Halla-freaking-lujah! As a designer who couldn't afford art school and is surrounded by rich-kids-turned-artists (and living near to Art Center), I've had this same debate with other designers in my community. It amazes me how much work it takes me to get some of them to even begin to understand what I'm trying to say. Back when the L.A. chapter of the AIGA was still operating a discussion list we all had a big raging argument based around the cost of attending their annual design conference because a lot of people just couldn't grasp how you couldn't afford it. It was just "worth it" after all. Wasn't that enough of a reason to have the money? Ugh.

P.S.: Terribly sorry for the sloppy proof reading. In a bit of a hurry here.

One of the fundamental flaws in the way that design is taught (at least in the United States) is that no comprehensive communications or design curriculum exists in the public K-12 system. The equalizing factor in other liberal arts disciplines has traditionally been the merit scholarship (admittedly, a Band Aid on a compound fracture), which helps ensure that talent is not merely a gracenote to wealth. Without the opportunity to develop skills in visual design beyond charcoal figure studies and glazed ashtrays in high school, how can a student of lesser means be expected to put his or her skills and future up against those of a kid whose parents aren't afraid to let him try, and fail, at a design career?

The later issues of the Cost Of Design and The Luxurious Design Lifestyle notwithstanding, I think that in order to make design a more egalitarian career, you have to look at the designer when he or she is learning to communicate with society, and that's well before they move into dorms.

>make design a more egalitarian career

But why should it be? Architecture isn't necessarily egalitarian. Neither is filmmaking or the culinary arts. Some professions just have an accepted cost barrier of entry. Why not graphic design?

Just asking.

Some professions just have an accepted cost barrier of entry. Why not graphic design?

Admittedly, I am of the mindset that careers that benefit the public interest -- like architecture and design -- should comprise a more diverse set of class and cultural backgrounds than, say, retail or commodities trading. Your question is certainly a controversial one, though, and I'm sure there are some readers here who see such a cost barrier as a necessary evil to ensure a small, educated community of designers -- not unlike that in architecture (culinary arts may be a bad comparison in this case, as the consumer market for under-educated chefs as a whole pays significantly more than that for under-educated designers).

I think my issue with the cost barrier to design education (both collegiate and post-collegiate) is that the audience for graphic design is so much larger and more diverse than that of filmmaking, if only because it's Just Out There, no ticket price, no velvet rope. When you're speaking to Everybody, I don't think it's healthy for society or for design when the community of designers is constrained to such a small segment of wealth and cultural background.

A career in the arts has always been an option for wealthy young people, catering largely to other wealthy people. The question, as I see it, is whether a career in graphic design is really just a career in the arts, and whether design does itself a disservice by knowing how to speak only with a silver spoon in its mouth.

>But why should it be? Architecture isn't necessarily egalitarian.

>Neither is filmmaking or the culinary arts. Some professions just

>have an accepted cost barrier of entry. Why not graphic design?

"Doing things the way they've always been done" is never an acceptable policy argument. One reason why not is that, in a talent-driven industry, reducing the barriers to entry widens the talent pool and prevents otherwise disqualified but talented parties to participate more easily. The field as a whole benefits. You can also make arguments about providing opportunites to better the lives of the poor, etc. To be frank, the more I think about your question, the more it upsets me that it would even be made and I think it's exactly the sort of thinking that comes out of an industry that, by and large, is run by the upper class. One of the points that I was trying to make in a past debate was that how well can designers as a group create messages for or respond to the needs of the disenfranchised if we have no understanding of what it's like?

"Furthermore, graphic design is not a profession of civic service or blue-collar productivity either. Design exists in the upper stratosphere of marketing and is generally considered a “luxury” for most business operations"

I think that this argument opens a can of worms that just confuses the issue. Equating the way in which graphic design is practiced now with what it, by it's nature, should be is incorrect. I think that Adbusters, for example, would disagree that graphic design is not a "profession of civic service." There are certainly benefits to be gained by organizations of all sizes and missions having access to designers and maybe the fact that they don't is reflective of the interests or backgrounds of the design community as a whole?

last time i checked, a kunstgewerbeschule in switzerland still costs nothing to very litte. but then, i have not checked in 15 some years. at least thats how it used to be. of course you had to live in the kanton (state) that the school was located.

but in the US... i think you can look at it as an issue of "richness" but you could also look at it as "seriousness". if you want this, and have talent, the tuition. even $30,000 a year will be well worth it.

as far as design & business. look at IKEA for example. its all about design for the masses.

as far as smaller companies. the under $10,000 per logo type clients.. i've come to realize there are plenty of companies outthere that use design to their advantage and they hire designers to do their work. just because they don't have unlimited funds, that does not mean they cannot afford design. there are plenty of freelancers that will create great work at the fraction of a cost that a big design firm provides. design does not need to include focusgroups, leadership retreats, 3-layered toilet-paper... design is more about finding the right approach for the situation. rich or not.

Very well said David. Your last paragraph is exactly what this thread is about.

it's these short replies that Tan uses to get his posting-numbers up higher... hmmm nice techique.

>To be frank, the more I think about your question, the more it upsets me that it would even be made and I think it's exactly the sort of thinking that comes out of an industry that, by and large, is run by the upper class.

Easy there Spencer. I agree w/ yours and David's egalitarian stance. I came from a state university and at one time, had to hold down 3 part-time jobs to pay for school.

But the fact remains that this industry is rather small compared to other professions (like manufacturing), so our "class structure" (grunts to owners) is very obtuse and its climb steep.

But knowing that truth doesn't make it wrong. You must expand.

>Equating the way in which graphic design is practiced now with what it, by it's nature, should be is incorrect.

Here's where I disagree. We are not mechanics, truck drivers, or assembly line workers. No matter how you slice it, we are not a blue-collar productivity field. To claim any pretentions or equivalence to being so is an insult to those worthy blue-collar professions. We are a creative profession.

The value of service of a profession is indirectly tied to the value and worthiness of the education for that profession. Thus, design education leads to the bigger value that the profession offers to society.

>nice technique.

picked it up from Armin.

no comprehensive communications or design curriculum exists in the public K-12 system

Actually, there are several public schools that feature comprehensive design and communications curriculum. One such school is the NYC HIgh School of Art & Design is just one of these.

I think the more disturbing trend in public elementary and secondary education is the cutting of art programs, particularly in inner-city schools. And the epedemic is spreading to more prosperous areas as well.

That being said, since I went to public schools, I don't necessarily agree that design is just for the rich. I've done plenty of work for non-profits that I would consider neither rich nor operating to meet the needs of the rich. Some of this work has been pro-bono and some of it paid. And certainly, not many designers I know are what any of would term as rich.

The fact that design schools, as are most post-secondary schools, are becoming more expensive is a problem that we will all face in the future. There are ways, i.e, grants, loans, scholarships, for families' with less money to pay for an education. So, if there is the will, there can be a way.

It has been awhile since I was actually in school, so it could be the reality has changed. But in the design programs where I've taught, there has been a relatively even mix of students from wealthy and not-so-wealthy backgrounds.

Maybe it's a Canadian thing, or maybe it's a standards thing, but I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I went to a community college where I paid about $2400 (CDN) a year for two years. That's it.

Now, I didn't go to Cranbrook, or Parsons, though I sometimes wish I had had that opportunity, but I got a start and did the rest myself (I think that's called the "American Way"). Besides, community colleges aren't bad. Before taking graphic design I went to Sheridan College for classical animation. Sheridan is considered one of the best animation schools in the world and the tuition was the same as what I paid at my local community college.

And just to throw a wrench into the argument: I have wealthy parents.

I make a living serving both large clients and small clients. Clients who can spend 10s of thousands of dollars on a web site and clients who can spend $5,000. Local clients that need a $2,000 logo etc.

No offence, but I seriously have no clue as to where you're coming from with this topic.

While I think this is an interesting subject - though it seems to be in the same vain, it is far from an epiphany a la 'Jerry Maguire' - I hope we are cognizant of the fact that this is one of those discussions that won't lead to many answers.

It's line of questioning is along the same thinking of, "why are the rich, rich?" And it feels sometimes like the follow up is, "What can we do to stop it?"

Like any profession, education costs money, and there are reasons why we shell out the big bucks for private schools as well as reasons why we choose to attend community college (where an AA in design can be had for as little as $5,000) . But, does going to MIT make you a better engineer than the guy who went to NC State? Does Julliard make you a better actor than the guy they found behind the register at Target?

No one can can definitively say for sure.

Therein lies the conundrum in addressing/answering this issue.

If there is an answer, it is found in the desire for each individual to be the best they can be at their chosen profession. A number of us aren't working under the degree bestowed in our financially sacrificial sheepskin . And what's this? Some of us didn't even go to school at all. But we are working and doing something in which we find reward - fiscally or otherwise.

