Blog Viewer - AIA KnowledgeNet


+ Add a New Blog
My Blog My Contacts Most Recent Top Rated Most Read UnPublished

View Profile

Add Contact

Blog This

Contact Author

Are You Interested In Improving Architectural Education?

Where is the architecture profession headed and how should education respond?

Quote: "These are incredibly crucial times for an exploration into the nature of professional practice in architecture. Dramatic changes in the way practice is conducted in the last decade alone require students and practioners alike to develop a survival strategy. Some of these recent changes include unstable and recessionary economic trends, innovations in design and information technology, globalization of architecture, a variety of project-delivery modes, diminished responsibility and authority of architects in the construction industry, and the rise of specialization.

"Critical thinking and inquiry may well begin with a rediscovery of what it really means to be a professional architect-- a concept easily eroded in the struggle to survive. This concept of "professional attitude" is an essential guide for formulating behavior in addressing the challenges architects now face in myriad practice situations."

- c. 2006, by author Andrew Pressman, FAIA, from his book "Professional Practice 101- Business Strategies and Case Studies in Architecture," Foreword by Thomas Fisher, John Wiley & Sons

At last week's 2012 American Institute of Architects National Convention in Washington, D.C. one primary topic emerged: how do we bridge the gap between architectural education and practice? In fact, the AIA is embarking on two prominent campaigns: 1) Repositioning Architects and 2) Creating a White Paper to guide the curriculum of architecture schools in a more appropriate direction. And they are asking all AIA members to offer our input. Here's how, as outlined below.

Accreditation Review Conference Focus Groups Held at the 2012 AIA Convention Last Week:

Brian Szymanik, AIA, LEED AP (BD+C)

Brian Szymanik Architects Philadelphia PA

Brian Szymanik, AIA, LEED AP (BD+C) has been selected by AIA National to lead the process of creating a White Paper to be submitted to ARC (Accreditation Review Conference)and he has stated that the AIA is "casting a wide net and is looking forward to receiving a broad range of viewpoints." As described on the aia.org forum summary: "This forum is [but] one avenue to begin this conversation."

If you'd like to be a part of the discussion, you can join the AIA KnowledgeNet community to contribute your thoughts by following this link: www.aia.org/2013arc

I had the chance to meet Brian Szymanik at one of the focus groups he led at the AIA Convention. I attended EV206, titled: "2013--Accreditation Review Conference Focus Groups." Here is the convention guide seminar description of the event:

"The AIA Strategic Alliances & Initiatives unit invites all AIA members to participate in focus groups to solicit observations on the current state of the profession, where the field may head in the future, and how education should respond. Your input will help the AIA to prepare a white paper that presents the membership's thoughts, concerns, and suggestions in advance of the 2013 National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) Accreditation Review Conference. Your agenda is our agenda. Consequently the agenda for each focus group session will be informed by the respondents who attend. Focus groups will be led by Brian Szymanik, AIA." EV206a Thursday, 10-11am EV206b Thursday, 4-5pm I attended the latter one and was surprised to see only 7 people there! The room could have easily held at least 50 people.

Here's What We Discussed at Brian's 'Roundtable' Forum (EV206a):

Brian prompted us with questions and listened carefullly to our ideas, concerns, and occasional rants. As mentioned above, Mr. Szymanik has been chosen by the AIA to prepare a White Paper in preparation for the NAAB's (National Architectural Accreditation Boards) 2013 Accreditation Review Conference (ARC). As part of the development of this paper, the AIA is asking its constituents to weigh in with their informed opinions and ideas on what they think the future will require of the profession and, consequently, in what ways should this impact and alter architectural school curricula to prepare graduates for the practice of Architecture.

Those of us in attendance at the Friday afternoon meeting were a very diverse group consisting of: an architecture school director from the Western part of the United States, a Canadian Urban Planner, a newly graduated MArch student and leader of one of the NAC regions, a current MArch student from Pennsylvania, an architectural engineer from Saudi Arabia, Mr. Szymanik, and myself. Each of us shared our vantage points and Mr. Szymanik informed us of how many University systems operate and briefly explained parts of the NAAB accrediting process.

As Brian asked in our roundtable discussion: Does it matter if we alter education if at the end the economy and market forces will come to bear and change the situation for us. Still yet, we architects would like to right whatever we perceive is wrong with today's architectural education curriculum. Since I haven't been to an architecture school since I graduated back in 1987, I am woefully unaware of how the studios are actually run. In asking recent grads, they have indicated that not much has changed since I was in school-- depending on the school. Some schools are more theory, art, and design-oriented and some are more balanced and technical.

My questions in determing the success of an architecture program was to ask what students went on to be hired at firms like HOK, Cannon, or SOM? Who became a designer? And the guy from Utah nodded his head in understanding, offering that what I was really getting at was the notion that maybe we shouldn't be teaching every student as if they were all going to become the next starchitect. These open forum discussions were not the only venues/seminars where this topic was being discussed.

"Bridging the Gaps: A Collaborative Discussion on Restructuring Architecture Education, from Graduation to Licensure:"

The following day on Friday, I attended another seminar along the same vein as Mr. Szymanik's focus group forum: FR204- "Bridging the Gaps: A Collaborative Discussion on Restructuring Architecture Education, from Graduation to Licensure". This seminar was fairly well attended (I would guestimate about 120 people).

The convention guide seminar description of this seminar read: "An architect's formal education ends with receipt of a degree, but how much does an intern need to know upon entering the workforce? This session explores the missing links in what should be a continuous chain of architecture education and offers suggestions for reshaping the development of emerging professionals as they embark on the path to licensure. Observations and suggestions for broadening the educational experience will be offered from a number of vantage points: the college professor, the intern or Associate AIA-level member, and the recently licensed young architect."

