I've posted here only once before so I'll briefly introduce myself again to frame my frustrations: I've already graduated with a degree in geography, and I'm taking Drawing and an Intro to Architecture course from a community college because I need to take care of the prerequisites for MLA programs. The Intro course is mostly for fun--I think my courses in human and urban geography cover the urban history/urban studies requirements for MLA programs (if anyone has input on that please do share).
So here's the problem--which from my introduction might be predictable--as the first week progresses, I'm finding the "level" of the course to be extremely low. Some of the frustration is due to overlap in vocabulary and concepts from previous undergrad coursework, but mostly because of the layout of the class.
I know I could be inviting comments accusing me of being elitist, arrogant, hasty, or the like, but hear me out first. Based on the course description, I was highly anticipating this class as a historical survey where we engaged with primary texts, went on field trips, and had interesting conversations about perhaps major design schools, significant developments in architecture, and the role of contemporary architects going forward from here. You know, something real general and accessible but still interesting.
Well, today we got the syllabus. As it turns out, 20% of our grade is based on completing a 125-word vocabulary packet by copying definitions right out of a Francis Ching textbook. Instead of actual essays, one of our "major papers" is 3 pages of 60-70 word bullet points. Another core assignment is bullet-point responses to NYTimes articles (only the NYTimes!) featuring architecture. It just doesn't feel like I'll get a lot out of it considering my previous experience studying the built environment and natural landscapes. Heck, I already read what architecture-related pieces I can from various publications.
I tried comparing the syllabus to similar courses at major universities, and I think I'm simply facing a uniquely-deflating course format. However, I'm worried that this is just a type of thing I'd have to slog through no matter where I wind up--I'm afraid because it might mean I'm just not cut out for this. I think I would, though, get more out of picking up stuff like Le Corbusier's "Towards an Architecture" and just reading through it. Though I'd be sad not to be able to chew on it with anyone. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Do I slog through it? Do I drop it and use the money to buy books for self study? As I said, for Landscape Architecture I don't believe I *need* this as a formal preqreq, but I did want to do this for fun and this lecturer is going to make it hard to have fun.
Non Sequitur
Aug 23, 16 7:08 pm
Looks like you need to pick a real school
iiDe
Aug 23, 16 7:44 pm
Wish that were an option, but the nearest "real school" is too far to be enrolled in just one or two classes, even if they're in the evening. At this point, I have now seen the full spectrum of the US education system from community college to private liberal arts schools to the ivy league. It's really something.
ArchNyen
Aug 24, 16 7:33 am
It is not that you are not happy with the schools, it is that you are not happy with yourself. Until you figure things out for yourself there will always be things that you are unhappy with.
midlander
Aug 24, 16 7:57 am
Your school is selling educational credits to people who need them. Their market is people who need educational credits and cannot go elsewhere for various reasons. You seem to have unrealistic expectations for the transaction.
Volunteer
Aug 24, 16 8:33 am
The fact that George Bush could graduate from Yale and get an MBA from Harvard indicates it was over a very long time ago.
Schoon
Aug 24, 16 8:55 am
My guess is that the class is a generic intro class meant for non-architecture majors. I took a similar class at my previous university before transferring and changing my major. If that's the case, I agree with the other posters that your expectations are too high.
geezertect
Aug 24, 16 9:54 am
If you don't "need" the course and you are taking it for "fun" but it isn't going to be "fun", then don't take it. Seems obvious. What's the hangup? Is it a requirement for getting into the program you want?
chigurh
Aug 24, 16 11:22 am
This guy is wack - If you are looking for rigorous intellectual stimulation why are you going into LA in the first place? School (depending on where you go) will definitely give you a huge opportunity to do some major academic jerking off, but once you go to work, its going to be planting plans and irrigation for the next 40 years. If you can't handle a dumb intro to architecture class you will never have the wherewithal to make it through the day to day bs required to be successful in this field.
gual
Aug 24, 16 11:29 am
What's your endgame? What are you looking to get out of the class? I don't know much about LA pedagogy but in arch school we definitely read the original corb texts and all that and there were people around to engage with intellectually (though not many, most just wanted to make some cool looking renders).
You should read up on the schools you want to go to for LA and see if they care about you taking this course or not. If they're anything like the arch schools I went to they'd be more impressed by a course with some Foucault readings, which is more up your alley anyway and doesn't hamper your ability to get in. Then again they may be pragmatic schools that would see "intro to arch" on your transcripts and say "okay good they took some arch stuff." This all depends on where you want to go.
sameolddoctor
Aug 24, 16 12:11 pm
Francis DK Ching hahahhahahaha.
'nuff said.
