some listen to both, others pick a side. It depends on what convinces you the most really

I learned parametric modeling systems long before I studied architecture. When I was an architecture student, for learning purposes, we did everything by hand to learn architecture. In my 3rd year of a M.arch 4+3 program, I learned Revit, then I reintegrated my parametric background into the architecture equation. My first job out of school(SOM) was based more on my parametric and BIM knowledege more than my architectural knowledge.
Back to professors that are at opposite ends of the spectrum - I can't begin to emphasize enough how important it is for you to integrate where they are both comming from. It may not make sense now. It sure will when you are working in the profession - every day. The digital way is totally fluid, and cotains all aspect of a building design, thus facilitating rapid change that is reflected instantaneously in all vies and drawings of the design model.
integrate what they all say and then reduce the information into your own philosophy and then you will see that parametric modeling and BIM is a way to articulate that.
 

Parametric just means "parameter."

SketchUp has parameters.

If they fail you for using dynamic components or for not using their particular software de jour, remind them that its about methodology and not about tools. If they gripe, talk to the dean.

Yeah. I guess it's just hard to figure out HOW to create my own method without REALLY knowing what will be expected of me in the future...

and explain more what you mean - are we talking Revit here?  If so, that's something that you need to know for employment.  Or are we talking trendier stuff??  That's a big difference.

There never is one "right" way to do things, more importantly.  Don't assume that one professor is 'right' and another not so much, you might be surprised with the results from a different approach.

Personally, I like physical models and can't imagine designing buildings without them.  However, I also learned that the more proficient I became, digitally, the faster I could experiment.  So I found a balance that works for me - sketch, 3D, 3D, 3D, sketch, sketch, 3D, build model, sketch, etc., etc.

yeah, is this about parametric theory, or to BIM or not to BIM.
what do both side say exactly?

Hmm, in my first undergrad studio (sophomore year, 2000) they made us do everything by hand...ink & mylar style, along with physical models.  Then they'd let us use AutoCAD or 3D Studio for 3D, if we knew it.  Then they hired a professor that liked Microstation, so then all the early studios began using that for 3D.  Then they decided they wanted to stop teaching AutoCAD completely, then they decided to bring it back.  Eventually they added a Revit class to the curriculum. 

Basically my school had multiple personality disorder as far as software goes, and was kinda hit-or-miss whether your current professor knew anything about the software your previous prof taught you with. 

On the up side though, by junior/senior/graduate level most professors would let you use any techniques you wanted, as long as you got the job done.  Also, different students in your studio would have mastered different programs quite well, so you had the opportunity to learn quite a bit from your peers, as well as share some of your own knowledge.  In my final undergrad studio, I learned InDesign from one student, had another introduce me to Kerkythea, and watched a third do her Revit homework (which inspired me to begin teaching it to myself).

Basically, I feel that anyone coming out of arch school (grad or undergrad) has a huge range of tools at their disposal.  If and how you use these tools is entirely up to what you enjoy, what you're personally skilled at, and what your future employers may require.

I think the problem is the lack of parametric theory. It's more just 'create this facade/skin on rhino/autocad/revit/sketchup' and make it look good....(how important is this??) I know all these programs well now, but I'm still confused as to what I should be aiming for...Whereas the 'older' professors are still telling me to sketch and build by hand to 'fully understand important spatial concepts'. Problem is, I understand those basic concepts now, but I'm just completely perplexed by what theories I should be following when it comes to making these more complicated patterns and things through the digital medium....(what's going to be important by the time I'm out of school? etc etc)    /a bit lost and worried about wasting my time. 

You need to look past these 'tools' to the real problem.  There is no difference between ink/mylar, sketching, basswood, 3D and cnc'd wonderness - they are all just tools.  

Your problem, imho, is that you cannot see the forest through the trees.  Your professors are arming you with various tools to solve a problem.  What you do, how you do it, etc., is ultimately up to you.

So jump past this discussion of whether to sketch something, cad it, build by hand or build in 3D - it does not matter.  The result will be your architecture, regardless of how you get there.  

My suggestion would be to work on your process, your conceptual thinking of how to solve spatial, material, etc., problems.  This will help you decide which tool to use to solve the particular problem (do I use a screw driver to hammer a nail in?).

Lastly, I would pursue technology that is applicable to the real world.  This is outside of the conceptual design part of school, but something that you need to have to get a good job.  Personally, I spent a great deal of time become proficient in 3D, getting comfortable designing in it, rendering, also all things Adobe, graphics, etc., because I knew that would help be get jobs (and it did, a completely new career as a matter of fact!).

