Defining success of a training program

[meghanpotpie]

Hello Controlbooth collaborators,

I am in the midst of writing my Master's thesis about the factors involved in making one training program stronger than another. The proverbial brick wall that I'm running into is the definition of success in the production field. Success seems to be a relative thing that obviously changes from person to person. I am interested to know how you all define success in this field. For those who made the decision to pursue graduate training, what drew you to your chosen school and would you describe it as a successful experience?

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Amiers]

In my opinion success is measure by how well the show is viewed by the audience and if they walk away with awe and smiles. No matter how or what you have to do to put on the show. Success on the tech side of things would be a perfect load in with no issues a long with a successful tech week/days where everything go off without a hitch.

 

[Footer]

I believe you are looking at how a person looks at themselves as successful... correct?

I know plenty of people who were successful in school and fell flat on their faces in the real world. I also know people who the reverse was true. The biggest thing you have to deal with in this industry is that many (most) of the programs out there train people how to white glove design as the goal when in fact there are very few actual white glove designers out there. So, by most respects, most training programs have failed on their actual goal. Very few if any colleges go into it saying "Yes, you will design a few shows a year but you will make most of your money hanging lights in a tent for fashion shows during the day and lighting Bar Mitztvah's at night in between pushing cases at the local arena if times get tight". There are plenty of people who do this type of job (I'm one of them) and feel they are successful. If you asked my college professors who are still at my school they would probably disagree because what I do every day I never learned in their classroom. Then again, of my professors left right before I did and now spends more time sticking truss in ball rooms then anyone I know.

So, I would separate it into an "artistic success" vs a "financial success/constantly employed success".

 

[hobbsies]

I also think happiness should play a defining role in ones success. If you're making tons of money setting up truss and schlepping road cases but you hate it, that's not success IMO. If you're designing lights for storefronts and finding filler work (or not) but you're really happy, then that's success. In college they make it seem really black and white: if you design on broadway or tour big ass shows, then congratulations, you're successful! But that's BS.

 

[ruinexplorer]

To me, success is that the individual has the capacity to deal with the unknown. What I mean is that the individual has been successfully trained in the core principals of production and can fill any position necessary by either skill or sound reasoning. It is fine to have the artistic eye for design, but if you don't understand the physics of how that needs to become reality, then your design may not be fulfilled. It's great if you only want to do lights, but if the only job available is in sound, you needed some of those skills to be successful that day. It's great if you can run a great show, but if you don't know how to patch, you may be sunk. Likewise, if you don't understand how equipment works, how can you expect to troubleshot. Every day we get one shot to get it right. If you haven't been trained to expect the unexpected and how to deal with that, then you are not successful.