before computers kids actually made an effort to research schools before applying instead of posting on forums hoping a others will do if for them. The future is bleak.
Before computers, so like the 60’s? Or when? We had computers in the 90’s when I went to school but we didn’t use them very much, they were for word processing mostly. We drew and made physical models. Research was done in the library with books.
Difficult is in the eye of the beholder, before the "advent" of computers we used to have respect for the drawings and what they represented, so much has changed but especially the love for the craft has gone down the toilet, it's all about what looks more novel or daring (mostly from old practitioners trying to be hip), the future can only be worse.
I think aside from a base level of inherent difficulty meant to separate the unfit from the pack, the difficulty of school is kind of up to the individual. Whether you go with your first iteration or forty-fifth, what "new" technology you invest time to learn, which rules you decide to follow and which ones you break are all contributing factors.
The advent of computers and programs (namely AutoCad) likely was huge, pedagogy probably took its time adjusting to it. I would assume this trend carried on through 3D modeling and will carry on through the integration of AI.
The notion of craft is so very poor now with new grads. The computer solves and hides some much that they think they now more than they do. But noooo, arch school is too difficult because the render machine needs to work overtime.
Kids these days don't even understand how to keep pencils sharp... now, where's the cloud at. I need to go yell some more.
The last time I dropped by studio after graduating, every student had a 3D printer pumping out huge amounts of study models - directly from Rhino. While some continue to work on the 3D prints, hacking away and gluing together assemblages, most of them seem content with the knick-knacks. All iteration and experimentation have been done in Rhino space and the prints are just results to show. The sheer volume was quite impressive, but there seems to be an arms race to pump out as much toys as possible.
Architecture School in the mid - late 80s was similar education on design / ideas / history / theory / structures etc but I am gathering the production and presentation has changed substantially. Might just be my background ( I come from a family of craftspersons and builders ) so my design approach was always somewhat rooted in how things go together, tectonic quality and an understandable approach to building. (This was before Gehry / Zaha etc were making unbelievable shapes and forms )
I think the one big thing I noticed was that when you had to draw up a project of even when I started working and had to draw BP sets and details you needed to know what every line meant and where it started and stopped as you were aware it represented something drywall / building paper edge of framing material etc. Today is a lot more of click, mirror, copy and paste which is where some of the craft may be lost. Building with hands and even drawing by hand is always a way to ground one to how things go together. Not sure if they still having drawing classes / sketch books etc but I do find it's a wonderful skill and a great way to explore / design and hope that never gets lost.
Architecture has consistently ranked in the top three most difficult academic programs (by workload) for many decades. So this should not come as news to anyone.
Only speaking for myself, but... it was more difficult when i was a student (mid/late 90s and 00's) than now. We did not have any institutional belief in mental health or work/life balance to help out, and had more courses to deal with as well. A lot more math. AND profs were meaner too.
It was also easier because we had good training in fundamentals before we even got to the design of buildings. That feels slightly short-circuited lately because of computers, which we have a weird cultural maladjustment with. This isnt a universal thing, but I find that instead of treating computers (and all the fabrication tools that go with them) as tools we often treat them as poor substitutes for something that is almost morally better. Like hand crafted this or that, or hand drawing, or whatever is imagined as a naturally better thing than whatever computers have to offer. And that isnt helping students who are being trained for a profession where computers ARE the tools, and pencils are not. It's a strange internal double-standard that confuses architectural education and visibly messes with what students are asked to produce.
Not trying to oversell that last point, but it is something I have noticed since I started teaching in North America a couple years ago. Strangely we do not have that problem in Japan, at least where I taught/teach. Computers, digital fabrication, hand drawing, or whatever are not placed in such a noticeable hierarchy and the output is less strained as a result. In that regard Ifind Japanese education a lot more chill somehow than in Canada.
What was the question? Oh yeah. Archi-education is both harder and easier, different and unchanged from the old days (old from a mid-career perspective at least)
Personally I think it is a great time to be a student and an architect. The profession has become a lot more professional in the last decades for better or worse. But also much broader for those who want to spread out. That is a pretty cool change.
