Equivalence of V.o.-n.o. Titles (bill 1693)

BackSpace wrote:

On November 30, 2011, Bill 1693 was passed in the Senate, a proposed law that seeks to equate the title of the old system with that of the new one. In theory, they should have made the equalization at the I academic level; instead, they are doing it to equate the old diploma to the II academic level diploma. Why? Because it seems that the rest of the world did it this way, so we are adapting as well. However, this creates discrepancies:

1) What about students who have the old diploma and are attending the two-year second-level course? Do they drop everything just one step away from the diploma because it is a title they magically already possess?

2) This is even more serious, because I have to do 8 years of pre-academic study plus 3 years of a three-year degree plus 2 years of a two-year course to obtain the II academic level, whereas those who did the old 10-year course already have it? Isn't that unfair? In my opinion, yes. Why do I have to spend 13 years following a much more complex path compared to my own course under the old system just to obtain the II level diploma?

With all due respect, it is a huge injustice.

I come from the piano diploma of the old system. Forgive me, but it doesn't seem like an injustice to me...

1) Unfortunately, like all the reforms we have had to swallow (in a school sense), there is always something that changes.

2) It seems the same to me: the first three years of music are done in middle school (we all did them, even those of us from the old system); for you, there would then be 5 years of music high school and the 3 + 2 at the conservatory = 10 years... Where are the extra three years that are done in the new system? I would also evaluate the curricula... which are much more substantial in the old system (I am not saying this myself, partly because I don't know the new system's curricula; a Maestro from S. Cecilia told me about a year ago that Harmony went from 200 hours per year under the old system to 68 hours with the new one, and he was complaining specifically about the lack of time which made it impossible to complete the course program, and the same goes for other subjects).

You consider the matter unfair; in my opinion, in light of what has been said, it is more than fair... In any case, don't worry, this decree will never pass in Italy!

One speaks of injustice because they only focus on the title and not on the contents of a course that should be of interest regardless.

There is probably someone who was excluded from some competition because their two diplomas, old system, turned out to be first-level degrees.

Wounded in pride, someone did the two-year period... maybe 20 years after the first degree, with a job and a small child to support... and maybe graduating with top marks all just to have three master's degrees... of which one, apparently, is a double.

If I think about it, how many things I could have done with the money from university fees... and the time... far from injustice, it is quite a scam.

So is the university system better? This 3 + 2... In three years, the exams of the old 5-year degree... 33 exams + thesis.

I am undecided whether to continue with the old system or enter the new one, and I would like to understand if, therefore, from next year the three-year period will still correspond more or less to the VIII-IX-X year or if, as I seem to have understood, to the VI-VII-VIII year...

I would stay with the old system a thousand times over for 2 reasons:

1. you have many fewer hours and many fewer courses to pass, therefore more hours for studying

2. when the 1693 passes, you will hold the same qualification as a two-year course, namely a Level II academic diploma (if you have your high school diploma)

Zedef wrote:

2. when 1693 passes, you will have in hand the same qualification as a two-year course, namely a II level academic diploma (if you have a high school diploma)

Great consideration, and if you don't have a high school diploma, given the same qualification, what instead remains in your hands?

Stellina wrote:

Great consideration, and if you don't have a high school diploma, given the same degree, what else do you have left in your hands?

This is the ridiculous thing: you could be a graduate without even having finished high school... let's not even go there

Without a high school diploma, it would only be a qualification usable in the musical field (schools, orchestras, etc.) and not in public competitions that require a general degree.

Anyway, throughout Europe and therefore also in Italy, there is a process underway that tends to remove the legal value of the qualification, so that in the medium term, competitions will be the ones to evaluate who deserves it and who does not.

Zedef wrote:

1. you have many fewer hours and many fewer courses to take, therefore more hours for studying

This doesn't seem right to me, at least based on what a conservatory teacher told me, who was complaining because he had to teach subjects with a third of the hours he had under the old system.

"you have many fewer hours and many fewer courses to take, therefore more hours to study" = "in the old system you have 1 and a half hours of instrument if things go well, plus when it's time for 2 hours of harmony and 2 of history". I was talking about the old system, obviously.

In the new one there is an average of 8 courses per year, about 250 hours, so on average 10 hours a week.

I don't know the exact figures, but a teacher from S. Cecilia was complaining about the fewer hours under the new regulations