So take a deep breath, realize that these are just tools, preferences of the profs, but it is the design and concepts that really matter.  Your teachers are just trying to help you get there.

some good advice here.

The only problem I really see is when you look into a school's website and can't help but ask why all these projects start looking the same, and completely different from student projects just five years ago at the same schools, where ultra curvilinear gravity defying computer program driven designs are mistaken for "good" design sense.

"The only problem I really see is when you look into a school's website and can't help but ask why all these projects start looking the same, and completely different from student projects just five years ago at the same schools, where ultra curvilinear gravity defying computer program driven designs are mistaken for "good" design sense."

Yeah....this definitely confuses me. 

That's partially why going back to 'test' the design as a physical model can be beneficial.  It is personal taste, but I tend to prefer designs that can actually be built.  Crazy, I know.

so many student projects do look the same, but its largely because theyre being exposed to the same tools, and parametrics is in full swing at many US schools, I would proceed with caution

Parametrics, i thought at least, was about managing data., so it doesnt always have to result in a surface application. You can use it as spatial/structural starting point, but at a given moment you need the analog models, otherwise your just going to end up 3d printing that grasshopper script. I think thats where trace's advice is very wise

lots of parametric stuff is built.  it just isn't interesting, as often as not, because it is a bit directionless.  Doesn't mean learning isn't going on nor that the education won't be useful in the real world.

let's be honest there is a LOT of boring design in most universities being done with about as much sense of purpose as the parametric stuff and much of that is not going to get you a job either.

if you don't like the computer stuff don't do it.  but if you are "forced" to use it there is a lot of information on the internet about how to give the work direction and meaning beyond interesting folded surfaces.  If your teachers can't guide you I don't see why you can't work it out for yourself.  that's how most of the pioneers did it not that long ago...

you are also, btw, completely free to give your professors shit for being bad a their job.  why not bring it up?  maybe you are not the only one with the same complaint and perhaps the profs are open enough to make some changes...it's probably as much a learning process for them as it is for you by the sound of it.

you are also, btw, completely free to give your professors shit for being bad a their job.  why not bring it up? 

I'm afraid of overstepping my boundaries.  

Just to be clear, in any other part of the world for the last hundred years, parametric means factors that are not directly measurable. Think paranormal: not usually considered normal. The typical example is the consumer confidence index - it measures something that is not directly measurable, using a number of interdependent methods. So when architects talk about parametric methods in the same room as someone with an education in modern mathematics, they make us all look bad (see: high unemployment).

I was in the same camp as suverk when I first encountered the problem, and lost a lot of goodwill with faculty members by pointing the above out. That may have turned out to be fine, as I also spent my time in grad school learning how to reason with a pencil, but that is only part of the point. yes, engage in good natured dialogue with your faculty -- but don't expect them to take kindly to a direct challenge to the one thing they believe they can sell to an entrenched senior faculty. Do you honestly believe that you are the first person to have this problem?

That said, there is good and bad parametric work, and theory, just as there is good and bad neoclassical work bring done today too. If you are asked to learn about it and don't find what is on offer in the classroom compelling enough, why not dig in to what is publicly available on the topic?

i always thought parametric was about the definition of relationships, and the para part came from "paramaters", which could shift. 

as far as talking to profs   -   If you are paying as much as everyone on the site says you are for your education then you deserve the right to ask for teachers to clarify. 

We had revolts against professors in undergrad that involved arguments with the entire class vs the teacher.  they were both productive and un-productive depending on where you stand i suppose, but we were pretty clear that a good education was our right.  i think that helped to make the school better over time.  it did also create some problems, but in hindsight i figure it was a fair trade off. 

i really believe school should be a forum for debate and teachers should be willing to entertain some degree of discussion at least.  Absolutely step over the boundaries.  you don't need to yell at the profs, but asking them to explain what they are teaching ain't unreasonable...

or is it?

@mespellrong "Just to be clear, in any other part of the world for the last hundred years, parametric means factors that are not directly measurable. Think paranormal: not usually considered normal. The typical example is the consumer confidence index - it measures something that is not directly measurable, using a number of interdependent methods. So when architects talk about parametric methods in the same room as someone with an education in modern mathematics, they make us all look bad."

As someone with an education in modern mathematics, this paragraph makes you look really, super bad.

Parametric deals with parameters, not some bastardization of the latin root para that you seem to have derived.  God I hope you're trolling.