Good answer. Yes, one shouldn't evaluate computer generated work with the standards of what we used to do decades ago with pencil and trace.
That said, and having seen some undergradate work recently, it seems that there is no significant improvement in the quality of design thinking and the end product even with all the tools so readily available. Im not sure there is a regression (hey we had lazy students in the old day as well), but there certainly is less of a progression than what one would expect in terms of spatial character and tectonics. Even form making is somehow not as advanced as one would think. Perhaps it is the teachers fighting uphill?
Apr 18, 24 9:00 pm ·
·
midlander
when i was a student 20 years ago the problem with computers was they offered too much opportunity to do work that didn't contribute to the design of buildings - students got sidetracked demonstrating outstanding skills at modeling and rendering and presentation, but not actually designing meaningful spaces. i always felt a silly inferiority complex because i didn't really enjoy modeling or rendering and just wanted to draw nice buildings.
Apr 19, 24 9:12 am ·
·
midlander
now i'm on the client side rather than designing and sometimes wonder how much of that is an outcome of simply hating the work of modeling and taking every opportunity that led away from that as a result. meaning i love talking about a design and sketching out plans, but prefer handing it off to someone else to model up.
the lack of form-making and more risky design is part of the professionalization process IMO. Also REVIT. Squares are easier. Lately students rely on enscape for renders and it drives me nuts, because it averages every project, and expression is lost. It's a path of least resistance kind of output. But then again, no one is teaching students how to use it so I cant expect too much of it...
Reviewing both student and young professional work over the past couple of decades, there has been a noticeable overall decline in design-thinking ability. Whether this correlates to the tools being used or not is an open question.
I'm with Will... I think it was harder back in the day. And not just in an "old man yells at clouds" way.
It was harder, brutal, bad for mental and physical health, and inappropriate in lots of ways. We were ridden hard. Student models were broken during reviews. People regularly called things like "retard" "unsuitable" "you should switch majors" DURING REVIEWS in front of their peers. All nighters encouraged, multi-nighters even. The professors modeled how to abuse drugs and alcohol as part of semi-successful boutique practice, and it no doubt contributed to the unrealistic expectations and prescriptive assignments like doing final plans in pen on vellum of 1/4" scale final models.
On the more academic side, 21-23 credit hours was not unusual. Reading and theory classes were serious business, and you might get assigned a book (short though it may be) to read in a week. Essays were vigorously debated and the profs did not shy away from calling out and mocking or even excusing from class students who had not read the material completely.
This was also in the days of the "5 year M.Arch" so that definitely contributed to the brutality of the program - basically doing grad-level studio from the moment you step foot on campus as an 18 year old undergraduate freshman. 82 or 84 students started, something like that. 24 graduated.
i was just talking to my wife - who studied architecture in another country - and mentioned 31 out of my incoming class of 65 graduated. She was amazed given the price of american universities that they wouldn't try to keep most of the students enrolled. :(
the stupid difficulty of study compared to the relatively easy reality of practice is baffling. i think it drives out reasonable people and inculcates a culture of obsessive self-doubt that leads architects to struggle with relating to clients and understanding the motives of others in business and public life.
I think the weed-out dynamic varies between the public and private schools in the USA. My public undergrad did everything it could to eliminate students from their program, often with a pronounced bias against women and lower income students. The rich kids college where I did grad made sure everyone who paid the tuition graduated, even if they were terrible.
Apr 19, 24 11:41 am ·
·
t a z
Private US schools also seem to like admitting international students since they pay full tuition and in most cases aren't eligible for any financial aid.
My private school directed the students who couldn't cut arch school into other programs. Usually business. Really wish I had been one of them, lol. But they were absolutely eliminated mercilessly from the architecture program.
Will G and I share an alma mater. When I received my acceptance letter, it literally said "architecture is a 24/7 endeavour. You will not be permitted to work outside of the university while you are enrolled." During my very first pin-up, the Dept Head told me, in front of two studios, that "those are the most godawful drawings I've ever seen." Nobody even blinked, that was normal.
