After all these years interviewing young architects and other technical support graduates as potential employees, most people like me are disillusioned with the level of preparation and exposure given to these young folks at architectural schools and technical institutes.
And
when questioned why they produced the kinds of architectural design blandness, I was indirectly told [they were too timid to say it out loud, I supposed] that that was how they would be able to get through the schools. Challenging design won't give them a passing mark ?
If these claims were true, then I would want to know,
Don't fairly-tale concepts, imaginative, bold and cutting edge designs have places in schools ?
And,
When asked how they imagined building their dream [albeit bland] designs, most of them would sidestep the constructional & technical questions by saying they only went through the technical side "in passing" after spending months on design.
If whatever they claimed were true, I wonder who were supposed to advise them that design and constructional knowledge go hand-in-hand in architecture ?
Unless they were meant to be trained as artists and to produce artist's impressions only, somebody better tell these aspiring architects and technical / architectural assistants that spending time on concept design alone would not do.
Especially, when they were "directed' to producing uninspiring and bland designs and with no emphasis on how these designs to be built. I would imagine the exposure should be given by the schools.
Then again,
Why was it that all these schools and institutions offering from a 1 1/2 year drafting certificate courses to the 5 to 6 year degree courses in architecture only stressed on design ? Not everyone was good at designing. Someone [or the same architect or design assistants or draftsmen] must also translate a fancy design into buildable technical documentation [not just fancy artists drawings] and ensure that the design was built properly in accordance with the documentation [or the construction contract].
If everyone from these schools from draftsmen to architects were exposed only to designing, who then would they expect to get the design built ?
I wonder ?
Or,
Wouldn't it be better to let the 1 to 3-year courses concentrate on how to build buildings [i.e. emphasise on the technical side, with exposures to designing of course] and the longer 4 to 6 year courses concentrate of the finer designing, learn how to lead [or work within] a team of construction experts [e.g. engineers, project managers and cost consultants], exposed to constructional requirements and procedures and, contractual studies; but not to neglect the technical side at the same time ?
It is an old formula but it was proven to prepare graduates for the work force. But if there were better models then they should be adopted, of course. But, it was obvious to me at least that the current architectural education models were not very helpful for both the graduates and the employers.
By reviewing the courses, the schools and institution would be able to supply the job market with very employable graduates.
Because,
the education institutions, and the graduates, can't expect job places to employ these graduates on high salaries and give them fulltime training on the job at the same time.
Most employments are done with aim to obtain commercial gains.
Fulltime training on the job would not be commercially realistic.
Furthermore,
oftentimes I found that on the job many graduates faced reality shocks because they were surprised that being architects and technical support staff in the real world meant that they had to do more than designing.
Many did not realise they had to coordinate their design with other fellow consultants, schedule their work for the eventual construction and many were also surprised that they had to manage the contract,
to mention a few "unfamiliar" tasks.
To train these graduates to realise the reality of the architectural world is hard work for small employers like us, not to mention very costly.
We would expect relevant exposures were given in school and then continual improvement in knowledge would be gained in the offices.
If only the schools and institutes play their proper role it would help the employers and the graduates greatly.
It does not do any good to deceive anyone that each and everyone of these graduates would become designers or architects after a 1 1/2-year drafting course on autoCAD or similar drafting softwares. And, it would not be that much use if they only learnt to draft on AutoCAD. It is just a tool like learning to draw with pencil on paper. It would be more useful to learn how to do basic construction details using AutoCAD etc as a drafting tool.
Basically, over this short courses, students would be better-off exposed to construction techniques and drafting softwares than just doing designs. Especially when these students don't even know whether their designs were buildable.
After the initial training and with employable credentials and, with well thought out courses, those graduates who wished to further their studies 3-4 years deeper into architecture would hopefully then have a better understanding of what they should know.
Hopefully by reviewing the training courses employers would have really employable graduates architects and technical support staff.
The objective of the training, I would imagine, is to get these students graduate with some 'sellable' or 'employable' knowledge. Once employed the employers would take over with the training exercise to suit their organisations.
But to expect employers to train graduates from scratch on many basic architectural responsibilites would be very unfair.
Tuan,
ReplyDeleteartical menarik. ulasan saya, pelajar masakini dilatih menjadi 'autocad operator' bukan 'architectural draughtman/women'. bagi pereka/designer dipimpin bukan memimpin. untuk arkitek dapat lah bisnes arkitek yang sepatutnya 'good architect'. akhirnya dalam pasaran kita akan dapat 'end product' spt komen tuan.
I value your view on how the architectural education should be. However, in my opinion, these students must be thought to make their own judgement and decision at the early stage of their education. The educator, in other way, should pay attention on the individuals and to guide them to pursue their career path individually. The reality is that, not everyone will become either architect or draughtsperson at the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments.
ReplyDeleteI am all for individuality. We should not promote uniformity in architecture. I would imagine that we would not want run of the mill designs.
1. We should not curtail freedom of expression, in art or in architecture [for that matter, almost in everything, as long as they are expressed in good measures with good intentions].
Curtailment of expression is one of the issues.
My many years of glancing over students portfolio and interviewing students gave me the impression that these students, at least in Malaysian context, were ‘too moulded’ into a school of thought by those who set their architecture programmes. As if, any student who did not toe in the line and did not produce designs which fit the mould of the course master would not get through the course. I do agree that the architecture programmes should nurture the talents of these students and not to force them into our own mould.
2. The other issue is exposure to the real needs of the practices.
Oftentime, my practice had to re-train these graduates to see the bigger picture of architecture. That architecture is not just about producing pretty and arty pictures using the many computer generated softwares. We really had to knock it into the graduates that beyond the dreamy bits of architecture is the real hard work of getting the dreams into reality via the painstaking detailing and documentation work of their “ artwork “ and the cruel reality of contract management.
All I am expecting is that architecture students be exposed and guided to real architecture world.
And not just to let them dream on that architecture is just about sketching something and then put notes on their documentation drawing something like “ to engineers details “ or “ to detail “ or “ by others “ and expected a miracle that those words would transform their ill-formed sketches into something wonderful and impressionable.
Or let the students expect [ due to lack of exposure ] that contract documents are there as procedural formalities and compiled to be kept in filing cabinets
Or expected that work on ground would proceed automatically without the need to refer to their documented drawings or contracts.
Let the students see the light in the tunnels of architecture and prepare them so that they would know the sources of light which they should be heading towards ...
thank you for sharing your view. perhaps we could let the graduate decide themselves whether they want to be a successful architect vice versa. If they are very determined, they will eventually be there one day. or better still, i wish they could walk this path with a very positive mindset. Anyway nice comments and wish you Selamat Menyambut Bulan Ramadhan. Cheers
ReplyDeleteThanks for the wishes.
ReplyDeleteWe just want the best for the students and the industry. Its the students' future and also that of the industry that we are discussing about.
Afterall this is a discourse.
We need to air out the good and the bad that we see [or we feel or believe] hoping that the comments given will come out as constructive feedbacks to whom they may concern. And hopefully something better will come out of it for all.
Ahlan wa sahlan fi Ramadhan Mubarak - Welcome the blessed Ramadhan.