[game_edu] RE: watered down CS programs

[Buchanan, John]

Ok, for the purposes of this discussion lets define vocational training.
Vocational training is training for a work/craft that has established
practices and methodologies that are not expected to change over time.
Driving a car is a vocational training opportunity.  Operating a lathe
is also one.  Operating Maya is a vocational training opportunity.  

Vocational training is NOT academic training with practical
applications.  I am trained in CS and was a CS prof for 5 years.  I
strongly advocate very practical approaches to CS training using
standard tools available in the industry.  What I am complaining about
is not very practical CS programs.  I am stating that the knowledge
required to program a game is greater than the standard undergraduate
(ACM vetted) curriculum.  Thus anything that waters down this curriculum
to replace it with VU coding, or other low level game considerations is
a bad thing.  If, on the other hand, you take a strong practical CS
program and add game elements to it, such as:  Embedded programming,
multidisciplinary team working, etc.  Then this is further extending the
practical element of the program.

Vocational training = training for an industry that is not going to
change.

We are not there in the game industry, if we ever get there then we will
be requiring lots of vocational training.

juancho

-----Original Message-----
From: game_edu-bounces at igda.org [mailto:game_edu-bounces at igda.org] On
Behalf Of Mark Baldwin
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:25 AM
To: game_edu at igda.org
Subject: [game_edu] RE: watered down CS programs

I'm a old time designer/developer that has moved into academia in the
last
year.   To some extent I would take more of a vocational attitude both
because I degreed in Engineering (a field that requires practical
education)
and I want the students to be competitive when entering the workforce.
That means that the student must understand how to create games and have
a
portfolio to prove it.

But I am very concerned about this massive growth in trying to teach
game
development.   My experience has shown that there is minimum
understanding
of the field.  For example, one school I was advising was preparing to
offer
a degree in "Game Design".   I looked at the curriculum, and there was
absolutely nothing in the whole curriculum about game design, it was all
game art.   Why did this happen?   The school already had a degree in
Graphic Design, which was an art degree, and they assumed Game Design
was
exactly the same thing!

I can list half a dozen other horror stories like this.

Making the curriculum abstract adds to this problem, because then you
can
excuse any lack of knowledge in the field by arguing that such knowledge
is
'vocational' and therefore not to be included.

I'm a strong believer in breadth of education, but there must be some
actual
knowledge about the field being taught.

A film school must teach how to write a script or use a camera.  A
school
teaching game development must equally address the practical issues of
game
development (or the specific field within game development).

What concerns me is the potential failure of academia to supply students
the
industry wants and needs.   Too much failure and the industry will
completely reject academia.

Mark Baldwin

******************************************************** 
Mark Baldwin 
Baldwin Consulting
685 Trailside Rd 
Golden, CO 80401 
phone: 303-526-9169 
mobile: 303-949-5628 
http://baldwinconsulting.org
mark at baldwinconsulting.org 
******************************************************** 
 







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