Revit goes to School

[Brian Myers]

We have representatives from Autodesk flying into town tomorrow to give a presentation on Revit and I plan on asking them about this situation. I was hoping you guys could provide some extra thoughts.

On Thursday I'm meeting with the Advisory board for a local College to discuss their future academic programs. I was wondering what your own stance on architectural education would be. In other words, how would you proceed with the CAD choices available (Autodesk in particular)?

The situation: This college offers a 2 year and 4 year degree program. The first two years is a CAD / drafting degree. It's not just in Architecture, but all disciplines. As a result it would seem that AutoCAD should still be the standard. The next 2 years could be Civil, Manufacturing, Architecture, etc. Would you recommend continuing AutoCAD use, ADT or Revit for such a program? If Revit, how would you explain this to a program that caters to multiple disciplines and has already spent its time teaching its student users AutoCAD?

I'll have an opportunity to influence the College depending on the stance that would make the most sense. Currently they teach using base AutoCAD even in the upper level architecture programs. But they have moved to Inventor for mechanical teaching and I'm sure they would be open to ADT or Revit if it can be proven to them that these programs would better serve the education of their student body.

My own thought is that with the industry slowly moving toward BIM and 3D modeling that Revit might be more user friendly for their students and aid them in creating a better portfolio. Also using Revit creates an environment where you need to understand the parts of a building more than base AutoCAD or ADT thus creating a student body better educated in construction knowledge and how the parts that make up a building interrelate. Also they would be "trained" in both AutoCAD and Revit use which may better prepare them for real world technical use.

Any extra thoughts? Yes, I'm trying to put a pro-Revit spin on it as I believe Revit and programs like it are the future... at the same time they've been using AutoCAD for over a decade and won't be easily swayed. Obviously if AutoCAD is better for them then I'll tell them that, but I figured you would be in the best position to argue a pro-Revit stance.

Thanks in advance!

[Brian Myers]

The initial response I received from Autodesk was:

If they are training people in “design” and how buildings go together, then the answer is Revit.

If their goal is a “vocational training,” ie tools you need to get a job this afternoon, then I would teach ADT.

Needless to say, that concerns me. Imagine spending $20,000-$30,000 for an education that simply fits your needs for today... I suppose that could be pro-Revit in itself as it stresses the value of good design. Of course, I suppose it depends on what the college (and students) value...

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Brian,

This thread may be of interest to you. http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=3354&highlight=education
I found myself in the same situation some time ago (and the situation continues). The committee I am chair for has met once since my previous post and the conclusion from all disciplines seemed to be consistent... don't teach them drafting alone... we don't need more 'CAD monkeys (their term not mine folks).
I know this will open a huge can of worms but here goes..
Speaking strictly with the architectural realm in mind, the general consensus seems to be that there is a lack of knowledge out there in terms of how to put a building together. We have put ourselves into a sad state since the advent and widespread adoption of CAD some 15-20 years ago. Prior to drawing on a computer there was a mentoring process that allowed junior technicians and designers to work alongside senior staff. All would sit around the table and discuss details and be involved in the entire process since everyone was required to have the ability to produce the final output required to properly document a building.
As the junior staff gained experience and confidence they, in turn, took on more responsibility and mentored those who followed them.
Once CAD became the norm it caused a shift in attitude at the management level. Why should we hire a group of senior designers (the $ staff) when we can hire just one person to feed the CAD staff sketches and have them produce the drawings at a lower cost?
The process became senior technician/designer sketches details; junior (read inexpensive) staff produce CAD drawings; senior staff does mark-ups; junior staff makes corrections.
This process worked well for a time but the result was the junior staff, unless self motivated to learn and gain experience, became simple drafters who were only required to reproduce what was put before them.
In the last 5-10 years, as the senior staff started to age, not be on top of the electronic tools of the trade and retire, the knowledge base started to disappear. With no one to fill the void we are now left with fewer people who have a complete understanding of the process of developing details and putting together a cohesive and complete set of drawings required to document a building.
The current trend toward BIM is really starting show the shortcomings of this change in industry and this lack of knowledge. In order to use a BIM application most effectively you are required to have some idea of how building components relate and the sequencing of construction so the details we draw are actually constructible.
I strongly feel that the industry will suffer for the next several years until that knowledge gap is filled. Industry and educational institutions need to reassess what the requirements are in the 'real world' and teach accordingly.
It's my opinion that the drafting end of the things is not as important as the need for understanding of the process and requirements of those involved on site and at the sub-trade level. The drafting is more easily taught in house, with the standards created and imposed by individual offices. The process of working a detail through and having it relate to the architecture is what should be taught.
Please, please do not take offense by what I'm saying here. I know there a great number of people out there who are very capable and not all CAD techs are 'just draftsman'. These are just my observations of the changes I have seen in my 25 years in the profession. These concerns are also being expressed to me by construction managers and site personnel when they comment on the general quality of drawings they are getting form architectural firms.
I agree Brian that Revit, or other 3D modelling software for other branches of design) is the way to go and that is what I will be preaching to amyone willing to listen.

[mlgatzke]

Brian,

I happen to teach Architectural drafting at the college level. I can tell you from experience that everyone, thus far, is speaking the truth - as I've experienced it. Yes, the professional world is frustrated that current graduates understand the technology (software) more than they do how a building actually goes together.

I teach my students AutoCAD and ADT because it's a mandate by our local professionals. However, in the students' last semester, they complete a medium-sized commercial project using Revit. WOW! What a difference. Throughout the AutoCAD and ADT projects, I get questions about connecting "lines" and "How do you want this line to look?". As soon as we start the Revit project, the entire atmosphere changes. Revit is forcing the students to think about the construction of the building; the connection of the pieces and the purpose of the elements. They begin asking me "How does this steel-stud wall connect to the precast exterior wall?". No more questions about lines, arcs and circles. The students, when they begin using Revit, begin thinking about the building as a building and not a collection of linework. They are forced to think about connections and assemblies instead of "fudging" around them as a CAD application allows you to do.

I have been asked several times, "Why are you teaching the students Revit? Nobody around here is using it?" In replay I say, "Because it forces them to think about Architecture and not CAD . . . and don't worry, you will eventually move to Revit. You'll move or you'll lose . . . it's inevitable." Revit actually enables my students to think about how the building goes together. Let's see a CAD package say the same thing.

The funny thing is that now I have graduates that are working out in the various offices. My students are trained in Revit, they're asking for Revit, and they constantly comment to me (when I see them) about how they feel like they're stuck in the stone-ages when they have to go back to using AutoCAD or ADT.

See my previous post:
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=3376&page=3&pp=10

Please give us an update on how it goes.

[rod.74246]

Well, I am an emploer of about 40 staff and i will let you in on a couple of facts.

In 1995 our office make up consisted of about half Architects / Architectural graduates and half Architecural Technicians/CAD technicians. (back in R12? days of AutoCAD). In those days the whole CAD thing was sweeping the architectural offices and it was an amazing tool we couldn't understand. We employed CAD technicians and draftsmen to assist our Architects in producing drawings and their skills were a lot more engineered towards building technology.

In 2005 we employ ALL architects with the exception of 3 Technicians ( all of whom are "old school" and learnt their craft on a drawing board - hence actually know how to document a building and how they go together, they picked up CAD along the way).

The reality is that these days we hire competent people who know how to put a building together. In fact "CAD" skills arent even low on the list of proficiencies i look for anymore. It takes little time these days for some one who knows how to build and document to pick up a CAD package, and the reality as well is that depending which office they work in, they need to relearn a new package depending what the office is actually using( not to mention each time there is a software release anyway). I myself in the last 8 years have worked on 8 different CAD packages in an office environment.

The reason we dont hire "Architectural Technicans" or "draftsmen" anymore is simple. The ones coming out of the colleges these days don;t know a damn thing about building.!!! In fact most of them know antiquated CAD skills, and at that extremely convoluted ways of going about things that do not get used in an office.

As an employer i would suggest this. CONCENTRATE ON TEACHING THEM HOW TO DOCUMENT AND BUILD A BUILDING!!. Show them how it goes together show them how a builder needs to see it.. Somewhere along the line everyone lost sight of the fact that the primary responsibility in building buildings is that... not knowing the fastest way to do x or y on a computer program. As an employer i don't give a stuff anymore what anyones CAD skills are like, cause to be honest i have noticed the better the CAD, the worse the building documentation. The young CAD technicians these days don't pay any attention at all anymore to what the lines they are drawing actually mean... just purely how good they are at putting lines into a program.

Most of the youngsters these days are pretty computer savvy. In my office those who have never known CAD pick it up extremely quickly...even more so with Revit. But the same with AutoCAD and Microstation as well. ( i shouldn't call them youngsters i suppose) Hell my "oldies" 60 year old guys who couldnt get there heads round AutoCAD are actually fumbling there way round REVIT failry successfully. In fact they seem to have more trouble getting the computer on and finding tere files than actually using the software

My advice is this... Give them Revit. It is quicker to learn and a powerful tool. It is fairly standardised and easily manageable from a CAD managers point of view. Do this and you can concentrate on what Draftsmen and Technicians need to know. Actually learning how to document a building. That is the hard bit.

