In the early days of industrial design, the work was primarily focused upon physical products. Today, however, designers work on organizational structure and social problems, on interaction, service, and experience design. Many problems involve complex social and political issues. As a result, designers have become applied behavioral scientists, but they are woefully undereducated for the task.” Don Norman

The reoccurring discussions held within the US industrial design education community about the opportunities and challenges of preparing industrial design undergraduates for industry practice is age old. Although some programs are still working to confront societal, industry and technological changes, arguments from some voices in industry seem to be anchored in a mindset where the sole purpose of industrial education is to serve industry in specific ways. While this may have been the focus of many industrial design programs in the past and some presently, like industry, more industrial design programs have evolved to respond to dynamic changes and are producing graduates with core industrial design skills while acknowledging diverse interests and desired education profiles. It is in these programs, where unique graduates are educated and not just trained, are more likely to flourish and offer broader value whether in industrial design practice or within different positions across business and social sectors. The latter is not surprising when you consider the small percentage of industrial design graduates that the industry is prepared to employ annually.

In the National Endowment for the Arts’ (NEA) report on “Valuing the Art of Industrial Design Education”, data and projections across 2010 – 2020 forecast that industry would be prepared to employ only about 1/3 of graduates from undergraduate industrial design programs. Though the NEA has for the first time produced a data driven report that describes a view of the landscape of industrial design, it is difficult to determine all the ways one might practice with an industrial design degree or define activities into categories that map back to the success of education programs. The Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) lists 68 ID programs across the United States; 25 are new as of 2006. These programs can offer distinctions based on geography and local industry, which historically has seen to influence curriculums; philosophical stances often contextualized by whether it is situated within an art school or university, or a combination. Of the 68 ID programs, Norman suggests that only a small subset is really addressing the needs of industry. Could it be that Norman and other critics are correct but focusing on a narrow aspect of the value of industrial design education? Whether industrial design education is maturing or withering today may depend on the stakeholder.

This paper seeks to advance the conversations on the future of industrial design education by raising questions and thoughts in three areas: 1) broader influences on industrial design education and its capacity 2) disruptions that are challenging core traditions, and 3) the value of graduate education.