Month: April 2021

According to Ketterman, who took the academy path himself, even if you try to participate in forums or start your own study group, these programs are mostly made up of adults switching careers who do not prioritize extra socializing with fellow students.

The bootcamp approach most design academies employ does not allow to adequately train students for real-world jobs, and the “Our 12-week course will launch your design career!” slogans appear to be nothing more than exaggerated marketing. Having those unrealistic expectations, students of the academies are often disappointed when they can’t land a job or are ill-equipped for it, having problems with managers and team members. Valuable wisdom that can be gained through a sit-up with an industry-tested mentor can’t be extracted from a video library.

“Basically, students are just buying a certificate, but it’s useless,” concludes Philips. “They’re designed for quantity over quality. No industry professional takes those types of 12-week “UX Design Certificates” seriously.” Designed purely to “productize” education, such programs attract people with low fees that will boost companies’ bottom line.

However, experts agree that if the online model is rolled to more lengthy and detailed programs, it could develop into a new primary educational paradigm.

Philips claims that brick-and-mortar design education institutions are nothing but relics of the past, “echoes of the industrial age, similar to factories, offices, retailers, and so on,” that are “going the way of the dinosaurs.” In his opinion, the best design schools of the future will combine personalized, online courses at varying depths with an awareness of local languages, customs, and cultures. As design education is moving from physical campuses to the web and becomes accessible in the far corners of the world, the curriculum needs to consider cultural differences and courses must be tailored to local customs and cultures.

Does this mean that traditional brick-and-mortar design schools will soon grow obsolete and have to go? Bowers believes that through radical actions institutions “stuck in a rut of ritualistic methodology” can establish themselves in the realm of design education of the future. He outlines several solutions meant to keep them in business. Addressing the problem of high tuition fees, he suggests adopting an accelerated program, somewhere between 48 and 72 weeks, cutting all classes that are not directly related to design theory, methodology, or application. This, he hopes, will help designer students to avoid acquiring debt on unnecessary classes, as the bulk of their training will be accomplished in one year of study instead of a traditional four-year journey.

Aiming to prepare students for challenges of real-world workplaces, Bowers proposes to emulate the journeyman model utilized by the building trades. He thinks that allowing students to work at semester-long projects creates poor time management habits. These, according to Bowers, could be replaced with new mini-projects every week addressing a specific area of design process within a larger, team-oriented effort, e.g. user research or visual design. Rotating students through clearly defined and interdependent design roles, with a professor adopting the role of a creative director rather than an instructor or “educational facilitator”, would also help students to be better trained for the job.

All experts agree about the importance of an opportunity to collaborate with experienced, senior-level professionals during years of study. For students, working with mentors in parallel with their learning is very helpful because they can critique portfolios, share stories from the field, and help make professional connections. Besides, industry people could consult and advise institutions on their design curriculum to make it more applicable to the requirements of the profession.

Real-world work and internship should also be included in the design education to provide the valuable practice of on-the-job training.  “At some point, you’ll have to move on from the safe confines of class projects and gain exposure to real-world work. Even if that means doing some pro-bono work, do it. There’s no substitute for working with real clients—taking their feedback, questions, and criticisms and using them to refine your work,” Ketterman advises.

It is obvious that design education paradigm is changing. The traditional design school must change or it will be replaced with a new approach that will more capably address resources and and professional development of aspiring designers. It is not year clear what form the coming paradigm will take but some things are certain. If aspiring designers hope to start a fruitful career, they must take the initiative for their training, try various design roles, learn soft skills to interact with peers, and seek advice from trustworthy design mentors.

Traditional design education, as we know it, has remained consistent for centuries. Taking roots from an ages-old master-and-apprentice arrangement, it has seen a change in educational environments but not its essence: an experienced instructor challenges students with exercises that unveil the basics of the chosen discipline. Today, speaking of the traditional model we refer to a four-year university path that leads to a bachelor’s degree. However, this format is more often than not being criticized by both students and experts for forcing future designers to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars only to obtain a certificate of authenticity before entering a highly competitive industry, undertrained for the job. So, the question arises – if there any viable alternative to the conventional learning model, a brand new educational paradigm that will define the future of design education? Practicing designers share their opinions.