Further, just like any other profession design has its different paths from which we can choose to tread.

Some Ivy League lawyers choose to be corporate litigators, paid to stay out of the court room, while others choose less cushier digs, being paid little to always be in the court room.

Design is the same, we choose to do what we with the talent we are given. We can work for an agency with a dream roster, the local newspaper, corporate in-house or a non-profit agency.

Also, as the owner of your own studio you can choose who to pursue for work, the type of work and how much you charge for your efforts.

SIDE NOTE

> Not many companies can afford to engage a $250,000 branding campaign. Most can’t afford a $10,000 corporate logo.

There must be enough for Wolff Olins, Desgrippes Gobe, Landor, FutureBrand, Interbrand, and others.

My point is that our profession is full of people from different backgrounds - from fine art school to comm. college - doing what the want with the talent that was either given to us or that which we learned to make the most of.

Why would we want to change that?

By the way Tan, if Jay Mohr invites you to lunch tomorrow... decline.

do we really think that the problem here is design, and not just the whole American higher education system? it would seem to me that medical school, law school, etc. all are expensive...

higher education is for the rich and/or motivated, it has little to do with design.

One such school is the NYC High School of Art & Design

A very good example. I ought to have mentioned it, in fact, because I live in NYC, and because it is in jeopardy of losing much of its arts curriculum, possibly in the coming academic year.

I don't mean to misrepresent the design community as being composed of effete imperialist millionaires, burning cigarettes rolled from pantone formula books. The problem is not that the craft of design is closed to those who did not study in its hallowed halls. My concern is that as practicing and learning design becomes more expensive, and without serious opportunites for merit-based aid, young designers of lesser means have to write off education as simply out of reach. This, in turn, disenfranchises an entire class of visual thinkers -- they have no access to the corporate-sponsored facilities, the four years of focused learning, the development of their toolset under the tutelage of experienced mentors. Without the networking opportunities that an increasingly expensive education in design provides, that student is at a measured disadvantage.

Obviously, if design were really a career for the wealthy, the scions of industry would be showing up at Parsons and Cranbrook as often as Harvard Law School. The general trend in tuitions at liberal arts and private schools of design in the United States is alarmingly steep, though, and stands to create an insurmountable gap for those who are talented visual designers and cannot afford the benefit of a comprehensive design education.

I agree with Tan -- design is a skill for which designers ought to be paid a proper living, and that will require an education that costs something. While we should fight to protect the value of a good designer and his or her education, we should be equally concerned about keeping that design and education truly within reach.

>No one can can definitively say for sure.

Oh don't be such a spoil sport Brady. 70% of our threads have no definitive answers. It's the joy of the debate, man, the joy of the debate.

>higher education is for the rich and/or motivated, it has little to do with design.

You bring up a good point. The cost of higher education does seem to be disproportionately rising. But so is the number of college graduates out there. Twenty years ago, an undergraduate degree was still an accomplishment. Now it's just a given if you want to enter the workforce.

"I don't mean to misrepresent the design community as being composed of effete imperialist millionaires, burning cigarettes rolled from pantone formula books."

-David, I *REALLY* like this sentance. It just amuses me...

Wanting to go to Cranbrook or the AIC is nice. That's where I'd like to go, (I got a BFA)... starting to have to pay back loans from undergrad school is worrying, though. And Graduate-level schools are more expensive.

Sure, it might be worth it- it sounds worth it-

But my family is far from rich, and my job is crap. IF I get in (Fingers crossed) comes the delema of How on EARTH am I going to pay for it, the requisite supplies, etc. Sure, I want it, but if wishes were horses, as the saying goes...

And I've already been beset by my parent's whining that Art/Design *IS* for the Rich and the Rich Only can make money at it. Even if it's not true in all cases, there does seem to be a truth behind it;- and that worries me; at least in the area I live in (Most of the galleries around here are owned by people with enough money that they don't have to worry about selling that much art, if any... )

design school, like any 'name-brand' school, is expensive, especially a great design school. but as far as it being for the rich, thats ridiculous; ANYONE can go to ANY school they want, so long as they are willing to go into debt to do so. Therefore, the masses most certainly can be designers, and the talented masses can be excellent designers from top schools too.

I most certainly cannot "afford" to go to where I go (RISD). My income before i started design school (i am an older, independent student) was about how much Pentagram spends on coffee in a year. Will i have a massive paycheck waiting for me when i get out? most likely not. will i have what i believe to be a long and fruitful career doing what i love? hell yes. Because i go to a top design school, am I a better designer than everyone else? nope. Because i go to a top design school, will i have more opportunities to get a foot in the door than most other people? probably. But you and i know that all the name of the school does is get you IN the door. Your work is what keeps you there. So no, i cannot 'afford' it, but i justify it for the above reasons. And i manage to pay for it with the help of my favorite Aunt: Aunt Sallie Mae.

my point? the ends should justify the means, if you are willing to work very, very hard to make sure they do. Also, RISD tuition for 2004-2005 is $27,140. not quite $30k+, Tan, but close.

My friend works as an architect in London. He was across the pond for a visit last week and we chatted about a big phrase there, "value for dollar." I think that the reason designers are oft looked at as an elite, pompous profession intended only for those with a lot of money to spend are because we, as a group, have a difficult time justifying our works 'value for dollar.' This really belongs in another thread, but people understand how much a car costs. they understand why it takes X hours for your accountant to do your taxes. They understand why a house costs as much as it does. But often what we do is so abstract yet seemingly (sometimes) so simple, that people who say about Jackson Pollock, "fuck...i could have done THAT," say the same thing about what we do. Some clients get it, most don't. The designers job is to make the clients who don't, do.

Design scales. I can get a LogoWorks logo for $250 or a (insert big-name firm here) one for $25,000. They are both logos. They are both available to me. If design did not scale up or down then either LogoWorks or Pentagram would be out of business.

As was once said, "Graphic Design is the kind of art you can make a living at." The people i go to school with who are majoring in fine arts, that i do not understand - what do you do with that degree until you get paid to teach it? Those are the people who this discussion is really geared toward, not us.

Tan,

Are you having a Road to Damascus moment? Comparing this with your thread on Believing the Good in Brands could lead one to wonder.

I would like to point out how you worded "...a career that can be scaled down for the masses". Might I suggest "serve", "address", "communicate", etc... That is, if I'm reading you correctly and you are trying to speak about design that doesn't serve capital.

If I am right, readers might want to familiarize themselves with the work of Emory Douglas, presented here and here (thanks for the reminder Armin) or the work of Sister Corita Kent. Both created powerful work in very humble circumstances.

In the meantime, may I address you as Siddhartha Le?

do we really think that the problem here is design, and not just the whole American higher education system?

Exactly. I feel this discussion is very much about the USA education system. In The Netherlands, for example, the tuition fees for all universities are the same (small) amount of money, and I dare say that every young person here can afford to study design. Most people at my art school weren't very wealthy.

I'm studying design in Toronto. Just this past weekend I did course selection only to find that my tutition had jumped again.

I don't know how some kids are going to do it. I have been fortunate enough to get a busary based on financial need but there are others that I know won't be returning just because they can't afford it. These people are extremely creative and motivated - it's just too damn expensive.

Hey Tan, you once said in a former life you were a chemist. Did you go to school for that as well? Just wondering.

I went to engineering school. After a stint at the drafting table, I kinda' fell backwards into graphic design. No tuition there. I just gravitated toward something I've always loved. (Oh yeah... and that funny little Macintosh thing came along... which was expensive.)

I don't know. Talent is a contentious word. Can talent be taught? Does more talent come with practice? What if Chad and Buffy have no talent?

Patrick C. seems to be, uh... right on the money (or "bang on"). Fun debate, but not much to stand on.

"Design is for the Rich"? Troublemaking hyperbole (not that there's anything wrong with that). Wishful thinking for some?

...and this just in from the Mutiple Post Conservation Department: Good job, Armin & Co. Nice milestone.

Not trying to be a spoiled sport, Tan.

I am all for debate, including the spirited, oft non-sensical debates at the Oxford University Student Union.

But, debate is supposed to point to some answers and my contention was that this was one of those discussions that won't lead to many answers.

I never said it would not lead to definitive answers. You took my statement of "No one can can definitively say for sure." out of context. I posed that following my question about the perceived value of an "elitist" education -

"Like any profession, education costs money, and there are reasons why we shell out the big bucks for private schools as well as reasons why we choose to attend community college (where an AA in design can be had for as little as $5,000) . But, does going to MIT make you a better engineer than the guy who went to NC State? Does Julliard make you a better actor than the guy they found behind the register at Target?"

My point about leading to many answers was in reference to the general examples I pointed out - and the more specific ones others have pointed out - which seem to nullify, if not soften the debate.

