Forgive Us Our Debts …
Just as I was beginning to panic over finding something to write about in this space (I’m seldom blocked, but I am occasionally stumped for subject matter), Chris Rich over at Brilliant Corners rides to the rescue, via his very premature but much appreciated piece on my unpublished manuscript, Murder the Dead and Other Sublime Inconsistencies: Rants, Raves, and Revelations on Jazz (and Life). I sent Chris a copy a couple of weeks ago, wanting some feedback, and he felt inspired to write about it on BC.
[Note: Chris took this article down, probably because of a very negative exchange that ensued in the comment section. Since its removal alters the context of this piece, I’ve made a few changes, one of which is deleting the name of the chief disputant, whose toxic rants I deleted from the comment section earlier. I will not abide his mean-spiritedness in this forum, but fair is fair; I shouldn’t call him out by name if I won’t allow him to defend himself.]
It seems that Chris’s brief description of my chapter on jazz education stuck in the craw of a certain, ahem, how shall I put this … very high-strung jazz educator, who was somehow able to magically extrapolate from Chris’s interpretation of my piece a large number of non-existent criticisms, which he took very personally, apparently because he’s on the faculty of one of the big jazz schools which are the objects of my disdain. Said high-strung jazz educator was so aggrieved by things I didn’t write that he saw fit to devote a considerable amount of time addressing them. In so doing, he insightfully called my writings “ignorant,” stating that, “It’s the kind that you attitude that you offer Jazz the hellhole that it is (sic).” Hey, calm down, buddy! [Jazz is a hellhole? Not from where I sit, but then again I’m the sunny sort.]
Given all the mud Mr. Educator slung, something was bound to stick, and sure enough, he got one of my criticisms right.
I freely admit to being skeptical as to the efficacy of formal (aaargh! I hate that word!) jazz education. While some of those concerns involve process, my primary concern is with jazz’s place in the bloated economic monstrosity that is higher education in this country.
In order to address my primary point, then — and even though I might be persuaded to pick nits with at least one of these statements — let us stipulate the following: Aspiring jazz musicians fortunate enough to attend a school like New School Jazz or the New England Conservatory get the best possible jazz education; their teachers are motivated by a desire to serve the students above all else; and our beloved if overly-agitated Mr. Educator, in particular, is as gifted a teacher as he is a raconteur (I don’t doubt this last to be especially true). In the space of this post, and for the amount of time it takes to write and read it, we will treat this as our reality.
It is undeniably true that, in a real way, one cannot put a price on an education gained at an elite music school like NEC or New School Jazz. It is equally true that, in another, real–er way, you can.
That price is $33K — the cost of tuition and fees at NEC and New School Jazz for the 2009 – 2010 academic year.
Multiply those numbers by four, and the total comes to more than $130K as the overall cost of an undergraduate degree (of course, given the inevitability of yearly tuition increases, that number is likely low … and we’re not counting room and board, which The New School offers for $16K, and NEC for $11K; remember, that’s per school year). Scholarships and grants are widely available, yet ultimately a huge chunk of that money comes out of the pockets of the ‘rents or — more likely — the students themselves, in the form of deferred loans.
To place this in context, consider that tuition at Harvard University Medical School—currently ranked by U.S. News and World Report as the best school of its kind in the nation — was $39K for the 2009 – 2010 school year. Indeed, several medical schools in the U.S. News Top 20 cost less to attend than NEC or New School Jazz. I admit that this is, in some ways, an apples/oranges comparison, but it helps illustrate just how out-of-whack the cost/benefit ratio of an elite jazz education is.
You cannot quantify the spiritual and creative benefits of an education received at a school like NEC or New School Jazz. You can, however, quantify the real-world consequences. According to the American Council on Education, the average graduate of a professional degree program — which encompasses not only medicine and law, but also such fields as nursing, engineering, dentistry, and education—leaves school with a student loan debt of around $63K (if from a public university) or $71K (if from a private university).
