Almost every design school I’m aware of requires applicants to submit a portfolio of creative work.
Most prospective students interpret this as a call for fine art.
When the tradition of portfolios began, this type of work was probably a useful indicator of a student’s prospects for success. After all, until relatively recently, design was somewhat synonymous with decoration, and everything had to be drafted or modelled by hand. What could be a more important prerequisite than knowing how to draw with a high degree of technical skill?
As any present-day designer knows, things have changed significantly, especially in the last 30 years. Being a designer now means knowing how to ask intelligent questions, grapple with ambiguity, understand human behaviour, and ultimately find solutions to complex problems in messy systems.
And while once we drew by hand, we now use computers for virtually everything.
As for the artistic component? Aesthetics and composition will always be important, but they aren’t the core of what designers do anymore.
Unfortunately, the tradition of the fine art portfolio persists. In fact, beyond having acceptable grades, it’s often the deciding factor in the eyes of admissions committees.
I think it’s a travesty! It’s a selection process optimized for entirely the wrong thing. What design schools need are not compliant artistic pattern replicators but critical thinkers and people with passion.
What might it look like if we recalibrated portfolio requirements and assessment standards to seek people with these skills instead?
If it were up to me, the portfolio requirements would look something like this:
Submit four examples of your work that show:
- A time when asking a smart question led you to an unexpected solution
- A time when you persisted through the process of iteration
- A time when you designed something responsive to people’s needs
- A time when you designed something that engaged with the complexity of our world.
All work should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of your thought process. Visual evidence is welcome but not required. Technical skill will not be taken into consideration.
I think this could change the game, especially if these requirements were made public knowledge well in advance of the application deadline (like a year in advance).
More importantly, I believe that pivoting towards this kind of requirement set would send a clear message about what the world of design truly entails, and what it does not. Many students pick design because they want to be artists but also desire job security. The traditional portfolio model seems to validate this logic, and it’s misleading. Similarly, I suspect there are numerous individuals who would be very interested in a career in design but feel they lack the artistic prowess. This proposal could address that issue as well.
The outcome of this new format? My suspicion is that we’d see more applicants show up with relevant attitudes and skills, and that those applicants would have a firmer grasp on what they’re signing up to participate in. Seems to me this would be a recipe for producing stronger and more engaged professionals down the road. This would be good news for design schools, because that’s essentially what they exist to do.
Designable.blog 