Like I said, "Like any profession, education costs money." the tuition is the same (under graduate level) whether you want to be a designer, poet, engineer, history teacher, criminologist and on and on. You can choose where you want to go based on your needs and resources or your willingness to go into debt. So where's the debate?

The other 70% of our discussions on Speak Up that involve debate are either about the latest 'foibles' of the grand brand firms or the 'ills' of AIGA. Those sorts of debate don't generate any sort of definitive answers either. But, they do provide a path for getting to an answer(s) or for people to shape and reshape their opinions about the subject.

It is interesting to note that while you took my comment out of context to promote "It's the joy of the debate, man, the joy of the debate," yet, you chose not to address the issues I raised. Where's the joy, man where's the joy?

John Adams, the second President, has a famous quote: "I must study war and politics so that my children shall be free to study commerce, agriculture and other practicalities, so that their childen can study painting, poetry and other fine things." T'was ever thus.

Shouldn't the focus of this thread actually be that *COLLEGE* is increasingly for the rich?

Expensive degrees is not unique to art school. There are all sorts of professions that getting a degree for is becoming increasingly expensive and gradually beyond the reach of a lot of americans.

The solution, of course, is to move to Canada or Europe or the Middle East where they tend to value higher education and make it a tad more accessible. ;o)

Interesting quote, Tom. Of course, one problem is that we've all stopped studying politics hence the cycle repeats ;o)

More on topic, I think it's very germain to ask whether +$50K spent on a design degree actually gives you a sensible return on investment. Certainly in the wild west world of design for interactive media (web, gaming, animation, etc) today's young leaders are almost all self-schooled — or more accurately web-schooled, growing their skillsets and experience while doing and getting their references from Google and user groups, not textbooks and lectures.

Academic institutions have always been as much about community and connections as they have been about book learning. Is that worth the money in 2004? In the design world?

I have absolutely nothing against going to a good school and paying a lot of money for an impressive degree, but I also think it is possible to do well in a design business without one. I went to a state school and paid a total of about $8K for my degree (paid for with loans and working in a pizza joint) and ended up with a great job making a decent salary. I think a lot of what you get in life comes from what you put into it and how hard you work. Not (necessarily) with certificates of accomplishment.

Very interesting thread.

I'll just throw in a little mexican perspective.

I studied in one of the most expensive mexican universities (ITESO), at about $6k US a year. I was in chemistry for 3 years, then switched to design. I had a student loan, and it will take me three more years to pay it back. That means that for the next three years I'll have to stay in my 2 bedroom apartment, sharing it with other 3 people, with no car, no mac, not even a pantone guide to roll my cigarretes with.

I have a design job in the government, just to pay the rent, and do freelance in the afternoons. The government job is the closest one can get to be a 'blue collar' designer. The freelance is not about $10k logos, it is more about $3k websites with logo and stationery included.

Now, my freelance partner studied at the government university (UdeG). He paid less than $200 US a semester, and owes the university nothing. We make about the same amount of money, but he has a car, a big apartment, computers, and is planning a big trip to Europe. Closer to the idea of a succesful designer we have.

Is he a better or worse designer? Can't say.

What was I paying for? What am I still paying for? I think I have a partial answer: Socialization.

Just by being from ITESO, a lot of doors opened for me. I got to meet some of the wealthiest and most influential people in my city. I got to meet lots of international students, and visiting designers from all over the world. And since my school was very focused on social justice, I got to work with the poorest and hang out with the richest. This gave a far rounder and more complete world view, I think, and inserted me in the middle of an elite social network. And most importantly: I learned how to BEHAVE in the company of all these people.

Investementwise, ITESO sucked. Socialy, it may have been well worthj it.

I just re read my post... do I see cognitive dissonance here? hehe.

$post_count ++;

One of the proyects I enjoyed the most was working 6 weeks in a Mixe village in the mountains of Oaxaca. I did lots of graphic design, some industrial design, and a little programming. All, literally, for a roof, a blanket, beans and tortillas.

It is a great remedy for Bourgeois Guilt Complex. Six weeks in the mountains will keep you guilt free for 3 years when you charge $20k for a logo.

>Are you having a Road to Damascus moment?

Haha...no, I'm not trying to defy great odds for a predestined victory. I don't have my heels dug in deep in this topic really.

Armin passed it along, and I thought it was a relevant issue that would stir good conversation.

But I'm not going to plow through the gauntlet like I did in the Believing the Good in Brands thread.

>you once said in a former life you were a chemist. Did you go to school for that as well? Just wondering.

Yes, before I got into design, I studied chemical engineering as a way to complete pre-med requirements. At the end of my junior year (when I was already working part-time at a medical college), I realized I hated it and changed majors.

Looking back, I risked a lot financially to pursue design. If I'd finished my engineering degree, my starting salary w/ a fresh BS would've been close to $70K. If I'd kept going, and became a surgeon like one of my best friends/college classmate did — I'd be even more financially set.

But I eventually did ok w/ my chosen career. No regrets.

No point really except to say that choosing design as a career, for me, was a choice of passion, not pragmatism. It was a gamble.

>You can choose where you want to go based on your needs and resources or your willingness to go into debt. So where's the debate?

Brady, why are you grilling my ass so early in the morning bro?

It's a simple question. Does the cost of a design degree create a financial barrier — one that creates this perception (as David Yee wrote earlier):

"A career in the arts has always been an option for wealthy young people, catering largely to other wealthy people. The question, as I see it, is whether a career in graphic design is really just a career in the arts, and whether design does itself a disservice by knowing how to speak only with a silver spoon in its mouth."

Is design a typical arts career, meaning, does it have the same promise of a viable career to equate its cost? Does it have the same "legitimate" value (you know what I mean, so don't give me shit for it) as other traditional degrees such as engineering? And is David's generalization above true? Be honest, especially those of you who've know RISD or Art Center grads (or are one).

F. has a very good point about socialization. I have at times considered going to school--at least half for the people I'd meet as the things I'd learn.

I do agree, however, that this is a broader issue of education in general. Can you imagine paying all that money for a fine arts degree? Designers at least have a hope of earning enough to pay it back.

Like any profession, education costs money, and there are reasons why we shell out the big bucks for private schools as well as reasons why we choose to attend community college (where an AA in design can be had for as little as $5,000) . But, does going to MIT make you a better engineer than the guy who went to NC State? Does Julliard make you a better actor than the guy they found behind the register at Target?"

Brady's great question, which remains on my mind since yesterday when I read it. To Debbie's point, I'd say the answer is no. The perception maybe that it's true but honestly, I think it's the individual student that creates the value out of their education. Clearly there are students that went to very expensive schools and have not accomplished anything in their lives just as their are students who went to state schools and have accomplished great things. It's not about where you go, it's about who you are and what motivates you.

Which says something about the whole issue of 'is education an elitist institution?" I think historically it has been. But with the introduction of the GI bill, college education became open to people who never even imagined going to college and the whole dynamic changed. So, now if you really want an education, anyone can get one. You just have to be willing to do the work and pay the price, whatever you can afford, and then move on.

I don't necessarily think the price of the education makes it a bastion of the rich but the perception of whereever the price is high, that's where the rich can go may dissuade those with less from even attempting to enter that particular arena.

Tan, I think actually the assumption that any training leads to 'the promise of a viable career' is a bit of a leap. My wife is a physician, and I have many friends who saddled +$80-100K in debt to become M.D.s, but their world is also one of constant stress in a difficult medical-economic environment. (The golden age of getting rich as a doctor ended about 30 years ago — now it's very long and very hard work.) In their field, as in law or engineering, there is a high wash-out rate, and many choose to bail out rather than deal with the pressures of their so-called viable career. When they bail they usually owe lots of money on education loans. Many wish they could quit but stick it out just to be able to pay off the loans, and bail later.

I have an undergrad degree from CalArts and a graduate degree from Art Center, and a viable career — but I'm not so sure what part the sheepskins play. They certainly haven't hurt, but I have many former classmates who have the same diplomas who have abandoned creative careers when success wasn't within easy reach. In the end, as I'm sure you know, the viability of anyone's career comes from their own internal drive and discipline. Can a blue-chip institution teach you a million little things that can be valuable? Connect you with hundreds of powerful mentors willing to help? Sure — but in the end, I think it's 99% about the student, not the school. In other fields, like law, finance, or medicine, I think the good old boys alumni networks make the need of a good pedigree far more oppressive.

Tan, just in my generation, 3 out of 30 chemical engineers switched to design in the first 2 years. My GF switched from med-school to design in the second year.

�Was it all the nice graphics in chemistry books? �The 3D thinking in organic chemistry? �The horrible packaging and branding for medical products?

And to keep this somewaht in topic: Di any of you start any other major and then switch to design? Why?

$post_count ++;

frank derose’s comment is:

"do we really think that the problem here is design, and not just the whole American higher education system? it would seem to me that medical school, law school, etc. all are expensive...

higher education is for the rich and/or motivated, it has little to do with design."

