I have to agree with Mike Kaplan's comment of "this demand for more
practical knowledge being taught at the
university is just another form of abuse by the employers."
It seems to invade how classes here at the university are being taught.
Several of my classes have a slant toward being a prepatory course for the
registration exam. Can't I get this elsewhere? Of course..!
The curriculum is begining to dictate the direction a
student should take upon his/her graduation. If this is the result of
professional's influence, perhaps they (the professionals) need to discern
what architecture really is and what they practice.
An architectural education is good
grounding for a variety of fields; What of that?
Perhaps an architectural education should help students extract more than how to
effectively detail a parapet, repleat with coping, flashing, etc, or
know the difference between a AIA 141 and a B141 document.. It should encourage
enlighten, and prompt students toward critical thinking, of which they can
then apply to the problems of their studio projects, allowing greater
concentration on design. Curriculum demands
of students are already at an extreme. What would be eliminated if more
courses on professional practice and technology were introduced? I think
that this could be a dangerous thing. Sure, mathematice, science and the
various liberal arts courses that are requisite in any architectural
curriculum are important, as are the introductory statics, and structures
courses, however, design remains the crux of architecture's intent. It may
actually be a small part of professional practice, but it is indeed the
intent of the profession.
Look out your windows and take stock
of what you see. How much of that is architecture and how much of it is
building. The poetic has been seperated from building, to paraphrase Daniel
Leibskind. Isn't it the poetic that we provide? What of beauty?
practical knowledge being taught at the
university is just another form of abuse by the employers."
It seems to invade how classes here at the university are being taught.
Several of my classes have a slant toward being a prepatory course for the
registration exam. Can't I get this elsewhere? Of course..!
The curriculum is begining to dictate the direction a
student should take upon his/her graduation. If this is the result of
professional's influence, perhaps they (the professionals) need to discern
what architecture really is and what they practice.
An architectural education is good
grounding for a variety of fields; What of that?
Perhaps an architectural education should help students extract more than how to
effectively detail a parapet, repleat with coping, flashing, etc, or
know the difference between a AIA 141 and a B141 document.. It should encourage
enlighten, and prompt students toward critical thinking, of which they can
then apply to the problems of their studio projects, allowing greater
concentration on design. Curriculum demands
of students are already at an extreme. What would be eliminated if more
courses on professional practice and technology were introduced? I think
that this could be a dangerous thing. Sure, mathematice, science and the
various liberal arts courses that are requisite in any architectural
curriculum are important, as are the introductory statics, and structures
courses, however, design remains the crux of architecture's intent. It may
actually be a small part of professional practice, but it is indeed the
intent of the profession.
Look out your windows and take stock
of what you see. How much of that is architecture and how much of it is
building. The poetic has been seperated from building, to paraphrase Daniel
Leibskind. Isn't it the poetic that we provide? What of beauty?