THE GATEWAY

     This is a topic that concerns every first year architecture student: the foundation year gateway. To those of you outside this program it can be summed up as a break it or make it point where, based on your GPA, you either make it into the architecture program or don’t. It isn’t just enough to be accepted into the program upon applying but you must first endure a full year of courses in order to move past the freshman year. Apart from being a huge waste of time and money for the applicants who do not succeed there are a few other reasons as to why this is a bad practice. Students entering an architecture program should at the very least have some outside experience before spending the money on a college education in that field; it is my belief that the university should choose only candidates that have experience - even if it is minimal. My last issue with the foundation year gateway is that the teachers in the program itself have very different grading standards that may aid or destroy students chances of getting into the program. As such, it is my proposal to remove the foundation year gateway and make entrance into the overall program more difficult. 
     For an entire year students in the foundation program work tirelessly in order to please their professor and earn a spot in the final selection of students who get to move on. Admission into the program is based on the GPA of the five architecture based courses; not counting the five other general education courses (College). If students move on then the price paid has been worth it; but what about those who are not? Half of that years classes have been wasted time, energy, and money. As a freshman architect myself I can honestly say that the most difficult and time consuming courses have always been the design studios. On top of these classes comes the additional cost of materials that the school DOES NOT provide. Students may spend up to several hundred additional dollars in supplies for the projects assigned. My proposal is very simple, remove the foundation year gateway in order to prevent students from wasting a full years worth of tuition, housing, and materials for only a chance at being accepted.

     This year the University of Texas at San Antonio accepted more than 500 students into it’s foundation year program; more than the staff could actually handle (College). Many of these students are driven by false ideals on what architecture actually involves; this results in a high number of drop outs from the program. They get these glamorized visions of architecture from t.v. or from sources that depict great and majestic buildings; all of these things are only skin deep when it comes to the actual profession. The role of an architect is not only that of a designer, but a contractor, a businessman, a technician, a salesman, and the list goes on. With the removal of the foundation year gateway I believe that UTSA should instead increase the exclusivity of its program to those whose portfolio or past experiences make them better candidates to succeed in the program.

(Roles of an Architect in one project)
     There lurks in secret another unspoken factor in the chances of admittance to the architecture program; the teachers. Who you choose as your professor may very well save or damn your college career as an architect. Architecture in and of itself is a very subjective field, so much so that it is often likened to an art (Miley). However, when project requirements vary from class to class so does the professors expectations. While this is very typical in college and even before hand it becomes inappropriate when all the students must then compete as one unit for admittance; regardless of work done. Disqualification due to this factor is simply a matter of luck. 

    In conclusion, the school of architecture at UTSA should tighten its admittance levels based on the experience of applicants and due to the availability of teaching staff. The foundation year gateway should be removed for the sake of those who do not get into the program and end up wasting an entire year. Finally, the subjective standards of grading architectural work, without regard to work ethic, should not determine whether or not a student gets into the program. These changes will lead to a fairer, more prepared, and more qualified student body that will increase school output and ranking.
Work Cited
“College of Architecture | The University of Texas at San Antonio.” Welcome to The University of Texas at San Antonio | UTSA. Web. 01 May 2011.
Miley, Adrian. “Architecture Is Objective, Design Is Subjective - May 2008.” The Data Administration Newsletter – TDAN.com. The Data Administration Newsletter, LLC, 1 May 2008. Web. 01 May 2011.