Yes, they are completely divorced from reality

While there are exceptions, most members of the academy are totally insulated from the realities of practice and virtually clueless about the environment in which they're supposedly preparing their students to work.

Which educators are you asking about?

Full-time academics are much more likely to be shielded from the harsh realities of praxis and economics.

Part-time adjuncts (i.e., studio instructors) are much likelier to know what's actually going on out in the world.

Full time university educators. We didn't have any part-time professors at my university.

this is one of the more common threads here that usually just leads to a bitchfest, but...if the role of the education were intended to prepare you with job skills before entering the workforce, you are better off going to a trade school or community college to learn autocad and building codes. instead the academy exists to expose you intellectually to architecture and create critical thinkers within the profession. should the academy be aware of the realities found within the profession? absolutely, but it is not the responsibility of the academy to adjust its curricula to address those realities outside of their relevence to the intellectual pursuit of architecture. at least that is my take as a professional and product of the academy.

"absolutely, but it is not the responsibility of the academy to adjust its curricula to address those realities outside of their relevence to the intellectual pursuit of architecture."


I'm not saying that. You're right that debate is basically cliche now. I'm talking about the fact that most educators don't even know about or acknowledge the recession. I seriously think my former Dean had NO idea the profession was in such a bad shape. Iy's like an economist only looking at the top 3% of a countries wealth and giving advice based on that.

All of my professors had their own office, were the best professors, and are aware whats going on outside academia. my guess is that your dean, is well aware of the economy, but wanted your pep talk to boost students anyway.

I agree that this is one of those "cliched" arguments.

I agree with won in that aspect. What is troubling with the dismissal of academia is that the dismissal of academia seems to be prevalent in all aspects of the "real world."

Even when it comes to small ideological or "meta (as in the issue of the issue)" issues, one of the most immediate rebuttals is "things like that don't matter in the real world.

It is as if the real world is devoid of all sort of academic thought.

But limiting the definition of academia to universities is also simply retarded because academia tends to include all knowledge-based aspects of a profession/subject/issue.

Parts of the AIA, various publishers, research and analyst firms and even theoretical (avant garde/prototype/"artists") designers are typically "academic" institutions since their mongers and traders of 'knowledge.'

In that aspect, the people who analyze markets, write reports and numerate the real world are also academics. And what is even more amusing is that public, private-public or private-private in these organizations arrangements, they all directly or indirectly share their knowledge with each other.

This would point to the more frightening realization that your professors-- people who are essentially paid to read-- are not reading.

At some theoretical level I could buy that statement ....... were it not for the reams of young architects here, and elsewhere, who complain bitterly year-in and year-out about how poorly prepared they are to make a living once they enter the workforce.

And, simply to suggest that "trade school" or "community college" is the best option for those who want to make a living is way too simplistic. Law schools and medical schools prepare their students to earn good livings -- architecture schools do not.

IMHO, too many schools have lost touch with the profession and pursue their own academic agenda, devoid of any real sense of what it takes to succeed in the world of modern professional practice. This separation accounts, at least in part, for the very high degree of dissatisfaction registered by graduates as they work their way into professional life.

that's right, "he had no idea things were as bad as it is"...for you.

sounded to me he was consoling.

i'm sure all academics are aware of the current economic situation, and probably have their own fish to fry.

I agree that "the academy exists to expose you intellectually to architecture and create critical thinkers within the profession." I feel that is a very important aspect in creating innovation and leadership for the future in our profession. The problem is that while the academy shocks our system with abstract theories and design ideologies to the max, it does nothing to prepare ordinary folks for the realities of the real world.

I think the entire architectural education system is backwards. In many cases what students learn in undergrad and grad school differ little from each other. Undergrad should be a fusion of architecture, engineering and business classes that shock systems with case studies and situational awareness of problems associated with the modern architectural career, to prepare students for the real world. This kind of education would give graduates some real selling points to potential employers, as it would prepare students in art, engineering and business aspects of architecture, instead of today's academic repertoire of theory, craftsmanship and pretty pictures.

Undergrad should be bread and butter; a simple cohesive training system, that can teach kids about the business aspect of architecture, the engineering aspect of getting building built, and the art aspect of understanding quality design and how it can affect a person through interaction. A degree like that would not only help strengthen architecture, but also help those that graduate with that degree to jump to other fields if necessary without too many problems associated with the current degree. Grad school on the other hand should be exactly how it is now: theory and history to the fullest, as it increases critical thinking that leads to innovation and leadership within the profession, helping to move our field in the right direction. Just my two pennies...

