Hi, Ken. Thanks for your reply. You note that
> In November 2003, the PhD-Design list hosted an online conference that
> lasted nearly a month with organized presentations by the authors of
> the proposal from UCI, responses from a wide range of scholars and
> researchers, and open discussion.
Since I was one of the invited commentators for that online
conference--and thus followed the discussion quite closely--I don't
really feel the need to review the materials, though perhaps others
will find the links useful.
My point in mentioning the Irvine proposal is that it really contained
only the one required design studies course (for design majors, not
design studies majors, who of course had additional required courses).
Though it's true that the curriculum *might* have expanded in the ways
you suggest, it also might not have (and I incline toward the latter
view).
In any case, I'm not particularly interested in speculating about what
would or could have happened at Irvine. I'm much more interested in
focusing on what could and should happen in the hundreds of
run-of-the-mill design programs around the US (not the MITs and
Stanfords, where resources are, shall we say, a little more
plentiful). In the more ordinary sorts of design programs, NASAD
accreditation is one of the only levers departments have to get their
institutions to fund new faculty lines, buy or update equipment, and
so on. NASAD can be constraining, but it can also be a means of
securing resources, which is why so many institutions bother jumping
through the hoops to be accredited.
Now that I've started a conversation, I'm unfortunately going to have
to bow out for a few days: I teach all day today, and thereafter will
be traveling to attend my grandfather's ninetieth birthday party. That
means I'll be away from my email for about five days. But I'll check
back in when I return.
Carma R. Gorman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, School of Art and Design
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Associate Editor/Lead Reviews Editor, Design and Culture
|