There’s been a heated debate recently about whether or not design education is essential for a successful career in design. Surprisingly, unlike medicine or law, design appears to be a tougher path, with yearly tuition higher than what a designer can make two years after graduation. For students as paying customers to be sure the financial investment they are making is worth it, traditional design schools need, first of all, to assess the value they provide for the price.

However, famed designer Gadi Amit laments that designer-grads are underprepared as they stumble upon the market and the impressive academic credentials of most students don’t add up to the basic skills that are required in an entry-level designer. According to his own research, students that apply for a job in his agency have portfolios broken into two categories: skills work (3D CAD) and process work (research, model-making), while only a few can boast projects showcasing the applicant’s ability to integrate seamlessly all levels of creativity.

“Academic design programs are crippled by blurry standards which are so vastly different from program to program that it is nearly impossible for me, as an employer, to have a reliable idea of what skills a student toting a design degree can be expected to possess,” Amit explains. “Some of the design schools… have no real design process education, while others have only process education.” In this way, design schools are failing their students.

Amit believes that these “one-way schools” can change the situation only by adopting a clear, “consumer friendly” approach that spells out to future designers what they are to expect from their degree – for example, if the degree is best suited for working in an in-house design team in a large corporation, but not for design-agency work, or vice versa.

Similarly, Micah Bowers, illustrator, brand designer, and Lead Editor of Toptal Design Blog, airs an opinion that even before students step foot on campus, they need to be aware of the post-graduation setting they’ll be best equipped to handle – be it a high-tempo agency, an in-house design department, or a remote freelancing setup.

Another challenge designer graduates are unprepared for is the fact that at an early stage of their career they have to spend most of their working time on routine tasks like setting type, aligning pixels, and organizing file libraries (and meeting deadlines!) rather than high-level conceptual initiatives of important design projects. Seeking to be students-centered, design schools provide ample space for students to explore areas of interest and experiment with avant garde ideas – which is great – but sadly do not ready new designers to deliver high-quality results when deadlines are approaching. Nor do they train soft skills (communication, presentation, interpersonal, etc.) and teamwork experience enabling collaboration within multidisciplinary teams — a must for all designers whether at a small agency or a large corporation. Instead, today’s education system is skewed toward teaching only professional skills.

“Even good design can be poorly received if the client doesn’t understand what’s being presented,” explains Shane Ketterman, a UX designer and a thought leader on digital marketing and branding. “Students think, “I did good work, so everyone should love it.” We all know that’s not how it works.”

This is echoed by Miklos Philips, a digital product designer: “Designers don’t work in isolation, they collaborate. If student designers don’t learn to work within a team setting, they’re bound to struggle—especially at large companies. Junior designers have to know how to function effectively in a multidisciplinary environment. If they can’t, they won’t provide value.”

As the four-year path on a physical campus continues to make less and less sense and the relevance of a design diploma is disappearing, a new educational paradigm emerges to replace the traditional design school model. As student debt rises and freelancing becomes a more accepted career choice, more people follow the route of alternative education – turning to a growing number of online academies” that promise to prepare students for design jobs in 10-12 week time and at a fraction of the cost of a four-year degree.

Online learning offers a less costly and more flexible route, students who struggle to come up with funds for a traditional education can make small payments and spend less overall. Remote learning in these “academies” also lets those students who have jobs or families keep a flexible work schedule, study from anywhere and at their own pace.

However, the effectiveness of these academic alternatives is called into question. One of the things that such quick turnaround courses and online academies lack is meaningful, personal interactions with mentors and peers. This important part of design education is replaced here with email exchanges and message boards. This might be a real disadvantage, especially for those who need in-person validation.