Practice Management Member Conversations

Regarding the recent spate of discussion about the state of architectural education and whether  it serves the  profession well, I wonder if the  other professions that we continually compare  ourselves to, undergo this constant handwringing and angst about doing the right thing?  

We have a diverse variety of curricula to chose from to pursue an architectural career. People choosing to pursue an architectural career bring a diverse set  of interests to that pursuit.  They make choices about which program suits their  particular interests.  Do people make poor choices sometimes?  Sure. Is the architecture  profession or the academic world responsible for the consequences  of individuals making poor choices?  I don't think so.  And who are we (collectively) to judge whether someone's choice  is  poor or not?  

The choice to "Sculpt Hope" (re Mr Rogers post) in school may not lead to producing the best building envelope details.  Does academia owe it to students and to the  profession to turn out people with design skills, technical skills, business skills, and sales skills ready to take  on any  role in the  profession?  Perhaps a lofty goal but  hardly realistic and not really aligned with what the  profession is wanting or what people are capable of.  We have  left and  right brained  people but very few left AND right brainers.  We gravitate to design or technical roles depending on our skills and  interests, and the  profession has longed maintained an organizational distinction of jobs between designer and  technical or  production architect.  

And schools very much fall into this design/technical dichotomy by focusing typically on one  or the  other  in their  curricula.   I think the  best we can hope  for  is to make this  distinction very clear to all choosing to enter the profession, and to make  it very clear which part  of the spectrum a particular school's academic program falls  into.  The "hope sculptors" can choose to pursue a  program focused more  on the arts, and conversely the more technically focused  problem solving types can pursue a  program with more engineering and  materials science  focus.

It seems a Sisyphean task to be all things to all people and expect that to turn out well.  The  profession long ago abandoned the notion of the Master Builder.  There may be regrets in that  decision but it's unrealistic to think that we can return to a  long gone era.


-------------------------------------------
Eugene Ely AIA, LEED AP
Architect-in-Waiting
San Jose, CA
-------------------------------------------

My two cents as a practicing architect and co-owner of an architectural firm. I do expect to have to train interns to meet the expectations and processes of our practice. I do not want to have to teach or pay for basic drafting skills, including basic CAD.

Universities cannot be expected to meet all the needs of an industry that are far reaching and broad based. I do expect the universities to teach students how to think, to seek knowledge, to ask thoughtful questions, and to offer their input to design/problem solutions. Schools should also prepare students by imparting a sense of reasonable expectations with regard to their prospects and potential roles and provide a reasonable array of marketable skill sets that will provide the graduate with value.

It is doubly helpful if a student has the personal motivation to self-educate themselves with respect to architectural matters that are both technical and artistic, and pertinent to their career. Students should possess a reasonably high level of curiosity about their chosen profession.

As someone with many years of experience I like to impart any lessons I have learned along the way but do not want to hold someone's hands through the entire process.

I guess I fall into the camp that what you get out of your education what you put into it. If an intern you hire expects to have their hand held and to be fed information and provided with all the answers then they probably are not the employee for your needs. I am not sure that the school would be to blame as much as each individual. The individual is as much responsible or more for their education than the university or college they graduated from.

What I am afraid of is a bottom line mentality, ignorance of design's potential...and what I don't yet know...which is a lot.
-------------------------------------------
Harry Wright
Associate
Costanza Spector Clauser Architects, PC
Moorestown NJ
-------------------------------------------

Eugene: 

I'm afraid this does not seem a 'Sisyphean task' to me; rather it seems to boil down to a simple question.

If Professional Licensure is the target of an education, then the skills associated with securing and maintaining a license are foundational and necessary.  

If the target of an education is 'design' without a connection to practicing a profession which requires a license - then the landscape becomes as broad - and as ambiguous - as you suggest. 

The standard of care for a licensed Architect includes such seemingly mundane considerations as code compliance, serviceability, and functional suitability.  For just about any building used by the public there is an individual with a license who signs the design documents and takes on professional responsibility for protection of the public health, safety and welfare.  

That's where the buck stops; there is no passing that responsibility along to an inspired but unlicensed 'hope sculptor'.  

Am I missing something?

-------------------------------------------
Michael Malinowski AIA
AIA Director - California Region
Applied Architecture, Inc.
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------