[game_edu] Industry luminaries slam universities' games courses

[Grace, Lindsay Mr.]

I feel very strongly about this topic and the challenge of educating students for careers. I've taught traditional college and career education schools. I put my thoughts to paper here:
http://www.mindtoggle.com/blog/2010/10/career-training-vs-education-case-study-in-games/

A preview below:

The challenges of educating students in game design and development are very substantial. Unlike other academic disciplines there is a circus of invested parties, each demanding its own objectives.  Most Students want jobs. Industry wants well trained, ready to roll students at low cost. Academic institutions want to meet the expectations of accrediting bodies and institutionalized academics.

The problem is that no one wants to pay the cost.  Students don’t want to risk 4 years of time and thousands of dollars for a highly competitive job, with a high burn out rate and little security.  Industry doesn’t always want to invest in academic institutions by volunteering employees to teach, or by writing checks that assure a quality employee pipeline.  Academic institutions don’t always want to ally themselves with game companies, who may consider their immediate needs over the long term needs of students (aka potential employees).

The problem is easily expandable to a broader question about the role of education.  Does education serve as job training or life training? Many employers want job training. Many students think they want job training, but they don’t know what they want to do (who does at 18?).  If students do know what they want, they may not be well informed (e.g. the myth that working at a game company means playing games for a living).  The fact is, most people change jobs.

Academic institutions then take two basic forms. Those that respond to the immediate demand for job training, and those that don’t. Institutions like Full Sail and my former employer, EDMC (the Art Institutes) provide job training.  The problem with 4 year job training (aka career education) is that its 4 years of job training adapted to a traditional college structure – and it’s not at the job.  Four years is a long time to train, especially when you’re paying for that training. Most career colleges are for profit institutions. So, in concept, they ask students to pay them for the opportunity to have a job.  Something seems backwards about this.  These students will help produce profit for their eventual employers – so why would they have to pay for that right?  Moreover, why would any game company rant about how these students aren’t properly prepared? The students are essentially victims of a for profit system, twice. First they not only pay for getting training to work at a game company (or web design firm, or graphics design studio, etc), but their work also produces profit for the school to which they pay tuition. Secondly, once they (and if they) get a job with a company, the company makes money from their work.

--
Lindsay D. Grace
Armstrong Professor of Fine Arts
Miami University School of Fine Arts
Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies

206 Hiestand Hall
Oxford, Ohio, 45056

http://www.LGrace.com

________________________________________
From: game_edu-bounces at igda.org [game_edu-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Yusuf Pisan [yusuf.pisan at uts.edu.au]
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 11:26 PM
To: IGDA Game Education Listserv
Subject: [game_edu] Industry luminaries slam universities' games courses

An article pushing for more hard-core skills in game education.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2010-10-15-industry-luminaries-slam-universities-games-courses

"We do not need them teaching a philosophy about games, we need
computer science, art and animation."

It is very very difficult to get the blended education right.
Universities are much better placed to focus on their existing
expertise and train students as programmers, artists and animators.

Comments?

Yusuf

--
A/Professor Yusuf Pisan
Games Studio
University of Technology, Sydney
http://gamesstudio.org/yusufpisan

==================================

Industry luminaries slam universities' games courses

A number of leading UK games industry figures have highlighted the
problems with education and training for prospective young developers.

In a report by Eurogamer TV (watchable below), Eidos life president
Ian Livingstone, currently working on a government-endorsed skills
review, claimed that "the problem with a lot of universities is they
offer sort of generalist courses.

"They've crossed out the word media studies and put computer game
studies. But they haven't actually had a dialogue with industry. We do
not need them teaching a philosophy about games, we need computer
science, art and animation."

Observed Frontier's David Braben, "there's been more than a 50 per
cent drop off in the number of applicants to computer science courses
at university. And that's in the backdrop of a rise of 24 per cent in
university entrants.

"There are a lot incentives for universities to increase the number of
students, because universities are now paid per seat and... there is
no quality test for what that seat is worth in the sense of what is
taught. So some subjects are a lot easier and a lot cheaper to teach
than others."

Mastertronic's Andy Payne felt that there was not enough dialogue
between universities and developers. "I would argue that our education
needs more direct contact with the games industry, and I think that's
down to the games industry to properly reach out to higher education,
and then higher education understanding what the games industry really
needs.

"It's not that we haven't got the talent, we just don't produce the
finished article."

Students at GameLab, supported by London Metropolitan University, were
critical of other courses. Said trainee Mark Rance, "I've had friends
other universities that were a bit disillusioned by them, finding they
were generally a lot of theory and they just ended up essentially
being able to review games by the end of it."

By contrast, Lionhead's Peter Molyneux was concerned that some courses
were too specialised to be future-proofed. "The games industry changes
so quickly that, by the time a student has gone through their three
year course, the games industry could have changed radically."

The full report, which also investigates controversial course
Train2Game, discusses the success of Abertay University and talks to
MP Ed Vaizey about government support for the games industry, is
below.
_______________________________________________
game_edu mailing list
game_edu at igda.org
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu