Who teaches the teachers?

[Deleted member 16349]

I have noticed that the educators in the graphic arts community are a difficult group to influence. It has been almost impossible to get new ideas into their heads.

I am a professional engineer, who has been developing science and technical concepts for consistency and predictability of the offset press for about 25 years, and this is still not enough to get the attention of graphic arts educators. Are they waiting for ideas to be commercial products before they think about them?

If they won't listen to my views, what do you think are the chances of them seriously listening to new student's views about the graphic arts. I am guessing not much.

So, who teaches these teachers and gives them the advanced knowledge required to educate the young graphic arts students?
Who is validating the knowledge that these teachers are passing on to these students?
Are students ever allowed to question the knowledge that is presented to them?

I am curious to know.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Good question.

Oops! bellow is the rant coloured by todays cleaning up PDF files where colour management has been abused by inompetent designers.

I have tried to get into teaching, and found the academic institutions impregnable. Tried here in Sweden to get validated, but they don't know what an ACE or ACI certification is, and not having a traditional background doesn't help.
When I tried to explain the level of insight i was asked what courses I went to because "you surely must have gone some of (govenment validated institution) course to aquire your knowledge."

In short if you want to teach graphics you should have gone the same school that you want to teach in. Will that open to get fresh insight and understanding of current technology? Don't think so.

What the actual result is, is that more people come out with an education and big gaps in knowledge and some fundemental missunderstandings, but since they have a couple years univiersity for a media degree think they don't need to listen to prepress people who only have 10-30 years experience solving real world problems, and/or been wrestling with influencing software producers.

 

[c26sail]

The teachers at the university near our shop were terribly out of touch. One of the teachers had a good relationship with us and she would come and train with us during the summer. She was constantly amazed at how different printing actually is than what they teach in class. I would say the best thing to do is to get them to spend some time in a real world shop, all though this is generally volunteer time for them so they may not want to do that.

 

[gordo]

For a while I taught print and design production at the college level in an art and design school.
Most of the other teachers were graphic designers teaching on a part-time basis.
It was a very difficult task to get the students interested in the technical aspects of their trade, especially since that area of knowledge was not reinforced in the other courses they took. Graphic design was taught more like a fine arts course.

A local technical college that reintroduced a graphics program for students wanting to enter the trade in prepress or press were taught by exprepress and express people. Their knowledge was mostly gained by experience on the job and or the apprentice programs that they had endured. In most cases their own learning had basically stopped when they left the trade.

It is difficult.

gordon p

 

[Colorblind]

Their knowledge was mostly gained by experience on the job and or the apprentice programs that they had endured. In most cases their own learning had basically stopped when they left the trade.

I can only agree with that statement Gordo. The best teachers I ever had were the ones that were teaching part time while working in the trade.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

For a while I taught print and design production at the college level in an art and design school.
Most of the other teachers were graphic designers teaching on a part-time basis.
It was a very difficult task to get the students interested in the technical aspects of their trade, especially since that area of knowledge was not reinforced in the other courses they took. Graphic design was taught more like a fine arts course.

A local technical college that reintroduced a graphics program for students wanting to enter the trade in prepress or press were taught by exprepress and express people. Their knowledge was mostly gained by experience on the job and or the apprentice programs that they had endured. In most cases their own learning had basically stopped when they left the trade.

It is difficult.

gordon p

One has also to note the difference between training and education.

Training can be done by experienced people quite well.

Education needs a more in depth knowledge of the laws of Nature and how they relate to graphic arts, so that students can be educated to deal with future technologies and issues. Who teaches the teachers that, especially when they are not interested to learn?

 

[turbotom1052]

reminds me of the old saying ... "those who can do, and those that cant teach!!!"

 

[Brian P. Lawler]

A teacher speaks up

A teacher speaks up

As a teacher at Cal Poly, which is one of America's leading universities teaching graphic communication, I assure you that we are committed to learning so that we can teach more effectively.

We have the benefit of teaching hands-on, and we have most of the latest technologies in our labs. The industry supports us, partly because we have proven ourselves to be so successful at teaching.

Our students learn on the best technology available, and the teachers are in a constant learning mode. We regularly attend industry conferences, training programs, seminars and workshops. We research, test, and validate printing processes and procedures. We participate in national and international graphic arts industry events.

From my own perspective, I read about new technologies, analyze and test them, then I write about them – constantly (read my blogs on WhatTheyThink.com). I spend more time curled-up with a technical manual than most people do reading for pleasure.

As for prepress acumen, I have educated myself on topics so esoteric that I often wonder if I am the only one who has reached this far down the throat of an alligator.

Several of my colleagues and I are the authors of textbooks used in the industry, and those textbooks are written with a tremendous amount of research and testing. This year I was named Educator of the Year by the EDSF, an honor that I appreciate and am proud to have received. This didn't happen by my being lazy or incompetent.

To suggest that teachers are uninterested in new technologies or new ideas is absurd and insulting. The teachers I know are engaged, interested, driven to learn and then turn around and teach. The process is complex, but we have all learned how to learn so that we can be more effective educators.

