RSS
Email
Twitter
Facebook
Tumblr “We are in class to learn skills, not to experiment and play. We are not paying to sit around and teach ourselves.”
“We don’t understand where our money is going.”
“We are outraged.”
Last fall, a small group of Parsons fashion BFA students created a secret group on Facebook to air their grievances about our new administration’s controversial new curriculum. “Constructive complaining,” they called it. A way for students to work together to effect change. The group has now grown to 177 members, but unfortunately, little has changed.
According to a recent article in The New School Free Press, “Parsons administrators contend that those complaining are in a minority.” Besides, they say, the changes to the curriculum are necessary. Our dean, Simon Collins, was quoted as saying, “Every year it should change… we’re about designing better solutions.”
Here’s an example of the “solutions” he’s talking about:
“Under the old curriculum,” as noted in the Free Press, “students learned how to construct clothing — via sewing, pattern making and draping — in some classes, while learning how to design in other classes. Taken together, the courses were intended to give students the necessary skills to construct their own designs.”
Under the new curriculum, students who haven’t already taught themselves to sew must take workshops for no credit and on their own time, or “get help from private tutors at their cost, or learn on their own with the guidance of YouTube videos.” Sophomore Andree Ciccarelli told the Free Press, “We have had to teach ourselves much of the subject matter.” Sophomore Andrew Shields succinctly noted, “It is ridiculous.”
He’s right. It is ridiculous. According to Forbes, Parsons is the third most expensive school in the nation. And the only thing more ridiculous than a bunch of middle-aged instructors like myself teaching today’s 19-year-olds about the importance of play is the administration’s belief that parents will continue to pay good money for this dubious service. Especially in this job market.
Whether it’s Tom Ford at Gucci or Marc Jacobs at Louis Vuitton, Parsons’ fashion alumni have long defined not just American fashion, but fashion throughout the world. Donna Karan, Anna Sui, Jack and Lazaro of Proenza Schouler, Alexander Wang, Jason Wu — the list goes on and on. The single most prevalent factor among winners of the CFDA Best New Designer of the Year award is the fact that they studied at Parsons. More than a third of the winners have passed through our halls. FIT is a very distant second, with less than one-tenth. As sophomore Juliana Gibbons asked, “If you have one of the top programs in the country, why on earth would you change it?”
“Parsons is supposedly one of the top three (schools) in the world for fashion design… and we didn’t get that way from using YouTube.”
Many students and faculty agree that the new curriculum is similar to the British pedagogical model exemplified by Central Saint Martin’s in London. Yet Simon Collins, our dean (of Bournemouth and Poole College of Art and Design), will tell you that the new curriculum was definitely not influenced by this British approach. True, Yvonne Watson, our director of academic affairs (Nottingham Trent University), and Kyle Farmer, our former associate director of the BFA program (Royal College of Art), were both instrumental in designing the sophomore and junior curricula. Nevertheless, Tim Marshall, our provost, concurs: the new curriculum is absolutely not imitative of Central St. Martin’s, his previous employer.
Why do they deny what seems to be the very obvious influence of this British model? An article from The Guardian in 2008 provides an answer: Some years ago British fashion students realized that their schools were not teaching them the basic skills they need to work in the fashion industry. This is dismaying for those students who leave British fashion schools “saddled with thousands of dollars in debt and no valuable skills.” It also has repercussions for the U.K.’s fashion industry. Linda Florance, chief executive of Skillfast, the sector skills council for fashion and textiles, told The Guardian, the industry “requires highly skilled people with a broad range of practical talents, but the education and training system just isn’t delivering enough of them, and employers are increasingly concerned.”
This is not to disparage the U.K. Many industries in the U.S. share the same concerns. A recent series of articles in The New York Times noted that, by the time they graduate, U.S. law students have spent “three years and as much as $150,000 for a legal degree. What they did not get, for all that time and money, was much practical training.” As Jeffrey W. Carr, the general counsel of FMC Technologies, told The Times, “The fundamental issue is that law schools are producing people who are not capable of being counselors.”
A 2006 survey of business leaders found that “among those new hires with a recent college degree, employers say only 24 percent have an ‘excellent’ grasp of basic knowledge and applied skills,” according to Corporate Voices, a leading national business membership organization. “Ninety-seven percent of the business leaders surveyed agree that workforce readiness is a critical business imperative. They are deeply concerned about their future workforce and the cost of providing training to a generation of ill-prepared workers.”
“I strongly feel that a general understanding of construction of garments will become my benefit whether or not its Parsons’ priority. I am very determined and willing to pay for private lessons.”
The question arises: If these “YouTube solutions” do not benefit our students, and do not benefit our industry, then whom do they benefit?
The New York Times recently asked, “Have colleges, in their efforts to keep graduation rates high and students happy, dumbed down their curriculums? If they have, who is to blame?” Leon Botstein, president of Bard College, notes that colleges are currently ranked “not by criteria of academic rigor but by graduation rates, encouraging institutions to hold on to students at all cost lest there be the specter of attrition.” George Leef, of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, also blames the need to keep students enrolled. “(M)any schools have acquiesced in or even encouraged the faculty to lower academic standards… Intellectually vapid courses and programs that will attract customers have proliferated.”
Proliferated, indeed. Parsons fashion program has grown exponentially since I started teaching here 11 years ago. While this expansion and our new focus on student retention may be good for The New School’s bottom line, it isn’t doing anyone else any favors. Students who can’t handle our new playtime curriculum are unlikely to ever build a career in an industry that stubbornly insists on technical proficiency. The New School is profiting from the gullibility of these students and their parents. As in the British system, they will leave “saddled with thousands of dollars in debt and no valuable skills.”
Carla Westcott is a Parsons colleague who has owned an eveningwear and ready-to-wear business for 15 years. “I am a business person,” she says. “I have no use for employees who do not possess a complete knowledge of draping and pattern making skills. My design assistant is a Parsons BFA graduate who possesses these skills. If she did not, I would not have hired her.”
Most Parsons fashion part-time professors (i.e., most of the faculty) currently work in the industry. We share Carla’s perspective and her concerns. Last fall, we came together and voted “no confidence” in our administration and their direction for our program, 42 – 8, with one abstention. “Our curriculum has been stripped down to ‘play, explore and experiment,’ without the basic skills students will need to get a job in a very competitive American and global marketplace and volatile economic environment,” we said. But again, unfortunately, little has changed.
It’s one thing for the administration to dismiss the concerns of 5 out of 6 faculty members. We are, after all, employees. But the concerns of the students are another matter. If they’re not happy, Parsons is out of business. For the students, this is it. This is their education. They only get to have this experience once, and it’s a shame — it is truly shameful — that so many of them find it so disappointing.
“Students feel that we are not being heard. We feel like giving up, and that no matter what we do or say, things will not change.”
Many of today’s fashion students grew to know and love and aspire to attend Parsons because of “Project Runway” and its charming mentor, our former chair of fashion design, Tim Gunn. Tim trained as a sculptor, and one might imagine that if anyone would be inclined to extol play over practice, it would be a fine artist. But Tim has always shown an abiding respect for the rigors of design and the challenges of building a career, even in an industry as seemingly frivolous as fashion.
