Various people on Internet wrote:
> >> As long as we're on the topic of Undergard and Grad programs,
> >> where are the most notable PhD programs in Architecture? THANKS!
>
> >PhD?!?!?!? Wouldn't that be for someone with a bit *too* much time and money
> >on his/her hands? I mean, there's only so much formal education you need...
:)
>
> Agreed. I'm not sure why anyone would want a PhD in architecture to tell
> you the honest truth. If there is something that interests me that
> specifically and grippingly after graduate work and/or practice, I
> think I'd pursue it on my own. An institution to go through would
> be excess baggage.
>
I think this bears on the question of architecture as a discipline. I
cannot think of too many other fields (well, none, really) in which it is
possible to become a (USA) full prof (= UK prof) with just a Bachelor's
degree.
Why bother with PhDs in arch? Because architecture is taught at
universities, that's why, and universities are places of teaching AND
research. The PhD is traditionally the hallmark of the researcher and the
academic. Of course one does not need a higher degree to practice arch, nor
to continue some sort of scholarly pursuit on one's own. But a uni is a
place where scholarship can be subjected to critical scrutiny, and where
networks of scholars can form a critical community.
Any discipline which is not interested in research (of which producing PhDs
is a key indicator, and an essential part) should not be located in a
university. After a lot of reflection on this, I think that architecture is
a case in point.
The apprenticeship system worked (and still works) just fine in the
English-speaking world. If it really must be a credentialled occupation,
then certainly a Bachelor's is the highest qualification that should be
required, and that can be provided by schools located OUTSIDE universities.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
> >> As long as we're on the topic of Undergard and Grad programs,
> >> where are the most notable PhD programs in Architecture? THANKS!
>
> >PhD?!?!?!? Wouldn't that be for someone with a bit *too* much time and money
> >on his/her hands? I mean, there's only so much formal education you need...
:)
>
> Agreed. I'm not sure why anyone would want a PhD in architecture to tell
> you the honest truth. If there is something that interests me that
> specifically and grippingly after graduate work and/or practice, I
> think I'd pursue it on my own. An institution to go through would
> be excess baggage.
>
I think this bears on the question of architecture as a discipline. I
cannot think of too many other fields (well, none, really) in which it is
possible to become a (USA) full prof (= UK prof) with just a Bachelor's
degree.
Why bother with PhDs in arch? Because architecture is taught at
universities, that's why, and universities are places of teaching AND
research. The PhD is traditionally the hallmark of the researcher and the
academic. Of course one does not need a higher degree to practice arch, nor
to continue some sort of scholarly pursuit on one's own. But a uni is a
place where scholarship can be subjected to critical scrutiny, and where
networks of scholars can form a critical community.
Any discipline which is not interested in research (of which producing PhDs
is a key indicator, and an essential part) should not be located in a
university. After a lot of reflection on this, I think that architecture is
a case in point.
The apprenticeship system worked (and still works) just fine in the
English-speaking world. If it really must be a credentialled occupation,
then certainly a Bachelor's is the highest qualification that should be
required, and that can be provided by schools located OUTSIDE universities.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA