From the article:
Robert Rath said:
As a result, The Guildhall was designed to simulate the pace and work style of the games industry. During heavy development periods, students sometimes spend up to twenty hours a day coding, designing, fixing, debugging. Walk into the project development rooms and you'll find mini-fridges full of energy drinks. "It's important," he insists. "People always talk about the cruelty of military training, or of giving doctors 24 hour shifts during their residencies, but it's not out of cruelty. That's done because one day you will be called upon to work under extreme conditions and you need to be prepared."
Simulated crunch? 20-hour lab time? Energy drinks instead of more healthy chow? Horrible. Sounds like a school that reinforces the worst practices in the electronic entertainment development industry: crunch schedules, long shifts, and bad diet. I understand the need to prepare students for the harsh gauntlet that they've wanted to devote their lives to, but there is a distinction between extreme training and preparedness, and going too far. On the subject of training: training is often more harsh than day-to-day activities, but sometimes there are situations that are 10x more taxing than training, and I understand the need for preparedness. Practices and habits learned in training remain after training, including bad practices.
I like how the article goes from one quality-of-life issue (extreme working conditions) to another (look how pretty the offices are!) in a paragraph, and continues to describe the facilities for two.
The survey for the professors sounds interesting: "Why do you teach here?" Some other relevant questions would be:
"Have you authored or substantially participated in the development of any entertainment software during your lifetime?"
"In what ways have you utilized the medium of games to communicate a message worth seeing or hearing?"
"Why aren't you making games right now?"
I'm sure people have heard the axiom: "Those who cannot do, teach."
I'll end on a wild and unverified assumption: the most admirable game developers were self-taught and were not churned out through a digital entertainment school. I challenge anyone to refute my claim, although my hypothesis is somewhat irresponsible without verification. There's a good chance that I am right, but in a way I want to be wrong.
"It's done when it's done."