There’s a reason he famously exhorts his designers not to play, but to “make it work.” It’s a lesson that seems to have been lost on his successors.
Michael Johnson is an illustrator, a graphic artist, and part-time faculty in Parsons’ Fashion Design BFA program.
Honestly though, it’s rather sad that these kids who want to major in Fashion Design come in to the school and don’t know the first thing about sewing. I wouldn’t expect mastery or even mediocrity, just enough skills that teachers don’t have to spend an entire semester or year teaching students the basics of sewing. We do this for every other major in the country, why is fashion different? You would never find an illustration student who didn’t have the basic of drawing and painting or an engineering student who expected to be taught algebra in his/her first year. It’s just ludicrous to think that you don’t have to have any sewing skills to major in fashion design, because you cannot possibly innovate or design clothing without this prior knowledge.
But thats why we go to school, to learn these skills, some people might not have the skills because of certain limitaTions. Why pay 45,000 a year to play? Teach us skills. Yes, we can sew a straight seam, but teach us other technical skills. I totally support michals article. I think more of the juniors should have been interviewed since we got to see both sides of the curricula.
Michael,
I would like to speak with you. Your article was wonderful and captured all the problems that we are facing. I am an Associate Professor at Parsons and this is my 40th year teaching: patternmaking, draping, sewing, and drawing in the Fashion Design BFA program. I have taught through every administration (5) overlapped with 33 years as a designer on 7th Avenue and running my own company. Jack and Lazaro of Proenza Schouler were my stidents that I helped with senior collection. Tim Gunn appointed me junior studio coordinator during his tenure at the school. Please email me with your phone number. Thank you. SR
sylvia rosen, i was your student!
i am so happy to have you as my teacher because technically i am so sound, i could do the entire process of making a garment, even to this day!!! thank you!!! i will always appreciate and remember you!! ying su
My son work so hard to get into parson and I work so hard to send him there hope his dream is not broken.
While all of this is true, the article doesn’t chronicle enough information about the Junior class who had the old curricula and are now struggling to deal with the new one. With this included, we are suffering the most and the article is published way too late in the school year after the curricula was put in effect. All of this fuss is useless, nothing will change.
Thanks for your excellent article, Michael. To answer Jonathan above, one can be an extraordinary talent and still lack some of the basic skills needed to succeed in the long term. Basic skills are something even we professionals return to again and again in our working lives. They must be reinforced constantly.
I am a playwright/screenwriter/television writer and we are facing the same pressures to change the curriculum at the New School for Drama. We’ve had extraordinary playwrights in our program–nominated for Pulitzers, critically acclaimed by the NY Times, etc. All have benefitted immensely from their basics classes despite their prodigious natural talent. None of them knew how to take their talent forward beyond the point at which they’d begun the program without making conscious to them the basic craft skills needed to rewrite, or plan a new project.
The actress Angela Bassett helped me understand what graduate school could do for an artist years ago when she was performing in my first theatrical play at the O’Neill National Playwrights Conference. When someone asked her what she got out of Yale Drama School, she answered: Before Yale, I could act based on feeling–IF the feeling came to me. What I didn’t know how to do was act a role over and over again, night after night, whether I felt it or not. Yale gave me the practical skills and craft to practice my art as a professional.
I would like to add one additional thought to what I said above.
I do not know any faculty in the New School for Drama who are against some change to curriculum. Who doesn’t want to be globally aware and socially committed?–the avowed aims of the new New School philosophy. However, what is wanted is carefully considered, incremental change that fully involves the part-time faculty at all levels. We are the ones on the front lines who must implement all changes and face student disappointment when things go awry. A real university welcomes an open, transparent democratic process from its faculty and students.
i am a parsons alumni and my dean at the time was frank rizzo. we were taught so much of the fundamental skills, i was upon graduation, start my own dress business and sold it to macy’s benel’s barney’s and charivari at the time. i did all my draping, patternmaking, sewing, marketing, merchandising, etc.etc to the point i hand delivered by production on the subways in garment bags. this is the real deal. and i was lucky to have attended parsons the the time when these basic technical skills are a must and diligently taught by extremely competent teachers.
now that i am adjunct at FIT ( after 3 years at Parsons teaching adjunct), i am noticing the FIT is still teaching those skills.
perhaps there is something to be said there…plus saving the students a heck of alot of money in tuition!!
It is very sad to hear that what used to be one of the best fashion programs in the world has lost its sense of direction, allowing a student play with fabric and creating “conceptual” projects that at the end are just a mere waste of their very precious and expensive time spent at the school.
Fashion design is all about precission and balance, and those can only be mastered if the student learns to love and respect the fundamental skills required to be succesful in their chosen craft.
Leonardo De Armas
BFA fashion design ´86
From my point of view, a recent graduate of parsons and a student in the MFA, I think this article is from a very narrow perspective. Before coming to parsons I had been sewing almost every day since I was 12. Coming to Parsons was my dream and I thought it was an intimidating one until I actually started the fashion program. I was thoroughly disappointed from the lack of knowledge other students possessed in sewing and lack of inspiring teachers, considering the year before I was sample making and interning for Jeremy Scott and going to Paris fashion week, etc.. Having that incredible opportunity and then having to be in the first 2 years of fashion was confusing and frustrating as I thought that Parsons, being in the top 3 schools in the world for fashion, students should come with some sort of knowledge and urge to create rather than an ambition to shop. After being able to study in Paris for one semester, I realized I had learned more in that one semester than in the prior year and a half with a more loose, independent style of teaching that looked at the individual student instead of churning out manufactured Parsons clones and I decided to sign up for Kyle Farmer’s senior thesis class. This teaching style woke me and my fellow classmates up to a more true, and beautiful style of thinking. The play and experimenting only contributes to a strong structural collection rather than making some “perfect” parsons garment and slapping something on top of it and trying to call it chic enough for Barney’s. As basic skills do matter, the old parsons curriculum made the basic skills such a huge part of the curriculum that it forced the designing to be generic and obvious.
Change is good as the world is constantly changing and as a top school, things should be able to change and improve.
It may be obvious that I am a strong believer and follower of this new style of teaching because i was in Kyle’s class but the results are in and many of us were nominated for designer of the year and just to mention two of his recent graduates are assistant designing, one at Calvin and the other at Narciso.
You go to school to question and experiment, not to pay 40,000 dollars a year to learn basic skills to work a boring job in the industry.
Next time someone publishes a critique about this new style of teaching, it would be a lot more interesting and stronger of an argument if some real research was done and someone actually spoke to one or two students who experienced this new curriculum because after taking Kyle’s class, I feel like I finally got my money’s worth.
Ameilia, I agree with your point to a certain degree, but I also think that no one can teach you how to design. Teachers are to teach you the skills, and you do the thinking with the skills you learned. The problem now is there are so many “designers” out there who can imagine, but design things that are not realistic.
I went to Parsons not knowing how to thread a sewing machine, and within 2 years I was operating the industrial sewing and merrow machine. 3 years after graduation, I am working at a pattern-maker and sample-maker, because luckily I learned that well enough to make this a career. Otherwise I would have been another one of those Parsons graduates still interning or working at a coffee shop/clothing store.
