In this case, my colleague and I are trying to teach the students all the things about the design profession we never learned in our state university design programs: the information-gathering process, development of a clear and concise creative brief, working under art /creative directors, interaction with clients, estimating, billing, tracking time, writing, working in a group and so on. Here, the biggest students’ need is to learn how the technical practice of designing connects with the world of business.

On the other end of the spectrum is a colleague working as a professional designer – he is looking into design graduate programs. Considering programs from schools like Yale to places like the Portfolio Center. His desire is to find a program that will equip him best to practice in the professional design world, as opposed to one that focuses on his personal creative exploration. Yet he is also seeking one that would not assume that their students are automatically bound for a job at a large "nationally recognized" agency. This colleague also shared his frustration in finding an affordable means to attend these graduate programs. His wish is that some graduate program would initiate a program that would enable students to work with real world, paying clients. That way the fees paid by the clients could go toward covering tuition costs. Not a bad idea.

Somewhere else on the spectrum is the sentiment I hear from many design students at state university or liberal arts college programs: that they did not learn enough about how to use design software. They feel they learned alot about art and the creative process, but wish they had more technical instruction. Quite often, these students enroll in technical colleges for further education on specific design software techniques and tools.

And yet another spot on the spectrum is a friend who is the head of a small liberal arts college art department looking to establish a graphic design program. This slate is blank, ready to filled with either the sort of program most colleges and universities utilize or some new model. But what new model? As a practicing designer who has occasion to teach, I find it an interesting question to try to answer – especially in light of the above design education issues. What should a design program curriculum look like?

With the disclaimer that I am by no means an expert and these are still developing thoughts intended to stimulate critique and discussion, I will launch into my answer…

As I have thought about elements essential to the design process/product over the years, I have been able to reduce it into 2 broad categories: technique and creativity. By “technique” I mean a skillfulness in the command of fundamentals deriving from practice and familiarity, or the ability to execute a design. When I say “creativity” I am referring to the conceptual act of bringing something into existence. Allow me to elaborate using a list of what my design curriculum would include to teach both technique and creativity:

TECHNIQUE:
1. basic design principles: knowledge of line, form, color, contrast, scale, composition, texture, etc.
2. hand skills; drawing, tracing, sculpting, cutting, gluing, sewing, etc.
3. typography: structure, categories and terminology, history, common practices, experience in handset metal type
4. printing: basic terminology and knowledge of processes, qualities of printing processes and paper, experience silkscreening or letterpress printing, scoring, folding and fabricating 3D objects
5. photography and film: basic techniques and terminology, camera parts and functions, history, editing, composition and storyboarding
6. software and hardware: working knowledge of current computers and design (for print, internet and motion) and business programs, basic programming principles
7. writing and speaking: rules of grammar, traditional journalism techniques/styles, information gathering techniques, public speaking skills, speech writing, debating skills
8. business, economics and marketing: basic principles, structures and terminology

CREATIVITY:
1. basic concepting skills: generating ideas for visual communication
2. history: esp. art and design history – but even broader, study of histories: world, religious, philosophy
3. psychology and anthropology: studying social and mental aspects of humankind
4. cross-cultural experiences: time in other countries, or even different parts of the US
5. bilingual/musical: encourage learning another language and/or musical instrument
6. storytelling/improvisation: study of what makes a good story, basic acting skills and improvisation
7. lateral thinking: techniques on how to get ideas by Edward de Bono

Is there more? I think so, but it's not a bad start is it?

The down side is that it is probably way too much to expect a university/college setting to facilitate. I was always a fan of the european style of schooling (atelier) where you answer to the master, read what he tells you, do what he tells you, and you'll be done when you're done – no sooner, no later.

Anyway, I have rambled long enough – let the comments begin!

Okay, I am commenting.

Not that I am an expert on education or on how we learn. But in my experience it looks like most creative professions have the same division of technique and creativity. A fiction writer has to master the technical aspect of constructing sentences and the creative ability to imagine an intriguing story.

I think we all see that division. What we also see is that when we judge design, and we all do, we base those judgments on how strong the idea is and how well the idea was executed. So a great creative idea needs the support of technique to be considered overall good design. An idea alone can only carry a design so far. And a computer generating completely random art, with high technique, can not replace the thinking human.

To me good design is 75% idea and story, 25% technique and execution. I know everyone will have their own opinions on that so please remember that this is just mine.

One other thing to consider is that we all learn at different speeds. I don't think some people can learn enough about design in a couple of years to have that first job. Others it can take just months. There are also periods where we seem to stop learning. Then others where we can have realizations every few days.

It is wrong to think of knowledge like a timeline where we learn one thing and it leads into another. Rather knowledge is like a pie chart where we collect pieces over our whole lives. And it is comforting to believe that no one has a full pie .

I see school as an opportunity to explore and learn in a setting that does not live or die based on what we can accomplish. Unlike the job setting that relies on our performance. In both we can learn and grow.

On learning software: I think it is unrealistic to believe that this is even possible from classes alone. What is possible is to combine school and our home(or job) trailing to eventually get to the point that employers can count on those skills. If a painter only painted in art classes then those limited number of hours probably would not be enough to teach that person the vast number of painting techniques. I think the same is true with design software. In school we have to practice the software like a musician would practice using an instrument. At our own pace we fill in the gaps that could not be cover in class.

It is important to remember that software changes. When I went to school we had only Aldus Freehand and Adobe Photoshop 2.5. And what I learned then was just a small piece of each. I look at software like tools and welcome any new advancements. Learning our tools is not work, using them is.

I apologize for any bad grammar and poor sentence structure. My slices of pie are still limited in that area. ;)

Alex Ogle
Learning only stops when we do.