This is the crux of the problem. The annual increase in the cost of a 4 year college (and presumably grad school as well) has consistently outpaced inflation by a few points, even as the value of a BA or BFA has steadily dropped as the market becomes saturated with ever more BA-holders. And as other non-American poster's illustrate there is nothing remotely resembling the commitment to affordable education in the U.S. like there is in other countries. Sure, you can go in debt, but debt's not what it used to be. Going 10k in debt is one thing, but is going 80k+ into debt for an MFA really worth it? And its a vicious Catch-22 as well, as massive debt can be a serious impediment to taking to the kinds of risks to achieve success, like interning, pro-bono work etc. When the NSLP starts breathing down your neck for their money, creative exploration quickly takes a back seat to finding a job which allows you to make the monthly.

The Village Voice has had an interesting series of articles about "Generation Debt", looking at the financial challenges facing young people today, who are increasingly starting out their lives deep in a hole of debt:

"The Ambition Tax: Why America's young are being crushed by debt—and why no one seems to care"

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0411/fkoerner.php

As I see it:

There's nothing really stopping poor kids from getting design jobs. Except...

•Parents telling you it's worthless

•Other, financially solvent students being able to do more job searching because they don't have a "day job"

•Other, financially stable students having more connections (this is the big one)

•Other, financially stable students being able to live off parents money while job searching

•Cost of equipment required to develop and maintain portfolio

•The yuppies who interview you can tell you're lower class

'Cause the cost of the degree really isn't the issue. There are always loans.

But all of this causes a less financially stable recent graduate to have a hard time of it all, and perhaps give up, even after the degree is obtained.

And to keep this somewaht in topic: Di any of you start any other major and then switch to design? Why?

Late in highschool I was dead set on being an Architect, but then decided on Engineering.

Applied to two engineering schools and since I could send my ACT scores to a 3rd school for free, I sent one to a school that had this thing called 'graphic design' which had something to do with drawing and computers.

Ended up skipping engineering and went to the 'other' school. First semester of fundamentals of design and still-life drawing amongst the 'hippie' professors kind of freaked me out (I came from hicksville).

So, then I tried marketing, business management, printing, and then realized after two years of college I was going no where.

Joined the National Guard.

Came back from training and ended up hanging out with one of my roomates that was an Industrial designer. So, went back to the art program. Toyed with Interior Design as a path to architecture, but was told by my professor (this is true...) that as I wasn't a female or a gay male, I probably wouldn't fit in. ;o)

So, I ended up in Graphic design. Since leaving school, I've done a bit more programming, have considered going back for a CS degree. Eventually, I think I'll go back for something completely different. Conservation, political science...who knows...

'Cause the cost of the degree really isn't the issue. There are always loans.

Umm...'loans' aren't a solution to outrageous costs...as much as the bank would like you to believe that. ;o)

Actually, there are several public schools that feature comprehensive design and communications curriculum. One such school is the NYC HIgh School of Art & Design is just one of these.

The Visual Art and Design Academy at Pasadena High School is another one and they are also consistently on the verge of disappearing . Programs like this, though, are sadly few and far between.

Here's where I disagree. We are not mechanics, truck drivers, or assembly line workers. No matter how you slice it, we are not a blue-collar productivity field. To claim any pretentions or equivalence to being so is an insult to those worthy blue-collar professions. We are a creative profession.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't think that being creative automatically equates with being white-collar. I know sign makers and the like that do essentially the same thing I do all day and would consider themselves blue-collar. I suppose the issue depends on how you choose to define "designer." I've always held the opposite of your stance here: designers love to think of themselves as professionals, in the same vein as doctors and lawyers, but I don't buy it.

ANYONE can go to ANY school they want, so long as they are willing to go into debt to do so. Therefore, the masses most certainly can be designers, and the talented masses can be excellent designers from top schools too.

I'm sorry, mitch, this just isn't true. Not in the U.S. anyway. Some of the other comments about foreign education systems has been enlightening.

my point? the ends should justify the means, if you are willing to work very, very hard to make sure they do.

This is the same argument that I was talking about earlier, and, unfortunately, it's not a magic bullet. But despite what probably looks like a lot of negativity from me, I don't believe that a lack of money (and therefore better education) is an impenetratable barrier to success as a designer. I don't have a design degree and I'm very successful (at least, by some standards). What concerns me more are the elitism, indifference and, to some extent, lack of diversity, that I believe stem from largely from the concept of design being "by the rich, for the rich."

I just want to say that it's very refreshing to see a varied and interesting discussion of such large and complex issue. Really, Tan, I think the briefness of your post belies the number of the issues that it raises and I'd love to see you explore it in more depth.

Umm...'loans' aren't a solution to outrageous costs...as much as the bank would like you to believe that.

noooooo kidding.

this has been interesting to *quickly* read, I would contribute if I did not have deadlines.

One other thing I wanted to add on debt, I went to community college for two years to obtain my design eductation - it cost me about $8,000 total. 30K a year? cripes that is insane.

Yeah, i might not have the connections that people from swanky schools can obtain. Nor did I get taught by masters in design. But I have money to travel for long periods of time and be self employed with much flexibilty. I am very thankful I do not have huge student/bank loans that bog me down financially.

I have a long ways to go with my design education (whether it is more school or more self teaching) but heck - debt sucks and thank god I don't have it.

>Really, Tan, I think the briefness of your post belies the number of the issues that it raises and I'd love to see you explore it in more depth.

I agree, it is a complex issue. But I think you're doing a fine job of exploring it deeper yourself, Spencer. Keep going!

Btw, what's with the "(5000!)"? Just curious.

HOLY! Someone should have told me this before I went to artschool and created a debt so rich that now the government won't let me out of the country! Man, I was robbed...

If art is for the rich to become richer, well, I was way off thinking I had any talent...or money.

The cost of an American education aside...

It seems to me like one of the primary concerns being expressed by Ben Scott, via Tan, is that a graphic design education is an investment that doesn't always garner the same return as, say, an egineering degree does. Paying for a design degree, irregardless of the cost, is a perfectlly reasonable thing to do if it guarantees a job which produces income reflective of that cost.

I'm going to through this out...

What's the largest, successful design firm you know of? Graphic design's proximity to the arts results in a certain emphasis on individual creativity. Design solutions aren't considered to be something acheivable through a business model that exists beyond the scope of the "small-firm". This is not the case with more lucrative professional industries - especially those relating to technology. Could a large graphic design company/corporation succeed? Do one's exist? Or is that environment inherently in opposition to the creative process? I have no idea.

The self-proclaimed clutural relevance of graphic design has resulted in an obsession within the field to root out bad design. Look at the world of technology - more specifically electronics. There is so much crap being made by people with engineering degrees and, more importantly, jobs. Yet, there is no internal crusade to rid technology of poorly designed electronics, only one to filter the best from the rest. Should graphic design adopt a more inclusive disposition for the sake of jobs? Would such a shift lower the bar of graphic design, or just the lower-bound graphic design?

I'm sorry, mitch, this just isn't true.

why not? I am willing to ammend my statement to say "if you are willing to go into debt, and have good credit" but other than that it is absoloutly true. I am not saying it is always practical, but it is certainly true.

why not? I am willing to ammend my statement to say "if you are willing to go into debt, and have good credit" but other than that it is absoloutly true. I am not saying it is always practical, but it is certainly true.

Even with great credit, it's not always possible to get loans to cover the cost of education, high or low. Besides myself (who passed on a private school partly because I couldn't raise enough funds to cover the more expensive tuition), I personally know people that dropped out of college because they were in a middle zone where they weren't poor enough to qualify for enough aid and they (and their parents) weren't rich enough to cover the tuition in cash. And this was at a state school, not an expensive art school. Education loans aren't an infinite resource and everyone has an individual limit on what they are offered. Regardless of credit, it's not always possible to secure a personal loan to make up the difference, especially without collateral. And the state of federal financial aid programs has not improved terribly under the current administration. Add in the process of attempting to cover living expenses while attending school and I think it's safe to say that any person can attend any school they want is an over statement.

And for the sake of argument, this is ignoring the fact that your social background and the education that came with it may have precluded you even being accepted to the school that you have in mind.

If your experience has shown you otherwise then I would be very happy if you could share it. I know plenty of students at VADA that could use the information.

Btw, what's with the "(5000!)"? Just curious.

Ha ha. 5000! is the name I use on my fine art/street art stuff and the company name I use for freelance design. It does cause some confusion. I really should just commit to one or the other I suppose!

my own experince has shown that there are 4 places to get $ for school (other than yourself/parents)

1. gov't secured/unsecured loans (stafford, perkins)

2. non gov't unsecured loans (sallie mae)

3. personal loans (banks, etc.)

