At 05:51 AM 4/28/99 -0400, Wayde wrote:
>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."
But Wayde, I have NEVER heard a leader in a firm say, "I don't care about
their technical ability---I just need people who can think!" Rather, they
all say, "Do you know Autocad? Can you measure a building? By the way, did
you say you know Autocad?"
Of course they need people who can think critically, be flexible and
creative---and do it quickly. EVERY JOB REQUIRES THIS in this new wretched
globalization-a-go-go. But the fact of the matter is that very few folks
right out of school are going to be handed projects to design and manage on
their own. They are expected to be able to do production, because, like it
or not, that is how the building gets made. At least for now.
CAD, 3D modelers, scales, transits, cameras---they are all tools that we use
to communicate the big ideas we think of. We receive our fees to think up
our grand schemes, but the industry expects us to convey those ideas in a
very rigid, highly defined manner. SOMEONE in the office needs to know how
to do it, and the sooner the new folks know it, the more profitable they are
to the firm.
Partners don't know how---they've been away from production for too long and
are busy marketing anyway. A lot of project architects would love to keep up
with the technology, but they get rusty very quickly because they're putting
out CA fires and coordinating, and making design decisions and, and...
That leaves graduate architects, student interns and CAD technicians to
carry the production ball.
I'm not saying that's how it should be---but that's the way it is. Why do so
many think it's such a shame to learn CAD in college? Why the terms
"CADmonkey" and "CADjockey?"
> 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.
Sure, Wayde but why do make it sound like an either-or proposition? You need
to be able to do BOTH!!!! And as for starting out as a CADjock, I'm afraid
that if you intend to go into traditional practice, pushing mouse (including
not only CAD but word processing, spreadsheeting, etc) is pretty much a big
part of your worklife---at least until you can convince the boss you're
channeling Frank Lloyd Wright AND Lou Kahn.
Where else do you start 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."
But Wayde, I have NEVER heard a leader in a firm say, "I don't care about
their technical ability---I just need people who can think!" Rather, they
all say, "Do you know Autocad? Can you measure a building? By the way, did
you say you know Autocad?"
Of course they need people who can think critically, be flexible and
creative---and do it quickly. EVERY JOB REQUIRES THIS in this new wretched
globalization-a-go-go. But the fact of the matter is that very few folks
right out of school are going to be handed projects to design and manage on
their own. They are expected to be able to do production, because, like it
or not, that is how the building gets made. At least for now.
CAD, 3D modelers, scales, transits, cameras---they are all tools that we use
to communicate the big ideas we think of. We receive our fees to think up
our grand schemes, but the industry expects us to convey those ideas in a
very rigid, highly defined manner. SOMEONE in the office needs to know how
to do it, and the sooner the new folks know it, the more profitable they are
to the firm.
Partners don't know how---they've been away from production for too long and
are busy marketing anyway. A lot of project architects would love to keep up
with the technology, but they get rusty very quickly because they're putting
out CA fires and coordinating, and making design decisions and, and...
That leaves graduate architects, student interns and CAD technicians to
carry the production ball.
I'm not saying that's how it should be---but that's the way it is. Why do so
many think it's such a shame to learn CAD in college? Why the terms
"CADmonkey" and "CADjockey?"
> 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.
Sure, Wayde but why do make it sound like an either-or proposition? You need
to be able to do BOTH!!!! And as for starting out as a CADjock, I'm afraid
that if you intend to go into traditional practice, pushing mouse (including
not only CAD but word processing, spreadsheeting, etc) is pretty much a big
part of your worklife---at least until you can convince the boss you're
channeling Frank Lloyd Wright AND Lou Kahn.
Where else do you start in the profession?