Thank you all for the kind words and/or thoughtful responses. Laura, it’s no surprise that you say it much more succinctly than I can: “(W)hat is wanted is carefully considered, incremental change that fully involves the part-time faculty at all levels. We are the ones on the front lines who must implement all changes and face student disappointment when things go awry.”
Amelia – I’m truly glad and not at all surprised that you had a great experience with Kyle. I like Kyle and imagine he’s a very inspiring teacher. But do you think it’s wise to criticize something as being from a narrow perspective if you’re going to base your critique on your own, singular point of view? And saying that “it would be a lot more interesting and stronger of an argument if some real research was done and someone actually spoke to one or two students who experienced this new curriculum”? I beg your pardon, but that’s exactly what I’ve done. The Op-Ed is filled with quotes from students, a result of real research on my part. I would have thought that was clear.
As to the substance of your critique, I also respectfully disagree: focusing on basic skills does not “force the designing to be generic and obvious.” Ask Alexander McQueen or Isabel Toledo. Ask DeKooning or Picasso. Ask Coltrane or Miles. As Laura says, above, that’s how professionals get – and stay – great. And it’s apparently how *you* got good, too! According to your own account: You were “sewing almost every day since (you were) 12.”
Finally, as for “the results being in,” I’d like to note that I’ve taught at Parsons for 11 years now and have had 10 students go on to not only be nominated but win Designer of the Year. Undoubtedly some are assistant designing along with your classmates from Kyle’s classes, or doing the “boring job(s) in the industry” that you deride. But, without name dropping, many others are not assisting but actually running their own successful labels. One even has a (“generic and obvious”?) dress in the permanent collection of the Smithsonian.
And lest that sound like defensive horn-blowing, please note that none of their success is a reflection upon me. (Just as Kyle’s students’ nominations aren’t about him. As I’m sure he would agree.) It’s a reflection on the students themselves, primarily, and of the Parsons system that gave them the skills they needed to realize their vision.
Sylvia, I don’t have your email, but let’s get in touch through Barbara or Marcia or someone.
Amelia I thank you for trying to give an alternative perspective to this argument.
Michael and all that feel the same way I invite you to knock on my door and talk to me directly. All that I have ever tried to do is give choice, there are 200 students per year in the BFA program alone, WHY? can we not make room for the varied types of student and stop this? It is not helping anyone especially the students. My door is OPEN, lets talk face to face. And get the FACTS not FICTION.
We all want the best for our students, nothing less, this is NOT it.
My very best and my sincere respect to all involved.
And I ask that my name be no longer used in this slanderous way.
Kyle
I am a Parsons Alumni, I had both Michael and Kyle as teachers. I respect them both enough to say that I believe both have the interest of the Parsons students in mind, and while I may sway in favor of one, I believe each has something valid to say.
That being said, I am relatively sad to hear the complaints of the Parsons students. I’ve heard these complaints before the curriculum change; they weren’t the result of a limited coursework but instead what sounded like the incompetence of a few teachers (there are also fantastic teachers at Parsons, as I know firsthand). But the more I think about it, I believe it’s the students. I spent many years earning another degree before coming to Parsons so I suppose I know what college students are usually like: Parsons kids are some of the most immature people I have met in my entire life. Perhaps its a result of the demographic that fashion school draws, or a myriad of other factors, but in my 4 years at Parsons I was genuinely shocked by the behavior of many students (again, with the caveat that I have met some that were very mature). The complaints were nonstop from every year, and those specifically mentioned in the article seem unfounded. Even under the old system I did not directly learn all the basics I needed to enter the industry; instead, I had the drive and enthusiasm for clothing construction to research and seek out what I wanted to learn. No, Parsons is not a trade school, as we are not meant to be learning to be tailors and seamstresses (although if one wanted to one could). Yes, the basics are important to learn, but putting so much emphasis on them turns them into canon, which makes for pretty boring fashion. We are learning to be designers, and to apply the knowledge we are both taught and learn for ourselves to create something new (unless you are learning to become a historical costumer, also valid but not within the majority at Parsons). I believe the new curriculum was trying to establish a guided way for students to arrive at their own way of thinking, to individualize their approach to design and make them both more enthusiastic and more interesting as a designer.
Honestly, I believe Parsons has been going through a period which I will unfortunately call the “Project Runway generation” – not solely to the fault of the schools exposure but more towards this general generational expectation of being a star. I think the students expect to be spoon fed and be able to create without putting forth any effort. And they also have the incorrect conception of what college is: an english major knows how to read, but he/she learns to think critically about the words. The law graduates mentioned in the article learn the theory behind law and how it works, but learn a particular law set when entering their work field. At Parsons, I believe students should be learning the theory behind fashion and cultivating their own approach to design and ability to create new ideas. Any basics you need to do so should be sought, whether or not you have someone to hold your hand.
I would like to first start by saying that this is the slightly funny to me that this is even an issue. Speaking from experience, I can honestly say that the fashion industry is the one of the most competitive industries to even break into and even more difficult to succeed in. Fashion, as a career choice, should only be pursued by those who are extremely passionate about it. This would mean that one should be motivated enough to seek outside training to further develop their skills regardless if the curriculum has these available. I have worked for many brands ranging from high fashion, surf, snowboarding and ski accessories, etc.. and I know that most of them do NOT hire students. This requires recent graduates to get internships, additional experience and start from the ground up. Unless extremely talented or well connected, expect to make little to no money for a few years after college and possibly longer. I have worked with brands just starting out and believe me, the only ones who are not BROKE are those with wealthy investors, which is far and in-between. Kyle is a former Professor of mine and I am familiar with his teaching style. I personally related to his style and honestly couldn’t have asked for a better professor. He pushed me harder then anyone, sometimes with some harsh words, and my work always came out stronger then I even knew I had in me. The industry has seen everything and only rewards the new, innovative, and refreshing talent. This is where Kyle is a mastermind. He forces students today to take their minds to a higher level and push their creative boundaries. Yes this might force students to take responsibly of their craft in order to shine in college but soon enough you realize that fashion is all about the survival of the fittest. If your not up for doing the work, harsh critiques, small paychecks, and struggling constantly for coveted positions, then Fashion isn’t for you anyways. I strongly encourage these hundred some students to really evaluate if Parsons is the best place for them. All I have to say is that anyone can learn to sew.. very few can be a spectacular fashion designer.
Kyle Farmer is an amazing teacher and designer and I assure you its not “all Play” in his class, if you think so, then your not trying hard enough.
This is a classic example of not being able to please everyone. The fact is, there is always something to complain about! In sophomore and junior year, we were complaining about how there wasn’t enough creativity being churned about – we had become stale and boring and painfully formulaic. And now, when the effort to change that has been taken, the backlash happens.
I’ve had a completely different experience from Amelia, despite having been in the same senior class. I had a teacher in junior year who emphasized sewing skill above DESIGN skill. I haven’t touched a sewing machine before I came to Parsons so needless to say, it was difficult. In fact, every day of that one semester was nothing short of hellish because there was an overemphasis on things I thought to be “typically Parsons” like ensuring all measurements on a pattern were accurate to the 1/16″ or adding a knit to a collection for the sake of merchandising. The thought of dropping out had never looked more attractive.