As to the attrition rate (for Master's), I started in a small specialty program for people who didn't have an undergrad in Architecture, but everyone already had degrees. Off the top of my head, those included fine art, engineering, biology, theatre, and industrial design. Oh, one person had an undergrad in Architecture ('environmental design' as it's referred to here). Out of the 8 other students who started with me, two dropped out in the first month, one switched to City Planning, four required at least an extra year, and I think two of us graduated on time (the engineer being the other). I'm the only one of the 11 who's ever worked in architecture to this day, and the only one who went on to get their license. 1 out of 8. It was not easy.
My wife, whom I met in architecture school and now teaches there, says there's no denying that school is easier these days. Neither of us are the type to yell at clouds and I don't own an onion belt (we only graduated just over a decade ago). She also guest crits at some other schools and describes the rigour as being lacking pretty much everywhere. That's coming from somebody who struggled herself with many aspects of her architecture school experience and had no interest in going into practice.
Personally I think it's absurd that we require students to take 4 or 5 years of intense studios and course work, and the technical, legal, and business aspects are all pretty much ignored. Schools must do a better job of bringing in qualified instructors, rather than the person who made nice hand drawings as a student and just graduated last year, something I've seen time and time again. No wonder nobody's prepared for practice in the real world.
Sorry, that should say 9. We had vertical studios so there were two second year Master's students in our group, and I included them by accident. FWIW they've both gone on to have decent careers.
Architecture school is tough because it has to be - sooner or later you will be working for a condescending control freak micro-managing project architect who will give a military style dress down for even the slightest mistake "why that is a piece of dogshit, why are even on my team" Sir, I got lost on my way to the park sir" BAM
Has architectural school always been difficult?
What was architectural school before the advent of computers? What has changed since then? And what is its future?
before computers kids actually made an effort to research schools before applying instead of posting on forums hoping a others will do if for them. The future is bleak.
Before computers, so like the 60’s? Or when? We had computers in the 90’s when I went to school but we didn’t use them very much, they were for word processing mostly. We drew and made physical models. Research was done in the library with books.
In recent years since graduating I have been far more attracted to books rather than internet resources. Plus I like the idea of building a library.
Difficult is in the eye of the beholder, before the "advent" of computers we used to have respect for the drawings and what they represented, so much has changed but especially the love for the craft has gone down the toilet, it's all about what looks more novel or daring (mostly from old practitioners trying to be hip), the future can only be worse.
I think aside from a base level of inherent difficulty meant to separate the unfit from the pack, the difficulty of school is kind of up to the individual. Whether you go with your first iteration or forty-fifth, what "new" technology you invest time to learn, which rules you decide to follow and which ones you break are all contributing factors.
The advent of computers and programs (namely AutoCad) likely was huge, pedagogy probably took its time adjusting to it. I would assume this trend carried on through 3D modeling and will carry on through the integration of AI.
Yes.
When is your assignment due?
The notion of craft is so very poor now with new grads. The computer solves and hides some much that they think they now more than they do. But noooo, arch school is too difficult because the render machine needs to work overtime.
Kids these days don't even understand how to keep pencils sharp... now, where's the cloud at. I need to go yell some more.
.
The last time I dropped by studio after graduating, every student had a 3D printer pumping out huge amounts of study models - directly from Rhino. While some continue to work on the 3D prints, hacking away and gluing together assemblages, most of them seem content with the knick-knacks. All iteration and experimentation have been done in Rhino space and the prints are just results to show. The sheer volume was quite impressive, but there seems to be an arms race to pump out as much toys as possible.
