I like that, the journey-person model. My dad became an electrician 40+ years ago, first as IBEW apprentice, then journeyman, then foreman. So long as we get the benefits that come with it (the union or guild, for instance).
Can we join the Freemasons too? I want to have a lodge and wear funny hats and have secret handshakes and decoder rings! I'm being silly, but also serious. If you want to go with a mentoring, apprenticeship, journeyman, master etc model (aspiring always to become the Magician card in the Tarot deck!), then I think we also need what comes with it: Guilds Unions Collective Bargaining (I love what the Screenwriter's Guild was able to work through this past year). Couple of things I wouldn't want, which can come with it: Indentured Servitude The "sale" of Apprentices Another thing to think about is the evolution of the university model, particularly the rise/influence of German universities in, what, 1700s? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_European_research_universities) I mean, that goes all steampunk and Royal Society, runs alongside the influence of Newton/Leibniz/Goethe, and class runs through it. It is where we get the beginnings of the classic divide between "pure" science or mathematics and "applied" science or mathematics, as in, engineering. It's where techne starts to divide off from knowledge-making. What am I saying? Oxford originally evolved from more medieval/scholastic models, and contrasts that focus somewhat by running on more of a mentoring, less on attending a class or lectures. You "read law" or whatever, at Oxford, attended lectures that looked interesting, and worked closely with a faculty tutor or mentor. Industrialization also contributed to the streamlining or assembly-line-ification of post-secondary education into attendance at mandatory "classes." But to go back to an earlier model of the professions, to Guilds, now that may be the way to go! It's where we get gates and gatekeepers and certifications, and hermeticism and secret insider knowledge that is closely guarded, that special way to put the keystone in the arch, etc. It kind of hearkens back to alchemy and alchemists, and less to post Enlightenment scientific method, but science has been heading down that road ever since rich entities (corporations instead of medieval aristocrats) became patrons of "sponsored research" for pharmaceuticals and other scientific endeavors (like the historical role of Bell Labs)-- with the stipulation that knowledge is made, hidden, and hoarded-- the direct opposite of the Royal Society idea of scientific sharing, replication, and the larger project of knowledge-making. I mean, there could be secret labs right now that have conquered gravity as a limitation in physics, but in secret proprietary research that will never make it into a physics textbook, will never have a chance for an independent researcher to attempt to replicate and verify the findings, etc. etc. Pluses and minuses. To empower a budding profession, one may have to adopt an "information/training scarcity model" while in our professional practice, working in a distributed or democratized medium that tends to value openness, open source, etc. Paradoxes, everywhere paradoxes. Chris On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:43 PM, J. Ambrose Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 3:25 PM, dave malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am feeling from some who are arguing against degree need, that they > > are also arguing against degrees for anyone. > > > Not I. Higher degrees of education have their purpose, to be sure. > > > > I would argue that purely > > organic growth like we have done for the first 2 decades of digital > > product design is not sustainable, so no matter how comfortable or > > uncomfortable you are with institutional education, we need some, and > > we also need new inventive but intentionally designed options as well. > > > > > You think not? I don't know. This whole thing of specialized professional > degrees from universities is a relatively new invention in human history. > The journeyman model, even compared to just the general idea of the > university, is a much more mature, tried and true model. > > I tend to think that universities are (and have been for quite some time > now) abused into becoming professional training that is better served via > the journeyman model. It seems to me that university education is more > suited for a good liberal arts foundation and then focusing on research to > advance knowledge *per se* (i.e., not to churn out professionals as it has > come to be used). > > Another problem with emerging professions is the rate of change. > Universities don't seem to adapt too well, nowhere near the market rate of > change. Nor should they, if you ask me. And the funny thing is that > everyone seems to acknowledge this but still wants unis to churn out > professionals who are in some sense certified and ready to go for > professional work. I think this defocuses universities from what they're > best at and correspondingly nourishes a false sense of confidence in > graduates' capabilities to be productive in the workforce. > > I'd suggest the profession needs to focus less on academic, > university-based programs (especially grad level and up) and more on > mentoring and supplemental professional training (i.e., training that can > be > consumed by working people). It should adopt, or perhaps just embrace more > fully, the journeyman model. Businesses understand this and generally > support professional development, so it would seem to be a potentially more > viable model from a practicality and maturity perspective. > > Going this route, you also don't have to wait for new academic programs to > be developed (which will be untested in terms of what they produce for some > time) nor wait for new graduates from those programs that you undoubtedly > then have to adapt to professional work anyways. > > Instead, you draw from competent individuals in the workforce today who can > be trained up while being productive in their current positions. They will > also likely, depending on who they are/what they do today, require less > training/time overall and maybe even be more fully rounded due to prior > experience in related fields. > > This way you get more folks more senior more quickly and ipso facto > perpetuate this workable model (because these people become mentors > themselves and/or continue the production of supplemental professional > training). *Maybe* develop an undergrad major that is liberal arts > and covers the tried and true theory, or just continue to draw from > existing > related programs for new blood that can be trained and mentored up. > > Seems pretty sustainable to me. > > I'm not saying there shouldn't be university programs, just that they > should > be more focused with a view towards research, i.e., the increase of > knowledge, and less towards what ends up being very basic and often > unreliable professional certification. > > --Ambrose > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
