|
You seem to be blurring the distinction between education and software
training - both are valid markets but have distinct differences in what
a student can hope to gain in terms of long term and short term benefits.
Education ( IMHO, in a very condensed nutshell) should be about teaching
the principles and techniques of the subject. It makes perfect sense to
utilise a production proven software application to use as a vehicle as
it makes life easier for students to migrate into the industry - but
note that successful educational establishments have worked on
proprietry software in the past too...
We always adopted the philosophy of a single application in Bournemouth
based on experience in how students work and function. Its far better to
have students that understand the subject to a deeper level than spend
the time teaching students to become software application button
pushers. We used to have Maya, Houdini, XSI,Prman, Mental Ray, etc all
on the same machines - students were hell bent on learning every
application because they assumed that they needed to know every
application - to the detriment of the learning. As soon as we removed
all the software that was not relevant to each course, productivity
increased and the students got more out of their time in education.
Sure in this day and age you often have to switch applications(jeez
don't I know it), but I believe that if you have a strong grasp of the
subject this doesnt mean you have to go back to college for a year. Far
from it. Training can really help convert the knowledge of one
application to another - but I wouldnt expect(or have I seen) it to
teach me how it actually works.
I mean if you think about your language analogy - you wouldnt be
introduced to the concepts of verbs,adverbs,nouns, adjectives,
metaphors,etc in a foreign language class - more how the particular
language applies them in the context of speaking and writing.
Andy
Anthony Rossano wrote:
It's a very odd psychology, but I have seen MANY times when teaching at
a college or university that the teaching staff gradually 'specializes'
in a single software. Obviously it's cheaper for the school, and a lot
easier for the professors, and fewer teachers are needed.
Software is almost the only subject discipline where this happens.
Imagine a college that gradually phased out French, German, Italian,
Chinese, Japanes, etc language classes and only taught Russian.
Or a History department that taught only 18th century French
history.... or an art department that only did watercolors.
It's a dis-service to students 'cause the real world is so diverse.
Teachers out there take note: teach broadly! And you students: take a
little bit of everything! Even XSI!
ATR
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:53:16 -0700, Ben Barker wrote:
XSI was installed at SCAD as well, but for some reason my last semester it
just disappeared from the computers, along with a bunch of other software. I
can't think of any reason why, there were even professors pushing to get it
back. The SCAD people who learned XSI all got jobs. I don't understand their
reasoning. I hope they keep Houdini and Renderman classes and don't turn
into yet another Maya training facility. IMO anything that makes a student's
resumé stand out from a crowd helps them.
On 9/5/06, Steven Caron <carons(at)gmail.com> wrote:
I kinda agree... I am still a student technically, although i am employed
in the industry. My school teaches Maya and had 1 XSI class as an elective.
thats all i needed, but other people need more. i actually talked with a
friend thats still at school and he informed me that class is no longer
available. i tried very very hard to get XSI accepted at that school
while i
was there, but the right people were not biting.
i dont think though that its just this one thing. there needs to be
schools teaching XSI but also recognized projects/work done with XSI as Lu
pointed out and when a project starts and they need to ramp up, their needs
to be that talent pool as Todd pointed out. we both of these in my opinion,
and as someone else pointed out its a catch22.
later
steven
guy who just repeats what everyone just said :)
On 9/5/06, takita <takita(at)earthlink.net > wrote:
Joe Laffey wrote:
Saturating the educational market is key, if you ask me. And not just
Foundation. Get them using Advanced. Giving software away (or very
cheap) to people who would never buy it anyway (like schools who might
look at Maya/max, etc.) doesn't cost anything (charge for support if
they want it), but it helps expand XSI a lot.
I'd agree with you 100% here. I think that getting XSI more deeply
embedded in the curriculm is key to increasing the userbase. Most
schools simply don't offer it as an option and until it is I think we'll
continue to have these problems with a critical mass in the workforce.
You can say "well, just train them", but there's also a ratio of
experienced people to newbies that needs to be maintained, and
oftentimes on-the-job training is simply not an option when a large
projects hits and it needs to be staffed and started immediately.
But I think a lot of it depends on what happens in the education field,
if you sow the seeds for that now then you will see the fruits of it
down the road.
-T
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
body:
unsubscribe xsi
--
Ben Barker
Hair/Fur
Omation
** Anthony Rossano **
* CEO and TD, Mesmer *
* http://www.mesmer.com *
* anthor(at)mesmer.com *
* 206.369.5205 *
***************************
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
--
+===================+
Andy Hayes
VFX TD - Animal Logic
Tel: +61 2 9383 4128
+===================+
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
