Comments on: Chicago Business School levels the playing field

By: John Gross

John Gross — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Scott,

Doesn’t surprise me a bit. Schools of all sizes and shapes are dummying down their programs to the level of the general population. Disturbing isn’t it? Preach creativity and then dummy down so any creativity is stifled. Sad but oh so true…

By: Kern Kelley

Kern Kelley — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Amen! It seems a typical response from a system that would have no idea what to do with a creative, engaging portfolio in the first place. Traditional education values quantitative measurement over quality every time. ugh

By: Dan Meyer

Dan Meyer — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Yeah I’m depressed too. The University of Chicago has done something rather ingenious here and it’s gone unrewarded so far by the school change movement.

I mean I realize how easy it must’ve been to arrive at these conclusions. A large, lumbering administration strikes down all but the most linear presentation tools and allows only four slides at that?

But it _is_ ingenious. It deserved a long-form post at my blog (http://tinyurl.com/ytnjty) but, in short, this is form meeting content meeting social good all in one decision exemplifying the maxim that “less is more.”

By: Michael McVey

Michael McVey — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

My post was, I believe, clearly aimed at the distortion of a four-slide presentation into a paper print.

Such a rendering of the original product, whether by a “lumbering institution” or a sophomore English teacher, for the purpose of evaluation is not ingenious. It is a waste of time.

By: Dan Meyer

Dan Meyer — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

I’m hard pressed for the appropriate analogy here.

Look, the _best_ four-slide presentation will function _just_ as well printed on paper. That single constraint ensures bullet points won’t breed across slides like rabbits. It ensures that no one will confuse wacky “twirl” transitions with engaging design. That constraint puts Content and Form into separate boxes and says, do well by each of them but don’t confuse them.

We can debate whether or not UC stumbled into this great design assignment accidentally or ingeniously. I still find this dogpile depressing.

These posts crowd around in my reader. Over there they’ve banned iPods. No cell phones over here. My district blocked YouTube. Etc. A lot of this is legitimate commiseration. A lot of this is elitism. I try to leave you guys to your clubhouse but on this occasion you’re kicking around the wrong mark.

By: Scott McLeod

Scott McLeod — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

By the way, we’re having a great conversation about this over at Dan’s blog!

http://blog.mrmeyer.com/?p=299

By: Andy Moore

Andy Moore — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Guys,

I understand your arguments about creativity and butterflies in the wild but I think that leveling a playing field is important to give a chance for admission to those who didn’t have it before.

Nowadays they have invented computers, 3D graphics, videoclips, etc. but go to a museum and look at the paintings of let’s say 16-17 centuries – aren’t they beautiful? They didn’t have any of the contemporary tools but the world still admires them.

Of course, it is more complicated to convey what you want to say on some printed slides but here comes the real creativity.

Any comments are welcome !

Andy Moore
School Teacher
http://www.dalloway-school.com

By: Philippe

Philippe — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

To Andy Moore (the guy above me)
Creativity nowadays comes from sites like http://www.deviantart.com/ but when you make something like that you will need the skills to use programs like photoshop. Its exactly the same as whereas in the 16-17 centurys they first had to learn how to use a bruh and paint. When you know the tools you can, with creativity make art, make art. I dont mind to learn something about those paintings and I do like them but what bothers is that we dont learn anything of the tools of today.