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.
