Emory closing journalism school

I fully expect someone to come in and hem and haw about darn kids making $50,000 a year out of college to cover a sports team.

 

Where did you get that number, Verse? According to the Newspaper Guild, a New York Times reporter with two years of experience was earning $1,777 a week ($92,404 a year) as of 2010. I have seen other references to "starting salary" being around $70,000, but few NYT reporters are at entry level. Salaries range up to $120,000 from what I've read, though columnists aren't covered by the Guild and can go higher.

 

Ahh, you're right on the Times and Journal. It's in the $70,000 range. I just asked a friend who works at the Journal and was coming here to alter my statement. The figure is right for the Post. But Washington is cheaper than New York.

 

I would guess you'd have to pay them that just to keep them, right? It seems like anyone who is working at the Wall Street Journal in particular could just as easily make six-figures in the consulting business. Or seven figures in investment banking.

 

I think those salaries are why, for sports at least, both newspapers rely heavily on freelancers and correspondents.

 

Fresh off another talk with J-school students last night... The journalism salary stuff always drives me a little bit nuts, but I never know how much to say about it lest I be accused of God knows what. Yes, there are lots of people struggling in this business; there are also several millionaires I can name off the top of my head. All I'm saying is, it's not a guarantee that you'll be broke. Obviously, a much smaller percentage of journalists get rich, but I would guess it's not all that different from the percentages in other "subjective" trades. There are plenty of broke lawyers and architects, for instance, and I'm not sure you hear those disciplines telling kids they'll be doomed to poverty if they go to school for them.

 

I never got into journalism with the idea that I'd get rich. I did, however, expect -- and, for 16 years, receive -- enough to afford a good middle-class life when my income was combined with my spouse's.

Even that is largely unattainable anymore.

 

Is that a problem exclusive to journalism, though? Seems to me like that middle-class lifestyle has been under attack in plenty of other quarters, too.

 

That's true. But we're talking on a thread about Emory University closing its J-program, and I don't think a lot of those jobs that are also under middle-class attack involved a degree that cost $200,000 (or $100,000 or whatever it is after financial aid).

If you go to law school, there is a good chance you can make a lot of money doing law. You have to be good at it, and Lord knows there are some idiots in law (probably a disproportionately high amount of idiots given the amount of respect that degree usually earns a person), but if you are good at it the rewards are there.

I just don't believe a journalism school can honestly tell its students the rewards are going to be there, either at the high end or the medium end.

 

Very disheartening news. I think more school will follow Emory's lead.

 

I think J-schools can tell their students that as honestly as a lot of professional programs, though—even more in a lot of cases. Where I am, for instance, it is virtually impossible for a teacher to get a job. And if they do, there is an absolute ceiling to what they will make—to what they will ever make. I think a J-school grad has a better chance of getting a job, and has a much better chance of one day getting a job that pays six figures, seeing as the teacher's chance of that is zero.

As we've seen on this thread, there are lots of Emory J-school grads with good jobs. I just hate the idea of telling kids they have no shot. I think it's a disservice to them and to our profession. It's hard, but it's not impossible.

 

It would be interesting to look at the percentages as far as how many get "rich" and how many end up out of the business by 25, with their $22,000/year salary being one of the tipping points.

The choice isn't between saying "it's not a guarantee you'll be broke!" and "telling kids they have no shot." It's possible to say both, and illustrate the various scenarios.

Students today hearing from a (typefitter) might be inspired by his path. But if he speaks to, say, 30 students, how many of those have a realistic chance of making it? And I don't mean "making it" like (typefitter) and some others. I mean securing a long career that doesn't involve deciding each month which bill - or bills - don't get paid.

It's well and good to say "it's not a guarantee that you'll be broke!" But it's much more appropriate to note that it's not a guarantee you'll be rich. With any luck, the professor has other guest speakers whose career paths are more common, and more realistic.

Unlike a few years ago, media students understand the honest presentation. They have no choice now. They read. They know. And for a lot of them at a lot of schools, their professors are reluctant to let them know just how tough it will be. Which, to me, is the real disservice.