[One would suspect that these numbers skew low, since a degree in nursing or teaching should cost less on the average than one as a doctor or lawyer. On the other hand, a jazz musician/teacher who pays as much for his training as a doctor pays for his can expect to carry a similar amount of debt. But let’s be conservative in our estimate. It’s enough to suppose that a graduate of these elite jazz schools will leave after four years owing something in the neighborhood of $70K.]
A doctor making an average of $204,000 per year can hope to eventually pay off such a debt. A trained (accredited, certified, snookered, what have you) jazz musician … not so much. The majority will need to do something else for a living: teaching, for instance, or something that requires little training and therefore pays poorly — in other words, an amount insufficient to put groceries on the table for a family of four, a roof over their head, and Christmas gifts for the kids, never mind make payments on a gargantuan bank loan. Many will default on their debt, thus sabotaging their credit ratings and making it difficult-to-impossible for them to buy something so tiresomely bourgeois — yet eminently practical — as a house. [That reminds me: What do you call a jazz musician without a wife or girlfriend? Homeless. I know; there’s nothing remotely funny about that.]
I graduated from college in 1984 with a Bachelors of Music Education degree owing not more than five or six grand in student loan debt (this from a state university, where I don’t believe I paid more than $30 per credit hour; credits at NEC and The New School are more than $1000 per). It took years to pay off. In fact, I initially defaulted before eventually paying it in full. At the time I would’ve preferred to attend a school like Berklee or NEC (I was 18 and stupid, as all 18 year-olds are; how else do schools like these get students so willing to mortgage their futures?). I didn’t, and I’m glad. Who knows how much in the red I might’ve ended up?
Understand, this is not a bash on the concept of teaching jazz in a classroom. I don’t feel that it’s the optimal way to learn, based on my personal experience, but then again, I’m a hardcore autodidact. Not everybody is like me. If these schools could provide instruction at a price commensurate with the expected future income of their students, I’d say more power to ‘em. God knows there are enough stories about great jazz teachers — Tristano, Crothers, Banacos, etc. — to give lie to the idea that jazz can’t be taught.
But it’s clear that the system of jazz education on the economic scale of schools like NEC and The New School is unsustainable. These schools are, by virtue of their very existence, promising (implicitly or otherwise) something they cannot deliver. I’m sure a teacher at one of these schools can come to me with testimonials from students swearing to the greatness of their educational experience. I’m just as certain that many of those students will, in ten or twenty years, look at the material quality of their lives and say, “What in hell have I done?” It’s one thing when a four-year education sets you back $6K, as it did me. It’s quite another when it puts you in debt for the rest of your life. I’m not here to present a model alternative; that’s above my pay grade as unpaid-intern/Editor-in-Chief of this site. But when you see a piano falling from a great height toward someone’s head, it’s simple good manners to tell that person to look up.
On the money here. I am a recent graduate of Oberlin Conservatory, but I was smart enough to know at the age of 18 that my jazz degree would be useless, and so I only did it concurrently with a B.A. in political science from Oberlin College (but alas, lets see where THAT gets me). However, I always felt and still do feel that the only people who have the ability to get into what ever music institution they want and have it partially or fully paid for are the ones who are good enough that they don’t even need to go to school for music in the first place. Not to be a huge downer, but it is certainly true that the students who come in the best STAY the best. I’m not saying that the programs don’t work in educating, certainly a lot of students get better, but so do the prodigious ones who are most likely having a large part of their tuition subsidized. They are the ones who will make some money when they get out, and they won’t have as much debt to pay off. And then what do all the not-as-good students do when they get their BA? Well, if they’re ‘serious’, they’ll get their masters. There is some more money down the drain.
However, I don’t agree that the system is bound to collapse. The fact is that where is there is demand, someone will supply and profit. And there is a demand: enrollment for jazz programs across the country is increasing (figure that one out), and there is certainly no low supply on struggling jazz musicians trying to make some extra cash on the side by teaching. Even for well-established musicians (including Billy Hart, Gary Bartz, Robin Eubanks and Marcus Belgrave, all professors at Oberlin), the majority of their income is coming form teaching. This seems like a pretty healthy cycle, unfortunately.
Comment by Savage Music — February 22, 2010 @ 2:26 pmThanks for making the point about “the best pay less, etc.” I considered putting that in but was frankly too exhausted. It’s an important aspect that shouldn’t be overlooked.
I don’t know … the stock market was hitting all-time highs in the years before the Great Depression, thanks to a thing called “buying on margin,” whereupon investors bought stocks with money they didn’t have. These students are buying educations with money they don’t have. I do not doubt that sooner or later the bill will come due. When it does, the whole house of cards will – like the stock market in ’29 – come a’ tumbling down.
Comment by Chris — February 22, 2010 @ 5:18 pmA thought-provoking piece with some good points, to be sure. (Full disclosure: I’ve been on the faculty of New School Jazz since 1991, and am on the jazz faculties of Manhattan School of Music and New Jersey City University as well.) But why limit your comments to NEC and The New School, or for that matter, jazz education?
In fact, *all* music-degree programs are a crap-shoot and always have been. There are always more aspirants than available professional positions – advertise an opening for lowliest second violin in the Hoople Symphony, and 300 applicants show up to audition.
I’ve seen former students like Brad Mehldau, Andrew Bemkey, Marcus and E.J. Strickland, John Ellis, Robert Glasper, Tatum Greenblatt, José James, Becca Stevens, and others go on to first-rate careers in jazz. To be sure, they are exceptional talents, but that isn’t to say that numerous others haven’t had some degree of success in creative music as well. (Some have augmented their music-making with day gigs of various kinds. Nothing wrong with that – it worked for Charles Ives, and it’s worked for Denny Zeitlin.)
None of us who teaches has a crystal ball to predict who will succeed in music and who won’t. And it isn’t our place – even if we *could* predict those futures – to quash the dreams of aspiring young musicians. All we can do is to give our students the best information and guidance we can, and encouragement when warranted.
Comment by Bill Kirchner — February 22, 2010 @ 6:10 pmMr.Kirchner,.
What are the basic requirements to teach in a jazz program in New York by your understanding? Is a degree in music ed required? maybe just having a “name”?
I ask for a straight up selfish reason,.I have had some OUT day gigs the last year or so
Comment by Matt Lavelle — February 22, 2010 @ 8:13 pmI’m still glad I didn’t go to music school after high-school. I may be worse off as a musician but I’m in practically no debt and actually not that far behind my friends who did go. It also frees me up to go for my new love, urban planning.
I may suck but my credit rating is good. I ain’t owe nobody nothin’.
Comment by Matt LeGroulx — February 22, 2010 @ 10:22 pmTo Matt Lavelle:
In my experience, “basic requirements” vary widely in jazz schools. For private institutions, there are often no formal degree requirements; life experience and a “name” have frequently sufficed, though this is rapidly changing in an increasingly competitive jazz-education field. For state universities, a master’s degree – and often a doctorate – is usually a prerequisite.
A musician friend/colleague of mine observed, only partly tongue-in-cheek, that schools in the hinterlands that can be located only on satellite-surveillance photos most often require a doctorate.
Comment by Bill Kirchner — February 23, 2010 @ 10:11 amThanks Bill,..
Comment by Matt Lavelle — February 23, 2010 @ 12:35 pmThough I encourage free exchange, and generally believe in letting a body hoist himself on his own petard, I’d prefer this site not degenerate into a bastion of mean-spiritedness. I let certain rantings stand overnight, but when I woke up this morning and discovered that the poster in question had dropped another huge stink bomb, I decided to delete all of his comments and uninvite him from participating in this here discourse. This won’t happen often – this is the first and hopefully last time – but I aim to keep the dialogue here on a high level.
