Reading #5: "Why Can't designers think" - Michael Bierut

Points

-As structures of the world's communicators, designers partake in many friends of interest as the clients we have
- American DEsign programs fall into 2 broad categories:
Process schools & Portfolio schools

- process schools - "swiss-style", favor a form-driven problem solving approach; largely thrive as reaction against perceived "slickness" of portfolio schools

- Portfolio schools - aim to provide students with polished "books" that will get them good jobs upon graduation.

- the problem-solving mode is conceptual with a bias for appealing, memorable, populist imagery.

What's wrong with graphic Design education?

- Both process schools and portfolio schools have something in common - What's valued is the waygraphic design looks, not what it means.

- educators must find a way to expose their students to a meaningful range of culture, or graduates will continue to speak in languages that only their classmates understand

- designers will end up talking to themselves

This articles title caught my eye. I somewhat agree with what's said about 2 different types of design schools. and i feel that it is true here in OCAD, we are only taught with aesthetics related to design, to back the aesthetics with other interests, as design students i feel that we do not know enough in depth in other fields of study. However design is all reflected upon other fields of knowledge that we may never get to learn at school. Instead we need to discover them on own time outside. It would be ideal if OCAD can offer more courses than just design, so that we are able to expand our knowledge in general and broaden our interests. I do somewhat agree that design aesthetics is just what's appealing on the surface to general public, we are studying this "shallow" knowledge or get get in many interests to apply it to the real world.