Where do you see AutoCAD in the future of the educational process

[jaberwok]

I think this another good example of the two different worlds of architecture and engineering.

In engineering design, it is understood that a drawing is nothing more than a set of instructions to one or more tradesmen that explains what is to be made and strongly implies that the designer/draughtsman knows how it is to be made.
Training for engineers isn't about form or balance or perspective - it's about how to make things, the strengths and weaknesses of different materials and processes and the relative costs and life expectancies of parts made by different processes.
So, "trade skills" are those of turners, millers, borers. welders and press operators not how to use a piece of software - that comes on top.

Still, in one way I envy those of you entering the age of BIM, it must be exciting finding new things to do and new ways to do them.

[glee.94356]

This thread has really got some good input.
Architecture design in college will probably stay within the design studios as presently set up in most architecture schools. They will probably be taught the same way they have in the past. It's the design studios that have a focus on technology that will be worrying about the types of design software they use.
As some of you pointed out, Maya and Rhino are being taught in some colleges. I've yet to see those programs used in the field in any office that I know of. Again it shows that some in academia are a little out of touch with those in the field. They understand that technology is being used but no desire to want to touch Autocad because it's a draftsman's tool. Whereas Maya and Rhino with NURBS are used extensively by industrial designers and in the multi media world. A "cool" tool. A digital tool, cool enough to be seen used by a designer wearing black turtle necks and slacks (if any still do).
A sharp disparity between architecture professional practise and architecture design. Architecture schools that offer professional practise classes for the most part offer them as separate classes and normally not in conjunction with design. Though there are some that are evolving their courses.
No two schools of architecture will ever have the same approach to design and some have really no desire to understand what goes in the field as they strive to produce elite designers. Normally those elite designers tend to be pain in the behinds because whatever they design they can't figure out how to build.
However with BIM maybe that will start changing. The designer now takes center stage throughout the project and doesn't really do the fancy sketches and leaves it to be worked out by somebody else. They build the model and with some tweaking the software handles the rest of it, to a certain extent.
That being the case, once a new generation of BIM designers starts to take hold, why would you need a bunch of new grads out of school? Everyone knows in architecture, design for the most part only represents a tiny fraction of the work done. The rest is production. So the traditional architecture office has the principals or lead designers doing the design and handing it off to junior architects to draft. A PM or job captain is part of the team to handle details and to manage work flow.
With BIM, where is the need for so many people to be on a team? There will still be production but a lot of it seems to be handled by the software. A designer with PM capabilities technically would be sufficient with some help for the rest of production.
From the discussions above, it can be seen that the software is changing the face of this industry. What will the impact be in schools? Will there be less graduates because the industry consolidates and becomes more efficient?
In some ways it's good because it returns to an industry providing a service. There goes the need to offshore drafting services because it's about design. It's about the design and the talent behind it.
So if that's the case, it means a smaller work force or am I so totally off base here.
Isn't the intention of any type of software to make our work easier and more efficient? Therefore more can be done in less time or with less people?
I still love using Autocad. Never saw it as a pain that you had to put up with as some have/ did. But software changes, really fast. Dominant CAD software today, extinct by BIM tomorrow? What else will follow. Education is changing and keeping up to a certain extents. But you do realise that many design lecturers teaching today are the same ones who had adverse reactions to autocad when it first came out. (Never quite understood that mentality. To me CAD was just another type of soft pencil, just costs more and you couldn't stick it behind your ear) Software changes faster than people do.
At the same time we have academics like Stefan who are pushing the envelope in education.
These are interesting times in our industry.

[hand471037]

Interesting point.
What other "trade skills" does the average architect have?
Brick-laying? Roofing? Plumbing? Electrical installation? Carpentry?
I'd guess - not a lot.

what I meant was more along the lines of a 'skill of the Architecture Trade'. Along the lines of spec writing or construction administration. They are the 'trade skills' of us Architects just like 'rough framing' is a trade skill of a Carpenter.

But in order to be a good Carpenter you have to move beyond just the 'trade skills' and understand the whole picture: business, clients, materials, design, ect.

Just like to be good Architect you have to move beyond CAD, CA, CD's, and CYA.

Now, while I disagree with the whole 'Architecture Studio' common style of schooling, and how far separated 90% of the academic world is from the real world of Architecture (I'd much rather see it more like engineering, where the majority of the academics are doing the research that makes the 'real world' things possible, instead of how it is now, where the majority of the Architectural Academic world is focused on Architectural Theory and other high-falutin' ****). But that's another thread.

But again, just sayin' that I don't think that, at least in Architecture, AutoCAD plays much of a role in the education of the young Architects, and hasn't for a long time, for it's been regulated to 'something you might need to know to get a job' not 'something that's critical to your education and development as an Architect'.

[Brian Myers]

instead of how it is now, where the majority of the Architectural Academic world is focused on Architectural Theory and other high-falutin' ****). But that's another thread.

pssst... if you ever start that thread just let me know... I can go on FOREVER about not understanding the "high falutin'" mindset....

[Brian Myers]

for it's been regulated to 'something you might need to know to get a job' not 'something that's critical to your education and development as an Architect'.

Which is an interesting thought as well... currently most of the advantages of BIM (not 3D design, but actual BIM data implimentation) is not currently used in practice in your typical (90%+) architectural offices or in the educational environment. As far as I know , the technology and the reasoning for its importance isn't even taught. Do we believe this trend will change over the next few years?

[J. Grouchy]

Which is an interesting thought as well... currently most of the advantages of BIM (not 3D design, but actual BIM data implimentation) is not currently used in practice in your typical (90%+) architectural offices or in the educational environment. As far as I know , the technology and the reasoning for its importance isn't even taught. Do we believe this trend will change over the next few years?

I believe it is mostly because of the effort it has taken to make it work has been beyond what people were typically willing to invest in any given project. I think once the software has caught up we will see it being implemented more. Look at how CAD was phased in...hesitantly, skeptically at first...now we scoff at those who draft CDs by hand. I could tout Revit as the breakout software...but I'm no expert and others outshine me in explaining the benefits (and current drawbacks). Sooner rather than later Revit (and others) will be able be what we need it to be...something that takes little effort to master. If we wanted it heavy, complicated and cryptic, ADT would be the shining star already.