I think that the idea that one requires a tertiary education to be a journalist is absolutely nuts. When I say this I do not at all mean to belittle the profession (well, I mean when compared with its best exemplars, not the poodles that pass for journalists nowadays) ... that is, the most important qualification for a journalist, apart from being able to write well, is uncommoun nous and street sense. A naive person will not a journalist make.

It goes without saying that such things cannot be taught in schools. Well, not formally.

One disturbing trend in modern life is the now-complete insistence on tertiary schooling for jobs that do not require it. In fact, nowadays a tertiary eduction is in many cases simply evidence that the recipient was prepared to sit still and be bored to death for three or four of what should have been the most turbulent years of their life, and to devote an uncommon amount of time to parroting what has already been said by other people ('citing references').

In the past, it was possible (say) to become literary editor for a prominent newspaper based solely on the fact that you were a decent writer, and when you had never been near a university in your life. (I do actually have a specific example in mind, but I am not going to give it.) I am certain such a thing would not happen now.

Of course, certain things do require an extensive tertiary education, but I suspect journalism is not one of them. As Veblen once famously (and, in my view correctly) said of law 'A school of law is no more a part of a university that a school of dancing.'