At 03:34 PM 4/26/99 -0400, Wayde wrote:
>I imagine many schools, who go the way of *requiring* their students to
>purchase computers, find it difficult to actually get and maintain the broad
>range of socioeconomic diversity which should be requisite in an academic
>environment. It seems that such practices are yet another way that schools
>of design maintain the elitism of the design professions.
It would definitely be interesting to see the numbers on that. I'm not sure,
though, that the computer an and of itself is the barrier---though it could
be a contributer.
> There are those
>students who managed to scrape enough funding to mearly attend school -
>making them purchase a computer is out of the range of MANY people and is an
>exclusionary tactic - though it may not be seen as such by whomever makes
>these decisions.
Saying it's a "tactic," Wayde, suggests it is done intentionally. I doubt
that's the case, though the effect is the same if requiring the purchase of
a computer is indeed a barrier.
>State institutions especially should certainly not
>*require* their students to purchase computers, rather, suggest it as a tool
>which they may find helpful.
I dunno, Wayde; my old box of rocks here was pretty much INSTRUMENTAL in my
getting through school, though I never used it for CAD work. It was, on
whole, more useful than many of the overpriced texts I bought. Maybe that
begs the question:
Should we not require students to buy BOOKS because they're so expensive? In
the course "contract" of a syllabus is an implied requirement to own a text,
because the student is responsible for the material in it. It's a minimum
requirement. You could say the student can get reserve copies, but we know
how reliable getting reserve material is :-).
I don't know if a computer will ever become a minimum requirement to get
through a class, but it's an increasingly important tool that has become
pretty much essential. I would say if a student can document an inability to
purchase a computer, they should have preferred access to public labs, or be
able to rent/borrow a system from the school.
>On the issue of software, if it is the desire of an institution to produce
>cad-jockeys, then by all means, have them use a software package like
>Auto-Cad, (the industry standard of architecture *production* in the
>*profession*), though I'm sure there is a local community college or trade
>school who teaches such things.
Sure, there are trade schools and such, but they typically do not teach CAD
within the context of design---merely operations. And what design student
has time (not to mention the funds) to sign up for an Autocad course outside
of the U.? Better the design student learn to use it the same way they learn
to draw with a pencil or pen---within the context of a professional design
setting.
Sending an architecture student to work without at least a modicum of
CADability is like sending one out that can't draw or read a scale. It's
like a law clerk that doesn't know how to use Westlaw or read a citation.
They're pretty much non-starters in the profession.
> However, if it is the desire of the
>institution to produce graduates who can think critically, and not just
>compu-draft, then a visualization software package like Form-Z would be a
>much better option.
This is a step in the right direction, Wayde. We need to be able to use as
many tools as possible to evaluate what we're doing, make the crossover from
visualization to production, and communicate our intent in an easily
understood way. Not only Form-Z, but Excel, Word, PageMaker, Presentation,
etc, etc, etc.
These need to be learned in a context-rich, integrated setting just as in
the office.
> Remember though, it is VERY easy to be seduced into the
>realm of the toys of technology. It is important to remember too, however,
>that architecture isn't how the built environment is rendered, rather the
>results of such renderings.
HEAR, HEAR!! I'm so sick of process junkies entranced by the "how" with no
idea of the "why."
> It is important to communicate one's ideas
>clearly - but getting caught into thinking that it is the tools by which
>such communications are affected is what constitutes architecture is
>dangerous and something I see happening in a number of schools right now.
What schools are those, Wayde? I'm curious.
Thanks!
mark
>I imagine many schools, who go the way of *requiring* their students to
>purchase computers, find it difficult to actually get and maintain the broad
>range of socioeconomic diversity which should be requisite in an academic
>environment. It seems that such practices are yet another way that schools
>of design maintain the elitism of the design professions.
It would definitely be interesting to see the numbers on that. I'm not sure,
though, that the computer an and of itself is the barrier---though it could
be a contributer.
> There are those
>students who managed to scrape enough funding to mearly attend school -
>making them purchase a computer is out of the range of MANY people and is an
>exclusionary tactic - though it may not be seen as such by whomever makes
>these decisions.
Saying it's a "tactic," Wayde, suggests it is done intentionally. I doubt
that's the case, though the effect is the same if requiring the purchase of
a computer is indeed a barrier.
>State institutions especially should certainly not
>*require* their students to purchase computers, rather, suggest it as a tool
>which they may find helpful.
I dunno, Wayde; my old box of rocks here was pretty much INSTRUMENTAL in my
getting through school, though I never used it for CAD work. It was, on
whole, more useful than many of the overpriced texts I bought. Maybe that
begs the question:
Should we not require students to buy BOOKS because they're so expensive? In
the course "contract" of a syllabus is an implied requirement to own a text,
because the student is responsible for the material in it. It's a minimum
requirement. You could say the student can get reserve copies, but we know
how reliable getting reserve material is :-).
I don't know if a computer will ever become a minimum requirement to get
through a class, but it's an increasingly important tool that has become
pretty much essential. I would say if a student can document an inability to
purchase a computer, they should have preferred access to public labs, or be
able to rent/borrow a system from the school.
>On the issue of software, if it is the desire of an institution to produce
>cad-jockeys, then by all means, have them use a software package like
>Auto-Cad, (the industry standard of architecture *production* in the
>*profession*), though I'm sure there is a local community college or trade
>school who teaches such things.
Sure, there are trade schools and such, but they typically do not teach CAD
within the context of design---merely operations. And what design student
has time (not to mention the funds) to sign up for an Autocad course outside
of the U.? Better the design student learn to use it the same way they learn
to draw with a pencil or pen---within the context of a professional design
setting.
Sending an architecture student to work without at least a modicum of
CADability is like sending one out that can't draw or read a scale. It's
like a law clerk that doesn't know how to use Westlaw or read a citation.
They're pretty much non-starters in the profession.
> However, if it is the desire of the
>institution to produce graduates who can think critically, and not just
>compu-draft, then a visualization software package like Form-Z would be a
>much better option.
This is a step in the right direction, Wayde. We need to be able to use as
many tools as possible to evaluate what we're doing, make the crossover from
visualization to production, and communicate our intent in an easily
understood way. Not only Form-Z, but Excel, Word, PageMaker, Presentation,
etc, etc, etc.
These need to be learned in a context-rich, integrated setting just as in
the office.
> Remember though, it is VERY easy to be seduced into the
>realm of the toys of technology. It is important to remember too, however,
>that architecture isn't how the built environment is rendered, rather the
>results of such renderings.
HEAR, HEAR!! I'm so sick of process junkies entranced by the "how" with no
idea of the "why."
> It is important to communicate one's ideas
>clearly - but getting caught into thinking that it is the tools by which
>such communications are affected is what constitutes architecture is
>dangerous and something I see happening in a number of schools right now.
What schools are those, Wayde? I'm curious.
Thanks!
mark