what schools are know for giving students the best construction knowledge. If someone really wantevto learn how to put things together, where should they be looking.
may be speaking out of turn and i'm sure i'll be corrected but i've found that most construction-in-school educations are either too generalized (giving a little bit of knowledge about so many things that it becomes meaningless), too much interested in means and methods that the construction hasn't yet and may never adopt, or too conventional to really teach any more than you can learn in a summer construction job.
architecture school is about exploring why you might do something and how to think about it. how to make things is impt, but experimentation and a more inclusive understanding of making can be much more meaningful than rote learning of specific construction methods.
familiarity with industry standard construction methods comes with experience in construction.
I'd tend to agree with what has been stated above. Traditional school + summer construction labor ideally equals the best education possible.
That being said, some schools offer a studio or elective that allows the students to build an actual structure in the real world. I think U of Arizona offered this years ago, not sure if they still do. I think Louisiana Tech may also offer it, and I'm sure other schools do.
I'll once again laud the merits of a 5-year BArch program and say that those programs probably offer at least two semesters of structure/materials classes, and most likely the professors of those classes would be inteerested in taking on an independent study student who wants to delve deeper into how things get built.
And I'll add: I've been studying architecture for 20 years and still every single time I step onto a job site I learn something new about how shit goes together!
sometimes when i'm on site .. i feel so hoplessly lost !! And then they ( the freakin contractor) ask me for approval !! I still dont know how I get by.
I don't know about other schools, but I got two years of structures, one semester of 'materials and methods', one of lighting/mechanical, and one of sound/acoustical, and starting in second year was made to build large scale detail section models of the most interesting bits of my building, and do wall sections starting third year. Oh, and one semester they tried to teach construction documentation, but that just doesn't work in a classroom. Now I'm curious as to whether this was a lot of construction type teaching by comparison to other schools, or if it was about average?
Rationalist - I don't think thats average, but its similar to my experience
1 year of simplified structural engineering
1 year of construction materials & methods - by contractor
1 year of construction (more experimental & structural) - by architect
and one term each of plumbing/drainage, mechanical, & electrical/lighting.
1 term of design/build - with small scale project.
We didn't learn CDs, but we did start doing wall sections and construction details rather early. Also our studio projects were geared towards more practical issues. I wouldn't say Nuts & Bolts arch education is better, but really its more about what kind of architect the student wants to be. Obviously a Zaha Hadid won't come out of a school like mine unless after a more theory based education in grad school.
We had: two years structures, one sem materials and methods, one sem of environmental systems, one semester mechanical systems, one semester building systems, one semester site engineering (that one was tough! lots of detailing required), one sem of lighting/acoustical, and studio sequences that matched. full wall sections and blown up details were required for joint projects between studio and mechanical systems and studio and building systems. In materials and methods we poured concrete, framed a small house, put a brick wall together, etcetera.
They never tried to teach us CDs, for which I am grateful. I think my school was pretty hands-on, though, from what I've heard about others.
Nuts and Bolts Arch Education
Word,
what schools are know for giving students the best construction knowledge. If someone really wantevto learn how to put things together, where should they be looking.
on site..you dont learn shit at school
well .. in my school we used to build stuff we learnt ..
there were studio blocks on campus, which the students had made.. from scratch .. and thats besides the tensile structures experiments ..
we had a lot of emphasis on hands on training.. even plumbing etc..
now, however .. I hear that things have changed .. and its back to text book architecture.
but yeah, nevermore's right ... you learn everything on site !!
>construction job (after finishing school).
may be speaking out of turn and i'm sure i'll be corrected but i've found that most construction-in-school educations are either too generalized (giving a little bit of knowledge about so many things that it becomes meaningless), too much interested in means and methods that the construction hasn't yet and may never adopt, or too conventional to really teach any more than you can learn in a summer construction job.
architecture school is about exploring why you might do something and how to think about it. how to make things is impt, but experimentation and a more inclusive understanding of making can be much more meaningful than rote learning of specific construction methods.
familiarity with industry standard construction methods comes with experience in construction.
I'd tend to agree with what has been stated above. Traditional school + summer construction labor ideally equals the best education possible.
That being said, some schools offer a studio or elective that allows the students to build an actual structure in the real world. I think U of Arizona offered this years ago, not sure if they still do. I think Louisiana Tech may also offer it, and I'm sure other schools do.
I'll once again laud the merits of a 5-year BArch program and say that those programs probably offer at least two semesters of structure/materials classes, and most likely the professors of those classes would be inteerested in taking on an independent study student who wants to delve deeper into how things get built.
And I'll add: I've been studying architecture for 20 years and still every single time I step onto a job site I learn something new about how shit goes together!
I know what you mean Liberty...
sometimes when i'm on site .. i feel so hoplessly lost !! And then they ( the freakin contractor) ask me for approval !! I still dont know how I get by.
Nothing like the real world !!
in my construction class at umich im building a giant caterpillar-like steel chair/sedan chair lined with bungee cord and shrinkwrapped..
that's pretty typical construction
I don't know about other schools, but I got two years of structures, one semester of 'materials and methods', one of lighting/mechanical, and one of sound/acoustical, and starting in second year was made to build large scale detail section models of the most interesting bits of my building, and do wall sections starting third year. Oh, and one semester they tried to teach construction documentation, but that just doesn't work in a classroom. Now I'm curious as to whether this was a lot of construction type teaching by comparison to other schools, or if it was about average?
Rationalist - I don't think thats average, but its similar to my experience
1 year of simplified structural engineering
1 year of construction materials & methods - by contractor
1 year of construction (more experimental & structural) - by architect
and one term each of plumbing/drainage, mechanical, & electrical/lighting.
1 term of design/build - with small scale project.
We didn't learn CDs, but we did start doing wall sections and construction details rather early. Also our studio projects were geared towards more practical issues. I wouldn't say Nuts & Bolts arch education is better, but really its more about what kind of architect the student wants to be. Obviously a Zaha Hadid won't come out of a school like mine unless after a more theory based education in grad school.
We had: two years structures, one sem materials and methods, one sem of environmental systems, one semester mechanical systems, one semester building systems, one semester site engineering (that one was tough! lots of detailing required), one sem of lighting/acoustical, and studio sequences that matched. full wall sections and blown up details were required for joint projects between studio and mechanical systems and studio and building systems. In materials and methods we poured concrete, framed a small house, put a brick wall together, etcetera.
They never tried to teach us CDs, for which I am grateful. I think my school was pretty hands-on, though, from what I've heard about others.
try rural studio in alabama their projects are to design and build things for the community.
Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture. Build it, then live in it. One of the few schools that will actually prepare you for the industry.
old school...
get to know your 50's construction at IIT's ugrad program...ha!!
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.