<p>Michael Lewis' 1993 article, published in the New Republic and titled J-School</a> Ate My Brain, has become a pretty famous criticism of the curriculum taught at journalism schools. It's a long read, but it's interesting (and pretty funny, too). The gist is that, by focusing on journalism theory rather than on journalism in practice -- by unnecessarily complicating the art of the craft -- J-schools stifle innovation, hurt graduates' job prospects, and generally produce bad writers.</p>
<p>Lewis isn't alone: [url=<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2071993/%5Dthis%5B/url">http://www.slate.com/id/2071993/]this[/url</a>] Slate article reiterates and expounds upon many of the criticisms made in "J-School Ate My Brain," and even a few CC posters (namely Bedhead) have echoed anti-j-school sentiments. I've thought about pursuing journalism professionally and have considered J-schools like Berkeley's and Columbia's, but I'm not sure what to think after reading these articles. To those in the journalism field: what is your take? Are these criticisms accurate? </p>
<p>Some highlights from the articles:</p>
<p>
I'm convinced that if all the programs in journalism—undergrad and graduate—disappeared tomorrow, America's newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters wouldn't miss a beat of the news cycle.
</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=Slate]
The ASNE survey found that only 10 percent of newsroom employees hold J-school graduate degrees, and I defy any member of the professoriate to identify a journalist's credentials by the quality of his work. When I read the r</p>