I seem to notice these last years that when someone in English-language fiction wants to evoke an image of someone choosing an academic soft option/a fluff discipline, or of academia going to the dogs, he/she mentions media studies.
Is this in fact as popular a stereotype as it looks to me? If any of you have experience with the field as taught, is there a basis to it?
The related fields of communication and journalism have a reputation for being the bastions of the lazy and unmotivated. They’re what you majored in if you sucked at math and science and didn’t want to major in English literature or art history because those required work. It’s the preferred major of student athletes at Division I universities. Some of this is legitimate; they tend to be based almost entirely on practical skills, at least at the undergraduate level, and there are limits on the number of courses within the major. At most schools, you’ll get a broader education because you’re encouraged to take a wider variety of courses, so you can choose easy electives. And, of course, the math and science burdens are low to nonexistent.
That said, communication and media studies are legitimate social sciences. It’s easier to list the disciplines they don’t draw from; in fact, I can’t think of any off the top of my head. I’ve read articles from academics who want to see more theory taught relative to the skills-based courses.
As a journalism graduate who mentored students from several schools I can tell you that the range of “media” courses ranges from rigorous statistical and field research to “everyone watch the news tonight and tell us what you think.”
As Robyn notes, particularly at the Bachelor’s level, the courses tend to be practical. Once you get into more advanced levels, though, you start to see how communication intersects with psychology, sociology and anthropology.
Somewhat ironically, I think it’s a travesty that high school and primary school students aren’t required to be taught basic media analysis.