Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
whither architecture school?
provokes a discussion on the validity of the current graduate school system and the structure of our universities.
1- How can architecture/landscape/interiors be integrated into a broader curriculum organized by themes/problems not disciplines?
2- Do we need Design Schools or can we thrive in a larger academic ocean? Is an accredited degree truly essential to protect the health, safety, and wellfare as a pre-requisite for professional licensure?
3- Design is a collaborative process, except when we are taught to emulate Howard Roark - how can interdisciplinary collaboration be increased in the design curriculum?
4- Is producing a thesis worth the time and effort if you are going into professional practice or should it be reserved for those aspiring to be academics or should it be abolished completely?
5- Extending the professional options is already happening, as arch and 'scapers often find themselves in different industries like entertainment, environmental, construction, business, and others. Is a greater effort needed or are most schools doing a good job?
6- Design is traditionally a profession that experience leads to greatness. Do we need mandatory retirement in the profession too? Can we push the superannuated babyboomers out to allow gen-x and nexters a chance to lead? Are there too many tenured design professors or is that a problem of other disciplines?
Whoa. Interesting, tk. That article is chock full of information, I will read and get back to you.
same here,, but, on the spot, yes, a thesis is important even if most of us will enter the "traditional" profession.. even the profession requires critical skills, a certain degree of independence, some individuality which feeds and nurtures the collaborative nature of our work,,
as for the baby boomers and the generations after those,, somehow, i sometimes dream that some people should be reintroduced to some emerging topics,, this ofcourse, is not a statement that applies to all, neither is it a fair statement, its just from some of my experiences,, so, noone here should take offence, but i do think it is interesting,, in a way,, everyone takes history courses, and that enforces our work, but, what about the recent history that happens while one leaves school, some people are self motivated and understand the importance of that, but others dont
1- How can architecture/landscape/interiors be integrated into a broader curriculum organized by themes/problems not disciplines?
Hmm, I was just wondering that myself...
As an undergrad, I tried to build an interdisciplinary art history education for myself, but was met with SEVERE resistance from faculty. Why? I took all the requirements needed for the major, but when I tried to incorporate ideas from cultural geography, urban studies, film theory, etc. into my senior thesis I got the impression that I was 'breaking the rules,' in a bad way, and should probably just stick to formal analyses of paintings.
True, art history is a more conservative field than architecture (I think?), but I thought this was really ridiculous. HYPER-SPECIALIZATION WILL DESTROY US ALL.
I don't think that's entirely true, middleAmerica. Just take a look at globalization.
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.