Worries that aren't unique to me?

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry if I missed the answer to this question, but I don't recall seeing it. What is the OP planning on reading at university? (I see that the same question was asked while I was writing this).

Many Americans probably don't realize just how different American and UK universities are. At a UK university, it is (or at least was) assumed that you had received a decent general education at school, so you don't get the kind of 'requirements' that you get at an American university -- which look somewhat infantile to anyone brought up with the English system. My wife, who read Theatre at USC, was also required to do courses in things like English, Biology, History, Political Science, swimming... You can argue that UK universities are too narrow, but equally, you can argue that a university isn't supposed to be an extension of secondary school, either: you shouldn't treat students like little kids, unless you want an infantilized population. Thinking of which, a drinking age of 21 is a bad joke.

Also, UK universities don't work on 'credits' and 'grade averages', but on examinations and (sometimes, in some universities for some subjects, course work). Nor is attendance at lectures invariably compulsory: if you can learn to your own, that's fine too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ferider]

To extend what Roger said (with which I fully agree), other countries in Europe are also different from the US. I know Germany and Switzerland from personal experience, which sound more similar to Roger's UK school description than to American colleges. And regarding Paris, if you are planning on joining a "Grande Ecole", it's different from everything else again.

There is also the question of finances. In many countries from the 2nd year onwards, you can earn money as a teaching assistant, get grants specifically for out of country studies, etc. And school prices vary greatly, not necessarily related to school quality.

I suggest to pick your subject, and then pick the school (there will be multiple options) depending on finances, photography and other interests. Don't worry about language, you'll learn fast, trust me.

Roland.

 

[n5jrn]

One thing to be aware of is that people tend to give advice based on their own life experiences, and much of how people view such experiences is of course in the light of their own personal preferences. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, but it does make it much more difficult to put advice from a bunch of random people on the Internet whom you don't personally know into its proper context. And now I will proceed to do the same, and you should read what I type in light of the above disclaimer as much as you should read what anyone else types here in such light:

Definitely don't rush into decisions. That includes rushing into the decision to attend university in the first place: there's absolutely nothing dishonorable about a working-class career. I oftentimes wish I had not gone to college and had taken an apprenticeship in the building trades instead: it would have given me far more freedom to choose where I live, as opposed to having a degree and a professional career that makes it difficult to find work outside of a few key big cities (which once held allure for me, but not so much anymore).

Don't get me wrong: there are good reasons to get a college degree. Doing so because attending university kicks the can four years down the road, or because everyone in your family expects you to, are not such reasons, however.

 

[celluloidprop]

I'm apt to use suburbia as a crutch for why I'm not shooting as much as I should be/would like to be - but the truth is, suburbia just as ripe for exploration as the Lower East Side or East London or wherever.

You're not going to get your Winogrand on (for the most part), you have to figure out what you want to say about suburbia, but the opportunities are there.

The biggest obstacle in urban vs. suburban or rural is making time. If you live in a city, you can photograph as you live your life, moving to and fro. If you're in a driving culture (almost all American suburbs) that gets trickier - you can see perfect light and a perfect scene, but you have to stop, get out, photograph and then go on your way.

 

[Mr_Toad]

Just what is up with everyone badmouthing the 'burbs!??!?!

What are you trying to say?

...that my image portfolio of bored housewives walking in and out of Corner Bakery isn't intriguing enough for you?

It is a veritable monument to banality.

 

[Teuthida]

I'm sorry, but I do live in Paris and I would say, reading your first sentence, that you haven't.

My, my. How presumptuous of you.

53 bis, Blvd Arago, June 2003 to August 2005. Glaciere was my Metro stop. Spent a lot of time near where you live, in Menilmontant.

Checked out your Belleville pics. you are correct: no baguettes. But nothing that couldnt be done just as good or better anywhere else, which of course is my point.

 

[Teuthida]

Sorry if I missed the answer to this question, but I don't recall seeing it. What is the OP planning on reading at university? (I see that the same question was asked while I was writing this).

Many Americans probably don't realize just how different American and UK universities are. At a UK university, it is (or at least was) assumed that you had received a decent general education at school, so you don't get the kind of 'requirements' that you get at an American university -- which look somewhat infantile to anyone brought up with the English system. My wife, who read Theatre at USC, was also required to do courses in things like English, Biology, History, Political Science, swimming... You can argue that UK universities are too narrow, but equally, you can argue that a university isn't supposed to be an extension of secondary school, either: you shouldn't treat students like little kids, unless you want an infantilized population. Thinking of which, a drinking age of 21 is a bad joke.

Also, UK universities don't work on 'credits' and 'grade averages', but on examinations and (sometimes, in some universities for some subjects, course work). Nor is attendance at lectures invariably compulsory: if you can learn to your own, that's fine too.

Cheers,

R.

Your Faux English Elitism is amusing.

Before you generalize about the respective merits of US v UK University education, you may want to review this recent survey of the world's best universities, done in the UK no less: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/top-200.html

The top 5 universities in the WORLD, and 15 of the top 20, are American. 3 of the top 20 are British.

But don't let the facts get in the way.Carry on, as you chaps say....

 

[celluloidprop]

The top 5 universities in the WORLD, and 15 of the top 20, are American. 3 of the top 20 are British.

But don't let the facts get in the way.

The population of the US is about six times that of Great Britain - with five times as many great universities. Not quite the masterstroke you were hoping for there.
I'm inclined to agree with Roger about students being forced to waste time with things that are irrelevant to their course of study. In Texas public universities, barely half of a student's credits are in their major and there's very little room for them to explore other subjects - between major requirements and core requirements, electives take a huge hit. As a fine arts student, I was annoyed that I couldn't take upper-level courses in political history and literature that would have served to give me a broader conceptual and theoretical basis for my work (and make me a better-rounded person overall).

 

[sevo]

The population of the US is about six times that of Great Britain - with five times as many great universities. Not quite the masterstroke you were hoping for there.

In any case, all it illustrates is that a.) it is somewhat pointless to try and establish elite universities outside a English-language country and b.) once you have an elite university established up in the ranking, the right kind of students will flock to you - if you can hand pick all your students to have either an IQ above 130 or an safe income upward of a million a year, no bad teaching in the world will make them a failure.

The quality of teaching is better compared using low to mid rank universities as a benchmark - and there, the US (true home of the large social gap) don't look particularly good...

 

[bobkonos]

Worries? You are too young for worries. Instead, you have choices, dreams, and actions. Those hopefully will not be replaced by worries.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Your Faux English Elitism is amusing.

Before you generalize about the respective merits of US v UK University education, you may want to review this recent survey of the world's best universities, done in the UK no less: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/top-200.html

The top 5 universities in the WORLD, and 15 of the top 20, are American. 3 of the top 20 are British.

But don't let the facts get in the way.Carry on, as you chaps say....

Read what I said, instead of what you wanted to read: ". . . You can argue that UK universities are too narrow, but equally, you can argue that a university isn't supposed to be an extension of secondary school. . . "

and reflect that ". . . which look somewhat infantile to anyone brought up with the English system. . . " means what it says: IF you were brought up in the English system, it looks somewhat infantile.

So I'd dispute I was being elitist, and your use of "faux" suggests that you may be unclear on the meaning of the word.

Celluloidprop and Sevo have entirely adequately answered your points about "the facts".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Worries? You are too young for worries. Instead, you have choices, dreams, and actions. Those hopefully will not be replaced by worries.

You were never worried in your 'teens?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Brian Legge]

When I was 18, I worked with a guy in his mid 40s. He referred to me as 'the old man' because I was always thinking forward, being worried, etc. Looking back, that should have been a red flag that I was going down a dangerous path. 😉

I've never really been good at being in the moment and enjoying it for what it is. Almost 15 years later and I never did sort that part out.

 

[Teuthida]

So I'd dispute I was being elitist, and your use of "faux" suggests that you may be unclear on the meaning of the word

Cheers,

R.

No. Being an alumnus of one of the top universities in the world, I was taught the proper definition of 'faux.' Your mistake is in thinking you know the noun the adjective modifies.

Cheers to you.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No. Being an alumnus of one of the top universities in the world, I was taught the proper definition of 'faux.' Your mistake is in thinking you know the noun the adjective modifies.

Cheers to you.

Long ago, I learned that trying to look clever is often the best way to look like a pompous fool. I would strongly advise you to profit from my experience.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dave lackey]

I have considered taking a gap year, but not in a lot of detail…I'd probably try to be a teacher's assistant for languages or something. If I had all the money I wanted, I'd just travel all over Europe and China and shoot hundreds of rolls.

Well, the last I looked, something like 80% of students at Georgia Tech (where I attended and taught for years) wind up in a field entirely different than the degree for which they worked so hard. My students asking for advice were equally confused and it was a joy to offer some advice at times.

Personally, I think a gap of a year or two would be a great opportunity to travel and actually experience life. Be aware that campus life and, indeed, academic life is an illusion to a large extent. Far better than those internet degrees that are so prevalent these days and so much a foundation for the rest of your life.

But there are other ways to learn, and travel is one of them. If you can afford to do so, I recommend it. If you cannot afford it yet, go work and save, then travel.

You will eventually find your own way.😉

 

[dave lackey]

You were never worried in your 'teens?

Cheers,

R.

Wow...growing up in the 60's, I certainly was!😱

 

[Steve M.]

Yes, it matters a great deal where you're shooting. Location, location, location. Walk around the streets of the old French Quarter in New Orleans, then stroll downtown Salt Lake City, Utah. Where do you think you'll get some shots ?

Being an alumnus of one of the top universities in the world. Now there's a meaningless phrase. So?

 

[jsrockit]

Walk around the streets of the old French Quarter in New Orleans, then stroll downtown Salt Lake City, Utah. Where do you think you'll get some shots ?

Both places?

 

[mawilliams]

I would highly recommend expanding your mind as much as possible while in school, and your photography will benefit. The key to really good photography is intelligence, education and sensitivity in my humble opinion, the first of which I assume you possess, and the latter two you can nurture and grow. After someone masters the technical aspects of street photography what they're left with is the question you have posed about "what/where to shoot - what now?!" As others have alluded to, it's not so much what you shoot as how, and to what end. You can only go so far on technical skill.

Also, if you notice some very famous photographers did a lot of their best work on their spare time. Take Stieglitz for example - he spent a good deal of his time running galleries, supporting other artists and producing magazines, but when he made images it was often of his vacation home in Lake George, of O’Keefe, of his little nieces and nephews... the photography flowed out of his life - it wasn't something he over-reached for to obtain. Like in all things, balance is needed.

If I can quiet my ego for a little while, I remember that being a amateur is actually a blessing... I do a little bit of professional work here and there, and the camera is about the only thing it has in common with my personal work - one has nothing to do with the other. So you might do just as well to find an enthralling career that has nothing to do with your camera, and just develop your photography in your own life as you go, without the constraints of needing to feed yourself by it.

Just my two cents...