>Once again, the comparison with Abraham Flexner's work is
>appropriate. By 1910, there was rich tradition of medical research
>and research-based professional education. This tradition was
>particularly strong in German medical schools. Of 150 schools in
>North America that offered professional education for medical
>doctors, 12 were at a high enough standard to be comparable, and
>another 20 were reasonably good. Roughly 20% of the schools were what
>they should be, while 80% were below a proper standard. Of the best
>20%, roughly one third were outstanding and the other two thirds were
>good. The other 80% were of such poor quality that nearly all of them
>closed soon after the Carnegie Foundation published the Flexner
>report.

This is amazing. I have the subjective perception that the Interior Design
programs are in a similar situation right now. I wonder what will it take
for the same process to emerge in interior design education. Roughly 80% of
the programs are developed within the Home Economics tradition and carry
its DNA. Of the best 20%, roughly one third are outstanding and the other
two thirds are good. However, the difference with medicine is in the 80% --
they don't close. Rather, they thrive and attract more and more students.
Students who fail in the top 6% (please forget me for using percentages)
and in the top 20% get a homey and comfy welcome in those 80%. It is like a
journeyman education but with a university degree. One indicator about the
level of education is the level of discourse -- code compliance and spec
writing.

I wonder how is it in Industrial Design?

It seems to me that in Architecture the situation is similar to medicine.
The architecture schools managed to develop strong programs in mass scale
in the last 30 years although they are not that strongly research oriented.
Anyway, the design discourse is more about philosophy and principles as
well technical ingenuity rather than journeymen's pride.

Regards,

Lubomir Popov