Interesting questions. Thinking over the past decade, I'd have to agree that only a small percentage of work has truly been done in a group (with all members contributing and co-creating a deliverable). It's constantly been critiqued and presented in groups, but the actual creation of a deliverable has mostly been on my own. And as we look to hire recent grads, I'd much prefer to see work that a candidate was solely responsible for. It's fine to have a few group things, but it's hard to really extract the talent and thinking of that individual from a group project.
As for the education model issue, I grew into IxD from a well rounded art background (sculpture and 3D design) that has served me well, but I wish I had more Industrial Design thinking woven in. I'd argue that IxD education should have three key elements: an aesthetic component that includes presentation and critique skills of work created, a methodology component focusing on understanding user needs and solution creation, and finally a classical design thinking component that would draw from all design disciplines (graphics, architecture, industrial, etc.). With these elements I think you'd get the classic 'T' person that we seek (a person with broad interest/talents with a deeper skill set in one disciple). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47452 ________________________________________________________________ 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
