The fact that education on all levels has problems is not news. What we, the CIDA/NCIDQ proponents need to be concerned with is whether the accredited interior design education pathway is perceived as, and results in, a good investment of student’s (vis-a-vis parents and loans) tuition monies.
Per this article some folks are saying that architectural education may exceed the return on an investment in an architecture degree.
Since ID education is closely allied we should all be concerned that we are providing a good return on an ID degree. On that point I am certain that it does- but I am partial. However there are forces that affect the perceived value of such an investment that make me wonder.
Obviously the spiraling cost of higher education is much bigger than us. This is a societal issue that I can only hope we all get our collective brains around and quickly. On a more local level we need to advocate for the value of a degree in interior design because unfortunately nobody else is. Our professional organizations are too busy trying to be everything to everybody and in so doing are tacitly diminishing the importance of an accredited degree path, monitored experience and proof of baseline competency via an examination.
PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER sees the pendulum of the societal comprehension of the value of interior design education swinging toward the “why bother” side of the paradigm. That should concern all of us but we as educators really need to figure this out.
How can we provide a good return on our students investment if society does not value their degree?
P.S. Speaking of design education here is an interesting video from Edutopia regarding using design/architecture to help students learn;