Now i always knew that there were different viewpoints on design. But never have I seen it so clearly visible within education before. Yesterday was my first experience seeing the two different angles both proposed so clearly and presented so believable and in such an attractive way.
During my visit to Central St Martins (CSM) yesterday I got a brief view of their MA Industrial Design course. At the end of last year i took a visit to the Royal College of Art (RCA) to see their MA Industrial Design Engineering course. Now, if you go by name, the courses would seem pretty similar and, yes, they both follow a common goal. The common goal and subject matter is quite obviously Industrial Design.
It’s not until you get inside the four walls of the universities or take a tour around their websites that you learn more about the course and what each one entails. They are both two year courses and considered among the best in the country (if not the world), at leading universities with a strong reputation and grand history within the discipline. Around 60 to 80 students apply to each course and with around 20 getting a place there is about a 1 in 4 chance of acquiring a place. Each university professes many alumni who have gone on to bigger and better things and worked within many notable companies throughout the world. But once you delve a little deeper into the courses you will find that the focus within each comes from two very different angles.
The Industrial Design Engineering course at the RCA has it’s roots within the engineering, function, technology, materials and design for manufacturing. It is aimed at those parties who have engineering experience although not a definative prerequisite. Many of the projects are about finding innovation through new materials and approaches to design. IDE seems to have a little more of an “in context” feel with products primarily being able to be manufactured and also has a yearly expidition to a foreign country to design with other students.
The Industrial Design course at CSM seems to be focused away from skills and more towards concepts, branding, ideas and the evolution along the design timeline. Identifying the process of ideation is one of the primary focuses along the course, and one which i think could be of much benifit during long term project working. The course also, although two years long, only attends for three days per week, allowing for other time during the week for working or professional practice.
The design process fascinates and interests me. Can you turn anyone into a creative entity? Where does innovation come from and can you learn to be good at innovating? Can you recognise when good ideas congregate towards the surface of the subconscious? These things don’t nessecarily have, or need, an answer but definately should be addressed.
During the presentation at CSM, Ben Hughes (Course Director) cited an excerpt from Bruce Archer. I thought it strange that a course which revolves around branding and communication so much more than skills and technology could have been influenced by one of the RCA’s most notable Alumni. Professor Leonard Bruce Archer, from what i have found out believes that engineering is the most important factor underpinning great design. Surely engineering is a skill?
My thoughts and opinions on the two courses vary somewhat, and if I chose to persue one of the courses I would definately come out with a similar degree title. I guess to those who know, and those who have been through the process of deciding which course to do themselves will understand which university offers which kind of degree. Personally I find it easy to think that design is practical problem solving with a little intelligent art thrown into the mix, yet I need to learn more skills and techniques as well as concepts, innovative ideas and emotional branding to be a successful designer.
I believe that as a designer, one should embrace all of life as though each experience is a new one, each problem is exciting and enjoyable. There are should be no specific boundaries but more of a holistic approach, and I feel that I should take on an abundance of information about a huge variety of subjects. One can draw from so many different situations and so much information to make an appropriate decision.
Alas, which one will i choose? Where will my path lead me? How shall i decide? Will they accept me? How can i prove that I am worthy with only one hour of interview time? Who knows?
Stay tuned, because this could get very interesting!!
Very interesting post Rich. I think it reflects so much of the mis-match of approaches to “what design is” between different universities (and employers as well, probably, judging by your post on Design Week).
You sum up pretty well what I think:
“Personally I find it easy to think that design is practical problem solving with a little intelligent art thrown into the mix, yet I need to learn more skills and techniques as well as concepts, innovative ideas and emotional branding to be a successful designer… There are should be no specific boundaries but more of a holistic approach, and I feel that I should take on an abundance of information about a huge variety of subjects. One can draw from so many different situations and so much information to make an appropriate decision.”
I remember when trying to choose what course to do as an undergraduate, looking for one that would have that “abundance of information about a huge variety of subjects”, i.e. one that really was as multidisciplinary as possible, with plenty of skills taught, and the best one I could find was ‘Industrial Design Engineering’ at Brunel, which really did make me a jack of all trades (though probably master of none!).
From meeting (and working with) a few people who’ve done the IDE course at the RCA, and looking round the degree show, it certainly interests me a lot, even though the emphasis is different to what I did at Brunel.
From my own job-searching, I do think (unfortuantely) that there are very few entry-level design jobs that allow you to make use of all the skills and techniques. If you’re good at graphics, you’re lumped in as an Illustrator-monkey; if you know any CAD systems, you’re instantly a CAD-monkey, and so on. Most graduate-level “design engineer” or “engineering designer” jobs now seem to be mostly CAD with a little incremental problem-solving thrown in - perhaps I’m being cynical but it’s not too inspiring if you’re fired up with the spirit of innovation!
Good luck with whatever you decide to do!