Architecture School in the mid - late 80s was similar education on design / ideas / history / theory / structures etc but I am gathering the production and presentation has changed substantially. Might just be my background ( I come from a family of craftspersons and builders ) so my design approach was always somewhat rooted in how things go together, tectonic quality and an understandable approach to building. (This was before Gehry / Zaha etc were making unbelievable shapes and forms )
I think the one big thing I noticed was that when you had to draw up a project of even when I started working and had to draw BP sets and details you needed to know what every line meant and where it started and stopped as you were aware it represented something drywall / building paper edge of framing material etc. Today is a lot more of click, mirror, copy and paste which is where some of the craft may be lost. Building with hands and even drawing by hand is always a way to ground one to how things go together. Not sure if they still having drawing classes / sketch books etc but I do find it's a wonderful skill and a great way to explore / design and hope that never gets lost.
From Craft to Profession, by Mary N. Woods
Yes, architecture school is hard..if you allow it to be.
Architecture has consistently ranked in the top three most difficult academic programs (by workload) for many decades. So this should not come as news to anyone.
Only speaking for myself, but... it was more difficult when i was a student (mid/late 90s and 00's) than now. We did not have any institutional belief in mental health or work/life balance to help out, and had more courses to deal with as well. A lot more math. AND profs were meaner too.
It was also easier because we had good training in fundamentals before we even got to the design of buildings. That feels slightly short-circuited lately because of computers, which we have a weird cultural maladjustment with. This isnt a universal thing, but I find that instead of treating computers (and all the fabrication tools that go with them) as tools we often treat them as poor substitutes for something that is almost morally better. Like hand crafted this or that, or hand drawing, or whatever is imagined as a naturally better thing than whatever computers have to offer. And that isnt helping students who are being trained for a profession where computers ARE the tools, and pencils are not. It's a strange internal double-standard that confuses architectural education and visibly messes with what students are asked to produce.
Not trying to oversell that last point, but it is something I have noticed since I started teaching in North America a couple years ago. Strangely we do not have that problem in Japan, at least where I taught/teach. Computers, digital fabrication, hand drawing, or whatever are not placed in such a noticeable hierarchy and the output is less strained as a result. In that regard Ifind Japanese education a lot more chill somehow than in Canada.
What was the question? Oh yeah. Archi-education is both harder and easier, different and unchanged from the old days (old from a mid-career perspective at least)
Personally I think it is a great time to be a student and an architect. The profession has become a lot more professional in the last decades for better or worse. But also much broader for those who want to spread out. That is a pretty cool change.
Good answer. Yes, one shouldn't evaluate computer generated work with the standards of what we used to do decades ago with pencil and trace.
That said, and having seen some undergradate work recently, it seems that there is no significant improvement in the quality of design thinking and the end product even with all the tools so readily available. Im not sure there is a regression (hey we had lazy students in the old day as well), but there certainly is less of a progression than what one would expect in terms of spatial character and tectonics. Even form making is somehow not as advanced as one would think. Perhaps it is the teachers fighting uphill?
when i was a student 20 years ago the problem with computers was they offered too much opportunity to do work that didn't contribute to the design of buildings - students got sidetracked demonstrating outstanding skills at modeling and rendering and presentation, but not actually designing meaningful spaces. i always felt a silly inferiority complex because i didn't really enjoy modeling or rendering and just wanted to draw nice buildings.
now i'm on the client side rather than designing and sometimes wonder how much of that is an outcome of simply hating the work of modeling and taking every opportunity that led away from that as a result. meaning i love talking about a design and sketching out plans, but prefer handing it off to someone else to model up.
the lack of form-making and more risky design is part of the professionalization process IMO. Also REVIT. Squares are easier. Lately students rely on enscape for renders and it drives me nuts, because it averages every project, and expression is lost. It's a path of least resistance kind of output. But then again, no one is teaching students how to use it so I cant expect too much of it...
Reviewing both student and young professional work over the past couple of decades, there has been a noticeable overall decline in design-thinking ability. Whether this correlates to the tools being used or not is an open question.
I'm with Will... I think it was harder back in the day. And not just in an "old man yells at clouds" way.
