Dear Carma,
To start, I’m taking the liberty of changing the subject header. You’ve transformed this conversation to a genuinely new thread. It deserves a header of its own. I’m choosing “History, Theory, Analysis.”
Then, thanks for your note. You are quite right. I did not consider the role that NASAD accreditation plays in raising the standards at universities without adequate resources.
You are quite right as well about the importance of the undergraduate program. The need for strong, improved undergraduate education was the topic of my presentation at the first conference on doctoral education in design at Ohio State University in Columbus. Some reflections will follow in a day or two on what I think this requires.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Phone +61 3 9214 6102
--
Carma Gorman wrote:
—snip—
I'm much more interested in focusing on what could and should happen in the hundreds of run-of-the-milldesign 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.
—snip—
|