And, to check on how we are doing, look around the industry! Check to see who educated the Public Printer of the U.S., hundreds of leading executives at the world's leading printing companies, and thousands of successful employees at every level of nearly every company in our industry.

We are committed to our industry, to our students and their families, and to making the world a better place through education.

And, what is it that you want us to know (and teach) that we are so "unwilling" to learn? I'm all-ears!

Brian P. Lawler
Asst. Professor
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

 

[Deleted member 16349]

reminds me of the old saying ... "those who can do, and those that cant teach!!!"

An old saying but not always true. Many medical doctors and engineers that teach are also busy practicing what they know. There is a lot of medical teaching in hospitals after new doctors get their degrees from University. Engineers in the graduate programs are usually working on projects with their professors that are sponsored by companies in the industry that need real answers to problems.

It is because of the very science based fields of knowledge that makes this possible. The science in these fields are always questioned and validated or revised as understanding improves.

In the printing science community, virtually nothing is questioned as if there is an unspoken rule that says, "don't show up the faults in my work and I won't show up the faults in yours".

 

[Deleted member 16349]

As a teacher at Cal Poly, which is one of America's leading universities teaching graphic communication, I assure you that we are committed to learning so that we can teach more effectively.

.

And, what is it that you want us to know (and teach) that we are so "unwilling" to learn? I'm all-ears!

Brian, It is great that you could drop by for your first post on printplanet. I would hope that you will be just as indignant about your institution not making the best use of new knowledge offered as you are with defending a reputation.

My point is that graphic arts institutions are more interested in technologies than in science. I tend to think that they confuse the two. Training people in technologies is not necessarily educating them. Technologists are not necessarily scientists.

Most people on the forum know that I have some specific interests and issues. The main one is the problem in density control in offset presses. This is with consistency and predictability of the process on press and the fundamental cause of ink water balance, seen by the press operator. It is particularly related to manufacturing needs to have very short makereadies, low running waste, higher quality and higher capacity.

I know this is not your specific field so I don't expect you to give an answer quickly to some questions. But I would hope that you can answer them by asking others at Cal Poly.

I don't think Cal Poly has a clue about the fundamentals of the density control problem in offset presses. I think they don't care to find out. I know they don't care to find out.

It has been said that the ink water balance problem in offset presses is the most critical problem in the process for press operators to deal with.

So:

Does Cal Poly know what the fundamental cause is for ink water balance?

Does Cal Poly know why density changes when water is adjusted?

If they don't know, is Cal Poly interested in understanding this problem?

Does Cal Poly understand why existing ink key presetting systems do not get to the desired targets but almost always need some adjustment?

Does Cal Poly understand that if some of their existing assumptions are wrong, then potentially much of their research and education material could be questionable?

OK, that is enough science questions for now.

Maybe the problem is that we do not really understand the role of Cal Poly. What does Cal Poly see as it's roll? Are they trainers only of current technologies? Are they only educators of workers and managers for printing businesses with existing technologies (latest but not future).

Maybe Cal Poly does not see itself as a science institution where new knowledge is trying to be developed? Where fundamental questions are being asked and answered. Maybe that is the problem. I am interested in your views and answers.

 

[RNRPRINTINGNMAILING]

Man It seems like everyone forgot the most important thing.
Its great that you can learn everything in school and on great equipment.
But as you know every shop is different.
And the best way to learn is on the job training in a real print shop
when you have to meet deadlines. and you have customers who are waiting for their press proof.
And you have to think on the fly. All of you have great points, but the most important thing I was taught was to produce a great product and to keep your customers happy.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Man It seems like everyone forgot the most important thing.
Its great that you can learn everything in school and on great equipment.
But as you know every shop is different.
And the best way to learn is on the job training in a real print shop
when you have to meet deadlines. and you have customers who are waiting for their press proof.
And you have to think on the fly. All of you have great points, but the most important thing I was taught was to produce a great product and to keep your customers happy.

You are right. Experience after education/training is so very important especially if one is using those technologies.

If one wants to build a better press or improve an existing one or improve other technologies, where can you get the information to do that? You don't want to get that totally from trial and error, because that would be too expensive and too risky. You need some kind of science as a guide. If the existing science is not specific enough to be a guide, then it is not good science.

Even if one is not going to develop new technologies, having good science helps one evaluate what kind of future technology to invest in. This would be very helpful to managers. It is the only way to protect yourself from marketing hype.

Having a good science helps one see the future before it is here. You can make the future happen.

 

[gordo]

[SNIP]
And the best way to learn is on the job training in a real print shop when you have to meet deadlines. and you have customers who are waiting for their press proof.[SNIP]

There is truth to that for sure. However, I've also seen a great deal of misinformation about print/prepress technology and methodology being passed on to new employees and apprentices. It's what prompted me to post this on my blog: Quality In Print: Some things I learned from engineers (that printshop folks might find useful)

best, gordon p

 

[BillJ]

Having worked with many art/design school graduates that come into the industry, they tend to know how to make pretty pieces but have no idea how to make it into a piece that is usable in a prepress/press format. They generally don't have even a basic knowledge of the process. Showing them how to send a job to a CTF/CTP Rip requires a lot of patience.