4. scholarships/grants/gifts

obviously i am speaking from own personal experience, but between these 4 things i am 100% covered for tuition, supplies, and living expenses (actually 1 + 2 + 4). Also, because when you are in school you typically earn close to nothing, after year 1 i also now get a $4050 gift in the form of a Pell Grant, as well as even more need-based scholarships based on low income.

There are no absoloutes for any blanket statement, so yes, technically i am sure you are right, literally 100% of the people who want to goto 100% of the schools may not be able to, but the vast majority of them can. So i will reign in my statement a bit to say that "almost anyone can go to almost any school they want to, if they are willing to go into debt to do so, and have good credit."

I think people do not want to go into debt, and, perhalps more in fine arts/design, do not see the guanteed payoff at the end of the tunnel, so therefore they may not be willing to borrow from muliple sources to see the education thru. But saying "i only make $28,000 a year, therefore there is no way I can afford to goto a full time private univeristy" is NOT true. You may not be willing to do what it takes, but it is certainly within reach.

again..i am not speaking about the practicality of borrowing $50k a year x 4 years, i am saying that if you want to, you can. However, the debate is not about the mechanics of school loans, it is about the percieved "rich kid" notiton that design schools have, and lemme tell ya... there are a TON of rich kids at RISD. But i also know a bunch of poor ones too (myself included). if you want to go badly enough, you will find a way to go. I go to one of the most expensive design schools in the country, I am indipendant, i made not enough $ to just write a check and not worry about it, and yet I am going full time, i am a perfect example of how possible it is.

But my question is, school reputation aside, does $30k a year buy a better education than $4k a year? does education scale as much as the practice of design?

maybe not ANY school, but you certainly can get a design education if you're willing to go into debt. you can run on all you want with a sob story of the guy stuck in the middle, but funding sources are available. the only real obstacles are criminal records, bad credit, and laziness. you might have to actually work through school, you may have to go in-state, but it most certainly is possible if you really want it. i did it and payed back my massive state school loans within 5 years of graduation.

this talk is silliness. being a designer has nothing to do with how rich your parents are or what school you go to. the rich art school kids don't get far if they suck. it's about HOW GOOD YOU ARE and how hard you work. anyone who claims otherwise is either incapable or lazy. that's been my experience and it seems quite egalitarian to me.

I would have to agree with spencer on the loan issue. I have a friend who is about to drop out of art center due to the fact that loans can't cover tutition+living+supplies.

it's all up to your friend jim. he clearly can get a design education if he really wants it. folks just aren't willing to make the personal sacrifices. so what if it's easier for rich kids... welcome to capitalism, it can suck.

maybe he needs to move somewhere cheaper... even another town or state. maybe he needs to develop his art skills in order to qualify for scholarships. maybe he needs to work at mcdonalds and save for awhile first (seriously.. i did that). maybe he should just pick an affordable school. or maybe he's just not wired for design and should find a career in another field. it's all open if you're motivated and talented.

>Tan, just in my generation, 3 out of 30 chemical engineers switched to design in the first 2 years. My GF switched from med-school to design in the second year.

Ha! That's interesting Fernando.

I know a designer who used to be a physicist, but I've never known any that have studied chemical engineering. You'd be surprised at how visual chemical engineering can be — think of Tufte/information design.

I'll tell you one thing though. The girls were much better looking in the art department than the engineering department.

>does $30k a year buy a better education than $4k a year?

I'll go out on a limb and say — yes, it does. Not in all cases, but more than not.

Here's why. When you're going through school, your development depends a lot on the level of your peers and how you grow as a class.

As an instructor, you have to teach to the lowest common denominator in a class — the ones least motivated and talented. You'd rather have a group that's eager to push each other, than a class with a few stragglers who aren't serious or apt to the challenge.

As a student, you want to find a program where your peers are all as talented and competitive as you are. You want a peer environment that will kick your ass, because it's better to be pushed than have to do the pushing.

Cost doesn't always guarantee quality — but a group of students shelling out $30K a year is more likely to be motivated to succeed and has more to lose, than a group of students that antes in $4K each.

And then there's the issue of the resources and quality of instructors that $30K buys instead of $4K.

I know this is a grossly unfair generalization, and there are many exceptions. But in my experience — it's often the case. Money does buy a better education.

i am on the same limb with you Tan - doesn't always, but often does.

know this is a grossly unfair generalization, and there are many exceptions. But in my experience — it's often the case. Money does buy a better education.

Hanging on to the limb but I'd say that money only goes so far. If you are determined to succeed, and you have the smarts and the skills, then you can do it. Sure, at at $4K school you may have to work harder to find inspiration and challenges, but at the $30K you still have many slackers who'd rather be drinking beer than kerning their type.

I have found in my own experience that students who are paying their own way, versus those who are being supported by Mom/Dad or Mom/Mom, Dad/Dad, or whomever may be footing the bills, are more motivated, more challenged and more focused on succeeding and growing. No matter what the cost of tuition.

As an instructor, you have to teach to the lowest common denominator in a class

No you don't. You teach to whatever level you want to. That is the advantage of being the professor. Those that don't keep up, you fail.

I went to a state college, which, at the time, had one of the best art/design programs in the area. I later taught at a private art/design school which had a very good reputation as well. There was very little difference between the two schools in terms of quality of education IMHO. The quality is entirely within the faculty...and you can have great faculty at a private school just as you can at a state school.

>No you don't. You teach to whatever level you want to. That is the advantage of being the professor. Those that don't keep up, you fail.

It's never that easy or simple Darrel. Most undergraduate classes learn and do things as a group, no matter how disparate they may be. Post-graduate or continuing education/portfolio classes are a different story.

I consider myself pretty hardcore when it comes to driving a curriculum, but even I'm not that heartless. You never forget that the students are paying thousands hoping to learn something in your class. In return, you have to make an attempt at teaching each and every student.

As an educator, I find this topic particularly interesting - and I'm mostly intrigued by the last few comments. I think both Darrel and Tan are correct, to some extent; you "raise the bar", yet push the lowest common denominator to succeed. The unfortunate culture of design seems to encourage "long hours, mean professors, cut-throat competition" = "good designer"; I find this both tremendously wrong, as well as self deprecating for the students.

My kids pay something to the tune of $2400/class, and expect some sort of return on that investment. And while we do have a fair amount of "daddy's paying, so I'm smokin' pot the whole way through school", many (more than I ever expected) of these students are working one, two, or even three jobs to put themselves through school. Contrary to some of the above discourse, the best students seem to be those who recognize the investment: first in the family to go to school, worked through high school, etc. Given the above amount of money, I do my best to educate all of the students equally.

Grades, on the other hand, are not equal.

Sorry for the rambling. I just woke up.

in my experience, there is no relationship between expensive education and quality of work. absolutely positively none. the expensive grads do occasionally get paid more, but in my current studio, it's the exact inverse. if you're good and work hard, you command higher pay.

expensive education is helpful if you're a mediocre designer and/or want lots of help and attention, but if you're talented and motivated, and the school has a decent program (a good sign is that you must apply for the program after foundation courses), a $6K/year university education will get you further faster financially.

university professors will usually tailor assignments and give special attention if you excel or show particular interest. tan, paying a professor more doesn't mean they will be a more effective teacher... most university professors simply love what they do.

>tan, paying a professor more doesn't mean they will be a more effective teacher

No, that's not what I'm saying. But suppose you're studying creative writing. Kurt Vonnegut's not part of any community college faculty. He comes at a price that only certain universities can afford.

Design programs aren't that different. If you were a top-notch design professor, wouldn't you be swayed by the institution that could/would pay more? Be honest.

Don't forget that education is a business just like anything else.

If you were a top-notch design professor, wouldn't you be swayed by the institution that could/would pay more? Be honest. Don't forget that education is a business just like anything else.

yes i would, but i think the point you're making is just not relevant to a good education or a student's chances of success. a big name designer usually means big ego but that does not translate into good teacher. big names are great at what they do but that has nothing to do with being able to help anyone else find their way.

yes, i agree that it's about business. big money will attract the potential instructors who are seeking money, but once again, that does not mean these are going to be good instructors... but the recognizable name looks great in the catalog.

btw. kurt vonnegut teaches at the iowa writers' workshop and it's an affordable and well-regarded program.

It's never that easy or simple Darrel.

Actually, Tan, sometimes it is. ;o)

Most undergraduate classes learn and do things as a group

...right...and how would that be different between private school and public school? You'll have motivated students in each group and lazy students in each group. You can still teach to the motivated students though.

In return, you have to make an attempt at teaching each and every student.

You have to make an attempt at teaching every student that wants to learn. There's no obligation to teach the unmotivated. In fact, in doing do, you are doing a disservice to the rest.