@jump

No, not unreasonable. I should probably do it more often. Professors argue about the controversy behind closed doors, and everyone is all hush-hush about it/unwilling to put someone in an uncomfortable position. So when students get involved, it is just not 'acceptable'. Although at this point I feel like everyone needs to get over themselves...(right?)

Anyway, I really appreciate the useful advice from everyone here. 

@mespellrong

re: unemployment

No, I am pretty sure it's just the general ignorance of the portion of the profession that likes to attempt pedantic grandstands without any basis on research or fact. 

that is a a pity EllenRen.  hope it is resolved at some point.  sounds like politics is interfering with your education, which is not fair to you and your classmates.

what does unemployment have to do with parametric design anyway?  i can just imagine the beaux-arts graduates getting giddy over the imminent unemployability of the the bauhauslers. 

"You'll never get a job if you keep designing those ridiculous flat roofs you long-haired hippy- AND you're ruining the profession too gonsarnit.  No one is ever going to take the profession seriously if you keep on this way ! " 

;-)

One of the primary reasons orthogonal, Cartesian geometry was in vogue back in the day was the standardized use of the straight edge [mayline, etc.,] and tracing paper.   Not everyone could afford to be Saarinen and spend copious hours vetting calculus forms manually.   

Now calculus generated forms [parametrics is something entirely different, you can do an entirely orthogonal project and still have it be driven by parameters.] are stylish because we can employ computation to do the large part of the calculus for us [loft, sweep, rail,  etc].   Yet the 'old guard' deifies orthogonal design as being somehow more 'pure' simply for the sake of nostalgia.  

Neither camp is correct.  They both are making a fetish of technology.  One is simply new and [sometimes] untested and one is simply older and [sometimes perversely] vetted.  They both mistake means for ends.  It's not the technology that matters, it's what you want to achieve with it.  

I went to a school that had differing, conflicting agendas on this subject, and I feel that still a lot of schools are trying to find their way forward.  I would suggest that you try and pick up what you can from both sides of the polemic, but try to fully realize that form alone ain't gonna save humanity.

Pencil, pen, models and softwares are all tools to work through and represent your design. Modern parametric softwares just allow you to work through options a lot more quickly, but SHOULD still have intelligent and critical input just like any design. The probelm is that the softwares are designed for maximum result from minial input. Most people using these tools are similarly lost as to theory and application which is why so much student work and built work looks the same. People think it is the style of the moment and therefor they should be doing it and never really question why.

I'd say the fact that you are questioning and not following along like a lemming already shows you have more intuition than most.

Learn the tools, they will be useful, but also learn/develop the basics to good design. It wouldnt hurt to read up on some parametric theory to better understand the systems and ways of using the tools. Then you will be able to develop a design using both your designers intuition and the tools rather than relying on the tools to produce it for you.

Fianlly,  any employer woth working for will hire you for your design sensibility over your software skills. You can learn and develop software skills (obviously it helps to be able to list them on your resume), but it is hard to teach design sensibility. If you spend your school projects producing midless dull parametric projects that look like everything else your portfolio will not fully represent your abilities. Definately try to incorporate the parametric tools into your design process, but dont let it be dominated by them!

good luck

@jplourde - Great post!

@ElleRen - Discomfort is usually a good sign that there's something to be learned, something to be gained. If you're breezing through school - then it's time to do something more interesting. So take this frustration - turn it into a great project and keep questioning everything.

@jplourde - I agree with you. Renzo Piano has a great essay where he warns about Architects becoming mechanics as they confuse the tool with their aim. People want to see new tools exploited. I get that. But you're making Architecture and you need to understand that shape and pattern making is subservient.

@jplourde true...I agree...I think I need to calm down a bit and try to take everything with a grain of salt/expand my learning on my own. 

@AFLArch "It wouldnt hurt to read up on some parametric theory to better understand the systems and ways of using the tools"  ---would you recommend anything in particular? I'm looking around, but it's hard to find readings that are actually very useful. 

@William Huchting "Renzo Piano has a great essay where he warns about Architects becoming mechanics as they confuse the tool with their aim" ---hmmm would you by chance know the name of the essay?

Thanks again everyone. 

The winter edition of Log's magazine had some interesting essays on the topic.  It might be worth a read, and I'm sure your school has a copy of it in your library.  I also like to look into the Young Architect's Program to see some interesting work with new methods.  Personally I'm not fully convinced, but it's still interesting to explore some of the ideas floating around.