0
FRIEZE NEW YORK 2013
INTERNATIONAL HOME + HOUSEWARES SHOW 2013
TOKYO DESIGN WEEK 2012
BEIJING DESIGN WEEK 2012We are now in the 21st century, but design curricula seem stuck in the mid 20th century, except for the addition of computer tools. The 20th century developed craftspeople capable of magnificent products. But these were relatively simple products, with simple mechanical or electrical components. In the 21st century, design has broadened to include interaction and experience, services and strategies. The technologies are more sophisticated, involving advanced materials, computation, communication, sensors and actuators. The products and services have complex interactions that have to be self-explanatory, sometimes involving other people separated by time or distance. Traditional design activities have to be supplemented with an understanding of technology, business and human psychology.
With all these changes, one would expect major changes in design education. Nope. Design education is led by craftspeople who are proud of their skills and they see no reason to change. Design education is mired in the past.
A quick definition. I focus upon the areas called industrial and product design, broadly defined to include interaction, experience and service design. Actually, I believe the problems I discuss apply pretty widely across the multiple design fields, but I haven't examined the curricula of these other areas with the same care as I have for the industrial and product design areas.
Designing a new design curriculum is fraught with difficulties. I've written about this (see my core77.com column "Why design education must change.") I have helped organize conferences on design education and have attended others. I've literally traveled around the world to discuss design education at major universities in Asia, North America and Europe.
The critiques I present are commonly voiced. I have to report that I see many positive examples of curriculum change, for example, the curriculum reforms being put in place at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft, in the Netherlands). Other schools are exploring similar changes. The responses to my core77.com article have, on the whole, been positive, and some schools have asked for my opinion and help. Still, I find the vast majority of schools incredibly resistant, unable to change. Yes, a few faculty members may wish to join the 21st century, but the departments as a whole strongly resist.
Designers are proud of their creative thinking, of how they break out of traditional solutions to problems, examining new potential directions without prejudice. "Do not criticize" is a frequently cited mantra during the ideation phase of a project, because criticisms, even if valid, kill creativity. Let the criticisms come later.
But try to think creatively about the design curriculum and fierce defensiveness comes into play. My experience is that designers believe the mantra of no criticism during ideation, but they are unable to apply it to themselves, especially when it comes to changes in the curriculum.
The world has changed, I explain (over and over again). In the past we trained wonderful craft skills of sketching and exploration. The tools were drawing and model building, shop skills and even the computer revolution in drawing and fabrication tools. But today design is more than appearance, design is about interaction, about strategy and about services. Designers change social behavior. So shouldn't designers understand the fundamental principles of human and social interaction, of how to assess the validity of a claim? The designer's role is not easy; in addition to their traditional design skills, they must now be expert at human behavior as well as understand how to deploy new technologies emerging from the rapid advances in computers and communication, materials and sensors, actuators and displays.
"Yes, yes," say my design friends, "but there is no room in the curriculum."
"Every field says this," I explain, for I have heard the same objection in departments of engineering and social sciences, engineering and science, literature and art. But in other fields, the curriculum is divided into specialties. All students must take some core courses, but then, depending upon their area of specialization, the curriculum changes. Moreover, the university itself requires students to take courses outside their department and even outside their school so that they have some balance of knowledge.
Much of design training takes place in specialized schools of art, architecture or design, where there appears to be no understanding of the need to broaden the education. In fact, many of these schools do not even offer courses outside of their major area. Moreover, within design, there seldom is specialization: everyone gets a heavy dosage of the core elements. The few electives that are permitted tend to be within design.
Given that lengthening the duration of study is impractical, the only way to make room in a curriculum is by dropping existing requirements. Why not? Does every designer have to have the same depth of skill in drawing, model building, CAD tools and prototyping?
Product design is still a fundamental part of modern design, but so too is communication, interaction, experience. So too is service design and design for the environment. Almost all products now have microprocessors, communication links, sophisticated sensors and actuators, and display. Sure, designers are whizzes at packaging these, but where do they pick up the skills to make the interaction smooth, understandable, functional and pleasurable? Do they know how to validate the designs? And what of systems, where the design is only a small component of the entire system, whether it be one for transportation, health, education or the environment? Why should every student have to go through so much training in drawing 2D and 3D? In fabrication? Not all designers need this stuff.
