[game_edu] game_edu Digest, Vol 54, Issue 15

[Dan Carreker]

I was going to clip the relevant portion of your email up here, but couldn't 
figure where to stop.  You definitely continued the hitting of the nail on 
the head here.

Just to add my opinion.  One problem is administration has little idea of 
how to evaluate a potential teacher's résumés well as of any way of 
evaluating their effectiveness once hired.  In many cases they have 
misconceptions of the industry or a complete lack of understanding of the 
vocabulary.  I know one program that advertises itself as "game design" but 
when they started thought that the term referred to art asset creation - so 
art teachers were recruited to teach game design.   Maybe this is one way 
the IGDA can help improve the situation, by publishing recommendations for 
school programs on recruiting and an administration friendly guide to 
industry terminology and expectation.


--Dan

Dan Carreker
www.NarrativeDesigns.com
"If I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood.
 I'd type a little faster."  - Asimov

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kevin at kogsspin.com>
To: <game_edu at igda.org>
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [game_edu] game_edu Digest, Vol 54, Issue 15



> Ian's definitely hit the nail on the head here.  I've taught at three 

> schools and online and nothing is worse than creating a curriculum of 

> convenience . . . "Oooo, look, we already own this software so let's 

> teach it to the game students too"  or "Well these 486 machines were  good 

> enough for the business students, why can't the game students use  them, 

> too?"

>

> There's the curriculum you roll the program out with (fingers crossed  the 

> people that pulled it together were at least aware of the Ed SIG 

> Curriculum Framework) and then the tinkering and fine tuning that goes  on 

> from that point on.  It's like an MMO -- the launch is the  beginning, not 

> the end of the process.  I understand that not everyone  on the faculty 

> can or needs to be an industry vet, but you can't have  none!  Sure, most 

> of my published titles were for customers under 12  years old -- but I've 

> been through the process at with four dev  studios and a publisher.  I've 

> been teaching game development for five  years, but I still go to GDC and 

> stay current with the industry.  I  participate in this SIG as well as the 

> new Game Design one (as does  Ian).  I noticed that lots of programs are 

> starting to use Unity, more  schools are submitting quality IGF student 

> games, and iPhone apps are  getting out of control.  I have already shared 

> this info with my  department and we will continue to shape our program. 

> A handful of CS  professors who still insist on teaching Java, Maya 

> experts who make  lovely rendered character animations that use more polys 

> than an  entire Left 4 Dead mission, and well-meaning instructors who are 

> using  game design books from three years ago are not positioned to keep 

> their programs relevant.  I know, because I have seen the 

> "deer-in-the-headlights" looks at the Academic Summit the last few  years. 

> I've seen the instructors who show up all pumped about their  programs but 

> then attend a session held by Brenda B. or Jesse S. and  their jaws just 

> drop.

>

> In a way, I'm sure that market forces and industry progress will pare 

> down the number of degree programs or at least stratify them.  But in  the 

> meantime, I feel for the students who are unknowing guinea pigs  who are 

> getting shafted in the long run.

>

> By the way, there was a push in the Game Design SIG to work with the  Ed 

> SIG to educate schools in the proper use of "game design" and "game 

> development" and "game studies" when naming degree programs and this 

> might be a good place as any to start that.

>

> --Kevin

>

> Quoting game_edu-request at igda.org:

>>

>> Message: 7

>> Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:01:33 -0700 (PDT)

>> From: Ian Schreiber <ai864 at yahoo.com>

>> Subject: Re: [game_edu] Man under a Bus Survey

>> To: IGDA Game Education Listserv <game_edu at igda.org>

>> Message-ID: <236528.19718.qm at web39707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

>>

>> Let me change the question around a little bit: what is the value of  an 

>> individual professor? Is it a skilled labor position, or is it   monkey 

>> work that any idiot with a set of lesson plans can do?

>> ?

>> In my case, I see three major things that I do for the departments   I'm 

>> working for:

>> ?

>> 1) Content creation (i.e. making lesson plans)

>> 2) Curriculum development

>> 3) Content delivery (i.e. actually teaching the classes)

>> ?

>> There's a lot of focus on that third one, and whether someone else 

>> could deliver my content as well as I can. Of course they can't;   it's 

>> my content, so I'm the one who can present it the best. Could   someone 

>> else deliver my content at some baseline level of   competency, so that 

>> their students would at least get the general   gist of things? Yeah, I 

>> think so.

>> ?

>> But here's the thing... #1 and #2 are not one-shot tasks. The   industry 

>> changes so frequently that courses and curricula need to be  re-evaluated 

>> on a more or less constant basis. If a school brings  me  in as a 

>> consultant, has me create a full curriculum and all of  the  content to 

>> fill the courses, then I get hit by a bus... well,  they'd  better have 

>> someone else who knows what they're doing, or  their  whole program will 

>> be obsolete in a few years.

>> ?

>> As I told a colleague recently, this is why I'm doing the summer   course 

>> online. Yeah, I'm giving away some of my content for free,   but that's 

>> not my primary value. You can have the golden eggs, but   the real value 

>> is in the goose that lays them :-)

>> ?

>> - Ian

>>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_edu mailing list

> game_edu at igda.org

> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu

>