Digital,

I think you're spot on!

What I find most interesting is that architecture colleges are taking on bigger and bigger classes of incoming freshman. Granted, a lot of us have gone back to get MArch degrees given the economy, but most clueless is the fresh out of senior high freshman that thinks the future is bright with an Architecture degree. Granted, things could change by the time they graduate, but there's a good chance they won't.

They are well aware of the profession situation, but if they tell you the truth the classrooms would be close to empty, what’s not profitable for them.

"Undergrad should be bread and butter; a simple cohesive training system, that can teach kids about the business aspect of architecture, the engineering aspect of getting building built, and the art aspect of understanding quality design and how it can affect a person through interaction. A degree like that would not only help strengthen architecture, but also help those that graduate with that degree to jump to other fields if necessary without too many problems associated with the current degree. Grad school on the other hand should be exactly how it is now: theory and history to the fullest, as it increases critical thinking that leads to innovation and leadership within the profession, helping to move our field in the right direction. Just my two pennies..."

Not what i was talking about but I agree 100%

I just taught a class and there was someone from undergraduate from Cornell in it. We did human comfort, energy and sustainability. It amazed me that IIT and Cornell did NOT teach these things in undergraduate. That was the 90s. Perhaps it is different now?

Also, I met a business professor yesterday who purchased a luxury townhouse and has had continuous flooding problems. The architect drew perforated drains on a couple of the sections but nowhere in plan. He could be liable. My hunch is that the developer wanted the drawings for nothing and the architect was short-changed. How do you work with an unscrupulous developer?


Both of these issues should be thoroughly covered in undergrad. They are as important as theory.

I disagree, at least at the undergrad level. My hunch is that at least 50-75% of an incoming freshman class picked Architecture as a major with little to no research (one reason I don't like to rag on the occasional high school student who posts questions here). Face it, I don't put a lot of stock in college freshman with regard to having a good grasp on the degree/profession they are pursuing.

Knowing what I know today I would've asked very different questions and still, I'm not sure "reality" would've changed my mind all that much. I wanted to be an Architect and even if I hadn't toured firms and asked questions before registering, I still would've picked the same major.

Let's be proud that Architecture is still a "cool" sounding major. The problem is that we don't weed enough people out IMO. Still plenty of bad Architect's out there, but bad economy or not, I'm sure the university arch studios will still be full every fall.

"Are educators in denial or just ignorant to the current situation with Architecture?"

Yes..

If it were up to me I'd shut down all schools of architecture. I love architecture, but at times like these I really wish I had a more versatile education (a combination of engineering and something creative).

Imagine if an army of unemployed architects could focus their efforts on something currently relative? There are a lot of energy startups looking for all kinds of technically skilled staff. I would love to jump into a research position on solar panel technology, for instance. I can always return to building design when market improves. Unfortunately my formal education has barely prepared me for architecture, let alone anything else.

I know architecture is an extremely subjective field to teach, but much too effort is spent on "Studio Design". 'The solitary genius who stays up all night working on his masterpiece' approach does little else besides feeding your ego. It bears little resemblance to real world collaborative environments.

I have an accredited 5 year architectural degree. With very little effort all of that could have been squeezed into 3 years. A lot of the education in upper years was mindless repetition. I really wish all of this was somehow different...

Now, I'm 10 years of professional experience removed from halls of education. I've been scratching my ass for over a year now, waiting by the phone mostly. I tried really hard to make a jump into a different field, with no success.

"The problem is that we don't weed enough people out IMO."

I think another problem is they weed out the wrong people.From what I've seen the majority of people who drop out of the architecture program do so in the first year.What did we do in the first year? Built silly boxes from chipboard and the professional practice class wasn't taught before the junior year.After having a nervous breakdown after my first crit I almost dropped out too because I didn't do as well as the others when it came to concepts and abstraction.

Make,
Human comfort is covered in mechanical systems,programming, studio, and a combination of other courses, do u teach at IIT? Why don't you propose the course to the dean?after all IIT is in a transition mode right now,don't want to get into a debate but let's just say that the dean will listen to change.

