Author: Christina Choi

So on second listen, I was struck by two things. One, there was so much transparency in her introduction into the process and production of the podcast. Interesting tactic.

Two, the “all or none” approach seems pretty unrealistic. I think the likelihood is that the more straight-forward learning will be done with robots/AI/machine learning.  Things like specific lessons, or placement (which is already kind of robotic, in the sense that it’s a standardized test), and that could open up in more tutor-style relationships with educators in smaller classroom for in-person instruction.

In terms of defining a speculative future, I like the selection of a specific date. It has an emotional effect and puts you in a mindspace. But even so, I think the focus of the episode that robots simply replace teachers in 2099 is pretty narrow.

There’s a great (often untapped or poorly executed) power in design and technology to bring together, rather than separate. I wonder whether that was explored. The individual assignment or lesson is isolating to be sure (although perhaps not much more than the heads-down writing assignment or math quiz), but what about an interactive group game or augmented environment that required learning facilitated through a machine?

Another thought was around the risks with algorithms. I would be curious to know whether (as algorithms get more tested and smarter) those issues would happen less or more often than with people. Humans are notoriously susceptible to prejudice and perception—would a child with ADHD fare better with a robot, who doesn’t care about his behavioral issues, than a frustrated teacher who feels this child is stealing energy and focus from their classroom? Same goes for any other number of adaptive learning methods and learning disabilities. Is it a matter of an algorithm at all, or just the level of its intelligence and accuracy? As a near-term issue, the human is obviously superior, but if we’re talking 80 years out… something to think about?

One question about the assertion that teaching isn’t respected because it’s a female-dominated field. I imagine that’s not true at the university level, or at least didn’t used to be? Would be curious to know those demographics. On that note, I noticed the choice of robot teacher for the episode was the stereotypical robotic female voice, rather than a silent robot, a male robot, or a less overtly sexed robot. In this sense, it opens up a number of design question about the user’s knowledge of the bot as well as many of the bot’s characteristic change how you interact with it. For example, does having an asexual teacher do anything for students? How much of the teacher’s role is to model behaviors from an adult that isn’t a parent? Do students without a male or female role model benefit from having an instructor of that gender?

All food for thought.

Industrial Design school, Undergraduate, Istanbul

I spoke to my friend Yaprak—who grew up and completed her undergraduate degree in Industrial Design in Istanbul, while getting her two masters degrees in Italy and the US.

In Turkey, she cited no diversity, while in Italy, there was diversity but it was not valued as an asset in an academic environment. People were grouped by background, for ease of working together.

In Turkey, there was a much more top-down hierarchy. It felt much more formal as an education, both in terms of the way students address professors and their unapproachability.

While there were some lectures, most of the design degree was studio based work. However, the studio based work wasn’t collaborative group work, but much more individualistic. Similarly, content and material was relayed from the professor in lecture format or socratic method, as opposed to group discussion.

In Turkey, there are similar expectations about going to undergrad—it being a ubiquitous degree that has lost most of its meaning. Today, graduate school is where the value is demonstrated. Many people who are able to do so go abroad to study, as coming back to Turkey with a foreign advanced degree is much more attractive to employers. That said, study abroad programs are not set up for students, so study abroad is not common.

In Turkey, there are not the same US systems and infrastructure to close the gap between education and industry—there is no career counseling, mentorship, networking, or internships publicized or set up in affiliation with the school. One might not feel prepared for work after undergrad, much like here, so some of the skills needed for employment as an Industrial Designer (like 3D and rendering) must be learned outside of school. Much of this drive—to learn relevant skills and network—has to come from within. This is partially because of the formal style of education, and the fact that curriculum can remain unchanged, delivered year over year, largely the same, rather than modifying with the times. This is partially because there are not feedback loops between student and teacher in terms of the quality of education.

Similarly, there aren’t great feedback systems in place in terms of student performance. Final output was highly prioritized, but measured as a single letter grade. Things like the thought and design process and ability to work through failures are not considered as part of the educational growth process.

The cost of undergraduate education in Turkey was free, at a state school, but the quality of education suffered as professors had to have outside jobs, which made them largely unavailable, especially after 3pm.

Things like apprenticeships and internships are probably available, but not visible, common paths to follow. Connections to industry in general are not cultivated as part of the institutional education.

For and undergraduate design degree, not a lot of reading or writing was required. This lack of rigor made it seem more vocational, than about crafting critical thought and making you a “fully formed person.” This might have to do with the subject of the degree, but a liberal arts-style core curriculum or foundational subject matter was not required.

I come from an highly educated, immigrant family (more MD, PhDs and engineers, than not). To some degree, higher education was expected, though decidedly not in a creative field. I majored in both English Lit and Film Theory in undergrad, and had brief stints in publishing, documentary, and education before starting as a consultant at a creative agency (branding and digital experience).

I started looking at grad school because I was feeling a little stagnant. I saw a future of plodding ahead at my agency, moving up gradually, but not as quickly as I wanted and without the pay to match.

Grad school was a natural thought. There seemed to be two choices in my career—business school or a master’s in the subject matter. I’ve always had more respect for colleagues who were practitioners before managers, rather than going to school FOR management. Thus, I started looking at places like ITP.

ITP was almost a snap decision. It seemed so easy—a place to explore, another couple years in NY, flexible enough to keep working part time. If I’m honest, I’m not sure I investigated well enough and so my expectations were outsized. Like Greg said, I’m still craving that one project that helps me dive deep, explore a subject matter and become an expert. Ideally, I find a way to leave this place and be an authority—or at least a budding authority—on a specific way of thinking/working/etc. Right now, I feel that most of my classes have been either survey courses or skills-based, so as to be more fun and engaging than truly relevant to my future.

Is it necessary?

In certain fields like the hard sciences, it’s necessary. But even in creative fields, especially as a consultant, there’s cultural and social currency in the workplace and with clients. It’s not critical, but a help, especially in terms of salary negotiation. Of course, there’s value in the exposure to new thinking, networking and mentorship at the graduate level, though I actually think the quality and rigor of my undergraduate education at Barnard College, Columbia University and UCL was superior to what I’m experiencing and hearing about most graduate programs in the humanities. So no, I don’t think it’s necessary, but that isn’t to say it’s not worthwhile. I still think it is.

What other ways can one obtain this knowledge?

Most of what I do day-to-day at work—branding consulting, digital strategy, content strategy—was learned on the job, so continued work experience and senior mentorship is probably the most expedient route to career advancement. There’s also other forms of education, like MOOCs from top-tier universities, subscription services like Lynda.com, and non-accredited courses and bootcamps through things like General Assembly or Hack Reactor.