I'm very struck by Reiner's message 10. I couldn't agree more about the sort of opportunities that being at a university (as opposed in this instance to a conservatoire) can offer. The chance to 'sample' subjects other than the one you are ostensibly studying is an invaluable and unique one in life; most universities allow 'observation' of this sort I think. Others construct courses and degree programmes that instill or invite that sort of interdisciplinarity from the outset. And I couldn't agree more that such broad sampling of ideas is extraordinarily important - essential in fact - for a thorough and meaningful understanding of any art form, not just music of course.

The trouble is students' appetite, or lack of it, for such opportunities. Back on the Grump thread there were a few comments about the declining quality of students' skills and knowledge on entering university. That is absolutely, undeniably and patently true, but let's leave aside for a moment arguments about A-level quality generally (or, more pertinently, A-level unpredictability: a grade 'A' at Music A-level these days does not even guarantee an ability to read music, although this is a rather more complex situation than that bald fact suggests). What's truly shocking is the lack of general knowledge. I think I may have posted this somewhere a while ago in another context, but (during a seminar on Debussy's Jeux recently) I asked a seminar group of 15 2nd year undergraduates what was important about the year 1914. Only ONE had any idea, and he was 55 years of age. The rest were 19. Exactly the same result when asked what Watergate was (in the context of Nixon in China).

But what I find even more shocking than that is the lack of curiosity. Far from being or seeming appalled by their lack of knowledge, students generally seem not to give a hoot. There are of course exceptions to this. But it wouldn't even occur to the majority now to cherry-pick other courses and topics in the way Reiner suggests, or even to listen widely, let alone read widely (let alone actually to the reading prescribed for seminars in many cases). How much this has to do with recent HMG expansion in Higher Education and the unseemly rush for more and more students on university programmes is hard to tell. What's inescapable is that this cultural laziness and consumer mentality (education as a commodity) is, in its current manifestation at least, of recent vintage - things were simply not anything like this 10/15 years ago. It's sad, frustrating, and increasingly grim.

Here endeth my edu-grump.

This lack of curiosity (and general knowledge) you're talking about, Martle, has struck me quite forcibly too, but on the other hand I'd say that it's by no means confined to the UK. I found pretty much the same thing when I was teaching undergraduates in Holland between 1996 and 2001 (in a conservatory). Obviously the causes of this complacency and ignorance lie some time before entry into higher education. But  what also struck me as odd (as well as frightening) is that you often come across music students who have no sense of curiosity about music.

And quite a few teaching in those institutions who lack that curiosity as well, hardly setting much of an example. It never ceases to amaze me how many musicologists don't particularly seem to like music all that much.

Well, Ian, I do think you overestimate the significance of musicology, "New" or otherwise, I mean I may not have my ear constantly pressed to the ground but neither do I have my head buried in the sand, and I'd never come across the term "New Musicology" until you started talking about it. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that musical scholarship is unnecessary, but it does seem to exist to an unhealthy degree for its own sake rather than for the sake of the music it's supposed to be discussing, - as you say, many musicologists don't seem to be that interested in music, and my reaction to such people is generally to be completely uninterested in what they have to say, to the point of ignoring them completely.

Actually, I agree with most of the above. I think there has been plenty of extremely important musicology past and present, which at best can be of real value to composers, performers and listeners. But as you imply, much musicology today (though not all, yet) is simply a self-perpetuating exercise, written by and for other musicologists.

I'm not overestimating the significance of musicology, but I do think, in universities, the influence of musicologists is extremely significant, as they make up the bulk of most faculties. And we are talking about universities here. I realise your own department is something of an exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_musicology

A bit of a pipe dream, I fear. You've only got three years (unless we can change that of course!). The danger in the all-inclusive approach is that knowledge is spread too thinly. The counter danger is that unchecked 'modularism' results in a patchwork, unjoined-up education. Different places approach this dichotomy differently of course, and some are no doubt more responsible than others in designing their curricula in this regard, with proper 'progression' built in, and 'choice' informed by experienced advice. The most interesting and exciting places (I think) are those that can offer real focus and expertise, in whatever area, and a sense of exploration and excitement about the learning experence.

OK, but one can learn a fair amount in three years, I believe. I suppose I think a solid grounding in the actual music is at the very least a necessary prerequisite before learning all sorts of fashionable theories about it. At the moment, many learn about the theories without knowing the music they are supposed to be applied to, or only knowing it vaguely as a result of encountering those theories.

  this thread seems to have descended into stereotype for the most part.

"And not just 'classical' (let alone 'new classical') music, but anything at all, it seems, not within their immediate popular music frame of reference."

I am proud to say that my frame of reference is never in the form of popular music. I avoid it at all costs - largely because i find it the most trivial and concentration-span-damaging weapon that society has.

And as for music students' curiosity - this is hampered by the narrowness of their course. Focussing on one area of music for too long does more harm than good - i am now in the situation where i could play you the opening of walton's 1st symphony, for example, but if you asked me to play mahler 8 or even beethoven op.111 (and i'm a pianist!) i would be stuffed.

"I think most undergraduates spend the first year drinking and shagging, and occasionally attending lectures?" such is the generalisation that has grown up. even this very night, leaving a performance class which lasted no less than three hours, i counted at least seven people who refused invitations to the pub and so forth because they had "to practise". admittedly there are some students who are as you describe, but these are most definitely a distinct minority.

gah