Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
University of Southern California (USC)
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
Kansas State University
Do you learn to build buildings in Architecture Grad School?
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?
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
Um. Pratt, most certainly doesn't, suck.
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.
No, it sucks b3
You had to walk across campus? Did anyone lay out a carpet for you first?
Grad school taught be how shit goes together and how an architectural practice runs. Undergrad taught we to think conceptually.
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.
Architecture training begins after school.
You'll find out when you go looking for a job.
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/
I'm a Rick Joy guy.
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
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.
Yea that makes sense, I guess.
you can think of the human experience of a space you imagine without making it poetic or weird.
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).
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!
REM started out as a writer, before going into architecture
Actually as a journalist.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.