Reforming Formal Architectural Education

Periodical: Arch Daily

There currently exists a disconnect between the design driven aspect of school and the true workings of an architectural office. This can be corrected by incorporating internships and office experiences into formal architecture education. In addition, revamping the way schools are reviewed and accredited should be considers. By changing the formal education that architecture students currently receive, students will have a better understanding of the professional worlds and be better prepared to intelligently solve design problems.

The current formal architecture education works to “expose students to various situations and train them to cultivate and appreciate values” (Chakraborty). The current education given in the studio environment does this well. But when you stop and focus on other things such as construction, you see that these books and writings haven’t been updated anytime recently (Chakraborty). In addition, studio has become rigid and product oriented, but should rather focus on a students development. This skill of development would allow students to adapt to the ever changing design world that we are now involved in (No Author). This would allow students to work as true design thinkers and problem solvers enabling us to work towards solving local and world problems.

From my own personal experience, the formal education that I have received thus far has taught me how to be an efficient designer and to think creatively. At the internship that I had this summer, I learned many things that I had never ever heard of in school. I learned about the ever changing state and national codes that define how we design, building spaces, and the buildings. The education that I hope to create based on these experiences “shouldn’t merely be just like being in practice; it should offer the opportunity to experiment, to push and test ideas” as a problem solver would in the design world (Hunter).

One program that could be used as a precedent is the architecture program at Drexel University. At Drexel they have the option to do a 2+4 program. This program starts out the first two years with a formal education of the design process and other fundamentals. The other four years are spent taking night classes and working full time as an intern at local firm in Philadelphia (Drexel University). This type of education allows students to receive a meaningful formal education as well as gaining real world experience over four years. In addition to the experience, this allows students to start working or potentially completing their IDP hours so that upon graduation they can have some of their ARE exams completed and can sit for the rest of them.

A second program that is a great example is that of the Master of Architecture at University of Cincinnati. They offer a Masters of Architecture to students with an architecture undergrad. This program is unique in that it has a co-op program as well as research concentrations. The co-op program offers a cross between the academic and commercial worlds (Cincinnati). This allows students to gain irreplaceable knowledge in the field as well as continuing their formal education. The research concentration option provides mentorship with a faculty member and potentially an architect in the community for student led research (Cincinnati).

These schools both serve as excellent examples for show casing how work in a firm or the ‘real world’ can be integrated into formal architecture education. It is important to remember that as students we learn a great amount during our education. The studio culture that we thrive in is very important to the way we learn and practice once we graduate. The interactions that occur in studio are often similar to those that we experience in the field what speaking to a client. When reforming our education by adding internships and firm experience, we must remember that studio culture is an integral part of education. These mentioned reforms do not get ride of studio culture but help to make it more healthy.

In addition to implementing internships and outside learning experiences, the accreditation of our programs should be changed. When everything is lined up at once, it is an extremely daunting challenge: 150 credits in college (five years or more), internships (usually five years), and a seven part registration exam (two to four years). According to the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) this takes an architect on average 14.5 years after the completion of high school (Mruk). When compared to other professions such as law, they attend three years of graduate school and most students sit for their bar exams within three months (Mruk). One solution to this problem is to allow specialization and a tiered education system. This would allow students to have different requirements based on what they plan on doing with their degrees. This is not to say that education the way it is now would cease to exist. The ‘generalist’ education we receive now is not to be completely discredited, but should be split to allow for other skills.

Design Intelligence
Design Intelligence article “A Better Path to Practicing” by Renee Cheng

Reforming architectural education as a whole is another solution that bridges the gap between school and the professional environment. Accreditation is a tricky process and streamlines architecture education across the country. By changing the accreditation values, education could be a forced reform for all schools, and not optional for those that can fit internships into their programs.

We have all of these ideas on how to change the education we are receiving, but how do we implement all of this? As mentioned in an article by Robert Ivy for the AIA NAAB accrediting team, we are asking for new design intelligence and real world business practice at the same time. While asking for all of these changes, school budgets are being pulled in all directions, a factor that is often forgotten. I believe that universities, students, and professionals want to better the education that architecture students receive, but we will need to work together in order to implement any solutions.

By changing educational values as a whole, we would be able to bridge the gap between formal architectural education and the professional work field.

 

Work Cited:

-Chakraborty, Manjari. “Designing Better Architecture Education: Global Realities and Local Reform” Copal Publishing Group. Copyright 2015. Print. Pages 120-200.

-Cramer, James P. “A Proposal to Improve Architectural Education” Design Intelligence. November 1, 2012. <http://www.di.net/articles/a-proposal-to-improve-architectural-education/>

-Drexel University. Architecture home page. Copyright 2015. <http://drexel.edu/westphal/undergraduate/ARCH/>

-Hunter, Will. “Alternative Routes for Architecture” The Architectural Review. September 28, 2012. <http://www.architectural-review.com/education/alternative-routes-for-architecture/8636207.article>

-Ivy, Robert. “Practicing Architecture: Take Five: Should Architecture Education Change?” AIA. September 14, 2012. <http://www.aia.org/practicing/AIAB095950>

-Mruk, Frank J. “Architect Licensing Needs a Gut Rehab” The Wall Street Journal. September 29, 2015. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/architect-licensing-needs-a-gut-rehab-1443569103>

-University of Cincinnati. Masters of Architecture home page. Copyright 2015. <http://daap.uc.edu/academics/said/m_arch.html>

-No Author. “The Future of Architectural Education” Designing Buildings. July 21, 2014. <http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/The_future_of_architectural_education>

Leave a Reply