Home Forums Education, Training and Jobs Reaction to the Education Acticle II Reply To: Reaction to the Education Acticle II

#35464
Anonymous
Inactive

there are several UK games-specific trade associations, including the IGDA (although it has a relatively small presence in the UK)
(…)
Skillset are accrediting the games/film/multimedia courses in the UK. Of the 40+ courses that opted in to the accreditation process, only 4 were accredited: 2 in Abertay, 1 in Paisley and 1 in Glamorgan. No certificate/diploma courses were considered for included in the vetting process.[/quote:107dc9fd39]

But that is just my point, T. – I know that there are several VG associations/initiatives (I used to frequent GR shindigs assiduouslybefore hopping islands), and I believe these are mostly regional in character.

Why isn’t there a ‘unifying’ National Association? e.g. for the purpose of federating what the industry (at least at national level) as a whole considers essential skills (in each discipline) and minimum level thereof to ‘hit the ground running’, as you put it…

To put that in the context of your earlier post – a body for mandating to the Education System that teamworking is a sine qua none skill, that it needs to be assessed during a course (and there the industry can educate the Education System about meaningful ways and means of assessing), and that the expected standard at graduation is ‘x’.

I’m aware of ‘Skillset’. But in that instance, I see the industry having (once again?) shirked/delegated its communication responsibility (and abandoned its chance for direct interfacing with the education system) to yet another government body, with all the efficiency they are renowned for. So instead of hearding cats itself, the industry is now asking civil servants to heard them instead… :wink:

My perception of ‘typical’ industry recruitees (is there such a thing, LOL!) is that they should already have acquired readily-transferrable, industry-independent skills by the time they even consider an industry-specific course. Think of it as, say, doctors, who train for X years to be a doctor (acquiring base knowledge applicable to any medical discipline), then for Y years to be an ORL, surgeon, GP, pediatrician, etc. In that context, any argument that games-oriented courses should not be games-only, but impart yet more ‘readily-transferrable, industry-independent skills’ is IMHO flawed and a disservice to the industry which motivated the courses in the 1st place.

So, when students are considering a games-only course, to my mind it should be up to the industry to:
‘garantee’ that this course will equip them with what is required/expected of them, through appropriate mandating/standard-setting of the Educators and course-accrediting;
‘garantee’ that this course will not equip them with what is required/expected of them by not accrediting the course;
‘garantee’ that students won’t be allowed to entertain false hopes when they don’t meet a base standard for starting such a course in the 1st place;
etc.