Point . Design: Another Disgruntled Student

Take a look at this post over at the ever-interesting "Point". I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with Justin's comments - but at the same time, about the same thing. It's made me think about some of the issues I highlighted a few weeks ago in my list of myths about teaching graphic design.

Point . Design: Another Disgruntled Student: "The biggest problem I have with my current design education is I am not an artist. I do not want to paint pretty pictures, draw real looking figures, or be an art historian. These are three areas that seem to
have a lot of time dedicated to them instead of something useful like type, layout or graphic design history."

I want to expand on my thoughts and may do later today, but briefly while I sympathise with Justin I would say this: all courses need to have a philosophy. With so many graphic design courses on offer, what differentiates them? Very little it seems. Many are very lazy in what they offer and subscribe to the view that you should do a bit of typograhpy, a few weeks in QuarkXpress, lots and lots of projects for your portfolio, and some art history.
Now while I don't think art history would have much of a place on a course I would run, I would defend other courses' right to give it a place, or make it a strong focus if that was part of the course's philosophy
My course would major on cultural theory and social history, which might not be everyone's cup of tea but would at least make it stand out.
I would then make damn well sure that it was clear from the start to anyone thinking of apllying for the course what approach it took to the subject. I think Justin's comments are similar to many students who find themselves on a course that was basically misrepresented to them. Often a course will trade on its alumni (from decades before), or the "fame" of its staff (who may never teach you), or the number of awards it has won (which tells you very little, really).
It sounds like Justin had an idea of the sort of course he wanted to do, but signed up for the wrong one and either he is guilty of not thinking hard enough (I doubt that) or he is a victim of a bad sales pitch or worse.
There is a sense in what Justin says that suggests he favours some sort of "national curriculum" in graphic design - I probably have that wrong but it's not an uncommon view. The AIGA has a basic curriculum for graphic design courses, for example, and in the UK there is a frequent discussion of "things they need to teach in college". (In the UK more and more students are choosing to study in their home town, or nearby, for financial reasons and one of the most persuasive arguments in favour of having an identical curriculum is that students can't afford to choose beyond a certain geographical limit, so in the interests of fairness, we need to offer homogenous - though top quality - courses).
But a lot of this discussion of the core graphic design curriculum is ideological, and will never please everyone. It is useful to have, though, as I am somewhat worried at the number of graphic design courses that teach illustration, photographty, animation, 3D modelling, film and video production and music, but seem rarely to look at actual graphic design. That is a worry.

But I'd be loathe to impose a curriculum, even a basic one, on any graphic design course. I think what a course needs is a visionary leader and a core of full-time staff who all subscribe (while not necessarily agreeing) with that vision. It needs a constant programme of refreshment with at least 25% of the course being re-evaluated or replaced each year. And the approach of the course needs to be shouted from the rooftops: go to college X if you want to study design as a cultural phenomenon, go to college Y if you want to study design as a commercial enterprise, go to college Z if you want to focus on the mechanics of design production.
given a menu like this, I suspect that Justin, and many others like him, would make a more informed choice.