But I persevered and barely passed it. Kyle Farmer’s class was the light at the end of the tunnel, because it was the first time I felt freedom to find myself as a designer. The beginning was difficult to adjust to because the Parsons Way was the only one I knew.
Kyle pushed us as INDIVIDUALS, he taught us to fight to find our thumbprint, the one thing that sets us apart from one another. It reaped extraordinary results: I truly believe our class was the most exciting because of how different all the collections looked, Designer of the Year nominations aside. The fact is that It looked like 18 different designers as opposed to a single class. Isn’t this what design school is for? To be able to find our personal aesthetic and then SELL it when we graduate?
The basic skills are an important foundation, but it is exactly that – a foundation. They are meant to help us follow through our visions as designers but HAVING vision cannot be taught… But this new style of teaching most certainly helps it along. Without knowing the alternative methods of developing a collection, how could one possibly call oneself a designer?
Having said all of this though, I will say that the New Way is not for everyone. Some kids like to have a thesis collection all good, finished, and only concerned about getting it ready to be sewn for presentation.
Others like to tweak or develop things to the last minute. I’m sure it’s abundantly clear which I prefer, but isn’t there room for both at Parsons? As Kyle mentioned, there are about 200 kids in the BFA program alone! And the student body discusses teachers pretty much all the time, but even more so around registration time. They should know what they’re getting into when they make their selections.
The last thing I will say is that I find this article not only unfairly unbalanced, but terribly vilifying. Just because the curriculum has changed does not make it DUMBED DOWN, and just because Parsons has imported English faculty does not mean Parsons is copying the Central St. Martins model. I truly believe that the changes that had been made were made with good intentions, with the mind to maintain (or regain) Parsons as a creative force to be reckoned with on an international scale.
Does no one understand where these kids are coming from?
Unfortunately for us all, Project Runway, may have been the biggest downfall to Parsons. We are living in a generation watching tv and becoming the next “FASHION STAR” (are you kidding me?), no work, glorified fashion, gucci, drinks, no work.
The impression they have is that they are going to be sewing designs mid-battle with peers and show off to everyone they know. Oh, wait thats the mentality at parsons now…..
But thats the impression THEY have coming into the program. No wonder their little dreams are shattered when they are told to watch a video.
But Parsons is NOT CHEAP. Unfortunately like the individual above me, that extuded unconscious money everywhere (yes, you can pay your way into school, good luck), there are people working full-time jobs to go to parsons, there are mothers and fathers struggling so their children can go to such a school, there are people taking out loans, that unfortunately, if you do by some lucky chance stag a spot in the industry– you can be and will be paying off for the rest of your life. Can you imagine the disappointment when your told to watch a youtube video for school work? (PS. THATS FREE!) 45,000 + VS. 0 — anyone with a brain, or some understanding of a value of a dollar would be irritated as well.
But what is more sad to me is that people do not understand how valuable this is to the industry. If you don’t know pattern making you don’t know the clothes your designing. Working in the industry 2 years post school I can honestly say that is the most valuable knowledge school has given me. How do you develop an embroidery/beading layout on patterns when you don’t know what it is???? Good luck sending that to china. MY job as a design assistant is literally a constant discussion of fabrics, finishing, sewing, and fractal numbers that may seem pointless to others, but essential can make or break a garment.
Just save yourself and go to FIT, they are the only ones working in the industry anyways… because they are the only one with time to INTERN and gain experience, and honestly, from the 50000000 marc jacobs’ out there in the industry wanting a job, experience now is the only deciding factor. But thats okay, because the one saying the students are bad for complaining are all in that boat, they don’t know this industry.
Good luck.
I’m weighing in as a parent who has put up tuition for 4 years for a world class education for my daughter. I’m anticipating that her future will require her to have a deep understanding of design as it applies not only to fashion but her place in the world as a globally responsible adult. If she went to a trade school perhaps she wouldn’t have to know that her designs might an impact on the environment, effects on social mores and require labor from work forces who might be underpaid and exploited. Of course she should know how to sew and all the nuances of construction. No one disputes that but her education shouldn’t stop there.
Parsons is the top US fashion school and thus a leader in fashion forward thinking ( haha- project runway reference). I think this is a great debate and I wholly support opening up the curriculum to allow a greater conceptual understanding of design and fashion.
I’d just like to point out the fairly obvious fallacy in the arguments being attempted be all these former & current Senior students who had such an amazing experience being “challenged as individuals”:
Every single one of you learned basics in Sophomore year under the OLD CURRICULUM.
(So much for critical thinking. Perhaps compartmentalized, myopic thought processes are why the experience was so great?)
I think the point Michael is making is not that experimentation or “play” isn’t a worthwhile academic endeavor but that, of necessity, it needs to come AFTER the basics have been taught. And, as with everything else at Parsons, PARSONS needs to teach those basics (not tutors or Youtube or FIT) in order to ensure PARSONS’ standards are minimally met.
Anybody giving even the slightest thought to the long term, would have structured the curricuar changes to be implemented in stages over time so that Sophomores aren’t “experimenting” in the same way Seniors are expected to.
It seems to me that the foolishly rushed new syllabi were more the result of the ambition of a few full-timers (whose contracts have to be renewed YEARLY and therefore have every incentive to try to exact change in a hurry) than of anybody keeping their eye on the long-term health of the school.
Thank you, AC, for saying that so clearly. It’s great to see that Kyle has so many loyal students. I would expect no less. But as you say, *all* of these students are products of the traditional curriculum. With basic skills in place, they were able to shine their senior year. Again, I would expect no less.
But more importantly – how and why has this discussion thread become about Kyle? Nothing I’ve said in the article (or elsewhere) disparaged him in any way. (Although Kyle seems to think he’s been slandered.*) This is not and cannot be about sore feelings (I hope), but about the students, and our debt to them as an institution. If we tell 200 graduates per year that they will all be leaders of the industry one day, then we are not being truthful. It’s a mathematical impossibility.
So, Ann, as a parent who anticipates that her daughter’s future will require her to have a deep understanding of design and its place in the world, did you know that Parsons students are no longer required to study the history of fashion? And it wasn’t replaced by anything that will give your daughter a deeper understanding. On the contrary, it had to go so that your daughter would have more time to do things like making a self-portrait. Your hard-earned dollars at work.
I sincerely hope you won’t regret having spent them instead of following Christina’s advice: “Just save yourself and go to FIT.”
Christina says it very well: “If you don’t know pattern making you don’t know the clothes your designing… My job as a design assistant is literally a constant discussion of fabrics, finishing, sewing, and fractal numbers that may seem pointless to others, but essential can make or break a garment.”
So please forgive me, Kelly, for calling the new curriculum “dumbed down.” It’s an opinion that is shared widely by industry professionals, so it’s hardly unfair, and not at all vilifying.
(*Kyle – “slanderous”?! Really? And haven’t we already talked face to face?)
I’m coming to this whine -fest late because i was too busy working.
Reading all these comments what i can see is:
1) Michael is a whiner who is terrified of evolution and should just go teach at another school since he hates his job so much.
