Personal Qualities vs PR Qualifications Debate and Guest Speakers...

Let me start by saying that the guest speakers, previous graduates of our program, were quite helpful and personable. As I am returning to the States, most of what they had to say was not directly relevant to me, but they had some general advice that could be applied to job searches in general. I wish I had known, however, that their presentation was going to be more of an informal Q&A with a brief introduction, as I would've thought out some questions to ask. I hate being put on the spot to think them up...it always seems like the silence gets a bit awkward when you are mentally scrambling to produce a question. Then I start thinking, have I taken too long? do they think I'm not interested? am I wasting their time? etc...

Also, the debate was confusing. Possibly because both sides seemed to be saying sort of the same things and talking circles around each other without coming to an easily discernible point. Okay, so maybe that was me, and I was having trouble following the discussion as I was expecting a bit more formal of a debate with both groups at the front of the class and the speakers facing us, but I was sitting behind one of the groups, who spoke with their backs to me, and they were hard to hear. And there seemed to be a lot of irrelevant facts being thrown onto the table that were not logically connected to any argument, at least in my opinion. Actually, I know someone else agreed with me on that point, as she mentioned it.

So basically, I think that this pair of groups has little experience in formal debating. Which is not really their fault, of course. But I took debate in junior high and high school, and, as such, was expecting a structured debate--not a group squabble, with people interrupting others with questions about their facts without letting them finish speaking (quite rude form, actually!!).

That being said, however, I do think the team supporting the motion that success in PR is predicated more on personal qualities and connections than on PR qualifications presented more persuasive statistics. Yet as I have mentioned before, statistics can lie. The fact that most current PR practitioners do not have PR qualifications probably does, as Michaela rightly pointed out, have more to do with the fact that many UK upper management PR personnel did not have an option of taking courses when they were first starting out. But now that courses exist, it makes sense to study PR if you wish to pursue a career in it. Also, the fact that 77% of PR graduates find a job within six months does seem persuasive on the against the motion side of the debate...but how many of these positions are above entry level? If all of these positions are entry level, does that necessarily denote "success"?

And then, even the team supporting the motion that PR qualifications were irrelevant seemed to be saying that some educational background in an allied field was important. So maybe PR qualifications themselves are not necessary, but relevant qualification and education is. And the point I was trying to express, but couldn't quite articulate, is that if most agencies require an educational background in a related field, then you are bridging over into the realm of qualifications rather than pure personal qualities and contacts. In other words, if writing, speaking, and teamwork skills are required, and these are more often acquired or honed as a result of some sort of education in the communications field rather than say biology or physics, then we are still talking about qualifications, not personal qualities. A natural gift for communication without lots of practice is rare, I would propose. And even natural tendencies are further enhanced by educational opportunities and can erode without them.

I think of personal qualities more in terms of personality than education, myself. So perhaps my issue with the debate is just a question of semantics within the debate topic. And further to that point, how does one define success? Is it just the ability to get an entry level job upon graduation or looking for work, or is it the achievement of management level within a company or agency, or is it a personal happiness issue? A little explanation of the term success would have allowed for a more informed argument and subsequent class polling. One team seemed to be talking about the ability to acquire an entry level position, and the other seemed to be speaking of the ease of switching from allied fields of study. No one seemed to talk about income levels or stress levels or ability to change between sectors without qualifications or ability to move up the ladder to management...but all of these could be considered factors of success to some people.

At the end of the day, I found neither team very convincing. I held the same opinion going into the debate as coming out. I chose the devil's advocate position, but without really supporting the motion one hundred percent. Irrelevant is a very absolutist term, and as I've written before, I don't favor arguments from these positions. I would have been happier with a more-than/ less-than type of debate. It is my opinion that personal qualities are more relevant to being hired than a piece of paper, although the paper is certainly important in most job applications for skilled working positions.

Selling yourself in an interview, however, is generally based on a host of abilities and experiences that don't necessarily come across just by waving a diploma. Many people earn degrees who can't apply the things they learned in practice. Many other people have relevant experiences in other areas which they can highlight to make up for the lack of diploma in the field. So it really depends on how stringent the company in question is on the requirements for earning a position. If they insist on degrees in PR, obviously even those with related experience but no degree are not going to make the cut. But if a company just wants basic communication skills backed up by some sort of diploma, then any communications degree should do, or really, an aerospace engineering graduate who was an active member of Toastmasters or some such organization might equally fit the bill if they can demonstrate their abilities adequately.

For instance...although this is not a PR example...bear with me, I have a point: I worked for Royal Caribbean for nearly two years as youth staff. The company prefers to hire candidates who hold education degrees, but they will take anyone holding a bachelor's degree with at least five years experience working with children and who can demonstrate good communication skills and a fun "entertainment"-type personality, as youth staff are part of the company's shipboard entertainment division. So I was able to get the job with an English degree rather than an education degree, although it was a bit more work to convince them to hire me. And while the majority of youth staffers are education people, I still worked with an aeronautical engineer, a mathematician, several sports & leisure and travel & tourism graduates, and some psych and poli sci degree holders, as well. The important thing to the company was the demonstration of relevant experiences and skills, not the stated degree preference. Yet notice that they did require a degree of some sort, the earning of which implies a person's intelligence, trainability, dedication and strength of purpose all fall within company standards.

So, I would say that although some educational background and experience is important to gaining entry into the PR industry, I wouldn't say that I agree that it must be a PR degree (as I believe was the point of the motion-supporting team). That being said, however, a PR degree can't hurt your chance of gaining a position if you are being compared with a relatively equal competitor with a degree in some other field, as the hiring company would have to expend fewer resources in your training than your competitor's.