HornMatrix1+-+Architectural+Education

Students of architecture appear to be extremely devoted and well rounded citizens of the world and specifically within the design professions. However, there are many essential problems with the nature of the system which fuel an unhealthy and unsustainable environment. Of particular focus is the pedagogy which develops a system where the student is subjected to pressures that create a self-abusive perpetual cycle of unhealthy actions and devaluing. This matrix presentation attempts to break down the architectural education model to reveal the source of health effects and the devaluing of time amongst the architecture profession.

**SYSTEM + CURRICULUM **
Architectural education operates through a unique model of learning called the studio model. The studio model is based upon direct engagement between faculty members and students. Students are allowed to present their work and gain direct feedback from the professor. It is a highly respected educational model which has been explored by a number of other disciplines, especially of the design nature. The studio model relies on exploration by the students and places a large amount of responsibility on the individual conceptually and in the physical manifestation of their ideas. Early design studios attempt to break down prejudices and preconceptions about architecture and the world we inhabit to provoke work that responds to interesting conditions.

While the system produces individuals with incredible talent and critical thinking ability, there is a negative side to the entire system which questions its very foundations. The following are aspects of the actual curriculum which provoke unsustainability: lack of interdisciplinary education, lack of sustainable design integration, amount of educational material required by accreditation board to gain a professional degree, unreality of projects being assigned, abundance of presentation requirements, no teaching requirements for studio critics.

** INTERDISCIPLINARY EDUCATION **
 As mentioned above, the core of architectural education is the studio. Students understand the studio as the most critical element of their education because it is described to them in this manner. What then occurs is a lack of interest in the other necessary aspects of their education in the humanities. “Professional architectural education is overwhelmingly predicated on skills development. Consequently, the humanities are given short shrift. Students overburdened with an abundance of practical tasks cannot be expected to do much beyond completing studio project work with any degree of depth.” (Coleman 2010) This is also further complicated by the multiplicity of “necessary” topics architecture schools believe their students should have knowledge in. The role of architects has been debated since the post World War II period, particularly in a symposium moderated by Reyner Banham, where the very nature of the profession was brought under particular scrutiny. “I think, a big problem right through the profession; that on the whole the profession would rather listen to an architect with a smattering of a speciality that the specialists themselves. But this may be a real problem in actual communicability of scientific ideas—this business of how far science can be interpreted in non-scientific language.” (Banham 1960) While I think this quote particularly criticizes a modernist understanding of science for visual effect, it speaks to the current trends where architecture students become knowledgeable at a base level to general problems and there is very little time for elaboration on these ideas. This is the case even regarding the most basic understandings, as C.C. Theis, a faculty member from the Louisiana State University School of Architecture, has elaborated on with the very “idea of nature.” There are multiple readings of nature throughout human history via individuals and society and a fundamental understanding of these relationships must be achieved to practice ecological design. (Theis 2010) The next category continues this argument by addressing the “green” design practices initiated in the education system and why they are flawed.

** SUSTAINABLE DESIGN INTEGRATION **
With the growth of the green movement over the past 10 years architecture schools have grown significantly in the courses providing guidance on ecologically responsible design and building. First, architecture students now have built in “built ecologies” courses for educating students in proper ways for designing with an ecological mindset. These courses remain extremely technologically weighted though, which is counter to the studio atmosphere predicated on experimentation and there being multiple solutions to typical problems. “When ecology beomes the major issues, you're left with a scientific box that does nothing for the spirit, I cannot separate the idea of the poetic and the rational.” (Murcutt 2002) This attitude is supported by many professors within the design disciplines, however professionals are beginning to suggest new ways in which ecologically minded design house creative and beautiful solutions, such as the work of Tom Wiscombe, founder of Emergent Architecture, who utilizes notions of biomimicry to form new buildings and spaces. However, it is careful when looking at designers like this to confuse formal design with performative designs. There remain designers and professors who preach a formal exploration of nature, such as R. Reed from the University of North Texas who believes “nature influences and fosters new methods for academicians with the utmost goal to build a greater awareness, appreciation and placed value upon nature a s form-giver in the built environment.” (Reed 2010) What is necessary instead is for students to understand the functionality of nature and systems of ecology to create architecture that responds to these dynamic forces. Because architecture draws from a vast number of disciplines there are also many schools that are weighted in different directions. RPI has a very technologically oriented architecture program, while schools like Cornell offer more art driven programs. This makes it difficult for sustainability to be incorporated into many curricula. “It is anticipated that adoption of ideas and content of the sustainability agenda will differ according to the individual schools of architecture due to the contextual forces determining its direction, the diversity of its philosophy, pedagogical approaches, and ability to adopt innovation.” (Ibrahim 2008)