2) Kyle is a scapegoat. One faculty member blamed for restructuring an entire college at a university? He’s good but not THAT good.
3) Students are whiners.
4) Students regret whining after they learn something and realize that growth is hard, education is hard, and the world is harder than both combined.
Lets also acknowledge that the fashion industry is a massive industry filled with business-minded money machines as well as intellectuals, non-money oriented people. Marc Jacobs, Macy’s, and American Apparel are totally fine goals. Comme de Garcon and some obscure brand only 300 people know about are also fine goals. This entire discussion feels like a chit chat about which shade of blue in the pantone catalog is actually blue. There’s more than one shade of blue. There is more than one way to be a designer. Some designers sew, some don’t. Some draw, some don’t. Some went to Parsons, some went to University of Wakiki and studied accounting.
If you like Mike, take his class. If you like Kyle, take his.
Q, that’s a nice top-down corporate attitude you have: you fit in perfectly at the New School, where all changes are dictated down to faculty and students. Something tells me that the Parsons Fashion curriculum change was demanded by people in high stations, and the department had to comply, and/or the department movers and shakers that Johnson mentions are doing it to pad their C.Vs.
I have to put a little of my perspective in on this topic.
I am a graduate of the 2011 class as many of you on this wall but I was not Kyle Farmer’s student. Coming from a background in fine art I had no experience whatsoever sewing, draping of pattern making, I did not dream of coming to Parsons since I was 10 years old and I didn’t even own a sewing machine until my first year at Parsons, yet with the help of an amazing group of teaches that fell into my lap I was voted Designer of the Year for 2011.
Everyone seems to think that because “playing” was not in the curriculum that it is somehow a fault of the school, and that teaching the basics to sewing and pattern making will somehow stint intelectual growth and we will all become the same designers. If anyone thinks that I had time to play around for one minute during my senior year they are mistaken. Class time for me was to MAKE GARMENTS and make them perfect.
This is not to say that I did not do the playing at home. I spent the entire summer preparing for my first day of class. Each day I would research, go swatching, drape at home, play with paints, play with the copy machine, meet with professors like Carla Westcott and Kyle Farmer, sketch in one of my 3 sketchbooks and not one time was I concerned with how I was going to make a garment, I was flushing out my concept. On the first day of class I came in with everything ready to go, the playing was over.
As far as I am concerned it is not the responsibility for a Design school to teach students how to be creative. Parsons did not teach me how to be an artist, it taught me how to sew. The reality is that the creative energy is already in the student the second they walk into Parsons, so teach them how to sew a garment and they will develop a creative process on their own time, not teach the student how to have a creative process and hope they learn how to sew a garment on their own time.
I agree whole heartedly with your response, although I did not even have the privilege of learning the sewing part. I came in to the school with a fine arts background and never made a pattern in my life, and i felt like the professors did not have patience or spend enough time teaching the basics. The technical basics are so key in creating a line and is usually the thing students are not naturally equipped with. Talent, creativity, these are things that are not taught but apart of you. I think this is Parson’s effort to be the St. Martins of the U.S. and not just a school prepping you for tech-pack work.
As an alumni and former New School employee I can say with confidence that that institution has lost all credibility and fundamentals. It’s become more of a corporation than anything else. The acceptance rate is way too high to be considered as prestigious as many believe it to be. For the price students and their families pay they should be able to graduate with confidence in their skills and ability to take on an array of roles within the industry. However the reality is quite the opposite. This curriculum shift is another prime example of this ridiculous facade that the school continues to try to portray instead of focusing on the basics. People also need to realize that no matter how hard Parsons tries to be “experimental” or “avant-garde” it will never be CSM. New York, London and Paris are all very different cities with different markets. There is an absurd notion along Parsons hallways that they’ll become the next Karl Lagerfeld or Alexander McQueen. Sorry to say but that will never happen in the American market. Marc Jacobs is probably the only one who even got close to that echelon of fashion. Not to mention if this is where their academics are headed they’ll be lucky to land a entry-level position at all.
The essential word everybody has neglected to discuss in this argument is balance. I am a student that experienced both the old and the new curriculums. In the old curriculum, there was an obvious lack of balance- students did not sleep, had little or no time to think about their concepts, perfect their sewing skills, and to even develop a creative process. They were taught to be drones, not to mention, much of the faculty was not equipped to teach them necessary skills effectively. Granted, we did learn to execute our work, eventually, cleanly and quickly an important skill-set for the professional design studio. In the new curriculum, from what I understand, is that the emphasis is on creativity but no understructure of technique. In response to David’s remarks, yes, students are inatley creative, but in all honesty, we do pay the school not only to teach us the skills but to challenge us intellectually. I had to challenge myself and I made myself a better designer for it, however, I came to Parsons with the expectation that this conceptualizing of design would be admired and not punished- in the old curriculum, if you did not fit into a teacher’s aesthetic you were punished. In this way the new curriculum is great, and yet, the problem remains that without an understructure of technique it is very hard to innovate. My godfather, the great ballet dancer, Rudolf Nureyev, always said to be a great artist you must know and master the peramters of box ( i.e. technique) in order to break out of them. The school needs to find a midpoint between the two curriculums. I studied at Parsons Paris for a semester. I learned so much in that semester- the Parsons Paris students spent their sophomore year taking one class for draping (6 hours), one class for patternmaking (6 hours), one class for couture techniques (4 hours), one class for textile design and science ( 3 hours), one class for concepts ( 6 hours, and in every class were required to construct a garment they had designed in concepts), and one class for knitwear. By the end of that year those students could literally make anything they dreamt up. In the last two years of their curriculum, they spent their time breaking all the rules, experimenting, creating unbelievable creations with the guidance of teachers who had worked for the likes of Galliano, Givenchy, and Gareth Pugh. They worked hard and produced an impressive body of work while still having time to have life and to creatively refresh and investigate. I think Parsons NY could learn a thing or two from the way Parsons Paris teaches. Spend 1.5 years solidifying basics and being very technical and rigid, and then spend two years perfecting craft and pushing aesthetic boundaries. The spirit at the school and the faculty was also more harmonious than Parsons NY- simply because students were producing quality work they could be proud of and teachers were turning out graduates that are not only impressive in skill set but also creative capacity. Of my friends who graduated from that curriculum, one is interning at Hermes, one has just been hired at Dior Hommes, another at Balmain, and another just spent two years at Damir Doma. I myself, a product of both schools, am proud of my portfolio. The faculty and administration need to stop putting their egos and students tuition checks first and start thinking about the school’s environment socially, creatively, and the students learning process and gains first. The question comes down to this: do we want our graduates to be conceptual in the cloud designers or marketable skilled underlings. The answer is neither, what we want them to be creative and intellectual individuals who work to progress fashion forward while utilizing a strong knowledge of research and construction to make this happen. Balance is the key to creating designers like this and this is what Parsons needs.
I am a Sophomore student at Parsons.
This new curriculum will shape and feed us into the fashion world and be smart thinkers and designers. We are the new generation of thinkers, and scary as it seems we are the future. I am in Parsons to be a designer, explore pattern construction and create new solutions, alternatives, and live up to the Parsons name.
