The 9th Edge Debate: 16th March 2000
Designing Tomorrow's Designers
Action Points from the Ninth Debate
- Focus on schools - Design and Technology statutory component
of national curriculum - way of capturing imagination/tacit knowledge.
Works esp. well for children from impoverished backgrounds. Action:
Design and Technology under threat. Consumes more resources
- Design and Technology probably one of worst taught subjects.
Maths and reading a structured way of thinking. Design and Technology
another way - more inclusive? Prob. the way forward. Project-based
learning way to get people to link things together.
- Baggage: being prepared to jettison experience and look to imagination
- Industry changes, especially procurement. Gulf between what
happens in the world and in training. Far more integration needed.
Particular role for institutions in this process.
- Role of engineering clubs and their capacity to make a difference.
Rather than have companies sponsoring initiatives, find out which
ones work and put resources into those. Tempting to leave this
to the educators. Inspiration can come from anywhere. Design and
Technology probably only curriculum subjects that really involves
kids in project-based work. Options however can be limited, and
can be taught badly.
- Modularity and interdisciplinarity two crucial elements. Difficulty
in how to move to a position where these become the norms, when
you have professional institutions which have such a strangle
hold and force people into silos. Where do the cross connections
come from?
- Engineering clubs at one level do not want to be talking about
what we can do for schools, What do we want the educational system
to give us at secondary school level. We say to the universities
-- do these things for us. We ask for things that are too specific.
People who feed into the universities better have some skills
especially working with their hands. As designers should set ourselves
a brief: what are we going to ask the schools to do?
- Institutions only bringing only half the people whom are eligible
to join. New emphasis of teaching engineering within a business
context.
- How to broaden the membership - will effect salaries
- Career statistics (get figures from Mark afterwards). Assumed
education will deliver lots of people to the work place. Not necessarily
so. Effect of accreditation on new degrees and risk taking
- Institutions and protectionism. Where is the problem? Role of
protection of title and function. Good and bad benefits for society.
- How to stop people from falling through the gaps. A new layer?
And more flexible?
- Oxbridge view: do teach interdisciplinarity, have focus on sustainability
of design. Significance of teaching management. Context is wrong
and what gives? What we should be doing is post-qualification
MBAs on interdisciplinary basis and in context of our working
practices. Could also be done on a p/t basis. Problem in way research
is assessed in architecture. Is harmful to the profession.
- Thinking. There is a lack of people who can lead interdisciplinary
teams. Where can you place interdisciplinarians within the institution
structure?
- Encourage ourselves, esp. the young, to do more teaching (and
not insist on being paid for it).
- Risky thinking is the strand that connects much of the debate.
Nothing to stop us from changing the assessment system, especially
as we are all 'designers'. Requires risky thinking.
- Design and designers of fundamental importance for tomorrow's
world. Changing order of magnitude. Architectural profession gets
it right more often than not. Understand the culture of design
better than engineers do. Engineering education often directed
at problem solving. Creativity often hammered out of engineers
in the education process.
- Training designers of tomorrow to be the financiers of tomorrow.
Institutions should be working with employers to encourage employees
to get out and contribute to industry thinking.
- Respect for architects, engineers and clients
- How many designers do we want or need. Has an effect on quality
Summary:
Important that making things and project-based work takes place
at school. At university, engineering courses defined by institutions.
Collapsing in some sectors. Should build on this collapse and open
up silo.
Good to agree on some statement of aim at this sort of level. We
need to be able to talk in terms of specifics about the content
of courses.
|
