[game_edu] game_edu Digest, Vol 39, Issue 9

[CHANDLER Clive]

Hi,

Let me put in another 2-cents worth - Our university was involved in the
first round of the Skillset accreditation - it is true that it took us a
very long time to jump through all of the hoops they asked us to.. Even
attending the skillset conference to see who "won" acxcreditation.
After around 3-months of hard editing and collation work we were told we
wouldn't have our Games design course accredited.

I was sent to find out why - they then told us they wouldn't accredit
any course until they had at least 1 years worth of graduates, and they
had not even considered masters level courses.  I suspect that this is
not the only case of a university missing out due to the "High bar".  I
agree with those voices raised about the idea of an accreditation panel,
do we make a distinction between accrediting "design" courses and "Games
Programming" courses - we have both, now running for the past 4 years or
so and are on our 2nd set of games graduates.

I am perfectly happy to volunteer as an academic who teaches
undergraduates and postgraduates in games design as such I will be
sending Susan a note and a copy of my CV.

I believe it is important to put some constructive process in place with
a combined academic / industry point of view to get balance.

This could prove something significant and I look forward to seeing what
we can come up with

Regards

Clive

Dr Clive Chandler
Sen Lecturer Games Design and Entertainment Technology

    

-----Original Message-----
From: game_edu-bounces at igda.org [mailto:game_edu-bounces at igda.org] On
Behalf Of game_edu-request at igda.org
Sent: 29 February 2008 05:59
To: game_edu at igda.org
Subject: game_edu Digest, Vol 39, Issue 9

Send game_edu mailing list submissions to
	game_edu at igda.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	game_edu-request at igda.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	game_edu-owner at igda.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of game_edu digest..."


----------------------------------------------------------------------
              IGDA Education SIG
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Ad Hoc Committee (Mike Reddy)
   2. Re: Ad Hoc committee (Burke, Robin)
   3. Re: Ad Hoc committee ( Ing. Jacobo R?os )
   4. Re: Ad Hoc committee (macian1 at yahoo.com)
   5. Re: Ad Hoc committee (Roberts, Scott)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:43:15 -0000
From: "Mike Reddy" <Mike.Reddy at newport.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [game_edu] Ad Hoc Committee
To: <game_edu at igda.org>
Message-ID: <D053285E784A154B8C45C9CBFDC1E88503650D8B at x001>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Subscribers will know that while not exactly supporting Skillset - "Any
system is better than none, but only just!" - because of its Industry as
Publisher, University as Developer connotations (a theme I hope to
develop at Games:EDU Manchester in April), Skillset accreditation is,
potentially, important for course viability. However: "Standards are
important and the more we have the better!"

I am also a bit sick of the wholly unfounded image of lecturers as
moustache twiddling villains, laughing at the duped games students, as
they wheel cash-filled barrows to the bank. Personally, at Newport we
emphasise specialisation and group-based collaborations between artists
and programmers; something that rarely gets listed as required/desirable
components of courses. And we accept that not all the students will be
cut from the traditionally recruitable cloth, and counsel them
accordingly, rather than applying a strong "are they likely to be
employable, or damage our triple AAA status?" approach to recruitment.

So, I think it really helpful that the IGDA also look at what should be
taught and more importantly how. Therefore, I believe that an
educational representation is vital and would like to volunteer.

--
Dr. Mike Reddy, Future Technology, Games Development and A.I.,
Department of Computing, Newport Business School, University of Wales,
Newport, Allt-yr-yn Campus, PO Box 180 Newport South Wales NP20 5XR
Tel: +44 (0) 1633 432452 Fax: +44 (0)1633 432307 Mob: +44 (0)7971 170
199 Email: mike.reddy @ newport.ac.uk (remove spaces)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/game_edu/attachments/20080228/68d15
838/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:46:02 -0600
From: "Burke, Robin" <rburke at cti.depaul.edu>
Subject: Re: [game_edu] Ad Hoc committee
To: IGDA Game Education Listserv <game_edu at igda.org>
Message-ID:
	
<C1AA20CAC1E41647BFF1D41215EDD4756F341BF638 at wagner.cti.depaul.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I think the UK example is very interesting because it demonstrates some
of the things that are very different between the "accreditation-lite"
proposal that is on the table right now and the "hard" accreditation
model of Skillset.

1. "Those who are accredited receive a benefits package arranged by
Skillset of master classes and other events" No such proposal is being
made here. We have no resources to do so. The only benefits of this
program are in the area of marketing. Schools with very strong programs
(think CMU) don't need this kind of marketing zing -- they have more
students than they can admit. Only schools who need help marketing
themselves will be the audience.

2. There are four degree programs accredited by Skillset. It is a "many
are called, few are chosen" weeding out kind of process. Susan's email
makes it clear that the program is not designed to be a high barrier: "I
realize that some of you may worry about not being able to pass, but I
feel that many of you have successful programs and can comfortably
achieve the outcomes that this project would want to insure." Not at all
comparable.