Just for everyones interest i recently polled my staff in a recent QA meeting on this very issue. We are a complete CAD office. I myself as the CAD manager as well have never done a course in any of the CAD packages i have ever used. Except for Revit which in total was a 2 DAY COURSE!!!.

Less than 70% of them had also ever done an accredited CAD course either. They learnt it through using it and "playing" with it.

And before anyone gets started on the "optimisation" arguments and "training" arguments and "productivity" arguments. They are a load of hogwash. Traditional CAD is far to complex, there are far too many ways of doing things and far to many ways to make your files so complex you are forever fixing "CAD" issues rather than worrying about what your office is producing. Our CAD is streamlined ( Revit is getting there slowly) and we are an extremely efficient document producer. In fact we have to reteach those who have done extensive CAD training to actually get them to produce their documents efficiently.

What is important in this industry is what is produced in hard line on the page at the end of the day. For this end i say go Revit and get rid of the bulls*&t from the CAD training and concentrate on buildings.

My company is not alone in this attitude. 10 years ago in the days of hand drafting we did not specify " must be able to hold a pencil, draw a straight line and use a parallel rule" as an essential component in architectural resumes". Now we have turned a corner and the same applies these days. Building knowledge is the key... CAD usage is a virtual drawing board. All my staff are picking up Revit quickly, a lot of them without formal training. Go that way and tell in your meeting an ACAD or ADT or REVIT trained technician is irrelevant. If they can turn out good technicians who dont know CAD at all but know what they need to produce for their employers they will get hired. Some turkey who can use 3D Max, VIZ, ADT and can write is own LISP routines for things that are so convluted it would have taken half the time to ust draw it are a complete and utter waste of time for their employers.

Hmm... that was a bit long. But this issue has been bugging me for a while.

Had to edit this to say that i don;t want to dig at "draftsmen or Technicians". I miss the days wen we used to see competent eager guys coming out of the schools who learnt to pick up the pencil within the first week and spent the rest of their time working on actual "building technology". In fact i would almost suggest get rid of CAD altogether out of the schools and get them trained properly before dumping them onto a CAD package. I'd rather see a 2 year course with a 1 semester CAD "swat" than what is happening now. We look at Architecture Graduates and Interior Design graduates these days for purely that reason......CAD is not part of the curriculum except for a brief 1 or 2 subject course. The rest of their 40 or 50 subjects are on actual building. The emphasis is just wrong and we all seem to realise it now. Its time for a change in the schools and Revit ( or another BIM) will help that.

[Brian Myers]

First I want to thank everyone that has answered so far! I've gotten some very good and very well thought replies!! I may answer them a little more directly as time allows, but I have a User Group meeting to arrange tonight that is pushing my day along.

But the following quote got me thinking:


We look at Architecture Graduates and Interior Design graduates these days for purely that reason......CAD is not part of the curriculum except for a brief 1 or 2 subject course. The rest of their 40 or 50 subjects are on actual building. The emphasis is just wrong and we all seem to realise it now. Its time for a change in the schools and Revit ( or another BIM) will help that.

The obvious answer to my next question is "I wouldn't start a school like that!" but I hope you read it and think of the answer. If your school was a two part school, the first part focused on basic production CAD and the second part (optional degree for 2 more years) focused on education in a particular field how would you teach your students? Would you start them with AutoCAD? Change them to Revit in the second half? Have them use a particular program?

At the moment I feel as if I should tell this college they should change their curriculum to be more focused from the start. But this really goes against what they were built for so I know they wouldn't take that advice. Half their students work in the field and are taking classes less to understand how things go together and more to get promotions, understand CAD and basic drafting techniques. It would seem that perhaps teaching them AutoCAD early on might be the best thing (and they can "claim" 2 years experience under their belts) and perhaps Revit the final 2 years. The Revit wouldn't be used because it was "Revit" but because it does force you to think more along the lines of how 2 things go together and less along the lines of "where I can I copy this detail?"

Would I be correct in saying that?

[DoTheBIM]

Just an observation here....

What 'rod.74246' makes reference to is the students entering into school actually knowing what they want to do later in life. I know from experience that it would be very unkind to 'force' students to make a decision like that and wasting their money and time in a field that they decide later "after" some experience that they would rather be somewhere else. Things are the way they are because it's the easiest way, not necessarily the best. On a large scale kind of thing, people follow basic physics principles. Least resistance is where they will go usually.

