MDes NPS Study

I ran a Net Promoter Score (NPS) survey across both years of the Harvard Master of Design Studies (MDes) program. 129 students responded. 108 left written comments explaining their rating. The result: a score of -16 (22% Promoters, 38% Detractors) compared to Harvard Business School's +37.

The data revealed a precise structural tension: MDes's defining strength — radical curricular flexibility — is indistinguishable from its defining weakness for a certain subset of students. Those who arrived with a defined research direction loved the freedom. Those who arrived needing scaffolding felt abandoned.

I brought the findings and three concrete recommendations to the heads of the program.

MDes is transgressively counter-cultural within academia. Within Harvard, a stoically conservative institution, it's even more improbable. And within those contexts, it exists at the GSD -- a traditional architecture school. The fact that a program as radical and open as MDes can exist at all is remarkable.

That's why I'm driven to help it thrive. I can imagine MDes being truly great — a profoundly effective teaching moment for generations of designers. And I want to live in the world that its students eventually design.

This survey was an attempt to give the program data it didn't have: a rigorous, anonymous accounting of what its students actually think.

Method

The NPS asks one question: "How likely are you to recommend MDes to a friend or colleague?" Respondents rate 0–10. Those who rate 9–10 are Promoters; those who rate 0–6 are Detractors. NPS = % Promoters − % Detractors, yielding a score between −100 and +100.

I added an open-ended follow-up: "What is the primary reason for your rating?" 108 of the 129 respondents answered it. I coded all 108 comments by theme.

Results

Promoters: 22% — Detractors: 38% — MDes NPS: −16

For reference, Harvard Business School's NPS is +37.

Top 3 Benefits (% of commenters who mentioned each)

1. Flexibility and freedom to design your own curriculum — 61% Far and away the defining feature. Promoters cite it almost universally (80%), but even many Detractors acknowledge it as a genuine strength. The ability to take courses across Harvard and MIT, self-direct studies, and build a masters tailored to one's own interests is rare and hard to find elsewhere.

2. Access to the Harvard/MIT ecosystem and network — 22% Prestige, alumni network, credential value, and breadth of resources across both campuses. Cross-registration is cited as something students couldn't have found at other programs.

3. Interdisciplinary exposure and diverse cohort — 15% The people and intellectual environment — not just the course catalog. Students appreciate interacting with peers from wildly different backgrounds and connecting fields that wouldn't normally sit together in a single program.

Top 3 Complaints (% of commenters who mentioned each)

1. Under-resourced and poor value for the cost — 23% No financial aid, no career placement support, insufficient faculty, uninvolved professors, and a sense that tuition money isn't going toward MDes students. The phrase "cash cow" comes up directly.

2. No physical space and feeling like second-class citizens within GSD — 22% Absence of a dedicated space in Gund Hall. Students feel invisible within the design school — not featured in publications, not treated as a real department. The word "afterthought" appears more than once. Detractors mention this at 40%.

3. Lack of structure, guidance, and mentorship — 21% The flip side of the flexibility benefit. No thesis, no required advising, no mentorship infrastructure. A common refrain: "you're on your own." This hits Detractors hardest (33%) and is nearly absent among Promoters (8%) — suggesting it's the critical differentiator between those who thrive and those who don't.

The three complaints are virtually tied in frequency and often co-occur: students who feel under-resourced also tend to feel marginalized and unsupported.

Three recommendations to the program

1. Filter applicants more aggressively for self-initiative. The data suggests the differentiating factor between students who struggle and those who love MDes isn't design skill — it's prior work experience and a defined research direction. Reprioritizing admissions criteria to center self-sufficiency and research clarity may select for students more likely to thrive in the program's current form.

2. Help with jobs. Students who score 0–4 most forcefully mention the lack of career placement and internship connections. There is a return-on-investment anxiety that alumni salary statistics aren't dispelling. The program should find scalable ways to integrate employment connections — so students aren't left with only imprecise career services advice and a handful of alumni panels.

3. Advocate for collision space. The data show that isolation and lack of community is driving Detractor scores even among students who value the flexibility — meaning this intervention could move the needle without requiring any changes to the curriculum. MDes students need access to an integrated space within Gund that lets them collaborate with each other and students across the GSD. I ran a pilot in April, converting the 3rd Floor Undertray space into an Unstudio for all GSD students not enrolled in studio. The project had support from Sarah Whiting, Janice Gilkes, Ashley Lang, and professors from across the departments. It was essentially free.