In school, I had professors that would absolutely berate you if you weren't pumping out good work, and then there were professors that liked pretty much anything you pulled out of your ass the hour before class. Guess which one was the better professor? ;o)

I will concede one point. A private school can kick the lazy students out to preserve a certain peer atmosphere. The state school couldn't. A good professor would do plenty to steer those that weren't cut out for graphic design out of the field, but they couldn't just outright kick them out of the program.

actually darrell, my state university does something close to that.

at the end of the second year of graphic design foundation courses, about 30% of the students are accepted into the design program based on grades, portfolio review, and professor selections. the rejected students can try again the following year, or go for a different degree. you can't even buy your way into the program (legally). egalitarian.

sorry, i meant 'darrel'

Interesting topic, and close to my heart.

I wanted to address a few points from above -- I graduated recently from MIT with an engineering degree; it was very expensive, and I went into a lot of debt to achieve it. As others have mentioned, I think the expense of the school was directly related to the level of students, professors, and research opportunities there; I don't think I could have gotten that quality of education anywhere else. This applies to both engineering and design.

Unfortunately, I discovered a year into coporate life that I don't much like working as an engineer, and I would much rather be a designer instead.

If only my family were rich, I could go do that right now! But, with my education and car loans, I definitely can't afford to take an unpaid internship for the experience, and it'll be a few more years before I can afford to go into more debt for design school.

"Cost doesn't always guarantee quality — but a group of students shelling out $30K a year is more likely to be motivated to succeed and has more to lose, than a group of students that antes in $4K each."

$4K per year was ALOT of money to me considering my upbringing and financial situation at the time, so I was pretty fricken' modivated. I had to work in a burger joint and medical drug warehouse to put myself through school.

I know this is a grossly unfair generalization, and there are many exceptions. But in my experience — it's often the case. Money does buy a better education.

Yes, there are MANY exceptions. Maybe sometimes it buys a better education - but it really depends on what the student does with what is given to them. I agree with Debbie, a designers success is much more dependant on how hard they work!

>You'll have motivated students in each group and lazy students in each group.

yes, my point was that in more expensive schools, the ratio of motivated:lazy is higher — only students that have the means or ability/willingness to sacrifice and put forth effort, make the commitment.

So as a teacher, you have less lazy students to deal with, you don't have to explain points and picas/H&Js to them more than once, and thus, you're able to start at a higher level and drive faster.

End result — more prepared, motivated, trained graduates.

>There's no obligation to teach the unmotivated. In fact, in doing do, you are doing a disservice to the rest.

It's not just motivation. It's peer expectations. Teaching is interactive, reciprocal. Sure, you have to set high expectations, but they have to be achievable and realistic as well.

Look, like I said, there are exceptions to every case when it comes down to money=a better education. But to say that Harvard has the same level of educational rigor as say, Topeka City University, is pure ignorant folly.

>about 30% of the students are accepted into the design program based on grades, portfolio review, and professor selections.

Jason, I went to UH, where they have the exact same "block" system as UW. It's an artificial way of selectively tailoring class structures. Which in my case, seemed to have worked out fine.

That's one drastic method. And considering that both universities are state schools, and need to remain as egalitarian as possible — had to find a way to be aggressively selective.

Art Center, Yale, and RISD use a different method. They screen more tightly before admissions, and use cost and reputation as another barrier of selection.

If anything, UH/UW's aggressive methods of selection proves my point that it's necessary to establish a common, equally motivated peer/class environment. You can't just have a free-for-all, teach at whatever level you deem appropriate, ignore students who don't give a shit, and expect to churn out good designers. Cause fat chance that'll happen.

All I can say is thank god for small towns! I came from a small "farm-like" town and my tuition was not even close to the numbers that have been mentioned! The program was not state-of-the-art but it taught the principals and fundamentals of what is called at KU "Communication Design".

The funny thing about this whole ordeal is that many of my classmates are now art directors within well-known corporations.

(Maxim magazine to drop a name.)

So take that high priced learning institutions!

Oh, and btw Jason — I actually consider our schools, UW/UH, to be medium-level in affordability. Most major city/state 4-year universities aren't cheap compared to smaller, local 2 and 4-year design programs. How much is UW out of state per year? Pushing $16K+ right?

So don't assume you're a pauper in this situation.

engineering is more academic and the methods of teaching it are more established. design however is more steaped in creativity and there doesn't seem to be a solid methodology for teaching that. i wouldn't say they are the same in terms of education.

you're probably right about MIT. they have a solid history and reputation and it was probably worth the cost. but there is no design equivelant to MIT.

did the big icons in the history of design go to private art school? i'm sure some did, but i wonder what percentage? in most fields, there's a group of people coming from outside disciplines who often become the major groundbreakers in their fields. why? because they're motivated. it's still about what you bring to it yourself. in the big picture of your career, the price of your education is pretty insignificant.

tan, you're combative ;).

my family was low income, but we all went into debt and got ourselves educated. i never said we were extremely poor. my father worked in a factory and mom drove a school bus. 3 kids. anyway, i don't see the relevance in my 'pauper' status.

why would you go out of state? if you don't have the money then make a decision that fits within your means. if you have to move and gain residency elsewhere for a better program... how much do you want it? i don't know the schools you're listing but my university is now $5400/year. my student loans were over $20k and i paid them back. it's not hard. the system works reasonably well and it is egalitarian. design is not for the rich.

sorry, i don't know much about community colleges but i'm sure some great people have come out of them.

i totally agree with you on establishing an equally motivated class.

DIANE, i think i know that KU grad at maxim :)

Look, like I said, there are exceptions to every case when it comes down to money=a better education. But to say that Harvard has the same level of educational rigor as say, Topeka City University, is pure ignorant folly.

I'd like to point out that along with the quality of the faculty, these programs are also likely offering improved facilities and resources. Likewise, I think it's arguable that higher end programs (especially if there is a corresponding improvement in the quality of the faculty) are better networked. Kids coming out of Art Center have more and better access to the industry than kids coming out of Brooks or DeVry.

This is not to say that inexpensive programs are always less effective, or that expensive programs are always good. But I think that Tan's point sums it up nicely.

why would you go out of state? if you don't have the money then make a decision that fits within your means

Maybe because you live in Alaska or Wyoming and your state school doesn't have a design program? It's great that you were able to find an affordable option that provided a useful and valuable education, but it's important to consider that your experience is not everyone's.

To bring the debate back to the point at hand, the current state of affairs in the U.S. is that if you want to pursue a design career at what are widely considered to be the better programs, you'd better have some extra dough. There are, as we've heard, other ways of getting a perfectly viable and useful degree in graphic design. But the more well-known, "name brand" design schools in the country are not even close to affordable for a lot of people. I haven't seen any empiric evidence to refute that point. Whether those programs are worth their cost is totally reasonable, but separate, question.

There is also a possibility that all of this debate over the value of an expensive program is a long way of people saying that they don't think it's a problem that well-known art schools are expensive because it doesn’t matter in the end. That’s an intriguing argument to me.

While we're on the subject, I would love to see a list of the decent programs that aren't expensive. As I mentioned before, I have a relationship with the co-ordinator at VADA and he would really be able to get a lot of use out of something like that. Most of kids there come from pretty poor socio-economic backgrounds.

yes, my point was that in more expensive schools, the ratio of motivated:lazy is higher — only students that have the means or ability/willingness to sacrifice and put forth effort, make the commitment.

Again, this has less to do with the price and more to do with individual students. If you're speaking of generalities, than the main difference between the two schools is the economic class that the students came from. There are kids that get free rides to state school, and there are kids that get free rides to private school. To say that one person working their ass off to pay for a 4k school is going to be less motivated vs. one working their ass of to pay for a 12k school is just an assumption. I could argue that there'd actually be more students at a cheaper school who are paying their own way through school and as such are highly dedicated than at the private school (if you're paying your own way, you're going to make some prudent fiscal decisions, such as getting the best bang for your buck).

But to say that Harvard has the same level of educational rigor as say, Topeka City University, is pure ignorant folly.

To say that is pure speculation. A recent issue of FastCompany listed the top 50 MBA schools. There was a nice mix of ultra-expensive private college and run-of-the-mill state colleges.

Here in the Twin Cities, we have MCAD and CVA...both excellent, EXPENSIVE, private colleges. Yet state schools like Iowa state (of all places) UofM and UW-Stout are pumping out equally talented students. Perhaps a higher percentage of the private school grads are of a certain caliber, but cost isn't a direct variable in the quality of the education.

I'll always advocate more education over less, however it seems that some of the best designers/entrepreneurs/businesspeople are not necessarily the most educated with "school". They're the people trying things out before someone says "no - that can't be done, that's not how it goes". Tan, I think you're giving a lot of people motivation to prove you wrong...

>Tan, I think you're giving a lot of people motivation to prove you wrong...

Of course, Michael ;-)

All for good conversation. After all, I did come from a city university, not a high-priced art school.