 

[Harvey Levenson]

Dear Mr. Nikkanen,

I have written this in a respectful manner and not to be argumentative, but to be informative to you and the readers of this column.

I feel obligated to jump in on this to address your assumptions about Cal Poly. I am really surprised about your notations because you present yourself as a “scientist.” And if you’ve been educated, as a “scientist,” with the readings of preeminent philosophers of science such as Bronowski and many others, you would have learned that good scientists do not draw conclusions from assumptions.

So, in response to your myriad of questions, and to place your arguments in contest for readers, I ask:

- Have you ever visited Cal Poly?
- Have you observed our laboratories and technology AND the science we teach?
- Have you considered that we do not “train” but we educate?
- Have you sat down with any of our faculty to discuss our approach to education and graphic communication pedagogy?
- Have you explored why we have such a huge number of applicants per year that we can accept only about 20 percent of them?
- Have you explored the reasons why industry competes to hire our graduates? Yes, that includes the equipment manufacturers.

Perhaps if you were able to answer “yes” to any of these questions you would have a “clue” about our leadership in color management, density issues, and offset press education.

Further, I am familiar with your premises about ink, water, density control, and the “Ink Transfer Blade” concept that you have been promoting for years. So I ask:

- Have you considered why the totality of your concepts have not been accepted or adopted by any of the major printing press manufacturers?

I extend an invitation to you to visit Cal Poly. I’d be happy to host you.

Respectfully,

Harvey R. Levenson, Ph. D.
Department Head
Graphic Communication Department
Cal Poly State University
San Luis Obispo

 

[J]

[SNIP]Perhaps if you were able to answer “yes” to any of these questions you would have a “clue” about our leadership in color management, density issues, and offset press education.

Further, I am familiar with your premises about ink, water, density control, and the “Ink Transfer Blade” concept that you have been promoting for years. So I ask:

- Have you considered why the totality of your concepts have not been accepted or adopted by any of the major printing press manufacturers?[SNIP]

I think it would be a great idea if Cal Poly tested Erik's ITB. It would make for a great student project or a way for a teacher to educate students on problem solving techniques related to print technology.

How about it Harvey?

J

 

[Harvey Levenson]

Dept. Head, Graphic Communication Dept.

Dept. Head, Graphic Communication Dept.

J.

We already looked into the relevance of this as a project some time ago and it just does not make sense. In fact as an example of our thoroughness in exploring meaningful research and testing, we shared the invention with our Mechanical Engineering Department and also with Heidelberg, just to make sure that we are not missing anything, even though our faculty members are versed in the practicality of printing technology and applications in industry. They all have industry experience. There was concurrence that the concept of the invention is too complicated for existing press configurations and it is really not marketable. The projects we take on are to assist in coming up with new solutions to old problems, not to add complexities to existing problems. Unfortunately, the invention in question would add complexities.

I do appreciate your thought.

Harvey

 

[Al Ferrari]

Erik's main trust in this thread is about the role of teaching institutions in developing scientific knowledge about the printing process. But your response to J is that the potential research project was rejected for reasons of marketability.

Are there any publicly available articles or comments in any journal or forum, in which Cal Poly faculty express their thoughts about Erik's ideas?

Al Ferrari

BTW, notice that the mechanics of this forum are such that the first line in our posts become the "subject line" in the thread listing. Having used your title and department affiliation as a first sentence, makes your post seem a bit pompous.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

J.

We already looked into the relevance of this as a project some time ago and it just does not make sense. In fact as an example of our thoroughness in exploring meaningful research and testing, we shared the invention with our Mechanical Engineering Department and also with Heidelberg, just to make sure that we are not missing anything, even though our faculty members are versed in the practicality of printing technology and applications in industry. They all have industry experience. There was concurrence that the concept of the invention is too complicated for existing press configurations and it is really not marketable. The projects we take on are to assist in coming up with new solutions to old problems, not to add complexities to existing problems. Unfortunately, the invention in question would add complexities.

I do appreciate your thought.

Harvey

What is Cal Poly's position on what is the fundamental cause of ink water balance in offset presses?

You don't have to answer because I know you do not have an answer.

I am glad you have finally stated your position. It is now on record. This is not a debate. History will finally judge who is right.

By the way, I do have an email from a top Heidelberg engineer saying that the concept would do what I said it would do.

Drent Goebel has run my concept on their test press for over 3 and a half years and felt it was better than what they had. It was on a lower priority to other things that they had to do and unfortunately they went bankrupt due to this recent financial crisis.

You are on the losing side of this issue and it will eventually be evident to all that there is a problem in Cal Poly knowledge.

 

[Al Ferrari]

Googling for Drent Goebe yields:

Drent Goebel - Google Search