[game_edu] Here goes the first shoe . . .

[John Peterson]

As a recent graduate of a game programming bachelor degree program here 
in the states, I can tell you that student expectations are never quite 
the same as what the program actually is.  This can be shown by the 
graduation rate at the for-profit school I attended (which shall remain 
nameless).
While my wave of the program started with around 40 students, only 4 
graduated with me. 

A good number of students left early, because they are kids and didn't 
realize that programming required math!  Another wave left after the 
first year (basic, "I don't know if college is for me" crowd).  Those 
were expected.  What I didn't expect was the group of good, attentive 
students that left during the second half of year two.  After speaking 
with a few of them and examining their reasoning, I understood why.
While the level of instruction at the school was quite good, and the 
faculty was dedicated to doing whatever they could to help, the way the 
program was structured was based around income.  The front end of the 
program was designed to keep the first type of student there as long as 
possible. 

You see, most of the early classes were based on examining design and 
playing games with the occasional math, physics, programming classes 
sprinkled in.  This kept the kids who were there to, "Play games for a 
living."  Now, while this seems perfectly fine at first, what the school 
did was stretch what could have easily been one design class into four.  
Not only did this cost extra money for the student, but it pushed some 
really necessary basic classes farther back into the program.  This had 
the extra effect of making it impossible to cover some equally important 
advanced topics near the end of the program.

Now, I am all for the, "College is what you make of it" mindset.  
However, advanced techniques in Game Programming are difficult to pick 
up on your own.  There is simply too much information available.  This 
is the point where the student needs to do the most on their own, but 
because so much basic technique was pushed back to the tail end of 
program, no one understood those advanced techniques they were trying to 
learn on their own with little or no guidance as well as they should have. 

To make a long story short, (I know, too late), the school sacrificed 
the long term benefit of the students that would finish the program for 
the $$ of whoever they could get to sign on the dotted line.  The last 
set of students that left, left because they weren't worried about the 
degree.  They just wanted the knowledge.  When they realized they could 
do that alone just as effectively based on the remaining classes, and 
that they were going to have to learn the more advanced techniques 
themselves anyway, they decided to save the money.  Oh, while most of my 
school mates have now located programming positions, only 2 have made it 
into the games industry.  They were 2 of the students who left early.

This is why I can empathize a bit with the lawsuit.  Some of these 
programs are making promises that they can't possibly keep.  Some of 
them don't have a clue of how to institute a program in game creation, 
be it design or programming.  The last know exactly what they are doing, 
but are simply looking to exploit their student body for as much cash as 
possible.  While my school didn't fall into any of these categories, it 
mingled with all of them.  These schools need to learn that the best way 
to gain students, and therefore income, is to produce the best program 
they can and earn a reputation for results.


 
Robert Farr wrote:

> As a student on a degree program in the UK myself, I can say this, I've

> noticed that the students that came onto the degree with me arrived

> expecting to be taught how to do various things and during the first year

> that's exactly what happened. And come the second year, when the learning is

> supposed to be more student led there's been a definite period of denial and

> adjustment that's had to happen for us before we've been able to move on

> again. 

> How many of us will make it through this second year I'm not quite sure but

> one thing I'm certain of is that the people who make it into the third year

> won't be the dossers (Lazy), though some of us might be terrible

> procrastinators (Looks at self).

> I find myself wondering if more could be done to instil a 'go out and learn'

> mindset in students, maybe often-times that is what's missing. Other times I

> can say there's a case of it being something that needs to be learnt but

> which I'm not overly fond of the idea of doing as a job in industry, for

> example I'm much more comfortable doing level/game design but in order to do

> level design I need to pick up texturing (Back filling knowledge that wasn't

> taught in the first year) which I'm uncomfortable with and thus, find it

> hard to sit down and just learn it.

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: game_edu-bounces at igda.org [mailto:game_edu-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf

> Of kevin at kogsspin.com

> Sent: 15 April 2009 4:37 PM

> To: game_edu at igda.org

> Subject: Re: [game_edu] Here goes the first shoe . . .

>

>

> I totally agree with Susan and despite my agonizing efforts to try to  

> seem "non-finger-pointy" I can see where I may have failed.  Having  

> taught at two "for-profit" schools (I'm at one now), I was merely  

> pointing out that they are more susceptible to these types of suits.   

> When was the last time a land-grant university was sued for deceptive  

> business practices?

>

> Sorry if I caused offense, but I thought this would be a pertinent  

> topic for this forum and knew someone had to just suck it up and post  

> it.  Now I'm going to see if it made the IGDA forums yet.

>

> As for my take on the situation, I'm in the "school is what you make  

> of it" camp.  So even in the worst situations, the fact that you  

> isolated so many hours a week for school and were exposed to  

> techniques and textbooks means you should have left there with more  

> knowledge and experience than when you entered.  If you sat there with  

> your mouth open expecting to be spoon-fed an industry-acing education  

> (at any school), then you began your journey on faulty premises and  

> that is what we can fix.  We can make sure any freshly spawned  

> developers-to-be know how to evaluate a program and pick the one that  

> is right for his or her needs.

>

> --Kevin

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Message: 5

> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:00:08 -0700

> From: Susan Gold <sgold at btrout.com>

> Subject: Re: [game_edu] Here goes the first shoe . . .

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

> Message-ID: <C60A7FA8.1C918%sgold at btrout.com>

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

>

> I think this is an interesting topic, but please everyone, this is not a

> pick on the ?for profit? program listserv. This is for thoughtful discourse.

> Note, since this a lawsuit, I know students and school representatives can

> not even discuss this in an open forum.

>

> I hope that we all respect each other enough to realize that all programs

> have some great and some bad instructors. Pointing a finger also means that

> you have three fingers pointing back at yourself.

>

> The type of thing that would make sense to me is if we can find a way to

> help these students. Maybe they should all take Ian?s Free Summer Game

> Design class? What other ideas might we be able to give them?

>

> Susan

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_edu mailing list

> game_edu at igda.org

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

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_edu mailing list

> game_edu at igda.org

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

>

>