I don't think professors/lecturers in academia are unaware of the current situation. But I do think it is sort of like when someone you know has a sudden/tragic death or illness or financial ruin in the family. You can relate to some extent but unless you are going through it or have gone through it, your ability to empathize with the gravity of the situation is limited; and there is that feeling that nothing you can do or say will make it better.

But also, I do think many in academia are struggling to determine how to prepare students for the current reality. It seems though, that there are not any/many good answers; and the, "let in fewer, i.e., shrink the school" answer is a direct threat to the school's livelihood, so schools are unlikely to consider this option until the market demands it.

two questions:
what did you take as an elective?
what responsibility do you have with your OWN education?

not to sound like a jerk, but i received the suggestion to take more business classes, i ignored it. it would have been great.
however, many people own and run a business WITHOUT a degree. why do we feel we always need a paper to allow us to study something?

of course, our education needs to evolve from the current set-up to allow for a more diversified profession. however, who is doing it and how? we as a profession lack a vision and ironically a creativity about what we as architects should be! a special shout-out goes to archinect and their series: working out of the box

complete disclosure: i am a professor, but i am on the technology side(assemblies and detailing). most people don't really like the subject of my class--not as fun (even to teach) as studio, but it and classes on the technology and business side help you to understand our profession. maybe we have made studio too much fun.

now getting a job is a whole other deal. there are a whole line of books to get a job, interview, stand-out in a sea of resumes. should universities and colleges help with that...YES. there used to be great centers to help students at colleges, but i don't see that any more?!?

in terms of the economy, yes, they are. in fact, often the architects themselves are every bit as divorced from reality, if in fact they have had a job this entire time. some professors who work on the side will be familiar with the reality of the situation.

I make a great effort in all my classes to relate what students are learning and possible (non-traditional) career paths. I know how tough it is for recent grads (both undergrad and graduate level), and so I try to link critical thinking with entrepreneurship. There are many opportunities that can be created for somebody with an design profession, if they are willing to go outside the traditional realm of practice.

I do see a distinction between the old guard of baby-boomer profs nearing retirement and the younger adjuncts and junior faculty when it comes to awareness of the economy and understanding of how the design professions have changed.

There is an economic incentive for all colleges/schools/departments to try to up their enrollment at both private and public universities. Administrations everywhere are pressuring programs to justify their existence with enrollment figures, plus at my public U, we get $ for each student enrolled in one of our classes from outside the department.

A few years back, At A U Penn Architecture Conference, held at the end of Detlif Mertins tenure, a recent graduate of the school stood up and announced that he graduated as a Masters Level Architect but " knew absolutely nothing" and was worthless as an apprentice architect.

The conference went silent for a few moments, then everyone forgot the heartfelt but angry confession, and went on with the presentations of the flavor of the month blobs and skeletons made from illustrating cancer cells.

I never forgot the courage of that confession. More recent graduates need to stand up like you did Inanh!!! Resistance is the only way.

One issue is that a school's reputation is not tied to how many graduates get licensed within a certain time frame. I think if NAAB tied accreditation to eventual rates of enrollment in IDP and licensure (accounting for career switchers and people who choose to specialize), you'd see schools become far more active in tracking students after they graduate - and making sure they are prepared for entry into the field (plus, they might start changing who they accept). either that or arch schools should be required to publish this information.

schools reputations right now are based primarily on who is there (selectivity of students and status of faculty) and what they are currently researching/making - not what happens to the students after they leave the ivory tower. I think that is changing, but I think it's been only within the past couple years have I been hearing people ask "what is the job placement %?"

Corbuuuu,

I think this happens a great deal. I knew next to nothing about how to put a building together when I graduated from IIT. Many, if not most, of my classmates were in the same boat. The disturbing thing was that the ones that knew something showed up at IIT having learned it at Community College, their Architect father or some other place.

If you have a cushy job that pays you at least $90k with full benefits for 8 months work and holidays off, you don't need to worry if your students are competent architects. If they make wacky stuff like the Ben Nicholson studio where I went to school and you can take their work and publish it as your own, then what else is there to ask for?

I think what I'm hearing here (and I agree with) is that schools need to cut a better balance between academic creativity (doing funky, envelope-bending, visionary, and sometimes just self-indulgent stuff) and standards and forms of professional practice. At many schools, the latter (architecting, if you will) tends to be compromised for the former. And that's not necessarily a good thing.