Not listen to the faculty being rude to one another, THAT is un-professional and has a trickle down effect on its pupils and their behavior towards faculty and each other!
We ARE also taught to sew. The students who aren’t are taught by the teachers who are against the curriculum change and selfishly refuse to teach to sew as if to “prove a point”. Yesterday I made a pair of trousers in class….
I do not want to be creating garments that have been seen or done before, which is why self-experimental work is so important. We are humans and naturally we can problem solve. Naturally we will teach ourselves to sew if we want to, but we won’t get the opportunity to be innovative in an environment where the creativity is high and energy is amplified through the room. That environment is where ideas evolve and where we learn to grow and respect each other.
It’s a healthy learning process that is vital! Being creative in a classroom is far more memorable and influential.
It is also more of a community to be learning from my peers as well as my teachers.
Seniors have seen our work (being a Sophomore) and have been amazed at how much we have done already, so I am confused to why this is a bad thing.
I’m convinced that it’s a “grass is always greener” situation and a refusal to accept change.
Design is about change. Parsons isn’t changing for “change’s sake” Parsons is changing to evolve and grow, and is being forward thinking in order to keep the pace in this fierce and fast industry. Teachers teaching design SHOULD know that and co-operate and also stop writing articles against their fellow faculty, taking sections out of context. Also next time you should interview a lot of students who (like myself) LOVE this curriculum and see no problem in it, just people complaining all the damn time.
I am proud to be apart of THIS change as well as this school, I just wish the faculty would work together and be professional in order to enhance the well-being of their pupils which should ultimately be their priority.
just to ad AA, that was wonderful!
Precisely what I think!
A mid-point is needed. Anything for a healthy learning environment where the teachers and students want to encourage one another!
Ah, I can see by q’s comments that we’re at that point in every comments thread where the anonymous name-callers join in. Welcome, “q”.
If I’m a whiner, then so are Linda Florance, chief executive of the (UK) sector skills council for fashion and textiles, Leon Botstein, president of Bard College, George Leef of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, scores of UK industry professionals, former UK design students, current faculty and students in Parsons’ fashion, drama, foundation and Mannes schools, etc., etc. I’m proud to be in their company.
And if I’m “terrified of evolution,” well, so are they. We all understand the need for change. But we shouldn’t change for the sake of it, but to make things better. And my contention is that Parsons’ YouTube solutions are not better. If that weren’t obvious to all, then we just have to look to the reaction that the British pedagogical model has received.
And “q”, your comment that “Michael… should just go teach at another school since he hates his job so much” comes laughably close to the old, Vietnam War era slogan “America: Love it or leave it.” I happen to love my job and my students and am immensely proud to be a small part of the history of Parsons and the New School. That’s why I bothered to write this Op-Ed, knowing full well that I’d have to spend time responding to anonymous name-callers.
And why do you think Kyle’s been scapegoated? Who blamed him for “restructuring an entire college at a university?” What article did you read? Kyle’s only mentioned in passing in my Op-Ed.
David & Fay -
Thank you. Well said, both of you. I wrote the same thing to our Dean last October:
“(T)his is a self-selected group of young people we’re talking about. Those sufficiently talented and motivated enough to gain admittance to Parsons School of Fashion are by definition a creative lot. They are not yet, for the most part, a technically proficient lot. Given the… limits on what we can accomplish in class, I suggest that we need to ‘triage’ a bit.”
The idea that I (or Simon or Kyle or Carla or anyone) could teach David or Fay how to be more creative is truly comical. What we can do is give them the skills that we know they will need to have a long and successful career in the industry.
And I V A N -
Thank you, too. Also well said:
“The acceptance rate is way too high to be considered as prestigious as many believe it to be. For the price students and their families pay they should be able to graduate with confidence in their skills and ability to take on an array of roles within the industry. However the reality is quite the opposite.”
And AA -
Thank you. Also well said. I agree completely.”
“My godfather, the great ballet dancer, Rudolf Nureyev, always said to be a great artist you must know and master the parameters of box ( i.e. technique) in order to break out of them.”
The problem that so many students and faculty have with this new curriculum is that it has the cart before the horse. It skips right past technique while telling the students that they (all 200 of them per year) can be as great as Nureyev. Of course this is not – cannot – be true.
Lucy -
With all due respect, I have two questions for you:
When you write, “…listen(ing) to the faculty being rude to one another, THAT is un-professional.” I trust you’re not referring to me, are you? Have I been rude to any of my colleagues? In what way?
And: Teachers “… SHOULD… stop writing articles against their fellow faculty.” First, I was asked to write an Op-Ed about the new curriculum and was happy to do so. Do you perceive it to be “against” someone to express your disagreement with them? If so, under what circumstances are we allowed to criticize the institution that we’re a part of?
Well Michael. What about us students who want to be more creatively challenged and at the same time learning technically. I feel very upset that everyone is ready to “bash” and hate on this curriculum when lots of us love the way things are.
I have learnt both technically and creatively and do not understand why a compromise between faculty members cannot be discovered instead of arguing and behaving in this absurd way.
I think bringing this issue to light is long overdue. I was a student at Parsons for 3 years (2007-2010) before I had to leave for financial reasons and a general disappointment in the school. I entered as a freshman, completed foundation year and started in the Fashion Design program. I had Carla Westcott as a teacher and thought she was wonderful and one of the most tough but inspiring professors I have ever encountered. I was in that program for a semester before deciding that my true passion lies elsewhere, namely in fashion journalism. Naively assuming that the IDC (Integrated Design Curriculum) would be a better fit for me, I transferred. This was the biggest mistake of my college life (and that is saying something). I regret it to this day. Every class seems to either be without structure or completely irrelevant to the student’s needs. I was paying almost full tuition to teach myself how to knit and crochet, an embarrassment to my family and peers. When not in a class where all learning is self-learning, students were forced to take classes that beat the “green” issue to death. As a side note, I personally find this to be such a fad-driven issue that devoting such extensive amounts of time and energy into forcing it on all students is laughable. Genuine academic classes were almost impossible to get in to and my guidance councilor actually tried to talk me out of taking them in order to make life “easier”. I understand that the IDC program is meant for more creative students, but having the word “design” in the title certainly would lead anyone to assume that the program would, at least, follow some of the rigors of conventional schooling. I left Parsons feeling as though I gained no practical skills, and I now fear that I will have to essentially “re-do” college in order to gain a sufficient job. I fear that this is where all programs at Parsons are headed. It saddens me that, as others have mentioned, the school has fallen into the “Project Runway Generation” and incoming students now feel entitled with false notions of how much work it takes to design. It seems as though the only people complaining about the terrible curriculum are those who are passionate and want the most out of school, while the rest want to have an easy ride to their misinformed fashion stardom ideals, courtesy of PR. I feel nothing but shame for the time I wasted at that school, not including the very minimally occurring glimpses at true learning that I had, and I hope that this is just a temporary drop off for what could be and has in the past been a great institution.
Lucy,
Rock on! You are 100% right that this article and comment section is embarrassing for the faculty involved.
As a sophomore in college, you are proving yourself wiser than your professors when you say “do not understand why a compromise between faculty members cannot be discovered instead of arguing and behaving in this absurd way.”
