On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 3:25 PM, dave malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am feeling from some who are arguing against degree need, that they > are also arguing against degrees for anyone. Not I. Higher degrees of education have their purpose, to be sure. > I would argue that purely > organic growth like we have done for the first 2 decades of digital > product design is not sustainable, so no matter how comfortable or > uncomfortable you are with institutional education, we need some, and > we also need new inventive but intentionally designed options as well. > You think not? I don't know. This whole thing of specialized professional degrees from universities is a relatively new invention in human history. The journeyman model, even compared to just the general idea of the university, is a much more mature, tried and true model. I tend to think that universities are (and have been for quite some time now) abused into becoming professional training that is better served via the journeyman model. It seems to me that university education is more suited for a good liberal arts foundation and then focusing on research to advance knowledge *per se* (i.e., not to churn out professionals as it has come to be used). Another problem with emerging professions is the rate of change. Universities don't seem to adapt too well, nowhere near the market rate of change. Nor should they, if you ask me. And the funny thing is that everyone seems to acknowledge this but still wants unis to churn out professionals who are in some sense certified and ready to go for professional work. I think this defocuses universities from what they're best at and correspondingly nourishes a false sense of confidence in graduates' capabilities to be productive in the workforce. I'd suggest the profession needs to focus less on academic, university-based programs (especially grad level and up) and more on mentoring and supplemental professional training (i.e., training that can be consumed by working people). It should adopt, or perhaps just embrace more fully, the journeyman model. Businesses understand this and generally support professional development, so it would seem to be a potentially more viable model from a practicality and maturity perspective. Going this route, you also don't have to wait for new academic programs to be developed (which will be untested in terms of what they produce for some time) nor wait for new graduates from those programs that you undoubtedly then have to adapt to professional work anyways. Instead, you draw from competent individuals in the workforce today who can be trained up while being productive in their current positions. They will also likely, depending on who they are/what they do today, require less training/time overall and maybe even be more fully rounded due to prior experience in related fields. This way you get more folks more senior more quickly and ipso facto perpetuate this workable model (because these people become mentors themselves and/or continue the production of supplemental professional training). *Maybe* develop an undergrad major that is liberal arts and covers the tried and true theory, or just continue to draw from existing related programs for new blood that can be trained and mentored up. Seems pretty sustainable to me. I'm not saying there shouldn't be university programs, just that they should be more focused with a view towards research, i.e., the increase of knowledge, and less towards what ends up being very basic and often unreliable professional certification. --Ambrose ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
