By education, I am referring to what we learn in architecture schools or universities. Do we think it is sufficient enough? Why or why not? And what else can be done?
Of course not... a good school teaches you how to think creatively... which does not always translate well when you have paying clients, deadlines, physics, and a million other tasks that are never covered in design studios.
If it was, we would not see so many low-pay entry jobs.
What needs to change? Having equal weight to prof-prac, CD/CA and design would help. Having studio profs who have a career in architecture outside of just academia also would help. We could also stop repeating that architecture school is some sort of bootcamp and forcing students to work 18hr days and at 40k/year schools. So, lots.
A focus on sufficiency of architectural education regarding digital technologies misses the reality of the current situation and ignores the greater problem.
It wasn't even current 30 years ago. Professors rarely stay on top of things. It's only when you get architects that also have a practice going do get real time instruction of what's going on in the profession. Academics tend to be too theoretical ( as they should be ) and some are just old and tenured and only a few are fully lit and aware of current needs of the profession and teach to it.
Depends on the school you are going to and what digital means in the practice you are thinking of. You talking about digital fabrication, basic revit stuff, or how developers, builders and government agencies are all asking for BIM for larger works?
There are a million ways to practice architecture and a million ways to teach it. Sometimes there is overlap. As far as I can tell architecture education is about learning to think, mostly. Sometimes its about what to think, occasionally its about how to act on all that thinking, and can be downright technical. Which part of the tangled web you pull apart leads to different answers, but its not like you aren't making a mess by pulling shit apart like that.
The uni I worked at for 11 years in Tokyo doesn't emphasize the practical aspects (or rather what practicality is presumed to mean in the Western world) - and yet there are 3 Pritzker laureates on the pay-roll and they seem to be pretty happy with the students who come out of the system.
On the other hand the uni I teach at in Toronto is extremely practical and the graduates are pretty good with all the obvious digital age needs. Lots of PM courses and most everyone is decent with revit before finishing undergrad.
I've employed people from both schools in my office. They need their hands held at different times. That is the big difference. Any fresh graduate is still learning so much that the question being posed as a matter of school curriculum seems to miss the point.
Maybe we will get more by thinking at the scale of the entire industry, from governance to production. Educators and practitioners have a shared experience with covid, making digital work pretty normal by now. But builders did not share in that as much, cuz they have been on site, making stuff. The thing I can see happening lately is more of a gap between digital literacy among builders and everyone else in the profession - and that might take some time to work through, especially as we start to get into digital fabrication as a normal thing. If that is a future for architects to deal with then I would be happier if we simply taught young architects to be flexible and open-minded about how to achieve goals and worry less about digital anything.
Is architectural education sufficient for practice in the digital age?
By education, I am referring to what we learn in architecture schools or universities. Do we think it is sufficient enough? Why or why not? And what else can be done?
Of course not... a good school teaches you how to think creatively... which does not always translate well when you have paying clients, deadlines, physics, and a million other tasks that are never covered in design studios.
If it was, we would not see so many low-pay entry jobs.
What needs to change? Having equal weight to prof-prac, CD/CA and design would help. Having studio profs who have a career in architecture outside of just academia also would help. We could also stop repeating that architecture school is some sort of bootcamp and forcing students to work 18hr days and at 40k/year schools. So, lots.
This is a terribly strange question to be asking in 2022.
Thanks for making me feel nostalgic about the times of Tschumi, Stan Allen and Hani Rashid et al.
A focus on sufficiency of architectural education regarding digital technologies misses the reality of the current situation and ignores the greater problem.
But technology will solve all of our problems. They PROMISED.
Like Revit.
It wasn't even current 30 years ago. Professors rarely stay on top of things. It's only when you get architects that also have a practice going do get real time instruction of what's going on in the profession. Academics tend to be too theoretical ( as they should be ) and some are just old and tenured and only a few are fully lit and aware of current needs of the profession and teach to it.
Teaching kids how buildings are actually constructed would be a good start.
Choose an answer to the following:
What is architecture? ____________________
A: A Philosophy of Living and of Life
B: The Most Practical of All Arts.
C: The Science of Building
D: A Waste of Time
Only one answer is correct. Good luck.
E. none of the above, you simpleton.
You my friend may be just an over educated idiot.
Since one answer is indeed correct.
Have you thought about a career change?
Can you make cappuccino and lattes well?
What's going on over here?
Depends on the school you are going to and what digital means in the practice you are thinking of. You talking about digital fabrication, basic revit stuff, or how developers, builders and government agencies are all asking for BIM for larger works?
There are a million ways to practice architecture and a million ways to teach it. Sometimes there is overlap. As far as I can tell architecture education is about learning to think, mostly. Sometimes its about what to think, occasionally its about how to act on all that thinking, and can be downright technical. Which part of the tangled web you pull apart leads to different answers, but its not like you aren't making a mess by pulling shit apart like that.
The uni I worked at for 11 years in Tokyo doesn't emphasize the practical aspects (or rather what practicality is presumed to mean in the Western world) - and yet there are 3 Pritzker laureates on the pay-roll and they seem to be pretty happy with the students who come out of the system.
On the other hand the uni I teach at in Toronto is extremely practical and the graduates are pretty good with all the obvious digital age needs. Lots of PM courses and most everyone is decent with revit before finishing undergrad.
I've employed people from both schools in my office. They need their hands held at different times. That is the big difference. Any fresh graduate is still learning so much that the question being posed as a matter of school curriculum seems to miss the point.
Maybe we will get more by thinking at the scale of the entire industry, from governance to production. Educators and practitioners have a shared experience with covid, making digital work pretty normal by now. But builders did not share in that as much, cuz they have been on site, making stuff. The thing I can see happening lately is more of a gap between digital literacy among builders and everyone else in the profession - and that might take some time to work through, especially as we start to get into digital fabrication as a normal thing. If that is a future for architects to deal with then I would be happier if we simply taught young architects to be flexible and open-minded about how to achieve goals and worry less about digital anything.
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.