School credentials only gets you in the door. What you make of it, is up to you. Course, there are definite networking advantages to some of the institutions mentioned — ie. the doors you get in are the ones harder to open.

BUT...that doesn't really answer the original question/issue. Is design a profession more for the wealthy? Or is it truly egalitarian? I'm not yet convinced.

I have been tempted for the past two days to respond to this post. But, when there are this many comments, I tend to avoid it, as I often find my thougths already represented. But since I saw the post, it has not left my mind. So, I have to vent...

I paid the "big" price for my undergraduate degree, in fact I am still paying for it and will probably be doing so for fhe next 5 years. And now after working as a designer for the past 5 years, and working my butt off to pay off my education, I have decided to return to school for my masters degree.

I have one word for everyone - LOANS. And they are available to everyone - especially to those who want it.

I'm not rich, my family isn't rich, my wife's family isn't rich. I did not qualify for a special grant or coverage from the government. Simply put, I am determined, dedicated, and in love with what I do - I cannot see myself doing anything but design for a living, and for it, I am willing to pay the price. You do not take money or debt to the otherside, and unlike material possesions, and financial gains, an education and all of the experiences that go along with it; it is the one thing that no one can ever take away from you.

Maybe because you live in Alaska or Wyoming and your state school doesn't have a design program? It's great that you were able to find an affordable option that provided a useful and valuable education, but it's important to consider that your experience is not everyone's.

spencer, my experience was not unique. like i already said, if your state doesn't offer a good program then move somewhere that has the program, gain residency while you save your cash and then go to school. what is so difficult about that? people do it all the time. education is available and accessible to everyone depending only on their motivation to work for it. iowa is a cheap place to live and residency takes a couple years.

i agree with you that there's no problem that expensive design schools exist because in the end it doesn't matter.

the debate was over the statement 'design is for the rich' and the notion that education precludes poor people from participating in the field. we've seen more than enough evidence and examples in this thread to prove that wrong. design is for the talented and the motivated. if you can buy your way in through expensive education, then congratulations, enjoy the fruits of capitalism. it may be more difficult for some, but hard work comes with benefits and it's all fair in the end.

i could live with 'design can be easier for the rich' but that just sounds so boring. AIGA, on the other hand, is for the rich.

Public schools almost always pay better than private, from Kindergarten through to MFA. That said, not a lot of schools pay a king's ransom anyway, and from those I've talked with, anyone who can teach could probably earn more just doing what they're teaching. The incentives are for selectiveness and student motivation (again, not specific to design, even in the primary schools this is the case), and a necessary part of the equation is how much the teacher gets from interacting with a particular set of students they expect to find at a particular institution.

George Carlin: "Kids are like any other group of people in this country - a few winners, and a whole lot of losers."

Short-circuiting the cost/lazyness formula, of course, is the Cooper Union, plus almost all other schools outside of the United States.

American design = white collar profession = expensive = luxury

Design = blue collar = craft = utilitarian = common

We 'murricans don't believe in Modernism any more, do we? We're just in a totally different orbit, from grade school on up. Cancelling art classes in the inner cities just seals the deal. Education must be expensive, and the profession ought to be difficult to access, because our personal value is predicated on class difference and a knowledge base superior to that of "average" people— and the money=quality equation. A friend recently told me that every culture in the world feels they need to do something to prove they are God's chosen people, and here in the States, God's chosen have to make the top income bracket. Would you rather be a craftsman/woman or a brand consultant? Eeek!

Loans: they are not available to everyone, especially "independent dependents" who both must and cannot rely on their parents for aid. A lot of students have to get married to get at the Federal loans. No joke. Debt is not an option for a lot of people.

Mmmm, a bit of a ramble. Just trying to draw out a bit more red-baiting, get back in the swing of posting.

I've been avoiding this thread for one reason: I just graduated with my MFA and have been pounding the pavement looking for work. My wife, who manages a bank, makes more money than I would at the design jobs I've applied for. In fact, the part-time, non-design work I'm doing now would offer me nearly as much dough as what my wife makes over the course of a year. You do the math.

D E S I G N E R S A R E T H E P O O R R I C H

Nothing's wealthy about the design profession. How many designers do you know that earn +$100K a year? How many do you know that are in debt from some high priced education at Yale, Cranbrook, or CCAC? I know more people in the second category. In fact, one of my former faculty members (age 52) still hasn't paid off the remaining $66,000 student loan from his Yale MFA. I suppose he never will making $47,000 a year with a professorship and a $1,110 mortgagee payment. Sheesh!!! He'd have better luck selling Cadillacs on some lot in Detroit and pushing dope on the side.

It makes me wonder if a career change is in order. But come on?! For Christ's sake. WHO HERE DOES IT FOR THE MONEY!!! It's like joining the priesthood: more about passion than return. We all have our reasons, but if money's one of them I've got some advice, Look at your debt to income ratio.

Nothing comes fast. Being a wealthy designer is something you've got to earn. Not everyone will leap into a +$100,000 a year creative director position. That takes 10+ years. And not all designers will have the luxury of fame, fortune, and popularity.

BTW, Tan.

I'm Jason. I don't know who the jason imposter is above!!!

Okay... I've another thought here. Where does R.O.I. come into play? Are we compensated the way we should be for the results we deliver? I'm not talking about the price of school, but rather, what we're paid for our work? What if design was based on some commissary basis? This is the last time I help Tan boost the posts.

"We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't think that being creative automatically equates with being white-collar."

i've been very interested in this discussion of "blue-collar" versus "white-collar" and where design lies in that gamut. While in school, I had thought of it as a very professional, white collar, egalitarian career... and I did not dislike that about it.

now out of school I'm beginning to see the spectrum of freelancer in Topeka to executive at Pentagram. Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle. I guess you could consider my current place of employment "white-collar," but in the city I live (Syracuse, New York), even the white collar is more like a baby-blue. Part of my job is defending the concept of design and its importance to every aspect of what we do. I'm often not included in projects and business operations where design could really make the difference (like sales presentations), but I enjoy proving my point: design matters. It should be brought to the masses. And the work I do here is sometimes just as important as the $250,000 campaign that McDonalds paid for.

Is design a profession more for the wealthy?

No more or less so than other professions that entail the same up-front costs for the same ROI...teaching, restaurant management, archeology, library science, etc. etc. etc.

>BTW, Tan...I'm Jason.

I kinda figured after jason didn't know about UW.

My apologies jason, I thought you were Jason. You guys kind of write similarly.

>This is the last time I help Tan boost the posts.

Thanks bro. But I think this discussion still has steam w/o our help.

I'd really like to hear more from a few Art Center/Yale/RISD grads that have made the field for a few years. What are your perspectives now?

Howdy folks! Miss me? Even a little? Did anyone even notice I was gone? *sigh*

Ok, so back from my three week hiatus (getting married/honeymoon) and I return to find that Speak Up has gone elitist?!

Design was never for the rich. The topic that's being addressed here should have the title Becoming a Designer is for the Rich. No one here actually believes you can't buy a logo for less that $10,000. Imagine a business owner coming here for the first time and seeing that headline.

As far as education goes, there are a couple of misconceptions:

1) That an expensive degree means better contacts or a better job or both

2) That when paying for a more expensive degree you get more from a teacher (i.e. more knowledge)

In my admittedly limited experience, who you know and how good your portfolio is (and by that I don't mean material, I mean work quality) means more than a piece of paper ever could.

I'd really like to hear more from a few Art Center/Yale/RISD grads...

Sure it helps. It opens some doors, it erases some tiny percentage of doubt a client might have, just as if they see that the medical degree of their doctor is from Harvard or Johns Hopkins. What percentage it helps, from .001% to a more meaningful percentage is very difficult to measure. I think the great institutions of higher learning are some of the most amazing resources the world has to offer, but it's up to the student to make as full a usage as possible. That includes alumni connections, networking, etc. Is it worth the money? On day one post-graduation probably not. Is it an investment that can contribute over the lifetime of a career? Perhaps.

Just because you're rich and go to art school doesn't mean you're a good designer. Hell, a diploma from a "top flight" design program doesn't mean you're a good designer. The majority of the folks I graduated with probably don't still work as graphic designers. I think the point is, and several folks have already made it here, that higher education is expensive, and increasingly more expensive as the years go by.

Bottom line: If you've got the talent, and you've got the drive, you'll find a way to do what you love, and get paid for it. Will you get rich being a designer: highly unlikely. But that's not why you became a designer, now, is it?

Self-motivated people succeed. It annoys me that design magazines, (they are all the same thing by the way, i never want to read or look at one again), feature all the rich kids who went to the top art schools when there are equally as good, and better students coming out of normal universities. And I'm tired of the design community...it is a scene, and not about art, community, or people. There are too many scenesters.

i could live with 'design can be easier for the rich' but that just sounds so boring. AIGA, on the other hand, is for the rich.

This is a GREAT point. Tan's article asks Is design a career chosen by the rich, to serve the rich? Or is it a career that can be scaled down for the masses? Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that we're discovering that the answer is "No." There are plenty of people from every band of the economic spectrum that choose to pursue a design career and find success.

However, is it true that participating in the American design community is "for the rich?" In other words, it's not just the school you choose, but the organizations you want to join, the conferences you want to attend. Coming from the background that I do, I do at times feel left out of the design community as a whole. Part of that is that I couldn't afford art school (everybody's continued insistence that enough loans are available to everyone aside), but I think it became a larger issue to me because it's an ongoing struggle. I can’t afford to enter my work in competitions. I can’t afford to join the AIGA. I can barely afford to go to AIGA events. I don’t feel like part of the same community as the “name” designers in my city.

I hate to cut this short, because there are other comments I'd like to touch on, but I've got a meeting...

DIANE, i think i know that KU grad at maxim :)

Possibly, I think he's still there, the last I heard of him. Todd something...

It seems you and I have similar up-bringings including our cost for tuition. My university is about the same rate around $5-$6,000 per year but continues to increase each year. I must admit I'm pretty satisfied with the education I received at KU and I have been balancing the pro's and con's of going forth for my Master's. (Very few schools to get that kind of education in PA)

Sometimes when I read these posts I feel like I'm going to spontaneously combust. Head spinning, uh-oh... *KABOOM!*

Oh yeah...design is not for the rich. The rich are willing to pay the high priced schools for degrees even though there are schools out there who cost a whole lot less! For some awful reason those who are considered upper class feel that they need to pay the higher price, god forbid if their child goes to a community college. *gasps* There are many options.

Welcome back Greg. Congrats on your nuptuals.

In your absence, not only did we become more elitist — we talked dirty about sex, eliminating racism, empowering women, and what a bad logo P.Diddy makes.

Oh... now I get that Word It... funny.

heh heh - Diane, your funny.

I am on your little community college boat as well, toot toot!

My mother even lived in a trailer park once. But never fear! I can throw on my black turtle neck, look sullen 90% of the time, and talk about kerning with deep concern, just like the rest of you. Blend riiiiight in.

So, this thread ought to be called designing is for the rich. No?

Design (the noun) is available equally to all. That is, if you have the money to pay for it. If you're poor, you have to find a rich designer who can afford to do it pro bono.

Obviously, if design were really a career for the wealthy, the scions of industry would be showing up at Parsons and Cranbrook as often as Harvard Law School.

They do. See p. 21 of the February 2004 issue of the Harvard Business Review [#9, The MFA Is the New MBA in the article Breakthrough Ideas for 2004].

last time i checked, a kunstgewerbeschule in switzerland still costs nothing to very litte.

The solution, of course, is to move to Canada or Europe or the Middle East where they tend to value higher education and make it a tad more accessible. ;o)

One difference, I think, is that anyone in the US [the academically unaccomplished, students who learn differently, etc.] can get some sort of college education. In certain other countries, few people go to college, and it is a competitive and highly regarded endeavor, free or cheap if you manage to get in. So, we've got two different models of 'accessible education' here.

But my question is, school reputation aside, does $30k a year buy a better education than $4k a year?

As someone already mentioned, you choose your faculty, peers, friends, alumni network, etc. Price aside, the more competitive school will have more of the more competitive students, who are interested in doing the maximum more so than the minimum. That doesn't answer your initial question, is design for the rich, but that's a fairly silly question anyway.

the more competitive school will have more of the more competitive students

I know you said price aside, but this statement got me thinking... do most people equate the price of the school with it's competitiveness? Also, to ruffle a few feathers, it's been my experience that universities that are more competitive tend to produce designers who's work looks remarkably similar. It seems to me when you're competing for a teacher's grade, you end up producing work that sucks up to the teacher's style.

> In certain other countries, few people go to college, and it is a competitive and highly regarded endeavor, free or cheap if you manage to get in.

Just to put things in perspective; in Mexico, my brother went to UNAM, one of the biggest and most prestigious universities in the country, to study architecture. His tuition per year? US$10.00. And that's because he was generous, at the time the tuition was simply US$1.00. I think they finally raised their tuition a few years ago. There are a lot of bums in that university because of the price, but it boasts the best library of any university, a couple museums, an ecologic reserve and a most wonderful campus. Not to mention the rowdiest soccer fans…

(That first caption reads, "Pumas, I love you more than my girl".)

Would you still design if you didn't get paid for it?

If:

a) I won the lottery: yes, I would still design

b) I had no source of income other than my non-paying design jobs: no, I would not design

Design rocks, but if I had to choose between food/housing and designing you bet your ass I would stop designing.

Design is a profession, not something where one can "play" martyr.

Joel and Rusty are pretty good designers...they did not go to design school. "What a steal" they must be thinking. You would still call them designers would'nt you, even if they did not go to design schhool? I don't think they are rich either.

> Design exists in the upper stratosphere of marketing and is generally considered a “luxury” for most business operations — which is why it’s always the first budget to be axed come crunch time.

But before marketing has something to market, something has been desinged yes? Or what are they marketing?

>Joel and Rusty are pretty good designers

Yes, but they are punks.

Just kidding. Yes, they are great designers, and very fortunate to have found their calling without the traditional path of education.

I've known a number of talented designers that never needed formal training. Terry Wakayama of Digital Kitchen/Theorem walked through the doors of TeamDesign w/o spending a day of his life in a design classroom. And to date, I still consider him one of the most talented designers I've ever known.

As I said in the beginning...there are many exceptions.

Are Joel and Rusty friends of Chad and Buffy?

Sorry, forgot about the rest of you guys for a moment.

I used to work with Joel, and Rusty at POP — as well as Greg. Old mutual friends, and all very talented interactive designers.

Now you know.

I used Joel and Rusty as an example, but we all know people who are talented yet not traditionally trained. So you can,insertnamehere, as an example. But my bigger point was the thought of being a deisgner an how that is or is not connected to their education, and the questions, thoughts that arise out of that scenario.

Also, I'll pass this along too, my first thought in reading your words Tan is that it's just darn expensive to get an education anywhere--whatever the program. Is it more about the educational system that is expensive or is it design programs. Just a thought.

Well, the idea for the thread was first suggested by a reader — and not mine. I just flushed it out, but in hindsight, was a little too vague.

The general gist is that design schools and BFA programs, in general, can be expensive, even outrageous. Art Center is a good example.

Add to the fact that design is not what you'd call a mainstream career option, and is customarily perceived as a liberal arts major chosen by students not driven to earn money. Of course, the connotation is that they don't need to.

So expensive education, for a niche profession, chosen by a few who can afford it. That's the generalization everyone's been arguing against.

And I'm not necessarily defending it — like I said, I'm sort of serving as the messenger here, not the leader of the charge.

And your point that a formal education is not necessarily required to be a designer is another tangent but related subject entirely. In principal, I disagree — but as you've said, we both know mutual exceptions to the case.

I don't have my degree yet.

I had to write my dissertation and pass my professional exam, but instead I went wetback to London. There I held two half time jobs, as a KP in a Neo-Japananese Sushi restaurant run by a Mongolian crew, and as a bartender just around the corner from Kings Cross station. I also did freelance design on borrowed computers, sometimes pro-bono, mostly pro-guiness.

I paid my rent, ate decent food, went to lots of parties, visited all the museums, galleries and exhibitions I could fit in my schedule, got to hang out with all kinds of interesting people, met some designers, and generally had a great time.

Being a transatlantic wetback, I did all this for sub-minimum wage, making less money than some people on social security. According to UK demographic indexes, I was poor, one step from homeless, and still had enough money left over every month to send to Mexico for my student loan and free time to design for the sake of design.

Is designing for the rich? Is design for the rich?

If it is about designing, I designed more and better as a poor illegal worked in London than I do here. My education had no official validity there, I was not a designer. I was that KP that slices salmon and talks CSS at the same time. I was the pedantic bartender that comments on the bar's napkins use of typography.

If it is about belonging to a community (an elite community), getting respect, being recognized as a DESIGNER, seeing your name in print, I could never afford that in London. Here in Mexico I am already on the road, I am A Designer. I could even become The Designer (if all the others suddenly died?, asks my GF).

This rant is because I just found out I have to pay the equivalent of three months salary to get over the tangle of red tape surrounding my degree. May have to go back to the UK.

I think we all might learn a lot from your example F. Makes one think why we are doing all this anyway.

"If it is about belonging to a community (an elite community), getting respect, being recognized as a DESIGNER, seeing your name in print."

That makes me chuckle a bit as I think of a few examples where that may be THE reason a few call themselves designers, or at least their motivation. But that might not be bad, a QB really does want to win the Super Bowl too!

Great post, that one gets my mind going.