I'm not a beaux arts type of guy, and I think it's past time for the beaux arts pedagogical system that prevails in arch schools to change. Viewing an architectural education as a progression of studios, each of which developers around responding to a "design problem" (the classic esquisse to en charrette sequence at the center of every studio). The "esquisse a en charrette" process has remain largely unchanged since the 1920s and now just translates, at many leading schools, into a type of sequenced and structured exercise of self-indulgence, by both students and faculty.

I'm not saying that the studio approach has to go away, but that out-of-studio, practical, skill- and professonal-practice-standard forcused training is just as if not more important... in that respect, the Canadian "co-op" system should be considered in any reform of US architectural education.

It's funny when I graduated from IIT, I was convinced that Monolithic construction was how everything was done or should be done. We did those crazy brick houses that were all brick save for the concrete and rebar in the ceiling slab.

Learning layered construction on the job, ie the way of codes and the world, was very painful. Boy, did I feel like an idiot a lot of the time! ;-)

hehe.

That sums up the problem quite nicely, make. Any profession where people have to make the assumption that real life professional practice must work to undo or reteach what you learned in school is fundamentally messed up. When you join a hospital staff after med school, they don't tell you to forget everything you learned in med school....

@urbanist: I did a Canadian "co-op". While "co-oping" around was extremely useful (the sooner you have your heart broken, the better you'll be off), it left the academic side of the coin feeling even more useless in comparison. There was no integration of the two.

I think there's a number of US schools that do co-ops. Cincinnati comes to mind. I wonder why more schools don't embrace a hands on approach. If anything, it makes your degree somewhat cheaper by being forced to work (and hopefully save).

Otherwise your "esquisse a en charrette" comment is spot on.

Urbanist, I beg to differ.

The Beaux Arts pedagogical method was to study famous historical buildings and create a pastiche of parts that are assembled into a building (there is also an emphasis on hand drawn renderings that combine pencil, ink, and washes). Most of the North American schools DO NOT use this historicist practice (Notre Dame and Catholic U might be the exceptions).

Most schools DO follow a Bauhaus inspired style that builds on tectonics and progresses from simple elements/details to more complex systems/buildings. There is little difference between what is illustrated in 'Education of an Architect' from the 1980s and projects being assigned today. The big difference is how and when digital media is introduced and the shift from model making to digital representation. While the Bauhaus pedagogy is project based, it differs significantly from the Beaux Arts.

All pedagogy has the tendency to self-indulgence (it really isn't a bad thing) - except when standardized and testing based (ie NCLB) - then it's just dogma.

Regardless of the reality of the job market, I would have the same message for anyone inquiring about the profession. If you're not passionate about architecture, quit while you're ahead. If you are passionate, just keep going at it. Try to stay in the bubble. There are some peripheral positions that you can find. Do some competitions etc... Perhaps I'm delusional, but I truly believe dedication pays off.

the architekture education academia industry is thriving just keep paying youre tuition and shut up.

Sorry to hear you didn't learn anything in college Make. When I graduated IIT I knew how to build a building. were you part of the late 80's through 90's group of student? who thought you? from the principles that i learned, I was able to quickly learn all kinds of other building methods. Principles are a constant.

I will say that the college courses on their own were only the beginning for me and because of some of the professors I had they inspired me to learn on my own, self educate myself on all kinds of different topics from philosophy to building aka like in the real world.

academia and MOST professions are different, and disconnected.
not just archtiecture.
get over it.

Don,

Monolithic construction is firmly at odds with layered construction. I had a very hard time making stuff that was to code or buildable by trades that want their stuff to be separate unlike the Farnsworth House. We were told that books weren't necessary at IIT. Low and behold, all of these things were codified by UL or ACI. I never saw either book mentioned there.

It was a long time ago. Now that I teach I realize that I have a responsibility to my students to make sure that they know volume is the dialogue between solid and void and that every masonry wall has to have a certain percentage of horizontal and vertical steel per ACI and needs to be insulated as well per the energy code.

Time marches on...

Wow,
I wouldn't recognize that kind of IIT where they tell us we don't need books. Books were an important part of any studio project, including the chicago building code, ubc, other books on art and philosopy that were kind of the foundation of the IIT education, but of course there were students who refused to read. Some of my professors were there in the 90's and they always told us to read. sorry to hear you had a lousy experience. In year 2 of undergrad we did brick, and it was fun for us, some did hate it though, we knew from the start that this is not the way it is anymore but the mindset, the methodology, the space planning, taking into consideration the environment that the building is in, you know orientation, how to get a good breeze through the floor plan, how to make a building seem as if it was always there, That is what I took from the monolithic 2nd year brick studio that you might be referring to. In the more advanced studios, and in real life I am better for it. All I'm saying is " every student comes away with a different experience depending on his or her personality", but again sorry about what you experienced. Congratulations on your position as a professor.

time marches on and here we are in the midst of the great architecture recession.

