Question
People pay for graphic design, for web development, etc. so why do most people think they can do UX design on their own?
Answer
Because in many cases they can.
Your question implies a definition of "real" UX professionals that you should probably clarify. Who do you mean? People with HCI degrees? Some sort of diploma? People who can cite scholarly references? What?
You also need to make a case that amateurs do a predictably worse job than your defined "professionals." I think you'd fail. I think you'd find many fine products with great UXes designed by "non professionals" who picked up their skills via self-study/practical experience. I know a few such people and would hire 'em over people with paper qualifications but no track record, without a second thought.
Frankly, any time I find a field protesting and getting defensive about amateurs horning in on some sort of professional turf, I get skeptical that there IS a professional core. I start to suspect that they have a chip on their shoulder about the necessarily skeptical general perception of young/immature fields.
Such young fields aren't for the thin-skinned or those looking for prestigious things to hang on their walls. If you get into a field that's less than about 20-30 years old (counting from, say, the year when more than half of all major broad-curriculum universities offer a degree program in it), you'd better be prepared to base your reputation on what you can DO instead of what qualifications you can CLAIM. And you'd better be prepared to compete with talented "amateurs" and DIYers. Because the qualifications won't mean much for a while.
That's both the cost and opportunity of being a pioneering early-adopter of a profession. You get to shape the evolution of the field. You have a chance to make big discoveries and seminal contributions. By the time the field is old enough that you don't have to get defensive about your profession, there's only dregs left.
You don't find aerospace engineers complaining that amateurs think they can design spacecraft. You don't find medical doctors getting all defensive about the existence of holistic healers (they just ignore them). On the other hand, how many aerospace engineers can you name besides the two most famous ones who did NOT have degrees? (I mean the Wrights, if it wasn't clear). How many famous doctors can you name besides Louis Pasteur (who was NOT a doctor, but pretty much founded modern medicine).
That's because these are old disciplines that have had a lot of time to mature and accumulate a vast store of codified expertise that must be mastered to contribute at the leading edge. In these fields, professionals aren't threatened by amateurs and DIYers because amateurs genuinely are not threats. Amateurs have no hope of self-studying their way to the edge.
In young fields, amateurs and DIYers are a genuine threat and can often get to the edge faster than professionals because they have less overhead.
UX simply isn't that old. So just as the first aerospace engineers were actually bicycle mechanics who showed they could make machines that flew, and the first surgeons were barbers who showed that they could prevent/cure disease, the first great UX people are simply people who show that they can vastly improve product design and user experience.
The perception of UX as a field is exactly where it should be given the maturity of the field.
So if you think you can do UX, and can build a portfolio of samples and a track record of successful product designs/makeovers that convinces people you know what you're doing, you're a UX guy/gal. If you can't, no matter what "professional" markers you claim, you are not.
Your work today is what will add the credibility to the degree 20 years from now, so kids graduating then WILL be able to laugh indulgently at questions like this, just as MDs and aerospace engineers can laugh indulgently at amateurs today.
Your question implies a definition of "real" UX professionals that you should probably clarify. Who do you mean? People with HCI degrees? Some sort of diploma? People who can cite scholarly references? What?
You also need to make a case that amateurs do a predictably worse job than your defined "professionals." I think you'd fail. I think you'd find many fine products with great UXes designed by "non professionals" who picked up their skills via self-study/practical experience. I know a few such people and would hire 'em over people with paper qualifications but no track record, without a second thought.
Frankly, any time I find a field protesting and getting defensive about amateurs horning in on some sort of professional turf, I get skeptical that there IS a professional core. I start to suspect that they have a chip on their shoulder about the necessarily skeptical general perception of young/immature fields.
Such young fields aren't for the thin-skinned or those looking for prestigious things to hang on their walls. If you get into a field that's less than about 20-30 years old (counting from, say, the year when more than half of all major broad-curriculum universities offer a degree program in it), you'd better be prepared to base your reputation on what you can DO instead of what qualifications you can CLAIM. And you'd better be prepared to compete with talented "amateurs" and DIYers. Because the qualifications won't mean much for a while.
That's both the cost and opportunity of being a pioneering early-adopter of a profession. You get to shape the evolution of the field. You have a chance to make big discoveries and seminal contributions. By the time the field is old enough that you don't have to get defensive about your profession, there's only dregs left.
You don't find aerospace engineers complaining that amateurs think they can design spacecraft. You don't find medical doctors getting all defensive about the existence of holistic healers (they just ignore them). On the other hand, how many aerospace engineers can you name besides the two most famous ones who did NOT have degrees? (I mean the Wrights, if it wasn't clear). How many famous doctors can you name besides Louis Pasteur (who was NOT a doctor, but pretty much founded modern medicine).
That's because these are old disciplines that have had a lot of time to mature and accumulate a vast store of codified expertise that must be mastered to contribute at the leading edge. In these fields, professionals aren't threatened by amateurs and DIYers because amateurs genuinely are not threats. Amateurs have no hope of self-studying their way to the edge.
In young fields, amateurs and DIYers are a genuine threat and can often get to the edge faster than professionals because they have less overhead.
UX simply isn't that old. So just as the first aerospace engineers were actually bicycle mechanics who showed they could make machines that flew, and the first surgeons were barbers who showed that they could prevent/cure disease, the first great UX people are simply people who show that they can vastly improve product design and user experience.
The perception of UX as a field is exactly where it should be given the maturity of the field.
So if you think you can do UX, and can build a portfolio of samples and a track record of successful product designs/makeovers that convinces people you know what you're doing, you're a UX guy/gal. If you can't, no matter what "professional" markers you claim, you are not.
Your work today is what will add the credibility to the degree 20 years from now, so kids graduating then WILL be able to laugh indulgently at questions like this, just as MDs and aerospace engineers can laugh indulgently at amateurs today.