Where is the content matter in design? Nowhere. It is all technique. All craft. As a result, in many new, important arenas with heavy technological and social components, the design requirements, parameters and constraints—and often even the first draft designs—are being done by non-designers. Interaction design is being done by computer scientists and psychologists. Other areas use engineers and professionals in the fields of operations, city planning, transportation, and health. Designers are called in afterward to make it all look good—the very attitude we have been fighting. Yes, the design community complains, but I place the blame squarely on the limited reach of design education. It is our own fault.
How important is drawing?
A major part of design curricula has to do with drawing. "Drawing is essential, " I am told. "Designers think by doing. We think by drawing."
I can take three stances with respect to this claim:
1. There is no evidence for the statement that designers think by drawing. It is similar to the old belief that studying Latin or Greek led to better thinking for which there was also no evidence.2. Yes, designers think by making things, by drawing and constructing. This is the argument for making design (and more generally, sketching) a critical part of the curriculum for all designers, even those who design abstract things such as experience and interaction, services and strategies.
3. There is truth to the statement that designers think by drawing, but imperfect, very rough sketches will suffice. The extreme emphasis on the development of high technical skills is misplaced. Yes, product designers might need this, but everyone else would do far better to learn rapid sketching techniques as an enhancement of the creative process. Today, drawing is taught as an exercise in its own right instead of as one of the multiple components of creative thinking.
Which of these three stances do I believe? A little of all three. First, there is simply no evidence about the relationship of drawing and thinking to creative thinking. Even so, I am willing to give the idea the benefit of the doubt because there is strong intuitive validity to the claim. Just as we argue that writing leads to clearer reasoning (without any evidence), that mathematics is essential for better science and engineering (even though many sub disciplines use little mathematics) and that programming skills are essential for computer science (even if many computer scientists never program), why shouldn't sketching be the essential tool for designers? This leads to stance 3: just as one need not be a great writer to be a world-class thinker, nor a great mathematician to be a world-class scientist, nor a great programmer to be a world-class computer scientist, why does one have to be a great drawer to be a world-class designer?
If we wish to argue for the critical importance of drawing in design thinking, we should be able to deploy evidence: real data, not the strong personal opinions that today substitutes for data. It's actually extremely difficult to gather evidence about this issue. It will require considerable sophistication, probably involving the expertise of the research community in social science or education. However, informal evidence does exist: there are superb designers who lack great drawing skills. Do they sketch? Yes, but not necessarily the fully rendered, perfect perspective, wonderfully nuanced drawing we force our students to do.
Eliminating the requirement for advanced courses in drawing, sketching and model construction would provide time to teach the non-design topics so essential to the modern designer.
Modern design is the interface between technology and people, yet the curriculum leaves no room for any understanding of either technology or people. Outside of the few design schools that are located within technical universities, I searched in vain for any evidence that the students get any exposure to science, math or technology. I searched in vain for courses in psychology or any of the behavioral or social sciences. Moreover, being part of a technological university does not guarantee that students in the design program learn any science or mathematics that would be relevant to their career: they may get the university's required introductory courses in their first year, but after that, unless they make an effort, they can completely ignore everything outside of design. One school told me that they got their students from those who disliked math and science. So design gets the rejects? As for the social and behavioral sciences? These are conspicuous by their absence, even though a number of faculty teaching design were themselves trained in those disciplines.
I checked the curricula of two major design schools in the United States: the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) on the east coast and the Art Center of Design on the west coast. RISD requires electives in the liberal arts for its students in industrial design, but with no apparent restrictions on content. No science, no technology, no social or behavioral sciences, no business. Just the ill-defined "liberal arts." The only non-design courses at the Art Center of Design are two writing courses in the first term and one course on "Human Factors & Psychology" in the sixth term. One course is a great improvement over no courses, but it hardly covers the range of content to which designers should be exposed.