Example.... I knew I wanted to go design on CAD 'I thought' for building houses, because I had some experience with building houses and remodeling. Many others in my class thought they wanted to be in the Architecture field too. But after being shown some of the other fields, many liked the mechanical sided of things better. As for myself, I started in Civil on co-op and couldn't stay awake... Moved to mechanical of sorts(designing/revising playground equipment) -- I loved that because we were moving to Pro/E (a Revit of sorts) but the pay sucked. So I went looking and found good pay but was mainly only a technician for all disciplines in the nuclear field. Company downsized and I ended up in the Architecture of Panelized housing... It seems I've found a good middle ground for myself for now... but who knows what the future will bring along (By the way it looks like we will be evaluating if Revit will work for us, via purchase of one seat of which I will likely be trying to learn and make work for us... should prove to be interesting work for me).

Bottom line... To do what you are referring to is asking a student to decide from the get-go what they want to do. Very tough to do IMO from the students point of view. I'd offer a suggestion for the student to take part in an in depth evaluation to help the student decide which road to take. And I don't mean those stupid Q/A multiple choice evaluations on paper. To do it right it must be done in interview form by several people in the various fields. Those people would meet and give their thoughts and discuss and give a final recommendation or two. Or even a denial on the grounds that the person just doesn't make a good fit and would be better off elsewhere. Then set the prospective student on the correct curriculum path. (See I told you it was easier as it is being done now.)

Just my $0.02. Might only be worth 2 cents in Canadian though.

Edit: Forgot to note that I've seen plenty of Architect's drawings that don't know jack about how a house goes together, so lack of actual building knowledge is not limited to just one particular type of prospect... Although I agree that you will have more of that in the implied "lesser educated" prospects. Personally I'm wishing I applied myself a little more and and went for a 4 year degree, but kids are so impatient you know. It's all good though, I like to think I've sort of influenced my future in the last couple of years by applying my experiences (and telling someone about it) and I believe things have turned out well for me so far judging by solely on compensation increases the last couple of years and consideration given for me to move in the company... hopefully up.

[SCShell]

Hey there,
Wow, what a great thread. I see a lot of thought going into these posts. Very nice to read.
I will add only 1-1/2 cents....

I have been a one man shop, hand drafting for the last 16 or 17 years. Now, for the past 2 years, I have used Revit exclusively. Revit is the only program I've seen which does the following for me:

1. Allows me to design and produce better work as an Architect.
2. Allows me to make last minute design changes, even though the drawings are almost complete. (In the old days, I had to sacrifice this because of the time required to make certain changes that late in the process.)
3. Allows me to produce a set of drawings which were as nice graphically as my old hand drafted ones, while communicating more information than ever before.
4. Allows me to do presentations which I never could have done by hand in a fraction of the time..

CAD would have made me a faster draftsman. Revit makes me a better Architect!

Nice thoughts everybody
Steve

[DanielleAnderson]

I'm going to take a stab at this post as well, although I am probably quite out of my league in the company of all of you, since I just graduated about 3 years ago and am more of a peer of those "who don't know jack about building"...
I went to a very traditional sort of architecture school (yes, the only one here in Seattle) where using any sort of computer program for studio or presentations was frowned upon and considered very taboo by most studio professors. The one CAD class was an elective that was only offered one quarter a year and taught by a professional architect from the local community. Other than that, the only mandatory computer class was a one quarter smattering of various programs that might prove helpful in the future (a little bit of photoshop, the MS products, a bit of HTML, a week of Autocad and a week or so of Form-Z). In this particular class, the two things that got people very excited were Photoshop (just because it's really cool to play around with) and Form-Z. Now, as I have mentioned in previous threads, I am not a fan of Form Z, BUT, the point I am making is that it was 3D--it required some thought, it allowed us to think like architects tend to think, which is in 3D. This is why the idea of using Revit in school is so exciting to me, Revit allows students to learn how to think like a professional. One is actually "BUILDING" virtually, not just drafting.
When I took the CAD class, it was one of those things I did because I thought I couldn't get a job if I didn't know Autocad (which around here was VERY true, I found), no employer was willing to take a chance on me in any of my summer job hunts, because I didn't know how to use Autocad.
I am glad to see 3D being adopted by more and more firms, it is such a powerful communication tool. I am also glad that I went to a traditional school that gave me the skills to still be able to communicate with traditional analog drafting tools as well. I believe that these 2 skills should still be meshed together somehow. Perhaps the answer to the question is that in those first 2 years of school, there should be some design drawing classes (hand drawing), some 3d classes, and also a little bit of 2d CAD, let students get their feet wet with a variety of media, that way they can make their own decisions--as students like to do--and then let the last 2 years be more focused. There is work to be found using all these different methods currently, since it sounds like these first 2 years are not architecture-specific.
That's my 2 cents way down here on the bottom of the totem pole.

