass/fail scenarios). If the degree was in your field of work you required no approval; if outside of it, you could still receive reimbursement with approval from HR (which was always granted if the degree was useful to any job in the company, so it was nearly always approved). Some of work time could even be logged as "working on my degree".

You had to pay back a percentage of any class you took two years prior to quitting[0], but IIRC even that was never more than half.

On the company's side, the program encouraged loyalty. Once you're in it, it becomes a big factor in "am I going to take this new job?" -- I turned down two excellent offers because they lacked a similar program and I wasn't encouraged that I would be otherwise supported in completing my education[2] Myself and two other coworkers stayed there 17 years -- at least nine of those were "while I was getting my degree" or waiting for the pay-back period to end. I turned down two excellent job offers during that time because they lacked a similar program and I really appreciated the fact that I was earning a respectable salary while completing my degree and accumulating exactly zero student loan debt.

[0] My hope at the time was to transition to the software development team but I started supporting migrations from mainframe terminals to networked PCs -- some of which were allowed to connect to the internet. Within a year I was writing software full time but (thankfully) not on any of the actual development teams at the company.

[1] If you were laid off you were not required to pay them back.

[2] That sounds a little entitled -- and it is. But I had support at my current job so it was a "real thing" I would be giving up. Beyond that, though, it spoke to the overall organizations' feelings about professional development.