The Speakers were: Bradford C. Grant, AIA, NOMA; Mandy Blair Palasik, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP BD+C; and Jonathan Douglas Penndorf, AIA, LEED AP BD+C The Provider was: AIA National Associates Committee. It was held on Friday from 2-330pm

Here's My Take on the Above "Bridging the Gap" Session:

I wasn't feeling well that day, so it was a bit hard for me to take copius notes, but I did my best. I sat in the back of the room so I could eat as time was very limited and lines to the food courts were long. It was sometimes difficult to hear with late-comers straggling in, opening and closing the doors. During the Q & A session at the end, I sensed there were clear lines of disagreement occurring along generational lines with the over 50's calling for more technical training as they were finding new interns were "not able to put a simple set of working drawings together, including not being able to draw a 2D floor plan."

This notion angered younger folks (the under 35 crowd) who felt that this call for more technology in the curriculum would bring the otherwise high liberal arts degree down to a vocational level education. One began to wonder: could a balance be found? One newly licensed architect stood up and said she was upset that she had to go back and earn a CAD certificate and now a REVIT certificate as her school did not offer any computer training as part of its curriculum. While another newly graduated female emerging architect said just the opposite: that she "worked exclusively by computer and didn't need a pencil to communicate her ideas and that this should not matter..."

In my opinion, I did not hear many compelling arguments one way or the other from any of the three speakers. They shared their personal stories about where they were in the profession and seemed to be careful and politically correct in their talks. I did not get many clear ideas of how any one of the three might change architectural education aside from Mr. Penndorf, a Project Manager at a prominent firm, who seemed most concerned with the lack of training one traditionally receives in time management and professional office management skills while in school.

The Professor came across as realistic, yet in the end I found his comments the least helpful; in my opinion, his statements were too sanitized and non-committal to make any impact. He did emphasize the fact that with most architecture school curriculums occurring over a 5-6 year period, there simply wasn't enough time to cover all topics that Architects seem to expect them to teach in order to pump out well-trained interns. His main point was that there are only so many credit hours per quarter/semester and they can only be expected to teach so much to the students.

Overall, I felt we ended the seminar with most everyone wanting to maintain the standard Beaux Arts education model where students are trained in studio settings given case studies and various design problems to solve. We all seemed to agree that it would be great, appropriate to also find time to add in professional office management and business skills, but those were seen as far less glamorous and much less fun than studio work.

Are We Spinning Our Wheels? Or Can Architectural Education Indeed Be Improved, Changed?

Comparing both the Event (a non-CEU credit meeting) and this 3-panel seminar, I'd say they were attempting to address the same issue(s). In that sense, it was a bit frustrating to me to realize that our efforts toward making a collective change to the architecture education model are somewhat dissipated. As a matter of practicality, I can understand why the AIA allowed so many different venues where the same type of discussion was taking place.

The challenge now is to gather all these great thoughts and ideas and bring them to the central table (i.e. to the aia.org KnowledgeNet site) so we can all see what's being suggested and chime in with our ideas. I don't think this is wasted energy. Of course, ideally, it would be better to have everyone in the same room at the same time-- but that is difficult due to the shear number of people involved. And there are a lot of players involved: AIA, ACSA (American Collegiate Schools of Architecture), NAAB, NCARB (National Council of Architectural Registration Boards).

The Universities themselves which have the right to set their own agenda and their own curricula based on their need to receive federal funding in addition to the (exorbitant)tuition fees. And the university faculty, which may or may not be inclined to go along with any recommendations for change even if directed to do so by ACSA or NAAB. "What goes on in the studio stays in the studio", so to speak; and this is largely determined by the well-meaning professors.

We've Been Down This Road Before -- But Was Anybody Listening?

Back in April of this year, while combing the internet, I came across a gem of an article that was shared on the website created by Casius Pealer, AIA and architecture advocate John Cary, ArchVoices.org. As part of their 2004 essay contest "Has This Profession Been Saved?", they re-published an article from Progressive Architecture magazine's February 1994 issue. In reading their essay-- that springboarded off the original article-- I agreed with them that the article is so relevant it could have been written today, but it was written 18 years ago!

Still, it's right on topic with the dilemmas (opportunities) facing architectural education and the profession today. If you'd like to read it, here is the link to the contest essay addressing the question: 'Has This Profession Been Saved?' -- which includes the re-published article 'Can This Profession Be Saved?', written by well-renowned Thomas Fisher, Professor and Dean of the College of Design at The University of Minnesota. This is part of what he wrote:

"What is difficult about this moment in the history of the profession is that the field is moving in so many different directions at once. Changes are occurring in the structure of architectural firms and the scope of their services, in the goals of architectural graduates and the careers they are pursuing, and in the nature of architectural education and the responsibilities of the schools."

18 years Later, We're Still Asking: Can, Should, Would, Could, Will This Profession Be Saved?

So, where do you think the field will be in 15 years? And what should we be promoting in schools of architecture to ensure that this future will be a tenable one for both the individual graduate and the profession as a whole? Please share your ideas, concerns, hopes, dreams, and rants in the comments section below. And, please join the conversation on the aia.org forum: www.aia.org/2013arc

Created By: Mrs. Tara Imani, AIA On: Wed, May 30, 2012 01:03 AM

Be the first person to recommend this.

Recommend

0	Comments
765	Views

Permalink

Copy and paste the link below into other web pages, documents, or email messages to allow immediate, permanent access to this page. Security settings will remain in place and login will be necessary for protected content.

Related Resources

No Related Resource entered.

Comments

No Comments submitted.