What we heard at the RGD Design Educator Virtual Community Meet-Up
Written by Molly Hill RGD, Conestoga College
There was a shared energy at the recent Design Educator Virtual Community meet-up. It felt like a mix of curiosity, urgency and a quiet recognition that something fundamental is shifting in design education.
Across the conversation, one thing became clear. We are not just reacting to AI. It is acting as a catalyst, exposing deeper challenges that have been building for some time.
The thing we are all tired of talking about
AI came up quickly and is annoyingly planted at the centre of all the discussions. Because of its evolutionary speed, its effects can't be ignored. Tools are improving week by week, especially in areas like coding and content generation. Tasks that once required years of training are now accessible to beginners with the right prompts.
This is exciting for students. It lowers barriers (a term many of us take issue with—a conversation for another time) and accelerates learning, particularly in areas outside their main focus. At the same time, it creates uncertainty. We do not yet know where AI fits best in the learning process or what skills students need to use it well.
There was also a noticeable concern around expectations. There appears to be a growing acceptance of "good enough". AI-generated outputs are often polished and convincing (think mock-ups), even when they lack depth or specificity. The concern isn't really that students are using AI—it's that they aren't fully equipped to discern what is sparkly and passable from what truly solves the problem.
One idea resonated strongly. AI is only as strategic and thoughtful as the input it receives. That shifts our role as designers. It becomes less about making and more about directing. Asking better questions, framing better problems and making informed decisions now matter more than execution alone.
How can industry help us?
Another clear takeaway was the need for stronger industry involvement. Currently, educators are making decisions without enough shared clarity about what the industry actually expects.
Questions came up repeatedly. What skills matter most now? How are professionals using AI in real workflows? How are firms dealing with intellectual property and authorship? How is the designer's role evolving within organizations?
There was a strong interest in bringing industry voices into these educator meetings. This could take the form of guest speakers sharing case studies, practitioners walking us through their workflows and open conversations about what is changing and what is not.
This is not only about AI. It is about understanding how the value of design is shifting and how education can respond.
Why are these systems so SLOOOOOOW?
While everything around education is changing quickly, the systems within education are not. School is moving bureaucratically and politically SLOW at all levels.
This tension showed up in our conversation in several ways. Many programs are removing portfolio requirements for admission, which raises questions about how we assess readiness. At the same time, shorter and online programs are positioning design as something that can be learned quickly. This creates a perception challenge around the value of longer, more in-depth programs.
Inside institutions, there are also structural constraints. Program Advisory Committees are not being used effectively, which limits the ability to act on industry insights. Curriculum updates feel inadequate, reactionary and lagging.
There are also quieter pressures. IT systems within institutions can limit access to tools, which shapes what can be taught. Educators are navigating unclear intellectual property boundaries while also being asked to package their lessons for use out of context.
And perhaps most importantly, there's a growing question about assessment. Can a graduating portfolio still serve as an accurate measure of skill and knowledge? Or are we increasingly evaluating surface-level polish, what one participant described as "slickness", rather than depth of thinking?
What are designers anyway?
At some point in the conversation, the question emerged: Is "graphic designer" still the right term? It's a simple question, but it opens up a much larger conversation. Traditionally, graphic designers have been seen as creators of visual artifacts. We've seen our value slowly evolve over the decades. Today, we exist in a huge variety of systems, and we've gone from making things to shaping outcomes. Which raises another question: Does an "industry standard" even exist anymore? Or are we moving toward a more fluid, evolving set of roles and expectations?
This conversation felt familiar, as we have had it many times as a profession. From craft to computing, the trend toward design thinking and, in the last decade, UX/UI entered the conversation as a role expander.
If the designer's role is expanding, so is its potential impact. Designers can be partners in business and innovation. They can help organizations navigate complexity and create meaningful value, but to support this shift, education needs to evolve. Students need to learn how to think in systems, work across disciplines and engage critically with tools like AI. The focus must move toward strategy, relationships and decision-making.
In simple terms, we need to prepare students not just to do design, but to lead through it.
The responsibility we might be ignoring?
One of the more thought-provoking threads in the conversation focused on sustainability in a digital context. We often think of digital design as immaterial, but every piece of content we create has a footprint.
The environmental impact stems from energy consumption by servers and data storage, as well as resource use tied to digital infrastructure. Human impact is felt every day by the growing "cost of noise" in an always-on content environment. The demand for our attention, focus and cognitive bandwidth is more intense than it's ever been.
We, as designers, contribute to this ecosystem, whether intentionally or not. So it feels important to name what we are responsible for.
- Are we creating necessary, meaningful content or just adding to the noise?
- Are we designing for clarity and understanding or for engagement at any cost?
- Are we considering the long-term impact of what we produce?
These are not questions traditionally asked in design classrooms—but they may need to be.
Moving forward
The meet-up covered a lot of ground in a short time, but one theme stood out. We are in a moment of unusually intense transition.
AI has accelerated that process, but it is also exposing more profound issues around education, industry alignment and the ever-evolving role of the designer. The path forward is not fully clear, but there are some shared intentions. This group will continue the conversation. We will bring the industry closer, experiment in the classroom and question assumptions.
We will also stay focused on the fact that AI can't think critically, act ethically, navigate complexity or create meaning. Those are still human skills, so perhaps our teaching starts there.
Join our next virtual meet-up for design educators on May 5 at 7:00 p.m. ET to connect, share ideas and discuss the evolving needs of design education.
Molly Hill RGD
Conestoga College
A graduate of the York University design program (pre-Sheridan partnership, read: oldskool), Molly has been working in and around the role of Designer for nearly 3 decades and teaching design for the last 15 years. 2025 has brought a return to school in the OCADU MDes program in Strategic Foresight and Innovation. She is excited to share her experience in teaching— and now in learning.
Related Articles
Jumanah Abualkhair Associate RGD, Michael J. Young RGD
Michael J. Young RGD
Sponsored
