Sleepless nights and demeaning crits have long been lambasted and perpetuated as part of the necessarily rigorous "rites of passage" for architecture students. While some may accept the difficult studio culture as a badge of honor, there has been a rising volume of protests against the unhealthful atmosphere it creates, with questionable benefits for actual education. The American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS) first formally addressed such issues in 2002, publishing "The Redesign of Studio Culture", a report meant to outline positive aspects of studio culture that should be made mandatory within NAAB accreditation.
Now, AIAS is launching "Studio Culture 3.0" to reassesses the progress made since that initial study. Focusing in particular on the changing technological aspects of architecture education, the hope is to better understand both the culture and environment of architectural education – physically and pedagogically. The investigation, began in 2014 by the AIAS advocacy Task Force, now includes a survey: Studio Culture: reviewed, described in an AIAS press release as "a beginning compilation of data on the health and welfare of students enrolled in architectural education".
If you're an architecture student, you can take the survey here until 11:59pm EST on May 25.
13 Comments
Political correctness pt 323
Let's pat everyone on the head and tell them they did a good job. Glad I went to school before this age of the lowest common denominator. As I remember, studying is a good alternative to binge drinking and partying for nerdy kids, but I guess schools are expensive day cares now.
except how often does an architecture student 'study'. 99% of our work is fabricating models or making drawings.
Well those hours spent drawing and building models were the education. Learning the craft is essential, though the profession seems to be shifting toward a polysci understanding of arch, hense the focus on architecture culture.
Practicing Architect:
"Grads coming out of school these days don't know the first thing about the real world. Their education must be broken!"
AIA Report:
"We're trying to figure out why school is so unhealthy, and make positive changes."
Practicing Architect:
"No! I went through this studio system and it's just fine, no need to change it!"
Well there is a big spectrum of education--there are too many that focus on BS that becomes a kind of PR factory for the school, so in a way i would agree that education is broken in what kind of design it teaches and who it is hiring.
Education should be focusing more on "on the ground" design build projects, shop work, drawing, with a dose of history and theory. Focusing on the amount of time you spend is kind of a diversion from talking about what kind of design matters. It doesn't really matter how much time you spend in the studio, but what you are doing there.
as a very famous and reputable architecture critic, historian, professor noted in a conversation - what is wrong with students designing buildings in architecture studios?.......fuckin novel. have students design buildings based on programs and consider their construction and details......brilliant, why hasn't anyone thought of this?
the problem isn't studio culture, the problem is the content and what is not taught. profession is very much like studio culture with regard to work.
THE EFFECTS OF SLEEP DEPRIVATION ON THE BODY
you would have less sleep deprivation in school if skills were taught first and then out of the box thinking.
Out of the box thinking typically requires critical understanding of underlying practice and methodology.
wax on wax off
It comes with the game - it may seem like tough love Marine Corp. boot camp. but ya know what? when you are pinned down in a coordination "firefight" at 12 midnight when you should have posted at 8pm, you will be grateful for the "Studio Culture" making you tough.
Educational content (the WHAT) and studio culture (the HOW) are really two different things. I think it's fair to say that the educational content most students are getting in architecture school is more than a bit light on the practical realities of designing and detailing real buildings, and that's the source of a lot of professional criticism of academia. But that's a separate issue from studio culture.
Studio culture can certainly be toxic. We've probably all got horror stories about one or another aspect of it (ask me about my all-time worst project crit sometime). But studio culture comes as much from the students themselves as it does from the institution or faculty. Do students grind on projects and put in punishing all-nighters? Yes they do. But whose fault is that, really? You can argue that programs should be teaching time management and work planning skills more systematically, but ultimately it is the students who have to figure out how to get it done without killing themselves. It would be nice if that was a bit less "sink or swim," but responsibility for it is mostly on students, not faculty.
In fact, I know now (from the perspective of having been a design professor) that part of the assigned workload is a test to see how well students can handle pressure and deal with impossible demands while still being productive. That's a critical skill every creative professional has to cultivate. And you can't learn it from a book.
And harsh crits do serve a purpose in the sense that to be successful as a creative professional, you've got to develop a tough skin, resilience, and the emotional control to keep your cool when you have to sell your ideas to a hostile crowd. The world is not waiting to welcome you all with open arms. Your big ideas are bound to piss somebody off. And everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face. Where better to get practice at taking a few hits and soldiering on than in an environment where the stakes are low and catastrophes are easily recoverable?
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.