“In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake. That is why academic politics are so bitter.”
Hi Lucy -
Again, I honestly don’t understand your language. Writing an Op-Ed is ” ‘bash’ and hate”? Is “absurd”?
As for a compromise: I, too, hope and expect that there will one day be a compromise. But that is an ongoing process. And articulating ones thoughts in a public manner is a part of that process. Just as your expressing your disapproval of my Op-Ed is a part of the process. Surely you don’t think *you’re* bashing and hating, do you? That you’re being absurd?
Further, you suggest that this compromise – this entire disagreement over the curriculum – is “between faculty members.” To be clear, this is between a very clear majority of the faculty (and, I believe, of the students) and an administration that has so far refused to compromise with us on any issue of substance. After near univocal opposition in meetings last semester, our students are still stuck with the same old “play-time” curriculum that has failed the UK’s fashion students and industry.
To be clear, Lucy, the faculty who are opposed to our administration’s YouTube solutions *also* want you “to be more creatively challenged and at the same time learning technically.” That is our goal, too. But we contend that this new curriculum is not *more* creatively challenging than the old one, but less so. And I bet that if you had been a part of the program as long as we have, there’s a good chance you might agree. It’s hard to argue with the success of the system put in place by Tim Gunn a dozen years ago.
Did you find making your self-portrait and posting it to your blog *more* creatively challenging than, say, practicing flat sketches, sewing and draping until you were able to (finally, after hours of practice and trial and error) make something beautiful enough that someone would someday want to buy it and wear it with pride?
John Coltrane didn’t become one of the most important musicians of the 20th Century by assuming that it was his rightful place and therefore he didn’t have to waste his time practicing and practicing his skills. He didn’t go to class to make self-portraits or blog. (Or whatever we did before we blogged.) He “woodshedded.” Practiced long and hard. And his creativity came out of that practice. Not out of some tangential endeavor.
And the same is true of every important musician, artist, writer or designer that you can name.
Hello again “q” -
I must say, I can’t imagine why you would think “this article and comment section is embarrassing for the faculty involved.” I am in fact pleased that this conversation is taking place. What exactly is there to be embarrassed about?
I also don’t understand why you feel that “the value of the issues at stake” are unimportant. Believe me, the issues at stake will affect the careers of the students far more than they will the careers of the faculty.
Jordan -
I’m so glad that you shared your perspective. And I’m very sorry to hear about your experience at Parsons. Hopefully the shame you say you feel for the time you wasted here is targeted at us and not yourself. My fear is that this new curriculum will lead to more students and graduates who will share your regret.
Are you working in fashion journalism now? I ask because you’re a wonderful writer, and I’m sure you’ll do well.
Also – if you haven’t already done so, you should reach out to Carla. I’m sure she’d love to hear from you, and she’s a good person to have in your corner in what can sometimes be a “vicious” (Carla’s words) industry.
Michael –
The shame I feel is definitely towards the faculty and administrators (not all) who have been turning a blind eye to the problem. I think there were some highlights to my time at Parsons as well, but they were mostly due to exceptional teachers who made sure that learning and preparedness for the industry were priority.
Thank you for your compliment. Since I have yet to graduate college, I am not working in the journalism field. I am working in retail to fill the gap between schools, but I am hoping to attend Columbia College Chicago (where I currently reside) for the final year of my education, study in journalism, and possibly continue to graduate education.
I will be emailing Carla to see how she is doing and ask her for her thoughts on the future of the institution. She may not remember who I am, but I hope she will be open to a friendly email.
Hi Jordan – Carla will be glad to hear from you. Best of luck to you!
All the technical skills I learned from my Parsons instructors were better explained and illustrated in a $30 book. In fact, after 2 years of “learning” the basics I still didn’t have the necessary skills to create any of the designs for my senior thesis. It was only through the play and experimentation that is so highly criticized in this article that I learned how to create anything worth calling “fashion.” Teaching 30 students how to drape the same basic trouser 3 different ways is not what I would call preparing your students for the industry. Luckily for me, working as a designer I have yet to draft a pattern or set up a sewing machine, but I’ve often had to experiment on the form in search of new ideas. This is not to say that everyone that goes to Parsons is going to face similar circumstances, but shouldn’t the program’s title say it all? Fashion design should be focused on the process of design, and good design transcends pencil and paper.
From Simon to students, faculty and staff of the School of Fashion:
“…Beyond the media coverage and keen interest from industry I can also share that the number of students who choose to leave the School of Fashion before completing has never been lower. Furthermore the number of freshmen who’ve declared Fashion as their major choice has never been higher. In short what you are all doing has made us more successful than ever.
“Of course there are always challenges and on that subject I’d like to say what an incredible job our faculty and staff are doing. In particular I would like to mention Yvonne Watson, Fiona Dieffenbacher and Kyle Farmer as they have been especially important in the most recent success of our BFA program. While there have been various comments about the necessary evolution of our program, Yvonne, Fiona and Kyle have remained dedicated to the inclusive process of constantly improving our curriculum and many other aspects of life at Parsons. They have worked with many other full time and part time faculty colleagues to ensure our curriculum continues to provide the essential skills it has always delivered and to ensure it evolves to remain at the forefront of 21st century fashion education.
“I speak for Provost Tim Marshall and Dean Joel Towers when I say that the New School, Parsons and the School of Fashion are 100% behind Yvonne, Fiona, Kyle and our other colleagues who are committed to maintaining the excellence of what we do here at Parsons, and to continuing the climate of respect and professionalism that has always characterized our students and faculty.
…
My very best wishes,
Simon”
Simon, who the hell do you think you’re kidding? Your propaganda is now reaching Stalinistic proportions. Enough is enough.
First, show us the actual numbers for the period from 2001 – 2011 to support your assertions that “the number of students who choose to leave the School of Fashion before completing has never been lower” and for “the number of freshmen who’ve declared Fashion as their major choice has never been higher.” Please — show us both the raw data and how you reached these conclusions. I guarantee you they do NOT support your assertions above.
Second, to laud Yvonne, Fiona and Kyle for the success of the BFA programme is insulting, offensive and absolutely asinine. *They* have created the programme that is now resulting in the great achievements you reference earlier in your email? No. They do not. Those successes are the direct result of the direction of the BFA programme under previous personnel.
Third, it’s redundant to say that Provost Tim Marshall is 100% behind Yvonne, Fiona and Kyle’s work as they’re executing on his strategic direction. A strategic direction, which I’d like to note, is using the School of Fashion as its first — aka ‘experimental’ — deployment of Provost Marshall’s strategy. Have you not stopped to think *why* the School of Fashion was selected as the test subject for this unproven strategy?
How much deeper into the sand are you and Dean Towers going to bury your heads? This new strategic direction for the BFA is utterly absurd, and guaranteed to destroy the prestigious reputation it took decades for Parsons’ to establish.
Simon, you’re very image conscious — you tell us: do you want to be known as the one who destroyed the BFA programme at Parsons?
I am also a Parsons graduate and a former student of Kyle Farmer, who encourages the freedom to “play” as part of the design process.