Design needs its own courses, not those from other disciplines
I truly believe we must change design education. But I also believe it would be a serious mistake to take courses directly from the other disciplines. Design is a practice: designers create things, services and experiences. Designers impact the world. Most disciplines are interested in science and theory. Designers need practical information, approximations, and good-enough knowledge. We need special courses for designers just as MBA students get practical courses, not theory-driven ones.
Designers need to do statistical tests of their claims, but not with the tedious, critical care that psychologists and social scientists bring to their experiments. Designers are interested in major change, in major effects. Designers do not need to know the exact optimum setting of parameters: they need to satisfice, not optimize. These two principles: big effects and satisficing mean that design can use faster tests with less experimental care, with less attention to small biases and with less precision and rigor.
Designers are only interested in big effects, not the tiny ones studied by the scientist. Our methods do not have to be perfect; they have to be good enough. Design needs experimental methods that are appropriate for the practical world. These methods do not exist: the design community will have to invent them.
The design community needs an infusion of technologists and statisticians who love the challenge of design, who can help devise courses and procedures from the sciences and engineering disciplines that are appropriate to the practical requirements of the design profession.
Learning to work effectively in multi-disciplinary teams
One more point about design education: we need to emphasize working in multidisciplinary teams. Modern design is not done in isolation. No single individual knows enough about all the relevant disciplines required to make a project successful. As a result, designers must learn to work in teams, cooperating with people from other disciplines whose approach to problems and whose language and work habits are quite different from those of design. These differences can and should lead to greater insight and synergistic creation. Alas, they often lead to conflict and a lack of trust among the participants.
Although group projects are common in the design curriculum, the groups usually are made up of other design students. It is important to work with engineers, social scientists and business people. Depending upon the problem, the mix might include people from the medical profession, politicians and community members. Learning to work creatively and effectively in true multidisciplinary teams is a critical part of successful design education.
Design education needs to change
Design needs more courses in substance, less in craft. It needs more education in the tools of the 21st century. But this will only happen if the design profession:
- Stops being so defensive about their existing curricula
- Recognizes that craft skills are not required of everyone
- Is willing and able to change
- Can develop its own modern curriculum with courses from the other fields designed specifically for the special needs of the designer.
There are many wonderful aspects to design education. We turn out many design professionals who produce brilliant products and experiences. The top designers of the world have taught themselves to overcome the limitations of their education, and by doing so, they function magnificently. We need to extend these characteristics to all designers.
In my essay "Why design education must change," I ended by stating that as we change, we must be careful not to destroy all that is so wonderful about design. It is only appropriate that I end with the very same words:
"We must not lose the wonderful, delightful components of design. The artistic side of design is critical: to provide objects, interactions and services that delight as well as inform, that are joyful. Designers do need to know more about science and engineering, but without becoming scientists or engineers. We must not lose the special talents of designers to make our lives more pleasurable."
Design education needs to change, yet still keep its essential character. Otherwise, the graduates of design programs will continue to be regarded professionally as second class citizens. Designers today are seldom asked to take part in major decisions. This will not change until designers become knowledgeable in matters of the world, of business and politics, of social forces and of modern technology. If designers wish their ideas to have major impact, their educational base needs to be broadened. It is time that design education entered the 21st century.
My previous Core77.com article on this topic
Norman, Don. Why design education must change. Core77.com. Nov 26, 2010.
Comments
I feel that a lot of the things you mention as needing to be included in design education are not really 'design' per se, in that many people good at traditional design would not necessarily be good at those aspects, and many people good at those aspects would not necessarily be good at traditional design.
Interaction, strategy and services are relevant to designers. But they are also relevant to engineers, and business strategists, and policy makers. Maybe the trick, then, is not to try to incorporate this into design and/or have design claim it for itself, but to attempt to create broadly available interdisciplinary programmes (in something like "strategic foresight", if that does not sound too hand-wavy...) that bring together, say for a year or so, the design, engineering, business, and public policy students interested in exactly these questions.
Hey Don,
Admittedly I have not read the whole article yet so it may already have been said, but I think you should take a look at the curriculum of Technical University Eindhoven's (Reasonably new) Industrial Design course. It is also in Holland. You may find it's education structure interesting for your point here.
Having thought about this some more, I feel that I should add to my earlier post (no edit button, core77?).
It's about patterns. Big patterns, small patterns, patterns within and across all of the different areas of traditional expertise... It's understandable that these questions are now first being asked within the design community -- designers deal with the visual, and there is no place where patterns and rhythms are so intuitively perceived as in the visual (if it's ugly, it breaks pattern) -- but the patterns important today go far beyond the visual alone.
Thus, we need a new field of 'patternology'. To develop the ability to go out and identify the patterns responsible for a set of attitudes, behaviours, and events. To develop the ability to see the interplay between those patterns and others. To develop the ability to see the next steps in those patterns. To develop the ability to see which of the current patterns are 'broken' or have significant 'off-patern' elements (and how they can be fixed). Finally, to develop the skills of identifying, bringing together, and organising the teams of specialists necessary to act on the above-discussed findings.
It's hard to see a pattern of which you are a part (let alone its deficiencies), so it is hard for many of even the most talented specialists to fulfil this function themselves. It is perhaps for this reason that you are seeing such resistance from the design community.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting we train for in school will get you a job in industrial design...Now I've only had 2 internships (one at a baby product company in CA and the other at a consultancy in NJ)- for both I was constantly sketching and refining form and aesthetic. If anything, I feel design education lacks teaching students how to create forms that are both beautiful and producible. Instead there are an overabundance of design students who i think work as you describe- they create products for systems with interesting new interactions that look nice in a render and sound cool as a concept, but when taken any further lack real depth. I think yanko design is proof of this....
Don,
I think you're dead on the money here. Developing courses such as "statistics for design" or "material science for design" would go a long way toward bridging the art/science gap. Dropping 2d/3d higher level course work should be an easy way to open space in that most students would push those skills on their own anyway. As long as the dept gave them time to do so.
Wrong premiss, wrong argument.... although you do like to hear yourself write... allow me, for the moment to paraphrase:
Those that can design do.....
...... those that can't, attempt to teach.
There, fixed!
Don
The profession is clearly changing, at least on the corporate side of design, in exactly the direction you describe. When students demand to be taught what the industry uses day to day, or when the profession alters what defines "entry level" those changes you discuss will happen.
Until then, I suggest we plan for that day by considering Art Schools having a seperate curriculum from Universities where more of the non-design core is available. Or better, Undergraduate seperate from Graduate.
One size fits none...
Hi Don,
You(and many others, myself included) have come to define Design more broadly. Talking to designers and likely some number of faculty, you will find agreement that Design is changing.
This broadened definition of Design is often coupled with an assertion by designers that they have increasing importance. The flip side of this is that Design is becoming a domain in which people with a broader range of backgrounds operate and less of the work of Design is being done by (design school trained) designers. The advent of design research, design strategy, interaction design, Design Thinking, more complex systems and products, etc. has caused the practice to evolve.
Design Schools need to adapt, or practically speaking they will simply become less relevant. Maybe the question they need to consider is "How much and in what way will their graduates take part in more complex product development programs?"
On Design Programs having their own courses, they need to be careful. I think atimoshenko is right in pointing to the importance of identifying patterns. As I see it, identifying patterns across a broad spectrum of subject matter is best served by studying theory and then making connections to the practical. If you start with the practical you may end up with a series of anecdotes that are not easily transferable. Design will continue to change and the next generation of designers need to be adaptable enough to meet unforeseen challenges.
This whole article is such a mis-characterization of what's actually happening in design education that it's not even worth a detailed response. You, Don, never cease to amaze me with how misinformed yet preachy your articles and books are. I, and many fellow students, regard you as the Fox News of the design world.
Um... which design school did you go to and when?
Because I'm pretty sure I'm getting all of the above right now. I feel confident in my multi-disciplinary abilities, which cover all that you've complained about.
I find it hard to believe mine is the only school with this sort of curriculum.
But thanks for trying!
