Architecture Curriculum for University

[zanzibarbob7]

I want to propose a change in curriculum for the University of Maine and need some guidance. The program is really just getting underway, with a tie-in to Boston Arch College for grad work, but has been in place with heavy influence from the Arts. Therefore, hand drawing is the primary focus with a smattering of AutoCad. As you might expect, I am meeting resistance to adopt BIM or other electronic media, such a Viz, Photoshop, Catia. I argue that this tack is not preparing the graduates for the modern practice of architecture. They argue that hand drawing will produce a better designer. I think that is out of touch and it is the thinking process that is important, not the tool, and that can be accomplished on the computer as well as the mind/hand connection of the pencil.

I am also soliciting curriculum from, what are considered, the top five architecture schools in the US.

If you were designing a program for your son or daughter or potential employees what would it consist of. It has been almost 30 years since I was in school but it has only taken a day of talking and observing to see that the program needs an update.

Please feel free to include opinions and editorial comments. I know it has been voiced, loudly, that schools are, generally, out of touch with practice in the real world.

I will give this link to the Dean of the college and any instructors who show an interest. In your comments you might include some of the details of your situation for reasons of reference.

Thanks, looking forward to the discussion.

Moderators.......Please move this to appropriate forum , if it needs moving.

[PeterJ]

I moved this thread to the Revit Out There section, that seemed more appropriate.

I'd have student's drawing by hand for three reasons:

• Why force them to learn to think in spatial terms and learn a software package at the same time? That's a lot of learning at one go.
• Drawings are still the preferred method of communicating design and seem likely to remain so for the next little while and are always likely to be the best fallback position when your VR presentation drops out. In my experience those who have learned to draw by hand, whether in sketch form or technical drawing, tend to have a greater appreciation of what a line can represent and how it's weight can impact on meaning/clarity/depth perception. As students and workers they will benefit, as will everyone who views their drawings, from that appraciation.
• Not all softwares will model all conditions so do you want to discourage them from exploring certain forms because they are perhaps not easily represented either on screen or page by the college's chosen software?

[mlgatzke]

I know, this is a hot topic at the regent universities and the cause for many of their negative comments from businesses and graduates. However, Architecture schools (the capital A is intentional) are for teaching design, structure, codes & other imposed restrictions, and (if possible) project management. I don't think that CAD or BIM packages should be taught in Architecture schools. That is what technical schools / community colleges are for. Students have enough to learn throughout their 5+ years at architecture school. I say this with experience on both sides.

[Brian Myers]

I want to propose a change in curriculum for the University of Maine and need some guidance. The program is really just getting underway, with a tie-in to Boston Arch College for grad work, but has been in place with heavy influence from the Arts. Therefore, hand drawing is the primary focus with a smattering of AutoCad. As you might expect, I am meeting resistance to adopt BIM or other electronic media, such a Viz, Photoshop, Catia. I argue that this tack is not preparing the graduates for the modern practice of architecture. They argue that hand drawing will produce a better designer. I think that is out of touch and it is the thinking process that is important, not the tool, and that can be accomplished on the computer as well as the mind/hand connection of the pencil.

I believe this depends on the type of program your University wishes to implement. Does the University want to produce individuals capable of construction documentation or of simple design? What I mean is this: Revit is a great program for learning how components tie into each other and truly understanding how the construction process works. If something is detailed incorrectly it's going to be more obvious in a BIM program like Revit than in a program like AutoCAD or ADT or even on the boards. Plus, once you've gained speed in a CAD program you'll be more productive when you enter into the real world.

BUT, I would argue that the current CAD programs available may stifle the creative process of design early on. Not because great design can not be created on CAD, on the contrary, I believe potentially the design process can evolve faster on CAD than on the boards. But this is a stage where neither the Design process nor CAD will be intuitive to the students. Will your students resist the urge to do domes, barrel vaults, specialty windows, etc. because they do not understand how to illustrate them within a CAD program? Likely so.

As a result, I would likely greatly enhance the CAD program at your University. Why? Because you'll use it heavily in the Construction Document classes. Within these classes the use of Revit would not only force the students to think more about how things go together, but it will provide the basic building blocks for solid CAD knowledge they will be able to use in their upper level Design classes (if they wish) and when they enter their Masters degree program (without question). By that time (Year 5) they will not only be trained in the basic construction and design techniques but they will also be very CAD literate which will translate to solid employees in the work force and computer savvy designers for those ready to transition into BIM design at the Masters level. That's the best of both Worlds... a computer savvy draftsman familiar with structural issues that also has the computer skills to enhance their own design ability now that the basic design and computer concepts are possessed within their repertoire.