Find a real school.
lacalr
Aug 24, 16 1:51 pm
What is the professor/teacher like? Do you see a purpose in trying to reach out to them on how to get more out of the class? Maybe they too are bored and exhausted with the same old intro students/lessons. They may find it refreshing having a student actually get more engaged with them and discuss schools, theory and the like.
accesskb
Aug 24, 16 10:22 pm
what were you expecting from a community college course? xD I'm sure you can find better courses on Coursera.
Hi all,
I've posted here only once before so I'll briefly introduce myself again to frame my frustrations: I've already graduated with a degree in geography, and I'm taking Drawing and an Intro to Architecture course from a community college because I need to take care of the prerequisites for MLA programs. The Intro course is mostly for fun--I think my courses in human and urban geography cover the urban history/urban studies requirements for MLA programs (if anyone has input on that please do share).
So here's the problem--which from my introduction might be predictable--as the first week progresses, I'm finding the "level" of the course to be extremely low. Some of the frustration is due to overlap in vocabulary and concepts from previous undergrad coursework, but mostly because of the layout of the class.
I know I could be inviting comments accusing me of being elitist, arrogant, hasty, or the like, but hear me out first. Based on the course description, I was highly anticipating this class as a historical survey where we engaged with primary texts, went on field trips, and had interesting conversations about perhaps major design schools, significant developments in architecture, and the role of contemporary architects going forward from here. You know, something real general and accessible but still interesting.
Well, today we got the syllabus. As it turns out, 20% of our grade is based on completing a 125-word vocabulary packet by copying definitions right out of a Francis Ching textbook. Instead of actual essays, one of our "major papers" is 3 pages of 60-70 word bullet points. Another core assignment is bullet-point responses to NYTimes articles (only the NYTimes!) featuring architecture. It just doesn't feel like I'll get a lot out of it considering my previous experience studying the built environment and natural landscapes. Heck, I already read what architecture-related pieces I can from various publications.
I tried comparing the syllabus to similar courses at major universities, and I think I'm simply facing a uniquely-deflating course format. However, I'm worried that this is just a type of thing I'd have to slog through no matter where I wind up--I'm afraid because it might mean I'm just not cut out for this. I think I would, though, get more out of picking up stuff like Le Corbusier's "Towards an Architecture" and just reading through it. Though I'd be sad not to be able to chew on it with anyone. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Do I slog through it? Do I drop it and use the money to buy books for self study? As I said, for Landscape Architecture I don't believe I *need* this as a formal preqreq, but I did want to do this for fun and this lecturer is going to make it hard to have fun.
Looks like you need to pick a real school
Wish that were an option, but the nearest "real school" is too far to be enrolled in just one or two classes, even if they're in the evening. At this point, I have now seen the full spectrum of the US education system from community college to private liberal arts schools to the ivy league. It's really something.
It is not that you are not happy with the schools, it is that you are not happy with yourself. Until you figure things out for yourself there will always be things that you are unhappy with.
Your school is selling educational credits to people who need them. Their market is people who need educational credits and cannot go elsewhere for various reasons. You seem to have unrealistic expectations for the transaction.
The fact that George Bush could graduate from Yale and get an MBA from Harvard indicates it was over a very long time ago.
My guess is that the class is a generic intro class meant for non-architecture majors. I took a similar class at my previous university before transferring and changing my major. If that's the case, I agree with the other posters that your expectations are too high.
If you don't "need" the course and you are taking it for "fun" but it isn't going to be "fun", then don't take it. Seems obvious. What's the hangup? Is it a requirement for getting into the program you want?
This guy is wack - If you are looking for rigorous intellectual stimulation why are you going into LA in the first place? School (depending on where you go) will definitely give you a huge opportunity to do some major academic jerking off, but once you go to work, its going to be planting plans and irrigation for the next 40 years. If you can't handle a dumb intro to architecture class you will never have the wherewithal to make it through the day to day bs required to be successful in this field.
What's your endgame? What are you looking to get out of the class? I don't know much about LA pedagogy but in arch school we definitely read the original corb texts and all that and there were people around to engage with intellectually (though not many, most just wanted to make some cool looking renders).
You should read up on the schools you want to go to for LA and see if they care about you taking this course or not. If they're anything like the arch schools I went to they'd be more impressed by a course with some Foucault readings, which is more up your alley anyway and doesn't hamper your ability to get in. Then again they may be pragmatic schools that would see "intro to arch" on your transcripts and say "okay good they took some arch stuff." This all depends on where you want to go.
Francis DK Ching hahahhahahaha.
'nuff said.
Find a real school.
What is the professor/teacher like? Do you see a purpose in trying to reach out to them on how to get more out of the class? Maybe they too are bored and exhausted with the same old intro students/lessons. They may find it refreshing having a student actually get more engaged with them and discuss schools, theory and the like.
what were you expecting from a community college course? xD I'm sure you can find better courses on Coursera.