Wayde wrote (in HTML--naughty, naughty...):
[In response to Mark Darrall] "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."
-------------------
I reply:
The ability to think critically and creatively is the most important
attribute an architect can have. When we make hiring decisions, we make
them primarily on that basis.
However, the best thinking in the universe is useless without the talent and
skill to put that thought into action. Hence, an ability to communicate the
ideas to others efficiently and effectively is just as important.
The fact is, in the profession today, CAD literacy is a requirement for
effecient and effective communication of ideas. Production and design
schedules and fees no longer allow for the meticulous hand drawing
cultivated in architecture schools. Mark is absolutely correct when he
states that architects trained outside of the realm of the computer are
"non-starters."
If an applicant has no significant computer experience, chances are we won't
hire him. That's a cold, hard fact that doesn't sit well with the
traditionalists. Tough. Think of it as evolution in action.* ;-)
However, the specific software packages on which the experience is gained
are not really that important. We look for a general knowledge of computer
tools and CAD methodology first, since we can always quickly train such a
person to use our particular software suite. Hence, pedagogically, I
suggest that the broadest possible exposure to a variety of tools combined
with an abstract emphasis on how CAD works in general would be the most
valuable.
When I was in school, I used ArchiCAD, MicroStation, FormZ, and a number of
others (not including AutoCAD). When I got into the profession, AutoCAD was
the standard. Since I was familiar with the way various computer tools
work, learning AutoCAD went quickly and smoothly.
Now, another poster to the list suggested that students should learn to draw
by hand before drawing on the computer. I completely agree with this. The
computer should not be introduced until the Fourth Year (or second term of
Third Year at the very earliest). Why? If you can't draw well with a
pencil, you'll never be able to draw well with a computer.
~g
J. Gregory Wharton
Architect
Seattle, WA, USA
* - quotation blatantly stolen from Larry Niven ("Oath of Fealty," a sci-fi
novel about architects and arcologies)
p.s. - the option of hiring vocational school CAD jocks to do the dirty work
of dilletante designers is an unworkable model in the long term. To have
projects well designed, executed and communicated, the architect's judgment
has to be in the pilot's seat for the whole trip. The amount of
hand-holding necessary to have a CAD grunt do the same job as an architect
who also happens to use the computer completely eliminates the efficiency of
CAD.
[In response to Mark Darrall] "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."
-------------------
I reply:
The ability to think critically and creatively is the most important
attribute an architect can have. When we make hiring decisions, we make
them primarily on that basis.
However, the best thinking in the universe is useless without the talent and
skill to put that thought into action. Hence, an ability to communicate the
ideas to others efficiently and effectively is just as important.
The fact is, in the profession today, CAD literacy is a requirement for
effecient and effective communication of ideas. Production and design
schedules and fees no longer allow for the meticulous hand drawing
cultivated in architecture schools. Mark is absolutely correct when he
states that architects trained outside of the realm of the computer are
"non-starters."
If an applicant has no significant computer experience, chances are we won't
hire him. That's a cold, hard fact that doesn't sit well with the
traditionalists. Tough. Think of it as evolution in action.* ;-)
However, the specific software packages on which the experience is gained
are not really that important. We look for a general knowledge of computer
tools and CAD methodology first, since we can always quickly train such a
person to use our particular software suite. Hence, pedagogically, I
suggest that the broadest possible exposure to a variety of tools combined
with an abstract emphasis on how CAD works in general would be the most
valuable.
When I was in school, I used ArchiCAD, MicroStation, FormZ, and a number of
others (not including AutoCAD). When I got into the profession, AutoCAD was
the standard. Since I was familiar with the way various computer tools
work, learning AutoCAD went quickly and smoothly.
Now, another poster to the list suggested that students should learn to draw
by hand before drawing on the computer. I completely agree with this. The
computer should not be introduced until the Fourth Year (or second term of
Third Year at the very earliest). Why? If you can't draw well with a
pencil, you'll never be able to draw well with a computer.
~g
J. Gregory Wharton
Architect
Seattle, WA, USA
* - quotation blatantly stolen from Larry Niven ("Oath of Fealty," a sci-fi
novel about architects and arcologies)
p.s. - the option of hiring vocational school CAD jocks to do the dirty work
of dilletante designers is an unworkable model in the long term. To have
projects well designed, executed and communicated, the architect's judgment
has to be in the pilot's seat for the whole trip. The amount of
hand-holding necessary to have a CAD grunt do the same job as an architect
who also happens to use the computer completely eliminates the efficiency of
CAD.