[zanzibarbob7]

Thank you for your comments. I see a more lateral approach where you learn everything from the beginning. Sure, it's loaded up front and the learning curve is steeper but you all know that applying Revit or any other tool directly to a project, from day one, will yield greater retention. You are also building from day one, not having to switch gears later and learn a completely different way of working. That's where the resistance to change occurs. "I've always drawn by hand, why can't I keep working like that?"

A few examples! I used to be a photographer. The camera was the tool. It and related components (film, light) had to be mastered as well as learning composition. The camera took a long time to master, to use with no thought, and to intuitively choose what lens to use, lighting, F stop. etc. You could walk around all day with an empty 35mm slide to study composition and then draw the scene on a napkin. But you would still have to learn the machine. That's how you are hired, as a photographer, not a napkin artist. Nowadays, it's digital and Photoshop. Exact same skills and nearly the same decision making process, just different output methods. The difference in decision making is because your are are now thinking in terms of Photoshop output rather than darkroom output.

If you play hockey, you can't learn the game running around in shoes. You have to learn to skate without thinking. Sure, you are going to fall on your *** a lot in the beginning but after four or five years you might be a hockey player. You certainly won't in shoes. So you show up at the Red Wings organization and tell them you've spent five years learning hockey at Harvard and please pay me some money to play. By the way, I just haven't taken the initiative to learn how to skate yet, but I can draw every play on the chalkboard. You need to know hockey AND skate. You need to know how to design AND be able to do it on the computer.

They will tell you directly at school that you will never use the hand drafting and drawing skills in a real job situation. Other than initial ideas on a napkin. Why not start from the beginning?

Mike....I take from your comments that you advocate learning Revit or similar, but not at the college. At what point in the education process do you learn this and on whose time and money?

As you might expect, I see the "total immersion" method as the answer. As advocated in learning a foreign language. Unless you are forced by necessity to do it all, you won't. You and your future employer suffers. I also take the approach that if i were a firm and paying five years, or more, for his/her education, what would I expect of that person so that he/she could become an asset, as quickly as possible, and not a trainee.

I have a lot more to say on the subject but will stand back and let others comment.

Brian.....I think they should learn all. Design, construction documents, building methods. I really see designing including all these things. I think you need to consider the entire process while designing, construction, materials, demographics of users, how they use it. I believe that designers can take some notes from advertisers and marketers and do heavy research before they ever set pen to paper. A great writer researches thoroughly before he ever starts. Otherwise, I think you can spend a lot of time up the wrong road.

Forgot to mention one important thing. Many of the students are using Sketchup to produce some of the assignments but are "back engineering" to pencil because that is what is required and computers are prohibited early on. Then they spend hours and hours hand rendering these assignments. This limits further exploration of an idea because of time. I argue that if they had seen something like Jeff McGrew's class on Presentation they would be inspired to spend the same hours building on something they will actually use. Like Viz, Photoshop, Illustrator, Accurender. The atmosphere, especially of the more ambitious students, is "why am I painting by the numbers when I could be spending more time learning design." If they see the power of these tools they are going to want to use and learn them.

I wholeheartedly agree. Don't stifle and restrict learning. Enhance it. As an aside, text messaging was originally designed for workers to communicate problems. Teenagers hacked it for their own use. The rest is history. Don't let traditional thinking hold your kid back from adopting and utilizing all that is there. They are going to use it anyway so these schools might just as well get onboard and embrace it too.

[mlgatzke]

Mike....I take from your comments that you advocate learning Revit or similar, but not at the college. At what point in the education process do you learn this and on whose time and money?

I think that architecture school has more important things to teach than CAD or BIM. Sure, it should be offered, but as an elective - not a requirement. Some concepts are better taught in the world of academia, where the creative process can develop without considering "value engineering" or any other real-world intrusion.

I went to architecture school for 5 years - it was a 5 year program. I was only one of 15, out of a class of 45 to complete it in 5 years. I had to take 18 credit hours per semester (one semester was actually 21 hours) to get through it that quickly. In those 5 years I only took 2 CAD related courses - and they didn't teach me much.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if CAD is THAT important to teach our architectural students, what subjects are we going to remove from the curriculum to make the necessary room? Personally, I don't think teaching them CAD/BIM is all that important - at school. Give them exposure to it - sure. Let them dabble with it - yes. However, I think their plates are full enough already.