Quality

I don't understand the prompt. Define quality? And explain how to measure it? And then ask how we should measure it?

Is this real life?


I feel like there are levels upon levels of quality, each with a different category: Professional quality, student quality, life quality, family quality, quality time, opinions of quality, etc. You want me to define quality? Which one? It's a multifaceted diamond that would take a hundred graphs and a dozen essays to truly show what I think about quality.

The big thing for me is, as a graphic designer, when quality is "done right" you don't really notice. If something is in perfect form, you may admire it for being well done but it's not really a conscious thought, it's not instant award worthy. You notice quality most when there is an absence of quality. Bad quality attracts your attention immediately. Why? Because it's not good. Plain and simple, something doesn't work. When there is good quality, you enjoy it and you gain from it but you might not immediately know why. You will walk away feeling good but do you think "Man, that was some good quality (insert subject) right there!"?

Possibly, but most likely you just walk away.

I agree wholeheartedly with Pirsig's ideas, that quality is the "knife-edge" of experience, found only in the present, known or at least potentially accessible to all static patterns... At least I think I do. It's like trying to describe a color without using the colors name or talking about what air feels like. 

How do you measure what you can't even describe or define? 

I'm not fully sure what the Legislature is planning on doing, or how you can incorporate quality into the university system, so I'll leave that to thinkers with "more quality thoughts" than I. 


-A