The institutional and educational divisions of architecture
influence the business and professional divisions, but they are not united by a
common goal. If a poll were conducted, my bet is there would be more than one definition.
It’s difficult to rally division goals around an absent flag. I’ve had the
temerity to suggest a common flag in the past and will rephrase it here.
OPINION 1: The strength of a profession is based on its
perceived public contribution.
PUBLIC POLICY SUGGESTION: To protect the source and quality of life
for all populations
CITY DESIGN GOAL: To plan for urban massing that provides shelter and contributes to quality of life for a growing human population within sustainable geographic limits.
ARCHITECTURAL GOAL: To define massing objectives with building form and appearance that encloses symbiotic functions
OPINION 2: I believe this policy is part of an environmental threshold we must reach to
survive. For those who agree, the public benefit of the specific goals is
obvious; but the knowledge, skills and tools available must be improved.
ARCHITECTURAL STRATEGY involves the planning and deployment
of division effort to achieve a common goal. Each of the four divisions
mentioned above must contribute its unique focus to serve the common goal.
Since education is the topic, I’ll suggest a division objective to get the ball
rolling.
EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVE: a Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral
program of teaching and research designed to expand the profession’s
contribution to public benefit.
OPINION 3: If education provides an inadequate return on
investment and feeds a declining market, public and private benefit will suffer
from a limited interest in the sacrifice required.
In this suggestion, the educational objective focuses on the
architectural goal and is supported by a curriculum organized in stages to
build knowledge, ability, and employment opportunity. This is why I have suggested
links to IT, PE, MBA, and JD education for related employment opportunities and
a Doctor of Architecture as the only degree eligible for a license.
OPINION 4: Curriculum is not a goal or an objective. It is a
program of effort required to achieve an educational objective. In this case
the objective is meant to support the architectural goal.
Educational management organizes the curriculum and
performance monitoring required. This involves another set of objectives.
Educational execution teaches the curriculum knowledge assembled
and involves a separate set of objectives.
Educational research expands the curriculum knowledge available
with its own set of objectives.
All of the four divisions first mentioned need a common goal
before they can form their own objectives, programs and activities to
contribute. We will continue to drive in circles, however, debating hundreds of
curriculum details that don’t come up to this level of leadership -- until we
decide where we want to go.
QUESTION # 1
I liked John Missell’s latest curriculum comments under this
title and would like to add a few of my own.
I don’t think that architects are perceived as “…leaders
exhibiting superior qualities that have perceived value by society.” This is the
political and technical problem, in my opinion. Architects have become servants
to a system that does not appreciate their value, and they have little ability
to alter the equation because they have less power to change the conditions
created. Adaptation will require political support for a goal that makes public
benefit from private practice not only evident but desirable.
I liked the term “employable proficiency”, but would like to
add the word “versatile” in these turbulent economic times. Versatility is
needed to face the economic cycle that confronts architecture, since education
that does not respond will face declining enrollment and continue to provide
students with limited employment opportunities and a poor return on investment,
in my opinion.
A few other quotes caught my attention, so I’ve attached
brief comments in italics.
1. “Design as an investigation of the built environment on (emphasis added) the natural
environment.”
I would suggest substituting “in”
for “on”. This simple preposition reveals the history of human dominance and
the next level of environmental awareness required, in my opinion.
2. “…without a firm foundation in the engineering applied sciences
you will be no leader…”
I wouldn’t go this far, but I do
agree with the objective. It’s part of the new educational policy needed to
correlate knowledge from related programs.
3. “History…There is little hope of contributing without
fundamentally knowing what has gone on before … your work continues the story
line of man.”
I couldn’t agree more. It’s a
fundamental curriculum topic.
4. “Architects, as leaders, are useless as just design leaders.
They must come into the marketplace with several years of understanding how
businesses work…”
I agree, if this understanding
includes leadership, management, and operations. It’s also part of the new
educational policy needed to correlate knowledge from MBA programs.
5. “Professional practice - Leaders should leave school
understanding the role and use of the various building and life safety codes,
understanding the mechanics of zoning and planning ordinances, the AIA family
of documents should be studied and the issue of "risk" should be
understood fully; specifications and how they have evolved etc. This should be
a multi-year requisite series of courses.”
Again, I agree. It’s another curriculum
decision that will be a function of the time available.
“I think the design studios should be designed to embrace a
broader investigation and approach than just a building typology…some very
obscure notions.”
My impression is that “some very
obscure notions” are often substituted for structured logic and convincing
debate in defense of a design proposal. The real world expects to be convinced
and doesn’t believe “it just doesn’t understand” obscure notions. Speech,
debate, and logic should be part of a new educational program to improve the public
perception of a very complex, creative thought process.
You didn’t mention electronic
information systems, but I think you will agree that they’re also part of the
new educational policy needed to correlate knowledge from IT programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment