Notes From the Dean

Parsons the New School for Design’s multidisciplinary curriculum evolves with the twenty-first century.

(page 1 of 4)

This year Parsons formed a partnership with New York City’s Center for Social Innovation to incubate design-led social innovation projects by Parsons students and alumni. One of the projects in development is Citysteading, a community-driven process for empowering and engaging marginal-ized communities.

Courtesy Josh Barndt, Alexandra Castillo Kesper, Braden Crooks, Aubrey Murdock, Joel Stein, Charles Wirene

Every generation is presented with challenges specific to its time and place. We live in a world changing in ways that were unimaginable at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when design education first began to take shape. Technology (aided and abetted by design), advances in scientific knowledge, and shifts in social and cultural norms shaped design in the twentieth century. Our problems today involve more complex and interconnected systems—climate, cities, resources, networks, flows—and call for a new paradigm. Design in the twenty-first century is of critical importance in both addressing these challenges and transforming them into opportunities to remake the world around us. To do so, design education must change.

Design schools have traditionally adhered to a model that builds programs based on a foundation year, a well-defined and contained introduction to the basics of material, form, and color. And while that foundation is an important cornerstone of design education, it leaves little room for the more exploratory methods of cross-disciplinary and technology-based learning, and for understanding and applying design in the context of the larger world. That old model needs to evolve to reflect design’s enhanced role as a catalyst for innovation and creativity.

Almost a decade ago at Parsons, we began reevaluating our academic programs to respond to this new context. Over the past several years we have introduced a number of graduate programs that educate designers for this era, from Transdisciplinary Design,to Design and Urban Ecologies, which explores the complex forces that influence urban growth and development. And now, this fall, our incoming freshmen are the first to take part in a redesigned undergraduate curriculum that provides greater opportunities for self-directed learning, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and exposure to academic areas beyond the traditional boundaries of art and design.

The new Parsons curriculum is about choice. Students today absorb information constantly from a variety of media and sources. The process of learning has become so multi-directional that it requires purposeful navigation. The proliferation of massive open online classes (MOOCs) and open courseware has created unprecedented opportunities for the self-directed learner and introduced a radical and productive disruption to educational models throughout the world. Online learning, however—at least for those who pursue it toward a formal degree—still operates on the model of assembling courses within the narrow context of a subject area. This assumes that knowledge can be gained or downloaded as discrete units (courses) and pieced together upon completion. Design education requires more curation and context. If the goal is to facilitate an experience that helps students define who and what they might become as designers, then we must provide vehicles that allow them to veer off traditional pathways of learning.

Edit ModuleEdit Module

Old to new | New to old
Oct 31, 2013 10:30 am
 Posted by  No Sale

Where are the studies? Where are the reports? Where are the examples of successful pilot programs? Where are the lists of successful students and eminent alumni from these programs? Where is the SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE that any of this theory will result in the hoped for outcomes?

Towers takes for granted that a new century requires a new paradigm without ever attempting to explain WHY. He takes for granted that all of this theory will result in something he doesn't even attempt to define without ever suggesting HOW. I see buzzwords and jargon and the specialized language of academia but no attempt to transcend all that rhetoric in order to be understood.

The salient and most critical insight in the old parade of the Emperor's New Clothes; the part that goes straight to human nature, is that the con-artists who pulled off that scam could't have done so without tapping into the innate insecurity people have about their own intelligence. Telling folks that if they don't see what isn't really there it's not because it isn't there but because they aren't smart enough only works if those folks really aren't smart enough. That isn't everyone, all the time.

Towers says "Almost a decade ago at Parsons, we began reevaluating our academic programs to respond to this new context". It should come as no surprise to anyone that it was also "almost a decade ago" that Bob Kerry spent millions of dollars "rebranding" Parsons: new logo, new FACADES, new school name even. To what end? New century, new hairstyle? Parsons has also undergone a dramatic corporatization (like all colleges) that has seen a massive swelling of middle management where none even existed before. Deans, Assoc deans, directors, managers, advisors, coordinators, etc. To what end? New century, new administrative bloat?

The only reason to brand or rebrand something is to attempt to SELL IT differently. Parsons is now in the business of selling design education to students, plain & simple. The emperor is naked.

Nov 9, 2013 01:46 am
 Posted by  la pintura

very well put---I agree . This is really unfortunate for the unaware design student who needs a concentrated immersive education in visual form and function. Because in the end, the skills visual designers have to acquire are more difficult to resolve in four years, than the ability to research and probe content and read and think, which are more ingrained from having learned to read at the age of five. Which language is most familiar, the verbal or the visual. Which type of format?Spatial or the linear?

If you are going to school to become a well trained designer, you have to be extremely fluent in form language and that can occupy the entire four years, and it is the only time it will be that type of pure immersion. Why dilute?

Trendy packaging, philosophical hodge-podge is not going to change the core identity of what design is. It has never changed--why pretend that drawing is less important than it is. Is this because it can't be disguised as a literary or psychological metaphor? The talking about design is very much easier than the doing ==and students love to discuss what things are 'about' and what they mean and what they will look like. But--show it, construct it, make it work--let it speak on its own terms. That is difficult. This idea of non-verbal communication through form is intimidating to people who are not good at it.

Materials come and go, so do styles. Be very very wary of this nonsense. It is. Nonsense. I would never send my kid to a school where she decides on her course of study if she's trying to learn a subject. Would you want your kid in medical school deciding what he should be studying? or should we leave it to the experts? I know of someone who is a painting and neuroscience major, in his third year he wishes he had simply majored in painting at a good art school. And what is neuroscience without a real focus? neurosis. Will it have been worth the $300,000 spent in future years? Which is more timeless? form or fashion?

Add your comment: