Archinect
anchor

Do you learn to build buildings in Architecture Grad School?

MValley

I know it seems obvious. But I'm in my first semester of M.Arch at Pratt. I do not have a intimate background in architecture (my father does;he runs his own business), and besides having to learn all the confusing software I'm trying to understand what the premise of the professors' agenda. 

It seem like the undergrad draw by hand a bit and build models of buildings by hand. The grad program wants to "go beyond" just architecture even when I haven't gotten the basics -- which is why I'm in a 3 year not 2 year program...? We are building shapes without steady bottoms,experimenting with different materials, combing different thresholds into one (a threshold is apparently not the bump you step over in a doorway -- it's the whole exterior of the doorway/columns bricks,concrete.)

There might be real estate classes and building code later on but I am supposed to be confused even when they explain stuff? 

Has anyone else experienced anything similar? 

 
Oct 16, 18 8:31 pm
rickrossdaboss

they’re teaching you to think. If you can’t think spatially how can you design a building. Learn to crawl first. 




Pratt does suck though

Oct 16, 18 8:54 pm  · 
 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Um. Pratt, most certainly doesn't, suck.

Oct 16, 18 9:42 pm  · 
 · 
MValley

Besides the confusing curriculum -- the teachers are all pretty good. The Administration is what sucks -- I actually had to hand deliver a 2 receipts across campus to pay my library fee.

Oct 16, 18 11:08 pm  · 
 · 
rickrossdaboss

No, it sucks b3

Oct 17, 18 6:33 am  · 
 · 
Wilma Buttfit

You had to walk across campus? Did anyone lay out a carpet for you first?

Oct 17, 18 9:14 am  · 
 · 
Non Sequitur

Grad school taught be how shit goes together and how an architectural practice runs.  Undergrad taught we to think conceptually.

Oct 16, 18 9:03 pm  · 
 · 
Wilma Buttfit

Ask your dad. But really, no. You have to supplement. Go ahead and learn on your own what you will not learn in school and you will be good. 

Oct 16, 18 9:33 pm  · 
 · 

Architecture training begins after school.

You'll find out when you go looking for a job.

Oct 16, 18 9:40 pm  · 
 · 
Will Bruder says architecture is the poetic made pragmatic. When you think of a threshold (or any element of architecture) think of it as both a material piece that has to keep out weather/meet ADA height limitations/be affixed to the floor and structure below/bridge different floor materials *AND* as a moment in which a human experiences a poetic resonance of moving from one condition (“outside”) to another (“inner sanctum”). Your professors mostly want the latter; your clients and employers will mostly want the former. You will learn A LOT more about the former (pragmatic) when you get a job in a firm but you need to know the latter (poetic) too. Hang in there! It’s a long slow career.
Oct 16, 18 9:56 pm  · 
 · 
randomised

Ah yes Will Bruder, he's self-taught by the way :-) His Byrne Residence really resonated with me in university. Link to admire: http://willbruderarchitects.com/project/byrnebills-residence/

Oct 17, 18 7:06 am  · 
 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

I'm a Rick Joy guy.

Oct 17, 18 3:50 pm  · 
 · 
MValley

Donna, that's exactly it. I think very visually and spatially (I think ppl above were just quoting what professors and brochures tell you. I already have a BA in Creative Writing (Terrible at poetry and metaphors tho) and a MS in Industrial-Organizational Psychology and am 29 so not that young and inexperienced.). I think the former way. My professors are on about some poetic stuff that makes no sense! I already know the construction stuff a bit, and my father hates the poetic stuff. So, I'll just do it for school, whatever it is, and just ignore it on the job unless someone is being poetic -- I'll listen patiently and make up some stuff with key words when it's just a pretty marble staircase. lol

Oct 16, 18 10:49 pm  · 
 · 
sameolddoctor

Donna's point is right on the money. However, the poetic stuff is seen, as it should be, a completely self-aggrandizing circle-jerk that architects indulge themselves in, mostly to make themselves feel better about some crappy work we do on a daily basis.

On the other hand, think of the poetic stuff as therapy. It helps us get through the daily grind.

Oct 16, 18 10:53 pm  · 
 · 
MValley

Yea that makes sense, I guess. 

Oct 16, 18 11:06 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

you can think of the human experience of a space you imagine without making it poetic or weird.

Oct 16, 18 11:11 pm  · 
 · 

Exactly what curtkram said. I used "poetic" because that was Bruder's word. The experience of entering a church, perhaps with soaring space and light and humble wood benches, is a poetic experience that has nothing at all to do with *academia*. When an academic says "the building posits temporal and atemporal as in conflict with a rationalized knowledge of the end" that just means humans grapple with death. Yes, we do, no need to use ten dollar words to say so. "Humans seek both comfort and ceremony in shelter." That's a beautifully banal statement without being academic, but a universe of gorgeous buildings have been, and still can be, made based on it. That's poetic enough (for me).

Oct 17, 18 8:02 am  · 
 · 

Also a BA in Creative Writing is an EXCELLENT preparation for architecture!  You paint an image with words but the words *also* have to function in a logical, understandable way. Structure and ephemerality in one tidy package! 

Oct 17, 18 8:06 am  · 
 · 
zonker

REM started out as a writer, before going into architecture

Oct 17, 18 11:58 am  · 
 · 
randomised

Actually as a journalist.

Oct 18, 18 1:06 am  · 
 · 
nathanparker

I don't think you are taught how to build buildings per se. But you are taught a great deal about construction materials, truss, balancing and more.

Oct 26, 18 6:04 am  · 
 · 
archinine
Pratt is no better or worse in terms of curriculum. Actually it’s better in terms of networking opportunities and facilities available (should you choose to utilize those). None of the schools are going to teach the literal nuts and bolts. But you’ll learn that in a firm. School is the fun part where you have no budget or client and just get to think / explore. You’ll learn all the boring stuff later. It’s that ability to think and problem solve that you’re learning now which will be useful all your career. (Most) anyone can rote memorize product details and sheet setups.
Oct 26, 18 1:45 pm  · 
 · 

There are schools that do focus more on the nuts and bolts but every curriculum is constrained by time and there is so much to learn.

Nov 21, 18 2:41 pm  · 
 · 
MValley

Hi again. So, just saw some of these comments. I know what was bothering me. It was the obscure language and beating around the bush. Now, I like theory and all but what they are teaching makes no sense. I went to a lecture called "Pratt Sessions" and I was in the front row and had no idea what was said. No one else explains it to you either. They are all about this weird shape here-- and there and never seem to sound coherent. 

Even my TA girl said she struggled in first semester of grad school as well, because she came from a more practical Arch background. I asked do you use the abstract stuff at work. I already knew her answer would be 'No'. Then there's this line they use to defend the point of it in school. "Grad school, no matter if you have a background in architecture or not, is to go beyond the basics, to push the field forward." 

I guess I was under the impression that M.Arch 1 was for non-background and that M.Arch II was for BA/BS in Arch but not professional. Nope, we're all bunched together so they just say "Umm..." and hope we figure it out. 

The major thing is understanding their confusing jargon and pretending that their is underlying "meaning" to the building. I'm good at coming with cool ideas of what's happening in the building (programs) but the building itself doesn't mean anything. If I wanted to do that I would've studies painting or something. 

On the contrary, I went to a lecture hosted by the tiny City Planning department and could understand everything. Very interesting. I guess I more interested in solving problems and exploring the city. I guess I'll take classes there as well.  

Ugh, Are many programs this dense? Are all firms like this? Even in traditional architecture? Maybe I should imagine building for a sci-fi film?

Nov 19, 18 11:18 pm  · 
 · 

Many programs are not this dense and you should evaluate a few others as it sounds like Pratt might not be the best fit for your style of learning and the type of architect you may eventually want to become. No shame in changing schools if you are going from a place where you struggle to understand to a place where you can grow academically and professionally.

Nov 21, 18 2:44 pm  · 
 · 
archi_dude

Academics idea of “pushing the field forward,” is really just pushing it to obscurity. It’s really frustrating that is what academics think schooling is for and then you graduate and spend a 5 years blindly figuring out how to do your job becuase NOTHING you did in school is used.

Nov 21, 18 9:26 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: