I'm excited now that Sheridan College have an industrial design (arts & crafts) program -- I'm looking forward to what kind of amazing students they'll produce. Mainly because it's such a strong school full of facilities, industry leaders, and history of great alumnus. I have a friend that went to Sheridan, who seem to have confidence in their school, which is surprising to hear, actually. As far as I know, the many creative-types I talk to can't seem to stop bad-mouthing their school and education.
That said, I want to see new, strange, and down-right controversial approaches to education. If design praises the innovative, why are design education not the same? Why do design school have to follow the same curriculum as every other school?
Why don't we see, say, multi-year collaborations? Having 4th year students take a leader/employer role and have lower-year students design something. This way, there is a stronger inter-school bond, something I feel Carleton lacks, as well as build upon the unofficial mentorship program between upper-years and lower-years. Also, I think group designing with asymmetric power is a little lacking in the school environment. This could be a school equivalent of working in a design firm where junior designers need to report to senior designers. I feel like this is great transferrable skill that can be applied to various walks of life. On top of that, this could be a great way for the 4th years to discuss design opportunities for those in the lower years — those of whom may decide to pursue a specialized field within design, such as shoes, cars, furniture, etc. This will solve the issue of schools not having knowledge in specific areas by having students be the source of said knowledge. Finally, a mix of different years will bring on new ways of thinking and non-academic advantages (such as alleviating job search post-graduation).
Man, I wish there was something like that when I was in school.
Design. Creativity. Stuff.