[Brian Myers]

Bottom line... To do what you are referring to is asking a student to decide from the get-go what they want to do.

I agree and so does this college. Many colleges offer Architectural or Engineering degree programs because their students do know (for the most part) that they want to enter a specific field. This College has the "2 year option" that exposes their students to basic design/drafting principles in multiple fields and teaches everything on CAD (AutoCAD). This is good for many of their students and over half actually leave to the "real world" or transfer to another college after 2 years. The people that follow the 4 year option go on to learn more specifics about design and technology and often focus on specific fields in order to make them more productive in the "real world".

If they did offer Revit it would likely just be for their last one or two design classes... enough to get them exposed to the program and thinking (as it's been stated often) more like a designer or Architect which may make them more employable once they enter the workforce.

But have we stumbled into an odd area in our industry? Are we at a point where you either enter a design school and graduate to become a designer or else there is no other way to enter the field? In other words, are we at a point where being a "drafter" in 95% of the jobs will no longer be enough and thinking like a designer in a particular field is the future? Are we at a point where "roaming" drafters will no longer exist and AutoCAD will only be used in schools to teach basic drafting concepts and in offices that don't require real design expertise (or in fields that don't have or need specialized programs)?

Will Revit (and other BIM programs) mainly just be taught on the University level and then learned more extensively in a production environment? So are we at a point where Technical Educational programs will soon be a thing of the past unless used as a tool to figure out what field you really want to enter? If this is the case then it appears programs like Revit, Inventor, etc should likely not be taught in these early stages and instead taught during classes more specific to certain design educations. Sort of a CAD manager's worst nightmare... employees not trained well in any specific program but good enough (hopefully) to get the job done. This seems to really emphasis the need for good standards enforcement within the programs themselves, even more so than we experience today.

Also, will programs like Revit (for example) effect the way we design? Will features for detailing, etc that are constantly being developed and refined be used as a crutch for our students 5-10 years into the future from understanding how things actually happen in the field?

[Brian Myers]

Yike, that was a lot of questions!

Perhaps I should have asked: How do you see Educational Systems working over the next 10 years? What does the future hold for these programs and "all-purpose" drafters in general? It seems that Revit will effect much more than how we do our jobs, it (and other BIM programs) will effect the very educational process itself.

[aaronrumple]

Software should get so easy to use that it becomes a mute point in the whole discussion of architectural professional education.

I used to run a 2 yr. college program and one of the many reasons I left the position was that I saw no use for a 2 year education in the future.

[Lashers]

Just an observation here....

.... I knew I wanted to go design on CAD 'I thought' for building houses, because I had some experience with building houses and remodeling. Many others in my class thought they wanted to be in the Architecture field too. But after being shown some of the other fields, many liked the mechanical sided of things better. As for myself, I started in Civil on co-op and couldn't stay awake... Moved to mechanical of sorts(designing/revising playground equipment) -- I loved that because we were moving to Pro/E (a Revit of sorts) but the pay sucked. So I went looking and found good pay but was mainly only a technician for all disciplines in the nuclear field. Company downsized and I ended up in the Architecture of Panelized housing... It seems I've found a good middle ground for myself for now... but who knows what the future will bring along (By the way it looks like we will be evaluating if Revit will work for us, via purchase of one seat of which I will likely be trying to learn and make work for us... should prove to be interesting work for me).


I was one of the lucky ones . . I wanted to be an architect from a very young age . . I went through secondary school (11 to 17) working towards that goal - also doing all sorts of other crazy things as well - I was shocked to find myself at University with fellow students on a well respected Architecture course who were not really sure that they wanted to do architecture!

Interestingly by the end of our course many of my colleagues went into other fields of work within and outside the industry, and were successful! I am only really saying this because I believe that the important thing here is a GOOD education providing you with a set of tools that you can innovate and find uses that others cannot imagine - that is what should be important.