Don,

I did develop a real love for brick patterns. Don't tell Mr. Caldwell!

I'll post later...

Do you have a gig?

Things are just picking up for me thankfully.

Cheers!

there have been some interested parties, but no cigar yet, I'm expecting a call soon though, I do a lot of reading on my own, and on my last interview they were probably intimidated by me, its a gift I have, though, I don't intend to do it people sometimes mistake my professional attitude for something else, they told me I was overqualified. So no, no gig at the moment other than working on my parents dream home, to be built probably in 2 or 3 years. You know Make, if IIT had a good Alumni Network like other universities, we would be the best Arch College hands down.

PS. congratulations on having Alfred Caldwell as your professor, the guy is a legend.

those who cant do, teach....those who cant teach, teach gym....

to the original post: i don't think there is any excuse for any educator to be ignorant of the current state of the economy - in architecture, construction, and beyond. the dean will also be painfully aware that architecture is in a funk because schools' fundraising efforts are affected by this as well. i expect something else was behind your dean's comments.

to the larger question: i disagree that the curriculum in undergrad should change so dramatically to a vocational/technical focus, leaving the conceptual/historical/theoretical focus for later. that would rob architectural education of its strengths, the things that make design education in general so completely different from other disciplines' trajectories.

as a rule, design education starts with some sort of 'foundation', an environment in which students are encouraged to explore basic concepts with little responsibility to reality. as students' understanding of design concepts become more sophisticated, more and more reality can be introduced.

those who come into architecture school with previous construction background or other expertise in/around the building industry - while they can end up in a great place - are those who have to fight the hardest to free themselves from preconceptions based on this previous experience.

there is a reason that the business community is looking at 'design thinking' right now. it's something that has allowed designers to continue to grow and produce ideas. it's a way of thinking that nurtures creative processes. it's not just a way of learning, but a way of producing new knowledge.

let the profession teach what the profession wants. what the profession continues to need is thinkers willing to explore possibilities and able to maintain their curiosity and drive despite the challenges of the business/construction side of the profession.

those who learn the 'industry' too well and buy into its limited expectations end up stagnating. the technically-trained ones: they can come and go with little affect on the life of the firm. as an employer, i want those who will continue to grow and seek out new possibilities - no matter how green they are. these are the ones we keep long-term.

I think you can have design studio without the constraints of vocational school and I think that's a better way to start. But at many schools that's an excuse not to make competent graduates. You also need the vocational stuff. You need both. They can be taught simultaneously. You should be able to do layered construction AND design creatively without being inhibited by codes, etc.. I don't think designing creatively means you're "creating new knowledge." It can but playing with shapes, the principal activity when I was in school, is more akin to masturbating than anything else. If the playing with shapes is backed up by some decent argument or critical reasoning, then you're doing creative work. That's my 2 cents!!

i was watching an NFL game in the last few years where the commentators were discussing Roethlisberger and his vision, decision making, poise under pressure, etc. Then one of the commentators said something to the effect of, "...of course you know, when we talk about these quarterbacking intangibles, about the vision that makes the great ones great, we never mention it but these great ones are very fundamentally sound and have exceptional ability to execute well under pressure...you don't get to be great without it...vision without skill makes you a great coach maybe, not a great quarterback..." I think there is a lot of truth in this. And it is the reason why I agree with make's comment above. Both are needed.

to Mdler,
"those who cant do, teach....those who cant teach, teach gym...."
I don't know if this was a knock at Alfred Caldwell, but if it was, I'm here to tell you that he did DO what he taught. He was a self made man.

to S.Ward
well we have to consider that not all Arch. Colleges, teach equally. I agree that no drastic changes are needed, we need to teach humanities and social sciences along with studios.

Regarding your comments about business looking for design minded, curious folks who always look towards future possibilities, despite real world constraints, I think and hope that most people who are graduates of Architecture college have this forward thinking mindset from the get go. It is a basic instinct for me anyway to always look at materials and discover based on a system which is based on facts reasonable thinking and not just "design thinking" which may be akin to "clever speculation".

