In a recent essay, Andy Rutledge makes the claim that higher education UX design programs are effectively a scam. They are, Rutledge argues, largely irrelevant, misguided, even fraudulent in their fundamental approach—and therefore a waste of time and money.
Apparently, there’s not a lot of hope either. Towards the end of his piece, he declares that “universities and colleges have nothing of value to contribute in the context of UX design degree programs outside of the à la carte design and psychology courses they can offer.”
I take issue with this, what I believe to be pretty narrow, point of view. Here’s a list of academic disciplines that I believe are highly valuable to our field:
- Computer science
- Much of the behavioural & social sciences including social psychology, sociology, anthropology, even economics
- Research methods & statistics
- Graphic design
- Systems design engineering
- Business & marketing
- Cognitive science
- HCI
- Rhetoric & professional writing
- Applied linguistics & communications
UXD programs that incorporate these and other relevant disciplines into their curricula—in my experience—do add value.
At T+L, we have a pretty diverse range of backgrounds. Some folks went the school route, others didn’t. I think this diversity has led to a relatively well-balanced approach to our craft and discipline.
I understand that academics can become detached and affected. After my long stint in school, there was a lot I needed to unlearn. I also agree that there are a lot of flakey college and university programs who are selling empty promises to naive students and recruiters. And I’m not saying these guys shouldn’t be called out.
Developing a sound pedagogical approach for a relatively new, applied and constantly evolving discipline like UXD is of course challenging, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. In fact, I think it’s something we need: I mean, what other professional field that’s taken seriously in the world doesn’t have a body of scholarship behind it?
Rutledge’s claim that UXD simply isn’t teachable is definitely provocative, but it’s also fundamentally unfair and counterproductive. Rather than dismissing academics outright, UXD professionals should work with educators to create programs that are truly relevant, and which add value to our field.
written by David Gillis
I went to a decent graphic design school in London [LCC] and one of the things that was of huge interest was the lectures by outside ‘agents’ as it were. Get UX designers in to speak.
All students are highly encouraged to learn anything they can outside of college; research and keeping up-to-date is especially valuable where web design and user experience design are concerned.
Making something like UXD a course in college surely just validates it as a viable career and something that all web designers should have a good insight into.
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I note, however, that at the end you have mischaracterized my “claim.” I never once suggested that UXD isn’t teachable; simply that very few institutions deign to offer coherent/relevant programs. Please don’t be so lax with facts.
I also note that at the end of your post you suggest a course of action that a couple of decades of history reveals to be foolish. In my article I may even have referenced the practice of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Kind regards,
Andy
Very passionate rebuttal, Dave. I think that just as you conceded there are institutions out there selling empty promises, Mr Rutledge needs to be aware there are also promising institutions selling the real deal.
Programs like The School of Visual Arts’ MFA in Interaction Design, who’s faculty are comprised of a client’s dream of UX professionals or, less explicitly UX-focused, the ITP program at the Tisch School of Arts, praised equally by Union Square Ventures’ Fred Wilson and NY Times contributor Steven B. Johnson, are institutions that crank out the type creatives we need in the user experience field. Not to mention the homegrown Interactive Design Program at York-Sheridan, who’ve produced at least two of the brightest UX designers you and I know.
Mr. Rutledge should understand that declaring anything as “game over” more than likely suggests the opposite. He should definitely give academia time to catch up, especially given how vaguely defined our practice still is.
Having attended ITP at NYU, I can offer some further insight into why this program is so successful in creating passionate UX designers.
From day one there is an unprecedented urgency to question the intent of a design. The mandate of the program is to make technology completely invisible and focus on the behavioural and cultural aspects of how things work. In fact the degree is a MPS (Master of Professional Studies), and is intentionally ambiguous to unconstrain the direction of study. Part ethnographer, artist and technologist, an ITP graduate has a deep understanding about the complexity of communities and the interactions they afford. This happens by placing emphasis on design research and prototyping rather than technology solutions. The end result is a highly organised, case-study approach in figuring out tough to solve, real-world problems.
Derek and Gillis both make a relevant rebuttal to Rutledge. The field of UXD *can* be taught through an academic route. Unfortunately, these hybrid degrees are few and far between.
I know of a great many successfully ux designers who were former Industrial Designers, or Architecture grads.
Rutledge’s severe critique of university and college UX design programs is intriguing, yet somewhat harsh. His views seem based almost entirely on his own isolated experiences collaborating with (several?) institutions in a advisory role—I wonder what happened?
Not to minimize his argument, but it’s not fair to generalize and say the vast majority of design education programs are ‘scams’ and inferior to the self-directed study approach.
Sure, attending a reputable institution makes no guarantee you’ll be armed with the skills and knowledge necessary to find a decent job upon graduation, but it’s the most logical place to start building a strong foundation for your career—UX design or otherwise.
So yes, I too disagree with Rutledge’s argument, so I guess that means we’re “either uninformed or insane” as he eloquently puts it on his blog.
I really appreciated Don Norman’s thoughts on this topic, which are both critical and constructive:
http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_design_education_must_change_17993.asp
Great article since I am always wondering if I should go back and finish my undergrad. My story probably has a familiar ring to it.. In 1996 I came to San Francisco after completing my first year (foundations) at an accredited art school. I returned to school in 1998 hoping that it would be a brief stay after getting credit for my work experience. After my evaluation, they did feel it was okay to move me into junior/senior level design classes. However the catch was that I would have to take liberal arts courses in place of the courses I skipped. This made no sense to me since I was paying 3x the fees to attend a private art school. I left finally after 60 some credits and to this day wonder what would be if I would have stayed that extra 2 years. I found that even as 2000 approached the schools were just not up to par with what was happening online. I am sure this has changed, since many of my classmates are now teachers. But, I hope they would take in consideration the people like myself that were hoping to finish, but were way ahead of the curriculum at the time.