** NAAB ACCREDITATION **
 NAAB is the national accrediting board for architects in the United States. In order to sign off on construction documents, an architect must be a licensed professional. A license is obtained after the successful completion of an accredited university degree program, followed by three years of internship, and then completion of a 7 session licensing exam. Every five years the NAAB goes through an accreditation process of every architecture school in the country. The list of criteria is extensive and questions the ability of every architecture student to have a knowledge base extensive enough to achieve responsible design using all of these considerations.

** UNREALITY **
 Architectural education thrives off of conceptual projects. Every design semester is developed around a particular type of concept and theoretical understanding of design, as well as an analysis of site and program. While the result is a rich array of varying concepts regarding the potential of a site and contributes to a rich history of architectural culture for provoking new ideas and social forms, the system provokes the students to design with limited engagement with real world problems. “Paradoxically, the loss of qualities in architecture—by which I mean the generally nonspecific and superficial character of most building of the past fifty or more years, manifested as an overall inattention to place, material, detail and its social dimension—has paralleled its institutionalization, including its introduction as a university-based subject of study and its organisation into a regulated profession.” (Coleman 2010) This free nature of design is perpetuated into a professional environment, as I will discuss later based on the notions of free labor and free design for little value, as the current economic system manifests itself. Unreality also spreads to the final products required for presentation. “If you have this mania that you have to give up everything for studio, your faculty members will lock on to this idea that “I can ask them to build a basswood model for every phase of the project.” (Quinn 2000)

** ARCHITECTURAL CRITICS **
Another aspect of the problem, which feeds into a individualistic design methodology is the delicate balance placed on the relationship between a design critic and an individual. Even though the system creates user feedback, the individual often conflicts with the professor in such a delicate environment which is about personal ideas. “Most students, like full-fledged designers, have a strong sense of possession of their projects and may therefore dread the possibility that too much input by the teacher may lead to a compromised ownership of their projects.” (Goldschmidt 2009) What emerges is the reality that studio professors are not trained as teachers and the variation in personalities is the device by which individuals gain knowledge.

**STUDIO CULTURE **
Probably the most visible and immediate problem with architectural education is the manner in which the students operate. Studio culture is the term coined by the AIAS, American Institute of Architectural Students, to describe the proper environment in which architectural students should exist. After a number of instances that resulted in the loss of life of students after sleep loss due to studio work, much has been done policy wise, but little has been done to attack the core problems. The primary issue in the studio culture is that the value of time is completely lost. “As a result of that seclusion, we lose consideration for the value of time. One you get out into practice, you have to determine what you are going to charge for your skills and time; if you have some kind of nagging concept of what your time is worth you will probably have the same complaint about the level of income or compensation that you'll see.” (Quinn 2000) Of major concern with the present studio culture though is the physical and mental health and safety of the student. There have been a number of cases of architecture students getting into car crashes due to lack of sleep. There are even many schools that “provide psychological counseling on demand.” (Fischer 1991) The late nights and lack of time also provoke unhealthy eating habits, as well as a drain of funds due to the necessity to eat and drink things to enhance comprehension during late hours. These time constraints also remove the necessity to conserve materials, producing a wasteful environment where time constraints outweigh waste production.