That said, I believe the good grounding route is what is important. Teach them how to draw, construct and detail - then bring in the computerised stuff to help them move on to the working world. This may not fit the situation in this case, but going in with the CAD prog. at the start take all the attention away from learning "how to build" then you end up with CAD jockeys! Also, by bring the CAD in at the end, will maybe allow students to select the program that will best suit the direction that they choose to go in once they graduate!??

2pence worth

[Scott D Davis]

I've told the story on the Forums before, but I'll repeat it here again.

I was told that a student in the Architecture program at Cal Poly University in Pomona was asked NOT to use Revit on his next assignment, because he has an 'unfair' advantage over the other students.

This is coming from a college that has been granted unlimited use of Revit in their computer lab, but doesn't install it, and doesn't teach it because the Lab is Mac based. Cal Poly has some agreement with Apple, and they furnish all of their labs.

Why can't Autodesk and their 'partner' HP, get a lab of 30 PC stations or so sent over to schools like this? I just got a newsletter from Cal Poly that states that 1 in every 5 people that takes the Architect's licensing exam in California, went to Cal Poly Pomona. 20%!! Let's get them a PC lab, and start getting Revit taught at the University level!!!!

[DoTheBIM]

I agree and so does this college. Many colleges offer Architectural or Engineering degree programs because their students do know (for the most part) that they want to enter a specific field. It is nice to think you know what you want to do and will be successful, but the sad fact is that many people that do "know" end up being unsatisfied when it comes to the real world. Politics suck. Schools don't teach workplace politics. Now that'd be a class I take for sure.

You pose some great questions that I'm sure have been asked every time something new has been made available. I'm sure those questions will continue to get asked forever and never really get answered. Life is all about a gambling...

Ideally, I think it doesn't really matter which specialized software you learn as a good employer should realize that it's easier/faster to teach a little bit of software than to teach real world building techniques and documentation practices. However it is not easy to teach someone to be able to visualize something in their head before placing it on paper or computer. But on the business side of things (real life) Employers are definitely leaning to someone that has the immediate knowledge for what they want to do. Which is normally the software that they use. Somewhere it has been lost that you need to know how to do something that a tool (software) should make easier for you. Things will evolve whichever way humans push them, although very slowly as the status quo is a monster that doesn't wake easily.

To attempt to answer your question about what point are we at? Who knows, but I suspect we are at the same point the mechanical guys were years ago when Pro/E and Solidworks were becoming mainstream. Got any mechanical contacts that use software such as these? Might be a good place to start asking questions about where we are and actually getting some answers. Do they still have detailers/drafters? Probably. I don't think they are going anywhere, their role is just changing. For example, maybe instead of spending time on accurate text sizes/placements and learning what goes on what layers, they now do something a bit more productive like creating all the Sheets and views needed, then applying labeling, hatching, etc... who knows, could be anything. I think the universities should talk with employers not just Architectural employers but also other disciplines to see how they view things in respect to "intelligent" softwares and how their employees responsibilities/duties have changed.

[Brian Myers]

Do they still have detailers/drafters? Probably. I don't think they are going anywhere, their role is just changing. For example, maybe instead of spending time on accurate text sizes/placements and learning what goes on what layers, they now do something a bit more productive like creating all the Sheets and views needed, then applying labeling, hatching, etc... who knows, could be anything.

I think you may be touching on something very big here that ties into what Aaron mentioned, but in some ways is totally the polar opposite from his point.

This may be an Odd transitional phase that we are in between where Technology will carry us and how we utilize that technology. In other words, this appears to be the history and future of design as I see it.

1.) The designer. Just him.
2.) The designer and the apprentice. (When you just have to have help)
3.) The designer and his drafters.
4.) The designer and his CAD operators.
5.) The designer and other designers.
6.) The designer and his apprentice(s). (When you just have to have help)

What do I mean? Eventually CAD software will enable the designer to tackle most tasks on his own unless he works on a truly massive project or is busy out in the field recruiting business or inspecting a job.. It may be possible that the designer will be able to handle most of the design work and then CD preparation (or whatever that process will be called by that time) would be handled by their draftsman or "apprentice". The "apprentice" would basically just need to be good enough to draw in walls, create a basic site (or whatever was needed) to keep the project moving along when the designer was away from the office or working to get another project out the door. Perhaps they would even get to work with clients and get out of the office to inspect the site as well... in other words, they would be an understudy for the more experienced designer. But this process would heavily rely on strong design software which should be available in the coming years.

The question becomes... do you need a strong Architectural (drafting) education to do this? Likely not. A strong construction background may be helpful and a good design education would help as well, but typical detailing and CAD knowledge would become less important than talking to clients and making sure projects are done correctly. In other words, the CAD station itself would become the draftsman, the "apprentice" would help facilitate smaller tasks, and the designer would input the design for show and construction while their "apprentice" will refine it to a finished state.

If this scenario would happen then the number of Design (actually drafting) jobs would be cut in half, and the program used really wouldn't matter (as most programs of the time could do the job well). As a result, school would focus on materials and design education and programs like Revit would help facilitate the design process... but "construction drawings" would be handled by the program and built in the field off of these building models. Thus, like the great artists of the past that used their apprentices to do the mundane work, designers would be free to create and their apprentices would facilitate the production.

But where do we stand today? Well likely for the next 15-20 years the education processes will need to deal with the fact we're NOT at that stage in the evolution of the construction process.... but it should be aware that Design (and what can feasibly be designed) will ultimately be the issue over everything else... CAD will simply be another tool like a pencil or calculator.

[DoTheBIM]

CAD will simply be another tool like a pencil or calculator.CAD IS JUST another tool according to the owner of this company. And he believes we can do the same things that other softwares do in whatever software he decides to purchase. Right now I have to argue that, but hope that will change as the future unfolds.

Edit: (to clarify) I meant to say CAD is "just" another tool... meaning nothing more than that.

[Brian Myers]

CAD IS another tool according to the owner of this company. And he believes we can do the same things that other softwares do in whatever software he decides to purchase. Right now I have to argue that, but hope that will change as the future unfolds.

It is another tool... but to get back to why I posted originally, currently not all tools are the best for the job or the instruction of your students.

In the future the DATA will be most important and the program you use will really not matter as much since it will have a certain level of interoperability with other programs. But right now the correct choice of program can be the key for your organization, your education and your employability. Which is why I wondered how (and what program) would be the best choice for the particular institution. Feedback has been amazing... Thanks Everyone!

[neb1998]

A question...What would be the harm in intoruducing REVIT at the first year of an architectural education and continue to build on the teaching each semester by introducing new components of the building and how they relate to every other component of the building until the final model was complete.

As the education doesnt end when a model is complete, i think this would have some definate benefits especially towards the end of an education when one is asked to specialize in different aspects of arch. (Structure, energy design, 3d modeling, etc)

Even if revit isnt the program of choice for any one person or a firm that hires an individual out of school i still believe they will have an upper hand in undertanding how a building really goes together from a design and construction standpoint.

2 cents

[rod.74246]

Probably should also add to my previous post in that i am looking from a purely architectural side. As far as the engineering etc feilds go the water becomes more and more muddied.

This topic really is a can of worms.

However as far as CAD usage goes i still frimly beleive that knowledge in 1 CAD package ( and lets face facts for an allround "employability" factor it is probably ACAD) is probably enough. The basic principles tend to cross a lot of lines between different software and its fairly easy for a CAD user to pick up other packages as they need it in the workplace.

Guess the simple point i was trying to make is that actual knowledge ( in whatever field) is more important i beleive to an employer than their CAD capabilities these days. Probably because it is very difficult to find these days anyone in the building industry who doesn;t have knowledge of at least some form of CAD software.

[Scott D Davis]

Another thought to the "Teach AutoCAD first" concept:

We are training our office in Revit currently. Over 100 people total, whihc is happening over an extended period of time as new projects are rolled out. Those that are AutoCAD "gurus" are having a tougher time grasping Revit than those with lesser AutoCAD backgrounds. The less you know about AutoCAD, the easier it is to learn Revit.

This may be different with a 'newer generation' of people coming out of school that are maybe a little more 'open' about computers and software.....(I'm trying to be as gentle as possible to all of us 'old school' guys!)

So to learn Revit first, and learn how to put a building together and to always think in 3D, and then go back and learn AutoCAD seems to be the better way to go. BUT, I think you will find it tough to get people to go back and learn AutoCAD AFTER Revit....

[neb1998]

Scott i hear ya on this one. I am 25 years old, have been using acad since i was about 18 or so. About 3 years ago i was introduced to revit by another firm in the city, i tried it for about a week and said the H*** with it. After about another year of seing what a one person revit user firm was capable of doing i decided i had to learn the software no matter how much i liked acad.

I have also introduced the program 2 other architects since then (both younger) that have picked up on the basics of revit much easier than trying to learn all the commands in acad.

However i believe unless you have at least some construction documentation experience revit could be as hard to learn as with acad.

Being an (former) acad user i can really appreciate all revit has done for draftting and architecture.

