|
Policies
and Practices at Public Universities
The quality of graphic design education is often
shaped by institutional policies and practices. In this respect,
state universities are the category of schools most in need
of review and reform. Even within state university Graphic
Design programs there is a range of performance. Some Graphic
Design programs rank among the best in the country. In other
instances, a few effective programs operate because faculty
have learned to circumvent the more restrictive university
policies. They do so with the tacit approval of immediate
administrators. Even fewer universities go through the process
of actually changing policies, curriculum and requirements
to provide students with a professional education in Graphic
Design. The majority of state university Graphic Design programs
are woefully deficient in staff. It is amazing how many try
to provide an education in Graphic Design with only one or
two full-time faculty members. This is even more surprising
because currently, Graphic Design has the largest enrollment
of majors of any program in art departments at most universities.
Seldom or ever is the number of Graphic Design majors limited
by the number of faculty members. Understaffing reduces the
scope of programs and number of credits in the major required
for graduation. Most two-person faculties provide less than
thirty credits in Graphic Design.
In liberal arts programs, it is not only the number of Graphic
Design faculty, but also, the criteria for hiring. This is
best revealed by position descriptions for openings in Graphic
Design. It is not unusual when scanning announcements in the
Journal of College Art or the Chronicle of Higher
Education to find advertisements for a Graphic Designer
to teach design and typography. However, they also are expected
to teach one or more of the following, life drawing, watercolor,
printmaking, art history or other similar courses. This sends
a clear signal that Graphic Design program is not professional
at that institution.
These
conditions have occurred because of serious misjudgments by
state university administrators a number of years ago based
on expediency, fiscal efficiency or well intentioned but uninformed
decision-making. These decisions now are formidable barriers
to rectifying unfortunate actions of the past. For example,
over-reliance on graduate students as teachers occurred during
the 1950s and 1960s when there was a shortage of qualified
instructors. It was believed economically feasible to extend
the capacity of the art faculty with minimal outlay of funds,
while at the same time, subsidizing the graduate program.
With financial conditions in public universities being what
they are today, it is difficult if not impossible to replace
graduate teaching assistants with the faculty lines which
should have been established in the first place. Graduate
students should work as teaching assistants but not as teachers.
The use of graduate assistants has been badly abused at the
expense of both students and educational quality.
Another questionable decision was putting Graphic Design into
a liberal arts program. With the liberal arts context, one
or two Graphic Design instructors suffice for students to
fulfill degree requirements in Graphic Design. There are fewer
courses in the major supplemented by a variety of Fine Art
and Art History courses leading to a BFA in Art. Now when
there is genuine need to upgrade professional programs in
Graphic Design, it is extremely difficult to obtain the additional
faculty lines and resources.
A
third failure is based on the notion that what is good for
Fine Arts is good for Graphic Design. While Fine Art courses
might enrich and expand education in design, Fine Art courses
for Graphic Design majors should be elective rather than required.
Administrators tend to equate Fine Arts and Graphic Design,
failing to recognize that they have very different educational
objectives, requirements and student expectations.
Changes have occurred in both Fine Arts and Graphic Design
since the 1950s. The gap between Fine Art and Graphic Design
has steadily widened to a point where now they should be considered
as two totally separate programs. When it is feasible, design
programs would fare better in a College of Architecture. The
prevailing view among many art administrators is that there
is no reason to change present policies or practices regarding
Graphic Design and Fine Arts. Even Fine Art faculty do not
want to change the present situation requiring Graphic Design
majors to take Fine Art courses. When the majority of students
elect to major in Graphic Design, if it were a separate program,
there would be less enrollment for Fine Art courses. This
could threaten job security for Fine Art teachers. Until there
is greater recognition among university administrators that
Graphic Design is different from Fine Art, there will be little
change in Graphic Design education at many state campuses.
At
most public universities, the arts are not well-funded in
comparison to other colleges. Universities appear to be more
concerned with an image of the arts on campus rather
than with instruction in the arts. This is clearly demonstrated
by the number of performing arts centers and museums constructed
on campuses in recent years. These public facilities require
considerable staff and operating budgets which detract from
instructional budgets for the arts. At the trustee or regent
and presidential decisionmaking levels, image of the arts
and public involvement with cultural activities seemingly
have priority over instruction in the arts.
An unfortunate attitude exists among many administrators regarding
the quality of educational programs. Administrative concern
appears to be that courses or programs are listed in
the catalog, and especially so, if they are offered at other
universities. There is little regard shown for the quality
of courses or programs, only that they are made available.
It is not obvious whether this reflects a lack of educational
integrity among Department Heads, Deans and the Provost, or
merely a classic case of administrators being more involved
with management than with what they are managing. It is extremely
demoralizing to faculty and students who wish to excel.
The
lack of funds to properly staff, house and equip a credible
Graphic Design program puts administrators into a difficult
position even though they might be supportive of change. The
prevailing attitude among administrators at public universities
is that they must do the best they can with whatever funds
are allocated. It is rare for Department Heads, and especially
Deans, to actively and persistently seek additional funds,
space or faculty lines in order to implement change or improve
educational programs.
Some
part of administrative reluctance is the bureaucratic nature
of public institutions. The tedium of required paperwork,
meetings and presentations to petition upper administration
for change is a problem that many administrators do not wish
to address. The pressure required to bring about change is
often interpreted as rocking the boat, and it is carefully
avoided by administrators because of possible retaliatory
or other negative reactions by higher administration. Consequently,
status quo is still the dominant policy in most art departments
at state universities.
In
a similar vein and perhaps to a greater extent on state campuses
than elsewhere, administrators are strangely tolerant of poor
teaching or inept leadership. With the current emphasis on
management rather educational leadership, Deans and Department
Heads are either incapable or unwilling to remove individuals
who cannot or do not perform.
Bureaucracy
in itself is stultifying to educational goals. It reduces
flexibility in educational matters and discourages change.
It is the nature of academic bureaucracy to resist change,
while educational programs must continuously evolve to stay
current with expanding knowledge, new technology, national
interests and shifting social values. Adding courses or changing
degree requirements normally takes three to five years to
move through channels and be approved. In most cases, it takes
even longer. Exceptions are colleges with outside accreditation
such as Architecture, Medicine or Law. Another exception is
programs generating significant grant income for the university.
In both instances, changes might occur within one year. Industrial
and government research at universities has become a significant
factor in disbursement of institutional funds. The pattern
has been to make larger allocations to colleges and departments
that generate the greatest amount of income. Faculty salaries
are higher and there is more generous assignment of space
and technical facilities. This disproportionate allocation
of resources usually is at the expense of the humanities which
include art and design.
|
