[game_edu] Ad Hoc committee

[Roberts, Scott]

Bon voyage Susan!

At GDC 2007 I attended a roundtable discussion on accreditation that included representatives of some of the most established game programs (RIT, CMU, Guildhall, USC and others).  My recollection is that the majority held the opinion that accreditation wasn't a good idea (I received a similar impression at the GDC EDU town hall meeting last week.)

The recommendation in 2007 was that the IGDA establish a list of qualities that students/parents should look for, and that we should publicize these as widely and prominently as possible.  The qualities mentioned include those on Susan's list (advisory board, teams, placement, etc.).  I still believe that this is preferable to accreditation.

As evidenced by our EDU summit this year we are comprised of numerous and diverse programs that vary from the wildly creative to the seriously professional.  I think this diversity is good for students, the industry and the art, and as with all legitimate academic disciplines time will tell which paths are successful.  I find it hard to believe that any criteria which is inclusive enough to approve of this diversity will be of any real value (from transgender hopscotch to linear algebra?)


The road to accreditation also leads to many problems both foreseeable and unforeseen.  Some that come to mind:

Will there be separate accreditation for game programs in art, design and programming?  If an art school deservedly had their game art program sanctioned, what if they started up a programming degree?  They'd have the same advisory board, the same placement, teams, etc.  But I doubt that the quality would be the same for both paths.  Would there be separate accreditation for a school's graduate and undergraduate programs?

In both cases, how would we enforce the way that the school displays the IGDA seal?  Ads often don't distinguish between a school's tracks in advertising, so would they be required to do so if their graduate program or programming track wasn't accredited?

Anyone in this SIG interested in the prospect of enforcing this or other conflicts?  Yikes.

Concepts like advisory boards are nebulous.  Will we be checking out all their members?   What level of industry accomplishment is enough?  Will schools have to prove that their board approved their curriculum, or that they are actively involved?  Might an advisory board simply be for show?   Will a chain school be required to have an advisory board for each school, or will the board approve of a curriculum that's applied throughout?

Our programming track is backed up by a large, established group of faculty in a 20+ year old computer science department.  I've seen programs that include a few adjuncts teaching programming, but which as a whole might achieve the standards that I believe are being suggested.  Would IGDA accreditation imply that students are getting a similar education?

I honestly don't believe that accreditation is any guarantee of legitimacy.  We should be guiding students and parents, but the only way that they can judge the quality of a program is through researching the choices, not by looking for a stamp of approval that's based on comfortably achieved criteria.


Scott

Scott Roberts
Associate Professor
DePaul University
sroberts at cti.depaul.edu<mailto:sroberts at cti.depaul.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/game_edu/attachments/20080228/4977ba9d/attachment.html>