"Phil Crawley" <phil@I-DONT-LIKE-SPAM.crawley.plus.com> wrote in message
news:9U72b.1377$z67.584@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Some of
> > them can also talk in a knowledgeable sounding way about things like
> > Fourier analysis, or can name-drop an impressive list of software
> > applications they've used, but I know that if they were let near
> > anything real, I'd effectively end up having to do their jobs for
them.
> >
>
> I'm with you Rod - I've been embarassed (for the person I'm
interviewing) on
> several occasions when I've had graduates struggling to give an
explanation
> of balanced audio or something fundamental. Last year I was
interviewing for
> a chief engineer job (at the facility I was about to leave) and of the
five
> candidates (who all had big CVs and big salary expectations, typ.
>£60k)
> only one could explain why a digi-beta machine has an eight-field lock
> switch or the difference between a network switch and hub. I think
when the
> Beeb stopped seeding the industry via Evesham and
three-years-in-the-job
> (start of the nineties) television and radio in the UK started on a
slow
> decline technically.
>

That's very bad news. My uncle worked for the BBC all his life and spent
a good few years training technical staff at Evesham.  Since his
retirement he has frequently commented on the declining technical
standards at the BBC.  It seems to be a case that doing something like,
say, getting the colour balance correct on a programme is an expensive
luxury that doesn't really matter 'cos the punters don't really notice
if it is wrong. And, anyway, modern equipment has automagic settings
that are cheaper to use than actually investing the money to train
somebody to do the job properly.  Don't even get him started about the
actual programme content.



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.