3. The Skillset group was "mainly driven by a panel from industry." The
current proposal: "I would like to see the committee compose of a
variety of educational institutions and types of programs."

I have strong reservations about the Skillset model: industry-driven,
give us graduates to stuff into our cubicles kind of thing. There's got
to be more to life than that, but that's an argument for another time.
We should all be clear that this is not at all what is being proposed.
This is "accreditation-lite" and the results will be similarly
lightweight.

I think we could publish criteria that we think define good game
development programs, and publicize them widely, letting students and
parents make their own assessments, but I am strongly opposed to
accreditation-lite. We can spend our limited resources of time, effort
and credibility more usefully elsewhere.

robin
=:-{)
http://josquin.cti.depaul.edu/~rburke/

"The universe is made of stories, not of atoms" - Muriel Rukeyser







------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:25:05 -0600
From: " Ing. Jacobo R?os " <jakovo at vjuegos.org>
Subject: Re: [game_edu] Ad Hoc committee
To: "IGDA Game Education Listserv" <game_edu at igda.org>
Message-ID:
	<194ea1c50802281325y562090eo34ecff99eff80d83 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

As most of you already expressed, I also agree that making this happen,
having an "IGDA Approved" accreditation would be absolutely useful, a
positive step forward to help students get real education and
institutions to offer it.

however, I also agree with Robin, in that is should not be an
"accreditation-lite"... it has to be very well founded to achieve its
goals, and in that respect I think this point Robin said is specially
important:

3. The Skillset group was "mainly driven by a panel from industry." The

> current proposal: "I would like to see the committee compose of a 

> variety of educational institutions and types of programs."

>


This commettee MUST be driven by a panel from insdustry to evaluate each
of the educational institutions, not by institutions themselfs. The
industry is the one who needs to evaluate how useful a program is to
bring new developers into the industry. And we can think of something
more complete like the "full package beneffit" of being "IGDA Approved".

for example, we at Mexico's IGDA chapter are working hard to give
students and their institutions a whole benefit for having a local
"student chapter", from conferences/videoconferences given by industry
professionals (national and internationals), as well as courses to some
specific topics not included on their institution programs, talks to
share our expirience with them (teachers and students) and some
guidelines to the academia about how to make it better for the students
to be prepared to get into the games industry...

A lot can be made out of this, and I think we could achive an
accreditation complete package for an "IGDA Approved" accreditation.

MHO

Jacobo

-----------------------------------------
Ing. Jacobo R?os, Coordinador General
International Game Developers Association Cap?tulo M?xico -
www.igda.org/mexico
-----------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/game_edu/attachments/20080228/b66b8
c16/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:33:15 +0000
From: macian1 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [game_edu] Ad Hoc committee
To: "IGDA Game Education Listserv" <game_edu at igda.org>
Message-ID:
	
<1989756155-1204241607-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-86350052
3- at bxe121.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
	
Content-Type: text/plain

I agree as well after reading all of this I didn't know whether to poke
in or not. I am studying game art and design at the art institute and
this has been my dram for a very long time. After joing the navy I was
able to make it happen. I want to make sure I am getting what I need to
getin and succeed in the game industry.

Garrett Johnson
The art institute online student
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Tom Smith" <thetomsmith at gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:13:32
To:"IGDA Game Education Listserv" <game_edu at igda.org>
Subject: Re: [game_edu] Ad Hoc committee


Speaking as someone within the industry, this seems like a positive
step. I was hiring designers for many years, and I can still recall a
number of times when I received applications from well meaning
students who had happened to pick the wrong institution and were thus
had none of the skills I was looking for after spending four years and
lots of money. For their sake, even a basic level of approval would be
very helpful. It'll be painful and difficult to set up, but most
things worth doing are.

(For the record, not all my interactions with academia were this
problematic: I also interviewed and hired a number of students who
attended solid institutions and thus had good skills. And a number who
attended weak programs but still managed to teach themselves what they
needed.)

I agree that future decisions of this magnitude merit more upfront
public discussion, however unpleasant that discussion is likely to
get. But I agree with the outcome of the smoky backroom discussions in
this case, so I'm not complaining too much.

Tom Smith
Creative Manager
THQ
_______________________________________________
game_edu mailing list
game_edu at igda.org
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:59:26 -0600
From: "Roberts, Scott" <sroberts at cti.depaul.edu>
Subject: Re: [game_edu] Ad Hoc committee
To: IGDA Game Education Listserv <game_edu at igda.org>
Message-ID:
	
<6FC69A39E7AED545B86312C4B1639CD247FE8F34A5 at wagner.cti.depaul.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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/20080228/4977b
a9d/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
game_edu mailing list
game_edu at igda.org
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu


End of game_edu Digest, Vol 39, Issue 9
*************************************** 


The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.  



If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  Kindly notify the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.