I studied under the old curriculum of Parsons for the first two years at the college and was guided by Kyle in creating my thesis collection during my last year. During the first two years at Parsons I received a very valuable and much needed academic foundation as well as sewing foundation, which Parsons calls the “methods classes.” Methods classes are mandatory for everyone and we are taught how to construct basic garments such as a skirt, a pair of pants, a shirt, a jacket, and so on. I think that methods classes were essential for me to gain an understanding of the basics of garment construction. I definitely would not agree with eliminating these core classes in the Parsons curriculum. In fact, I think that methods should be introduced to first year students who spend a lot of wasted time building “other” foundation skills that are unrelated to the fashion design major. If the first two years at Parsons were spent efficiently learning the basics of sewing garments, students would have two more years to explore sewing more independently during their Junior and Senior years. I think that as a designer it is as important to have time to design through sewing as well as building the foundations of sewing even in school. In my own experience, designing only began for me when started sewing my own garments independently. Even though this might not be how all students feel, I think that many students would feel the same way I did. That’s why it’s important to give the students an equal opportunity to sew and to draw when they are exploring the design end of the spectrum of a fashion design education.
During my last year at Parsons I studied under the so-called “new curriculum” under the guidance of Kyle . The “new curriculum” merged “methods” and “designing” in the same times. With Kyle as my mentor I finally felt that I could breathe creatively. Kyle’s teaching style gave me the independence as a designer that I much needed, especially in my final year at Parsons. At the same time, Kyle’s teaching style constantly pushed me to challenge my work until the day of completion. I learned that there is always room for improvement even while I was making my garments and I think that this readiness to be flexible and make changes is a very important aspect to learn about designing fashion. It was definitely not “easy” to work with Kyle on my thesis. Kyle was always very honest when delivering his opinion about my work in progress and a lot of times it was very hard to hear but I knew that Kyle’s honesty meant that he really cared about bringing my work to its best. Learning to be ready to change things at any time was very difficult for me, but nevertheless, it was a very positive experience.
My final year at Parsons, under Kyle’s guidance, I grew as a designer and as a thinker. Kyle inspired me to work with passion, and I think that passion is much needed if you want to go into the fashion industry. A sewing foundation is important to have and Parsons should be providing this foundation to its students, but after that is learnt, it is just as important to have the space and freedom to experiment as designers even during one’s schooling. Why should we vilify the fact that sometimes we youtube something we don’t know about sewing when Parsons is aiming to produce the next generation of thinkers and fashion design innovators? I don’t want to be spoon-fed information for four years, that is not what I want to pay for. I want to be taught to stand on my own feet as a thinker and as a designer after I graduate from Parsons and I think that that entails learning the basics and learning to use it as a creative designer.
Please stop fighting and be constructive. Changes are always needed in order to things to improve.
Hi Carmen -
I agree with all of this: “(M)ethods classes were essential for me to gain an understanding of the basics of garment construction… A sewing foundation is important to have and Parsons should be providing this foundation to its students, but after that is learnt, it is just as important to have the space and freedom to experiment as designers even during one’s schooling.”
And I think this is exactly right: “I want to be taught to stand on my own feet as a thinker and as a designer… and I think that that entails learning the basics and learning to use it as a creative designer.”
Precisely. There is no opposition between learning and then honing the necessary skills and being creative. In fact, continually honing your skills is widely held to be an irreplaceable source of creativity.
But I have to say that you lose me here: “Why should we vilify the fact that sometimes we youtube something we don’t know about sewing when Parsons is aiming to produce the next generation of thinkers and fashion design innovators?”
No one (that I know of) vilifies those who choose to YouTube things they don’t know. But many students and faculty *do* hold accountable an administration which has decided it will no longer teach necessary skills that it has previously taught, and instead urges students to teach themselves.
And then the administration justifies this by saying (just as the British fashion programs said), “It doesn’t matter if they can’t actually make a garment competently, because we’re teaching the future leaders of the industry.”
And I also don’t quite get this: “Please stop fighting and be constructive.” Many of the critics of my Op-Ed – most if not all of whom seem to be Kyle’s students – have used remarkably similar language. You see it as fighting, Carmen. Lucy thought it was “rude” and “unprofessional,” that I was “ready to bash and hate.” Kelly saw it as “terribly vilifying.” Etc., etc. And of course Kyle thought it was “slanderous.”
A few points: First, the airing of ones disagreement *can* be constructive. The two are not in opposition.
Second, where is the fighting, vilification and hate and in the Op-Ed? Where is the slander?
And third, why is it that only Kyle’s students thought this article had much of anything to do with him? It’s a very long Op-Ed, and Kyle doesn’t even get an entire sentence to himself.
Somehow, everyone who isn’t or wasn’t one of Kyle’s students understood that this article was about the curriculum, not Kyle. But his students all seem to have missed the point in a remarkably uniform way. And they describe the Op-Ed in remarkably similar – and most dramatic – language.
Hello,
Everyone seems very passionate about their views on Parson’s curriculum changes. I have been accepted into the associate’s degree program & can anyone tell me what impact, if any, the curriculum changes may have on this program? All comments have been in regards to the BFA program so just wondering your views on the associates program. I think someone mentioned people should go to F.I.T. instead (it definately is a lot cheaper!) Any points of view and thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks!
While it is clearly true that some changes are happening within the BFA Fashion Design curriculum, and will continue to happen, none of these changes will affect the AAS program. It will remain the same as it is now, and has been for years.
In regards to the changes that were made to the BFA program, please know that all changes made to any curriculum anywhere are based on necessity and the desire to make improvements. As with any change there comes a period of transition, and hopefully with student, faculty, and administrative cooperation and communication (both incredibly necessary), we will be able to achieve ideal solutions with our (the students) best interests addressed.
Hi Cindy -
Your question is well-timed. Yes, Christina, above, wrote “Just save yourself and go to FIT.” And I quoted her in my reply to Ann, the mother of a Parsons student.
A member of the administration, apparently confusing Christina’s point of view with my own, recently told me that “it is unacceptable to respond to a parent’s comment suggesting that she… would have been better off if she sent her daughter to FIT.”
Now, I would have thought that there was an obvious difference between saying, “I sincerely hope you won’t regret having (paid for a Parsons education)” and “I think you should regret having (paid for a Parsons education).” But since it has proven not to be, I want to make this absolutely clear:
I strongly support the decision of students to attend Parsons.
As a long time faculty member at Parsons, I have grave concerns about some of the recent curricular changes. Yet I remain absolutely committed to the future success of Parsons and the New School. Indeed, it is because of my commitment and loyalty to this institution that I feel compelled to raise my concerns.
It is certainly not my intention, nor has it ever been my intention, to discourage either those presently attending Parsons or prospective students from attending Parsons. At the same time, though, I hope that students and faculty members will continue to serve as active advocates for preserving and extending what is best about the school.
Indeed, it is because of our loyalty to the school that we have an obligation to do so.
A correction: While researching this Op-Ed, I came across several links to an academic with a background in photography named Tim Marshall who previously worked at Central St. Martins. This gentleman is *not* the same person as our provost. Our provost (who is also an academic with a background in photography and seemingly a contemporary of the other Tim Marshall) has never worked at CSM.