[Brian Myers]

Another thought to the "Teach AutoCAD first" concept:

We are training our office in Revit currently. Over 100 people total, whihc is happening over an extended period of time as new projects are rolled out. Those that are AutoCAD "gurus" are having a tougher time grasping Revit than those with lesser AutoCAD backgrounds.
.......

BUT, I think you will find it tough to get people to go back and learn AutoCAD AFTER Revit....

I agree that AutoCAD Gurus will likely have a harder time. I've been using AutoCAD for over 16 years and fairly recently began the process of learning Revit. While I find it to be a good program (the best for Design) it's far from intuitive for me. Not that AutoCAD is, but when you've done the same thing for 16 years it's hard to break habits and the things people find it hard to use for I often find to be very intuitive as I do understand what you need to do from experience.

Going back to learn AutoCAD after Revit could have it's drawbacks as well... AutoCAD was a good tool as it did DRAFT much like you would typically draft (draw a line, circle, erase, etc.) even if it could create bad habits with not understanding lineweights, etc. In other words, you really need to understand drafting concepts to use AutoCAD effectively and if you use Revit (a BIM product) you may find it more difficult to grasp some of the basic drafting concepts that Revit takes care of naturally.

But I do understand your point...It's a point worth some thought!

[Lashers]

I had been using ACAD for about 16 years+, then I saw Revit . . . took me 5 days to pick up some private work so that I could get Revit! After about 2 years of covering my subscription costs, I left my job and set up on my own.

I can honestly say that were it not for Revit I would probably still be thinking about leaving . . . obviously if it doesn't work out I will be blaming Revit!! ha ha ha . . . (just so everyone knows, I am joking) - mind you, you folks won't have to put up with me complaining, as I won't have a computer either!

[rod.74246]

I too have seen the same situation as we are getting more and more staff on to Revit. The more CAD they know the more difficult it seems to be. Old habits die hard.

Me personally just spent today back on AutoCAD. I have been using Revit solely for about 6 months now. I was bumbling around like you wouldn;t beleive trying to remember short cuts, forgetting to hit space bar all the time and generally cursing and swearing.

Reminded me of my first few days on Revit. :) However i definitely remembered how much quicker i can get things done on my Revit projects.

[sbrown]

We walked some senior arch. students from UCF around our office a few weeks ago and showed them what we were doing on Revit and they couldn't believe their eyes. They wondered why they didn't get to use this in school. I've said this before, but schools(typ.) seem to do a very poor job on educating architecture students on actual building construction. Revit could aid in this so well. I really started to understand construction when I started using revit 5yrs ago. If I had used revit in school I would have been much more valuable to the first firm that hired me. I believe autocad(2d cad) cursed the industry by developing a bread of "glorified cad drafters" who don't know architecture(or whos architecture skills were not utilized because they were faster at cad) but create most of the drawings. Now trying to train these people on revit is very difficult because they don't have a true architecture background. At the recent conf. I was at, discussing BIM with the other Bim guys(graphisoft and Digital project), this topic came up and I asked if those 2 companies were finding BIM training hard for some to pick up. And the rep from Digital Project basically said he thinks we have to wait for a generation to either die off or leave the industry. I don't agree with that as I have seen many truely embrace revit and see the errors of the past and get excited to finally get to see the promise of CADD in their field of choice.

[cliff collins]

Hi Brian,

I work at a small architectural firm (in St. Louis!) using Revit, and we are implementing Revit for 100% of design and production. We also have legacy projects, consultants and users who require AutoCad. So, we are purchasing the Revit Series w/ version Revit 8.0 and Acad 2006. This approach seems to make most sense. You'll need to have both BIM and 2D drafting programs to work in the real world (the 2D part will eventually fade out) ,
so for training new students, and purchasing software the Revit Series seems like the best way to go. That way the students get exposed to both BIM and the latest version of Acad.
There should be a nice price break from Autodesk as well--esp. for educational market.

But for architects--I'd be pushing hard for Revit.

I'll like to see how your situation develops. Also, maybe send me an email--
I'd be interested to see which school you are referring to.

hope this helps...

email: cliff@aedis.net

[aaronrumple]

How's Chi doing w/ Revit, Cliff? Oh yes - let him know I have a new baby - I need to drop by and say hi sometime.

[Brian Myers]

I'll like to see how your situation develops. Also, maybe send me an email--
I'd be interested to see which school you are referring to.

hope this helps...

email: cliff@aedis.net

It does help, thanks Cliff! I'll be in touch! :-)