It was harder, brutal, bad for mental and physical health, and inappropriate in lots of ways. We were ridden hard. Student models were broken during reviews. People regularly called things like "retard" "unsuitable" "you should switch majors" DURING REVIEWS in front of their peers. All nighters encouraged, multi-nighters even. The professors modeled how to abuse drugs and alcohol as part of semi-successful boutique practice, and it no doubt contributed to the unrealistic expectations and prescriptive assignments like doing final plans in pen on vellum of 1/4" scale final models.
On the more academic side, 21-23 credit hours was not unusual. Reading and theory classes were serious business, and you might get assigned a book (short though it may be) to read in a week. Essays were vigorously debated and the profs did not shy away from calling out and mocking or even excusing from class students who had not read the material completely.
This was also in the days of the "5 year M.Arch" so that definitely contributed to the brutality of the program - basically doing grad-level studio from the moment you step foot on campus as an 18 year old undergraduate freshman. 82 or 84 students started, something like that. 24 graduated.
i was just talking to my wife - who studied architecture in another country - and mentioned 31 out of my incoming class of 65 graduated. She was amazed given the price of american universities that they wouldn't try to keep most of the students enrolled. :(
the stupid difficulty of study compared to the relatively easy reality of practice is baffling. i think it drives out reasonable people and inculcates a culture of obsessive self-doubt that leads architects to struggle with relating to clients and understanding the motives of others in business and public life.
I think the weed-out dynamic varies between the public and private schools in the USA. My public undergrad did everything it could to eliminate students from their program, often with a pronounced bias against women and lower income students. The rich kids college where I did grad made sure everyone who paid the tuition graduated, even if they were terrible.
Private US schools also seem to like admitting international students since they pay full tuition and in most cases aren't eligible for any financial aid.
@taz: Yup, all day long. Even back in the '80s and '90's.
My private school directed the students who couldn't cut arch school into other programs. Usually business. Really wish I had been one of them, lol. But they were absolutely eliminated mercilessly from the architecture program.
Will G and I share an alma mater. When I received my acceptance letter, it literally said "architecture is a 24/7 endeavour. You will not be permitted to work outside of the university while you are enrolled." During my very first pin-up, the Dept Head told me, in front of two studios, that "those are the most godawful drawings I've ever seen." Nobody even blinked, that was normal.
As to the attrition rate (for Master's), I started in a small specialty program for people who didn't have an undergrad in Architecture, but everyone already had degrees. Off the top of my head, those included fine art, engineering, biology, theatre, and industrial design. Oh, one person had an undergrad in Architecture ('environmental design' as it's referred to here). Out of the 8 other students who started with me, two dropped out in the first month, one switched to City Planning, four required at least an extra year, and I think two of us graduated on time (the engineer being the other). I'm the only one of the 11 who's ever worked in architecture to this day, and the only one who went on to get their license. 1 out of 8. It was not easy.
My wife, whom I met in architecture school and now teaches there, says there's no denying that school is easier these days. Neither of us are the type to yell at clouds and I don't own an onion belt (we only graduated just over a decade ago). She also guest crits at some other schools and describes the rigour as being lacking pretty much everywhere. That's coming from somebody who struggled herself with many aspects of her architecture school experience and had no interest in going into practice.
Personally I think it's absurd that we require students to take 4 or 5 years of intense studios and course work, and the technical, legal, and business aspects are all pretty much ignored. Schools must do a better job of bringing in qualified instructors, rather than the person who made nice hand drawings as a student and just graduated last year, something I've seen time and time again. No wonder nobody's prepared for practice in the real world.
I'm the only one of the 11
Sorry, that should say 9. We had vertical studios so there were two second year Master's students in our group, and I included them by accident. FWIW they've both gone on to have decent careers.
can't just let any wanker be an architect.
hey, I'm a wanker and an architect.
Only the special kind of wankers.
Architecture school is tough because it has to be - sooner or later you will be working for a condescending control freak micro-managing project architect who will give a military style dress down for even the slightest mistake "why that is a piece of dogshit, why are even on my team" Sir, I got lost on my way to the park sir" BAM
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.