No I don't think it's a joke. I've read the Favored Circle, which is a decent enough read, though he does seem to have a few axes to grind. Its basically a sociological analysis of the architectural profession from the perspective of the French social scientist Pierre Bourdieu (who also always strikes me as fairly angry, though infinitely more complex and interesting than Dr. Garry).
He links to archinect from his site, so I'm sure he's here on occasion.
I don't mean any disrespect, to be clear, I am just confused!! I had not heard of him until today, when I was searching for unrelated information. Spent a good long time, reading most of his website, in fact.
A lot of it is dripping with sarcasm, while much of the rest comes across as written by somebody in the early stages of dimentia! ha.
But who am I to talk? It's just my uninformed opinion. I don't think I'm in on the joke.
No, he's not a joke. I think he's got a valid point- since there are so many different factors in choosing an architecture school, why not have rankings which address each factor? Design Intelligence addresses practitioner opinion/employability. Dr. Garry's rankings address overall strength of the faculty as researchers and contributors to the public discourse on architecture. It is one of many things worth examining.
The ArchSoc website referenced above is run by disgruntled ex-academic Garry Stevens. His unprofessional comments are littered across the site. It has no credibility as a ranking of architecture schools and academics.
His quantitative criteria to rank the "Best Architecture Schools" is to count up the number of publications by academics held in libraries such as the RIBA. This limited and arbitrary measure will tell a prospective student next to nothing about the quality of teaching and research in any particular school.
Counting up publication holdings in libraries doesn't address discipline specific modes of design research such as creative works, exhibitions and curation that are currently counted in national research audits such as the RAE in the UK, the ERA in Australia or the PRBF in New Zealand.
The ArchSoc site is unreliable as a guide and should be avoided. Prospective students deciding which Architecture school to apply for should carefully investigate the research culture and teaching outcomes of any particular school they are interested in.
May 4, 10 11:40 am ·
·
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.
Dr Garry
Anybody else seen this website?
http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/index.html
I can't quite figure out what to make of it, other than that its author is a bitter, unsuccessful, lonely old man.
Or is that the joke? I don't get it.
No I don't think it's a joke. I've read the Favored Circle, which is a decent enough read, though he does seem to have a few axes to grind. Its basically a sociological analysis of the architectural profession from the perspective of the French social scientist Pierre Bourdieu (who also always strikes me as fairly angry, though infinitely more complex and interesting than Dr. Garry).
I'd take him a lot more seriously if he used sources to substantiate his claims, and his writing was a little more sensical and structured.
He's an archinector himself...
Dr Garry
i dont need no FuNkY Doctor!!!
He links to archinect from his site, so I'm sure he's here on occasion.
I don't mean any disrespect, to be clear, I am just confused!! I had not heard of him until today, when I was searching for unrelated information. Spent a good long time, reading most of his website, in fact.
A lot of it is dripping with sarcasm, while much of the rest comes across as written by somebody in the early stages of dimentia! ha.
But who am I to talk? It's just my uninformed opinion. I don't think I'm in on the joke.
The 2007 ratings are up, I don't know if there's been a thread about that.
They seem less useful than the old ratings since the data is more compressed in the mid/low end.
Big winner - Columbia, big loser - UCLA, several others
No, he's not a joke. I think he's got a valid point- since there are so many different factors in choosing an architecture school, why not have rankings which address each factor? Design Intelligence addresses practitioner opinion/employability. Dr. Garry's rankings address overall strength of the faculty as researchers and contributors to the public discourse on architecture. It is one of many things worth examining.
"Titter ye not!"
this is bollox! [is that the correct spelling? i'm from the colonies.]
dr. garry sounds like he needs to get laid. why is he so pessimistic and demeaning?
does anyone know this guy?
only person in the world educated like that
The ArchSoc website referenced above is run by disgruntled ex-academic Garry Stevens. His unprofessional comments are littered across the site. It has no credibility as a ranking of architecture schools and academics.
His quantitative criteria to rank the "Best Architecture Schools" is to count up the number of publications by academics held in libraries such as the RIBA. This limited and arbitrary measure will tell a prospective student next to nothing about the quality of teaching and research in any particular school.
Counting up publication holdings in libraries doesn't address discipline specific modes of design research such as creative works, exhibitions and curation that are currently counted in national research audits such as the RAE in the UK, the ERA in Australia or the PRBF in New Zealand.
The ArchSoc site is unreliable as a guide and should be avoided. Prospective students deciding which Architecture school to apply for should carefully investigate the research culture and teaching outcomes of any particular school they are interested in.
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.