Comment by Chris — February 24, 2010 @ 6:21 amI understand Mr. Kirchner’s point in listing students who have gone on to have careers playing jazz. However, we should be fair here.…every year the New School, William Patterson, Berklee, et al graduate (or not) students who go on to have careers playing. However, the list of students who won’t would contain an exponentially greater number of names. There are great advantages to attending these schools.…it’s not for a ‘jazz’ education (though some students can learn a few things to be sure). The biggest advantage for some students, in attending these name schools is networking…making the connections that get them out of school and into gigging situations where they will hopefully network with other people. Again, this happens to the elite few.…
keith hedger
Comment by Keith Hedger — February 26, 2010 @ 12:32 pmWhat Keith Hedger says is mostly true – though the best jazz schools can teach considerably more than just “a few things”. But as I said above, the conditions Mr. Hedger described are true for *all* music schools, not just jazz ones, and have *always* been so.
We’re talking about the arts here, not a relatively guaranteed career path to a Dilbert-like cubicle. There are way more aspirants in all of the arts than there are available positions, and in my experience, most music students who embark upon this career path understand this – at least to some degree. These students are not stupid. And as for the jazz ones, one thing they discover is that in keeping with their profession, they have to improvise a career. I’ve had to do that myself, from a variety of different music-related activities. As my friend composer-producer Bob Belden said: “Most people have to reinvent themselves a few times in a lifetime; jazz musicians have to do it every few years.”
And as Robin Williams put it: “If you want guarantees, buy a toaster.”
Comment by Bill Kirchner — February 26, 2010 @ 3:38 pmYes this is a hot topic right now. I agree with the need to warn students about incurring massive debt on a college degree. But shouldn’t their parents be doing that? I teach at McGill university in Montreal and although our tuition is significantly lower than American colleges it is still more than likely that an average student will graduate with debt. What I tell my students is this: There are really only 2 reasons to get a jazz degree
1. You really enjoy the academics of University and the pursuit of that kind of education (some of us are just nerds and get off on this stuff. species counter point anyone…?
2. you want to teach at some point in the future
A masters degree will pull in $100/hr instead of $14/hr at the local music store. The reason why this is where I stop in my encouragement of students is because I am very upfront in telling them that this degree will not (and can’t possibly) turn them into musicians. All that work is on them individually regardless of whether they are getting information from a classroom or from living in New York. It’s ultimately the same process and it needs to be demystified that sitting in an improv class will do any of that work for you.
Comment by Josh Rager — February 27, 2010 @ 10:16 amThere seems to be two parallel discussions going on here (and elsewhere) regarding Jazz Ed – one celebrating its (legitimate) beauty, the beauty of the children, children as hope for the future (etcetera) and the other (legitimately) decrying the out-of-the-box penury that comes with $100,000+ in tuition and the absurdity of that price tag next to the potential for ever recuperating that ‘investment’ in the present market with one’s “art” (or “craft” if you like.)
The first conversation (beauty, the sanctity of academia, doing things for the ‘love’ of it) has thus far come most vehemently from those employed in academia. The second conversation (I paid $100,000 and all I got is this lousy tee-shirt) comes from those who aren’t employed in academia, but instead those who are probably still paying off their loans from that glorious experience with a job that has nothing what so ever to do with music.
Has anyone else noticed this?
Mr. Hedger makes a central point that “we” continue to dance around, but never fully engage – namely the roll of ‘networking’ in all ‘professional’ pursuits (not just music.) Mr. Hedger also makes the point that this happens to “the elite few.” Is it possible to give this phenomena and its related mechanisms (who get’s picked? who get’s picked to do the picking?) a little dialectic (let alone redress the situation) without a sissy boy slap party erupting?
If not, why not?
Comment by sjz — February 28, 2010 @ 12:20 pmMr. Kirchner,
Just a note.…I did not mean “learn a few things” to be a disparaging comment. You’ll notice that my whole comment had a certain, ‘compactness’ in style. That’s because I’M LAZY =:-)
Mea culpa.
Keith
Comment by Keith Hedger — March 4, 2010 @ 10:08 am