I will also remind you as an employer that not all of us are given the opportunity to participate in preliminary design phases, though we are perfectly capable of doing it. So in part employers are to blame for architects who as you say only "learn the industry and then stagnate". I also disagree that these are the people that can leave a firm and have no affect on the life of the office, an office cannot produce if it has no competent producers. After all if you need proof of this just talk to a Construction Lawyer. There has to be a balance.

That is why I am determined to be my own boss one day, I don't want vice presidents who are more business men than architects to decide what I am capable of doing. New knowledge is not created through Clever speculation.

I don't know what country you practice in, but here in the USA, nothing new has happened for a long time. Maybe later.

Hey Don,

People often criticize American architecture. I use to be one of those people. But lately I've been excited by some work being produced. I believe this conversation comes down to what we perceive is new. Perhaps we should make sure we're on the same page. So before I reference one, I would like you to define some overseas work you believe is new and isn't something being done here.

I think there is enough time and room in first professional degrees (B.Arch's and M.Arch I's) to have a variety of studios (some more conceptual and others more grounded in reality.) However (as has been said here) these programs DO have a responsibility to give students a foundation in practical skills. M.Arch II's and PhD programs can address completely different issues, and can vary widely in focus and methodology. These post-professional degrees are purely voluntary and have no impact on licensure.

On a side note -I find it odd how people on Archinect are always comparing schools without clarifying what programs they're describing. Comparing a post-professional masters program with a professional undergraduate program is not very helpful.

To address the heading of this post "are architecture faculty in denial?" or what underlies this question "should faculty adapt what they teach to realities on the ground?" My answer for question 1 : "sometimes", and for question 2: "it depends."

College faculty change at a much slower rate than the profession. Changeover in academia is rare, and faculty spend a long time developing a certain area of expertise (one that they are unlikely to reinvent every year.) This leads to frustration and criticism from students & recent alums. While some of this criticism is valid - for example colleges rarely keep up with technological changes in the"real world." There are advantages to this as well -typical construction methods and design fundamentals really haven't changed that much since architecture education was formalized.
Arch programs that are obsessed with the idea of being trendsetters often sacrifice the fundamentals. So the issue of being blind to current trends (or economic realities) is in a way what keeps faculty focused on teaching elemental skills and design thinking that many people in this discussion seem to be asking for.

The critique that some faculty don't address basic architectural realities in studio also has two sides. There's only so much that can be addressed in a studio, and for clarity some issues are given less importance. Yes that 50 foot cantilever may not work as designed, but as long as this is understood, but something else is gained maybe it's ok.

The critique I sympathize with is when the design brief from a faculty member has stupid and impossible constraints built in. At one jury I was on, the studio brief required a MAXIMUM 8 ft floor to floor height (this was for a lower division studio on housing.) It made me cringe. I have also seen briefs for public programs (say a library) which asked for only one stair. Not addressing fundamental code issues or construction techniques for common typologies always makes me wonder if the person teaching has ever worked as an architect.

On advanced hypothetical studios I am happy to leave practicality at the door. Although I still find it odd when I see a multi-floor building with no egress.

As for not knowing how to design, document, and oversee construction straight out of school. So what? That's what the 3 year internship period is for. And even after its over you will feel stupid. The reality is that it takes at least a decade to reach a certain comfort level with the whole design to construction process.

And yes, faculty don't feel the current crisis in the way that recent grads do. But most were not in academia during the last recession, and they remember all too well what that felt like.

i think I have said my peace for this thread. I should have been clear that European architecture is also pretty bad right now.

"typical construction methods and design fundamentals really haven't changed that much since architecture education was formalized."

I went to IIT which has more in common with Taliesin in terms of design fundamentals and the way the place worked than Ivy League schools. You're right. These are and were not typical programs. They don't speak of the architectural education as a whole.

"The reality is that it takes at least a decade to reach a certain comfort level with the whole design to construction process."

-Construction really isn't that complicated. If you have never experienced it firsthand, then it's really difficult to figure out. That's a problem for students. A week of laying bricks or building 2x4 platform framing is experience that will last a lifetime.

Sarah, I think you've made some very good observations about the pros and cons of studio.

And, Don, I don't think Mdler was dissing Mr. Caldwell. He was just having fun and not at anyone's expense.

Cheers!