From: Mark Darrall <mdarrall@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: DESIGN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: laptop vs. desktop
Date: Wed, Apr 28, 1999, 12.31 AM
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.
Oh Mark - you disappoint me! You have such a limited view of what
architecture is and can be to have an opinion like that. You are so wrong to
say that just because a graduating student doesn't have "CADability" that
s/he are "pretty much non-starters in the profession." This might only be
true if you attempt to start in the profession as a cad jockey. Personally,
I have been involved in the profession since 1984 and have NEVER run into
this problem. It has always been much more important for a person coming out
of school to have the ability to think, than the ability to draft,
regardless of the technique.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an interview in 1995, published in the University of Tennessee School of
Architecture, Journal/16, we asked Paul Rudolph about the issue of an
architectural education. The following is an excerpt from that interview:
UTJA = University of Tennessee School of Architecture ; PR = Paul Rudolph
UTJA There has been concern and recent debate in our school of architecture
that the students do not have an appropriate technical base or possess
sufficient knowledge of professional practice upon graduation. In an
interview in a 1982 issue of Architectural Record, you stated that this part
of the educational process should be learned in an office. Do you still
hold to that thinking?
P.R. Of course. Ever since I can remember, the architectural profession has
lamented what goes on in architectural schools. It will always be that way,
and so be it. One learns - which I¹m sure you understand and know - in many
places other than schools. And it¹s also important to remember that the
greatest architects in the twentieth century never saw the inside of a
school of architecture. Mies didn¹t go to a school of architecture. Walter
Gropius, Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright - none of these guys went to
schools of architecture. Schools work for certain people but don¹t work for
other people, and you learn certain things, by travel for instance, that you
couldn¹t possibly learn in any other way. I myself have been to the
Acropolis about twenty-five times now, and it is a beacon for me, because
every time I go, I see it in a somewhat different way, at different times of
the year, and different times of the day. For me, it is one of the most
compelling things in the world. I learn from it. In other words, learning
is not just in schools, of course. Architects take too short a view about
the productivity of people who come out of schools. There is another kind
of learning process, because what goes on in offices is very different than
what goes on in schools. How could it be otherwise? Yes, of course I stand
by it. I¹m glad, because quite often I change my mind. I feel relieved.
UTJA In your opinion, what should the education in school encompass?
P.R. You see, schools cannot be all things to all people. I have nothing to
do with any schools; I never will again. I left the academic world in 1965
and I¹ve never looked backward to that. I¹m glad I participated in the
academic world, but I¹m also glad I left it. So be it. I¹m interested in
architecture, not schools per se; they¹re an element in the larger picture.
I think that the great tragedy is that schools attempt to teach subject
matter which is often best learned in other ways. They forget to teach or
clarify much about architecture.
© University of Tennessee School of Architecture, 1995