CHANGES IS A MUST OR OTHERWISE WHAT WE LEARN IN SCHOOL IS TOTALLY WASTE WHEN WE CANNOT FOLLOW UP THE CHANGES OF THE WORLD. AND THE BASIC IS A MUST TO LEARN, BUT REQUIRED REFINEMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE NOT GOOD AT SKETCHING ON PAPER OR MODELLING, CAN EXPRESS IDEAS THROUGH COMPUTER SOFTWARE. WE REQUIRED OTHER FIELDS OF PROFESSION IN DESIGN, BUT ALWAYS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT WE ACTUALLY WANT SO THAT IT CAN TRULY HELP US IN THE DESIGN.
funny. you end up with a design education direct from the 20th century... one from Pratt.- the one I had..ending in 1985... as opposed to all the flash and marker twisting of the West Coast...when those two "eduthoughts" clashed upon the "business of design" during the go go matte black 80s.. before the Mac for all you kids following..;)
but since 1990 and the buy out of design education by autodesk and adobe, all that matters is "flash and rendering" and the idea of "thinking" by sketch as taught at Pratt at least when i was there, along with many liberal arts classes... seems all but ignored in the world of meta design beta obsolete programmed "social" seach engined designers ...today.
students as products? well thats because "buying a product" seems to be all there is today...
iphone 5 today? anyone? siri?..lol
think about it..- best to beerman.
Like Rhys said, what you are looking for lies within the Technical University of Eindhoven. Actually, we have no real classes. Just projects and some courses that compliment you competencies. I think our professors would love to meet you.
I agree with Linda on one thing. This read a little like Fox News - fair and balanced. As it has been said, if everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking at all.
I agree that things need to change, that not everything has to be beautiful in its exploration, but the results must be beautiful and that requires more than what one student can do alone.
I think some problems could be fixed by instituting apprenticeship programs within some companies. Much of what is learned in college is fluff, impractical and counterproductive. Some students have to unlearn some of the things they picked up at college. An apprenticeship could include heavy book study with instant real-world application and direct observational study. Critical thinking in university settings goes only so far as to mean that the professor thinks critically of your opposing opinion. Rather than receiving a cookie cutter recent grad, businesses could develop what they actually need within an almost instantly productive employee.
Making the changes necessary at the university level is at least 10 years away from gaining major traction. A company that used an apprenticeship program could provide and receive much quicker results.
I agree and disagree. First, I agree that a lot of (but not all) design education is stuck in the past. But don't blame "educators" - it's the industry lot who seem to want to come in and teach the way they were taught. (Huge generalisation there, of course!)
Secondly, spot on with drawing. I've had this argument for years. Being able to draw naked women does not help you design. Being able to *visualise* naked women might. Designers need to be able to visualise from the imagination, imagine what's not there yet - not draw what's in front of them. (By the way, I've never won that argument. I've always been right, but the winner is the person that shouts the most or has the most friends).
But I'll take issue with you on one major point. I teach exactly the sort of courses you say don't exist. They're not popular with traditionalists who think design education is the same as art education. But they get results. And they're a lot of fun. Even without the naked ladies.
Thank you for some interesting points made. But please check out what we have achieved since 1989, when we launched a self-reflexive, thoughtful undergraduate design degree at Goldsmiths, University of London. It included psychology, philosophy, ethics, ecology etc. and was radically entrepreneurial in spirit. Our graduates are some of the most successful in UK at securing design-related employment because we do not follow the approach you mention. We have shifted the agenda on a number of levels (including our Writing-PAD Network in over 70 universities - this revolutionized attitudes to language.) In 1995 I wrote our MA Design Futures programme...which has a unique learning / assessment format and includes many other radical elements including metadesign. We need to design for paradigm change, not just products and services - see also http://metadesigners.org . My recent chapter for the forthcoming Handbook of Sustainability is in general accord with some of the concerns you expressed [I would be happy to send you a copy].
I like plain speaking. Thank you. But please check out our success in radical design degrees since 1989 at Goldsmiths, Univ. of London. We challenged many of your concerns and emphasized ethics/eco issues + psychology, philosophy etc. Most students get real/innovatory jobs in design...Same story with our 1995 MA Design Futures, which is unique for its focus on languaging paradigm change and world-leading metadesign innovation. Let's talk, please.