**<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENT **
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Finally, when architecture students graduate they are faced with a number of difficult choices, and harsh realities that are often supported by the initial training in architecture school. The primary unsustainable practice is that of competition studios and architectural competitions in general. Architectural competitions are the most popular forum for large architectural studios to project and realize their work. The competition environment has two manifestations, one being the invited competition where only specific known designers are allowed to contribute with the hope of realizing a design, and the other being open competitions which allow unknown designers an opportunity for showcasing work. All of these competition studios rely on the presence of free labor provided by architecture students. The students are told by professionals that the educational value of the experience outweighs the normal conditions of the real world, instantly segregating students by economic status. Even the AIAS goes to great lengths to prevent unethical employment by stating “...without proper compensation you devalue yourself, your education and the architecture profession. Interns must be compensated as required by state and federal wage laws. If an employer makes money from your talents then you should too.” (AIAS 2010) The connection between the pedagogy of the educational system and this competition structure is immediately recognizable. Students who don't have a true understanding of the value of time and value of their work are accepting of this unpaid status to continue their education. Even the starting salary of intern architects should be called into question. The usual starting salary is approximately $36,000 a year. After five years of devotion and the development of an extensive skill set, we still are considered to not have enough experience or skill to demand a salary level with any significance. Combine this low salary with the multitude of student loans, makes it almost impossible for students to enter the working world in a manner that allows continued exploration for the bettering of the built environment and society.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">SOLUTIONS

 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Increase in comprehensive learning where the students are formed into skill-based groups for the purpose of expediting production so that concepts can be focused upon.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">The presence of outreach programs which directly relate to local environments, allowing the production of actual built work for community engagement, therefore addressing real issues within the economic and cultural climate. A model of this system exists at the university of Auburn in the Rural Studio which operates much like a study abroad, allowing students direct engagement with the less fortunate in southern states.

**<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">LINKS **
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">**TOP 10 ARCHITECTURE SCHOOLS** – Note the amazing difference between best sustainability schools and best theory schools. Also the elite nature of the top schools and their pricetags. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">[] <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">**ARCHITECTURE BLOGS** – The amount of theoretical work combined with actual built projects. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">[] <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">[] <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">[|http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com]

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">**COMPETITION BLOGS + THE ARGUEMENT**– The massive scale of the competition environment.
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">[|http://www.deathbyarchitecture.com] <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">[] <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">[|http://www.archinect.com] <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">[] <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">[]

**<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS + ACCREDITATION **
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> [] <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> []

**<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">RURAL STUDIO **
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> [|http://www.cadc.auburn.edu/rural-studio/Default.aspx?path=Gallery%2fPurpose%2fObjective%2f]

**<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">BIBLIOGRAPHY **
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Fisher, Thomas, “Patterns of Exploitation,” Progressive Architecture, 1991 <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Quinn, Richard, “Studiomania,” Crit, vol. 48, Fall 2000, p.24-25 <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Lunz, Brad, “At What Price,” Crit, vol. 51, Spring 2001, p.24-25 <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Theis, C.C, “Architectural education and the idea of nature,” Eco-Architecture III, WIT Transactions on Ecology <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> and the Environment, Vol 128, 2010, page 109-117 <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Reed, R, “Eco-aesthetics: nurturing nature in the education of spatial design,” Eco-Architecture III, WIT <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 128, 2010, page 505-513 <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Ibrahim, Norhati, “Sustainability and the Architectural Education: Are We There Yet?” SENVAR + ISESEE 2008: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Humanity + Technology p. 617-625 <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Coleman, Nathaniel, “The Limits of Professional Architectural Education,” The Author Journal Compilcation. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Blackwell Publishing: 2010. p.200-211 <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Goldschmidt, Hochman, Dafni, “The design studio 'crit': Teacher—student communication,” Artificial Intelligence <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, vol. 24, Cambridge University Press:2010, p.285-302 <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> “Post-Graduation Tools to Survive the Economic Recession “ October 25, 2010 <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">[]