Although *this* note is from someone in favor of the C-MU architecture
program, my experience with a review of 5th Year work 2 years ago left
me very concerned about the product. There were too few students, and
only about 1 or 2 students had anything of value to show. I am not sure
where this person is observing the program. I have heard the first 2
years are very demanding, especially the first year. This is a typical
studio-based architectural education. In my opinion, the studio-based
architectural education, a carryover from the Ecole des Beaux Arts (Paris)
should have died years ago. It should have been replaced by reviews of
work by EXPERIENCED authorities in the kind of project being considered.
I would really like to have discussions of this one. Howard
- - The original note follows - -
From: "Jason M. Roth" <jr4q+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Career as an Architect
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 17:06:05 -0500
Myabe some professional will come along and disagree w/ me, but this is
the take from the POV of a semi-idealistic student:
don't sweat drafting;take art classes. It's what schools want, and it's
what you need to be an architect. A monkey can draft. That in mind, a
course or two _is_ nice to have, but (most of the time) all you get is
practice at the board, not a lot of real-world knowledge.
Your son hadn't better take any gopher jobs from me; I haven't found an
office willing to hire a water-boy since the summer of 90 (before I even
started college); now that't not universal, but don't expect much unless
you know someone. Most likely expect blueprinting, maybe some _very_
basic drafting, until your son is in college.
To be a draftsman (and never anything more), I suppose an Assoc. is
sufficient. To become an architect, you need: a 5 yr undergraduate
education culminating in a Bachelor's of Architecture; a 4 yr undergrad
in a related field topped w/ two yrs of arch. sch, culminating in a
Master's; or a 4 yr undergrad in anything, topped w/ 3 yrs of arch.
sch., and again a Master's.
Different colleges offer different things -- more artistic bent (RISD),
more technical (Berekely?), more Classical (Notre Dame -- haha!), more
process/ "rational" (MIT), more balanced (CMU, in my opinion). Also,
some colleges are better for arch than for other areas (Syracuse). None
of that is recommendation, btw -- just a sampling of what's out there.
I would personally recommend CMU (which is very highly rated, I'm led
to understand) for the variety of emphases here. I suspect it has a bit
of a reputation as technical, but bear in mind that it's w/in the
College of Fine Arts, and that there is a heavy emphasis on abstract
design in the first couple years, upon which is explored the technical
aspects of how a bldg works. Also, the Center for Building Performance
is one of the most advanced groups in the world in the study of
intelligent buildings, environmental responsiveness, and other important
areas in the future of architecture. Oh, it's also (as a dept and as a
univ) one of the most advanced computer networks in the world. Note that
this, which is CMU's main reputation, came at the tail end, as an
afterthought. That's significant for 2 reasons: 1) that I'm sitting in
the Hoffman Lab, full of Quadras dedicated to architects, and yet barely
recalled that they're here; it's a given; 2) that I'm not "forced" to
use computers heavily -- they're here as a resource, but one is free to
take virtually any direction.
Good luck.
PS Buy your son _lots_ of Frank Lloyd Wright books, and look for
anything by Malcolm Wells (that last is almost more important).
Happy Motoring!
JMR
'93 SL2, blue-green
"I'm wet and I'm cold
But Thank God I ain't old."
"By pulling a living blanket of earth over our buildings, we can coexist
with nature rather than coexpire with it." Malcolm Wells
program, my experience with a review of 5th Year work 2 years ago left
me very concerned about the product. There were too few students, and
only about 1 or 2 students had anything of value to show. I am not sure
where this person is observing the program. I have heard the first 2
years are very demanding, especially the first year. This is a typical
studio-based architectural education. In my opinion, the studio-based
architectural education, a carryover from the Ecole des Beaux Arts (Paris)
should have died years ago. It should have been replaced by reviews of
work by EXPERIENCED authorities in the kind of project being considered.
I would really like to have discussions of this one. Howard
- - The original note follows - -
From: "Jason M. Roth" <jr4q+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Career as an Architect
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 17:06:05 -0500
Myabe some professional will come along and disagree w/ me, but this is
the take from the POV of a semi-idealistic student:
don't sweat drafting;take art classes. It's what schools want, and it's
what you need to be an architect. A monkey can draft. That in mind, a
course or two _is_ nice to have, but (most of the time) all you get is
practice at the board, not a lot of real-world knowledge.
Your son hadn't better take any gopher jobs from me; I haven't found an
office willing to hire a water-boy since the summer of 90 (before I even
started college); now that't not universal, but don't expect much unless
you know someone. Most likely expect blueprinting, maybe some _very_
basic drafting, until your son is in college.
To be a draftsman (and never anything more), I suppose an Assoc. is
sufficient. To become an architect, you need: a 5 yr undergraduate
education culminating in a Bachelor's of Architecture; a 4 yr undergrad
in a related field topped w/ two yrs of arch. sch, culminating in a
Master's; or a 4 yr undergrad in anything, topped w/ 3 yrs of arch.
sch., and again a Master's.
Different colleges offer different things -- more artistic bent (RISD),
more technical (Berekely?), more Classical (Notre Dame -- haha!), more
process/ "rational" (MIT), more balanced (CMU, in my opinion). Also,
some colleges are better for arch than for other areas (Syracuse). None
of that is recommendation, btw -- just a sampling of what's out there.
I would personally recommend CMU (which is very highly rated, I'm led
to understand) for the variety of emphases here. I suspect it has a bit
of a reputation as technical, but bear in mind that it's w/in the
College of Fine Arts, and that there is a heavy emphasis on abstract
design in the first couple years, upon which is explored the technical
aspects of how a bldg works. Also, the Center for Building Performance
is one of the most advanced groups in the world in the study of
intelligent buildings, environmental responsiveness, and other important
areas in the future of architecture. Oh, it's also (as a dept and as a
univ) one of the most advanced computer networks in the world. Note that
this, which is CMU's main reputation, came at the tail end, as an
afterthought. That's significant for 2 reasons: 1) that I'm sitting in
the Hoffman Lab, full of Quadras dedicated to architects, and yet barely
recalled that they're here; it's a given; 2) that I'm not "forced" to
use computers heavily -- they're here as a resource, but one is free to
take virtually any direction.
Good luck.
PS Buy your son _lots_ of Frank Lloyd Wright books, and look for
anything by Malcolm Wells (that last is almost more important).
Happy Motoring!
JMR
'93 SL2, blue-green
"I'm wet and I'm cold
But Thank God I ain't old."
"By pulling a living blanket of earth over our buildings, we can coexist
with nature rather than coexpire with it." Malcolm Wells