...I wonder that the hfg Ulm (Germany) is rarely mentioned in the discussion. Existing from '53-'68 they promoted connecting science and design a lot -- and are accused to have gone over the top with this. Nevertheless their concepts are certainly something we still can learn from.
Second what John Wood says. I recently had a graduate of mine head off to the MA Design Futures and was happy to write the reference. Our own MDes in Dundee embraces the notion of not doing it the old way, and the undergraduate modules I teach (see the link under my name) start the process at the very start of the UG model.
But our institutions aren't the only ones, either in the UK (hello Northumbria) or the US, or elsewhere. True, they're the minority and much design education is old fashioned - but then so is much of the design industry! We are here, Don - maybe you need to follow up with an article celebrating those courses that are happy to redesign design education. I'd be happy to contribute :)
Hi Don,
this reminds me in part of what Ken Friedman argued for already 14 years ago in "Design Science and Design Education".
What I find most bewildering is that mathematics and science are seen as antagonists to the creative disciplines, yet some of their foundations we owe to Renaissance men such as Alberti, Francesca or Duerer who were great artists but mathematicians also. Whether a composition by Nono, a dance performance by Forsythe or a work of art by Eliasson - algorithmic or scientific approaches are found everywhere in other creative disciplines.
On the other hand, I have my doubts if there is much substance in designers poaching work in remote fields such as sociology, city planning and business. Of course, with the ongoing dematerialisation, designers are pressed harder than ever to acquire fresh budget; and why not? But - much "systems design", "critical design" and "design management" I find higly questionable or outright dubious. It has become fashionable for designers to claim almost epic powers of societal engineering and world-changing; yet, when hardcore issues are at stake involving policy making, economic planning or the ethics of science and technology, designers are usually not to be found in the front row of those who can rock the seats of power.
Don,
I agree, but educating multi-disciplinary designers is fruitless, if employment agencies insist that candidates declare themselves single-skilled. A typical design agency categorises design jobs and candidates as "web design, UX, product, interior or digital". How is a multi-disciplinary designer to find a multi-disciplinary job, if they must squeeze through this cookie-cutter?
Job agencies themselves are tied to a single discipline. Case in point I have degrees in both industrial design and electronic engineering. I search on engineering job sites for design-ish jobs, and design job sites for engineering-ish jobs. Neither is successful, and my jobs always arrive by word of mouth.
Talking to my employers, I find that they face the same frustration when employing multi-disciplinary practitioners: how to find them, when agencies don't even have a name for them!
Educating multi-disciplinary designers is only the first step. There is now a design challenge to imagine what a multi-disciplinary job site might look like.
Don Norman has always been provocative. I like the guts. But there are certain areas that I find it quite perplexing especially on the areas of sketching not seen as part of thinking; which I think its not quite true. But on the areas of design education failing to offer hard core study areas in humanities and technologies, yes. On the account of teachers who may in a way set a culture that confines the students, yes. I think there are plenty more that is to be done on a human level. The reality is that people are stubborn and resistent to change. How to handle the spear without getting speared in this case, would depend on how one handles the spear. The target of changing design education starts from people. I believe a sound education depends on logic. The kind that sharpens the mind to evaluate and form ideas very quickly. That actually needs more than an education.
The rest of my initial thoughts :
http://daringtochange.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/substance-without-brilliance-our-education-relevant-to-the-change-of-tides/
I am one of those non-designers who ends up designing things and I'd like to learn to do it properly.
My degree is in biology, my career in video game art. I am self-taught as courses for game art and game design did not exist when I entered the industry. Due to my background, I have some of the broad skills mentioned in this article, science, creative writing, human interaction, working in multi-disciplinary teams, working with computer interfaces and microcontrollers. I've also taught people to make video games at a university level, which was eye opening in regards to what goes on behind the scenes in the business of education.
I've been wondering if I could assemble my own, open source educational course, since I've gotten into the habit of teaching myself things. I'm not exactly sure what I should be studying though. I'd like to design applications to help people with health conditions and/or health care devices. What field would that fall into? I don't know enough yet to even ask intelligent questions about the field. Any thoughts folks?
Don,
Always so good to read your thoughts. You have such a great way of identifying a very definitive stance and then sticking to it. Based upon your last two articles it looks as though you have taken it upon yourself to push for reform in the design education. As an unemployed master graduate who created his own curriculum which mirrors much of what you say (Design, research, psychology and engineering) I would like to comment that there must be more of a tie to industry. It is extremely irresponsible for schools to be pumping out graduates and not offer some sort of stewardship for these individuals. Additionally, based upon an email conversation that you and I had I think that we both agree that multi-disciplinary students don't fit into the skill silos that many design firms are looking to fill. I'm not defending the education systems but I feel that you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle which is that companies need to be more willing to take a chance on individuals. If they want good people then there needs to be more connection between industry and the education systems.
Thanks Don.
Don,
You're clearly so far removed from the industry, that you've no concept of the real issue.
Marketing managers think of themselves as "potent thinkers", and they usually hire the designers. They call the meetings. They call the shots. They want to be impressed with pretty drawings, beautiful modelling, and quick 3D.
Improving design education would do very little good, because companies simply don't listen to designers for "important decisions". They let them make pretty drawings.
Steve Jobs was an anomaly. Nobody else was / is actually like him. He let the designers think for themselves. He trusted (and demanded) that designers be innovative and use their minds. He was both terribly controlling AND fully trusting.
Your article is a clear display of good, logical thinking based on an entirely flawed view of a reality you're not involved in.
Design Education needs to change as the strategy of the universities and schools of design needs to change. We need to pass from the era of creation to the one of innovation. We have the opportunity to become "center of innovation" gathering with us the engineers, the marketers, the philosophers, the sociologists...in a common project to rethink the world we live in.
CG - President of Cumulus
"Designers do need to know more about science and engineering, but without becoming scientists or engineers."
Yes! Design is certainly not all about making things look good. Sure it should look good, but for the right reasons. What did Steve Jobs say, I think it was something like: "Design is about how things work".
Sums it up for me, a good designer has to appreciate quite a few disciplines.
My two cents is that HCI/UI design is the future of design per se.
This is based on the premise of pervasive computing, user experience design and interaction design.
The perfect example for this is the Tamagotchi from Bandai which was designed by Akita Mai.She was neither a trained produt or HCI designer.She was a secretary at Bandai corp!! what she did though was akin to modern design that don wants taught in design schools.She grew up with pets and kept as many as she can in Tokyo.Inspired by this, she went to check out girls in shibuya and other areas of Tokyo and made a survey/statistics of what sort of keychains they used, their tastes, fashions etc.Then she realised they had a fascination for all things considered "kawai" or cute.
A virtual pet which you can carry with you at all times, which came in a cute egg shaped casing was the idea.A prototype was created and despite initial resistance from executives(she did'nt have many pretty drawings/models I guess ;) )the company decided to give it a shot(their being at the cusp of banrupcy may also expain this desperation)..the rest, as they say is history.
Don makes a lot of valid points...as a potential design student and one who has attended a design school and engineering before that, I feel he is spot on! If you look at statistics, it shows that merely 11% of product/industrial design grads(lesser % from nondescript schools like, say DSK ISD) land relevant jobs after school.These are people who put in four years of rigorous work/study and if they can't get a foot in the door, I don't know who can?
Most of them work in unrelated jobs or remain unemployed(esp with the way the economy is going)..the reason I feel, is that many of their socalled "ideas" while presented in pretty ways lacks any semblance to realism.
I noticed this in person..maybe more exposure to the back end of things, not enough to do it on their own but enough to know what to do may help.People don't even know what sort of technologies exist, how are they to know what fits where and how all of these things should interact?
Thats the reason HCI people are gobbled up left, right and centre...right from Apple inc known for its pretty designs(and user friendliness)to google which expects interaction design from "designers" while using graphic artists for the logos and other pretty packaging stuff.
Pure design may remain in packaging and even there graphic designers and other jostle for space with them.
Besides as dom mentioned, there does seem to be a lot of resistance to his ideas from what calls itself an open minded community!