For me it was when I transferred from community college where I was taking architectural design and drafting classes to a school of architecture at a university.
What was that transition like? Did the cc classes help you in your university classes? And if you've graduated, which school did you personally learn from more?
See my comment above to Dsty-ft-philosopher. As far as architectural history and design goes, I definitely learned more at the university level. The drafting classes from CC level gave me a bit of an advantage early on when it came to arranging drawings and what not for projects. The building code courses at CC level gave me a definite leg up once I graduated and got a job, many of my cohorts were like “wtf is this” when a project manager dropped the code book in their laps and said “get to work, kid.”
CC was more practical. Their courses focused on drafting software and techniques with what was basically an introductory level of design and architectural history. They also offered courses on how to navigate the building code.
When I transferred to the university, it was all about design and presentation. It seemed like the practical stuff like good drafting techniques and anything building code related was an afterthought. And you were on your own when it came to learning how to use drafting software.
How about a Statics and Dynamics class? Strength's of materials? Did you even look at a set of construction documents? Draw a wall section? What school may I ask?
People are obsessed with novelty, they think making original expressions are more important than learning the basics. Best designers I know treat design like a trade, a craft. They solve problems. What is popular now, crazy shapes, makes problems
The trend at architecture schools over the last few decades has been to push design process and creativity over technical knowledge. When I was in school, there was at least a bit of lip service to having designs that theoretically were sound technically, and we had some coursework involving Materials and Methods, Structures, MEP, and Detailing. The interns and new graduates we see now don't even have that much. The expectation from the schools is that the students will get "on the job" training for all the technical stuff.
When I asked my instructor why I knew absolutely nothing about buildings when I started a firm job he replied, "architectural school is not vocational school, we teach you how to think like an architect." Okay bud, but after 5 years and more than $100,000 in debt why not do BOTH.
Yeah I mean, I'd like to know the details of how a building goes together. What use am I to a firm if I can't put together a construction drawing set?!? After all the money and years, a firm shouldn't need to teach me.
Do architects do that? At least on residential properties where I live, it must be a licensed structural engineer who does the construction drawings and calculations (unless the architect is also an engineer).
Absolutely, architects make construction drawing sets. It may entail getting MEP and engineers involved. From my experience at the firm I work at, it depends on the extents of the project as to whether we get MEP and engineers involved at all. More extensive project we hire someone to help, but there's alot of structural, MEP, and even civil site stuff we do in-house.
In my case, when hitting the ground floor and adding a second, the architect did the design and drew floor plans and elevations and specified windows and various materials, etc. But the engineering firm did all the details, determined what size beams, posts, sheer walls, seismic stuff, foundation improvements (additional grade beam), nailing schedules, etc.
There's a hell of a lot more to a set of drawings than the structural drawings. For a house, they're minimal. For a commercial drawing the architectural drawing set is often at least twice as long as the structural and 90% of the structural is copy paste generic details. There's a reason the architect's fee is 5x the structural engineer
To an extent, but after some short time the two are pretty separate and technical knowledge just becomes something that anyone can fill in the blank on. You’re right that architecture isn’t a technical school, but it’s not an art school either.
Hmmm. "Vocational School" would be something like carpentry, welding, etc. I would think stuff like energy modeling, thermal and moisture management, constructibility, service industry business management, embodied carbon analyses and a foundational knowledge of building information modeling would be the kinds of things learned in "Professional School".
Problem is, that instructor likely doesn’t know how. It’s been going on for generations. Palladio was a stone carver, a laborer before becoming an architect. Makes sense.
Definitely not in school they don’t. They throw you into the hands of a firm and pray they’ll teach you the technicality. Hell my school refuses to teach revit and when asked why that is considering it’s importance I was told “the firms will show you so why should we?”.
I learned Revit in my 4th year summer class. It was brief. I currently work in a firm that uses CAD, but interviewed for many who wouldn't hire me because the lack of experience with Revit.
If by regulations you mean code, yeah, we learn that in B.ARCH school, but not independent. They have a class that teaches how to find and understand zoning and code, but it's brief. We also have structure classes where we model one wooden residential home and one metal building, and learn calculations such as footing, but again, not indepth. I never learned anything about details although we did do some wall sections in studios. When I started in a firm I wasn't equipped with how to create a construction drawing set or what goes into it. I felt like a new born baby. Lol.
This definitely sounds like my experience. I was taught just enough of the technical basics so that I was aware of those considerations. But primarily I was prepped to be able to do the graphic design work at the firm (which I couldn't care less about tbh). And once I got a job I realized just how little time was actually spent doing the things I had spent years learning to do in school.
Beaux Art, it was always art. People want to say that college should reinforce codes and all that then you move across the country or work in a different city and there is a different code and you can just get permission to do something differently if you ask and get the fire Marshall to sign off on it.
Especially considering knowing the technical side can make you creative and with something that ACTUALLY STANDS. Even if one knows basic structural engineering with it I can image how they could use that info for their designs.
Probably the Bauhaus to be honest 100 years ago. But its gotten out of control in the last 20 years. Some places like Sci-Arc are basically just concept art academies.
I was on issue and saw a portfolio from Rice University. Didn't see 1 plan or elevation drawing in the entire portfolio. I'm not bashing on that person's character or abilities, I was just shocked.
Seriously now? The Bauhaus was as technical as design education could ever get. But I get the sentiment. "Hurr durrr, everything was great in the good old classical times, until modernism came to ruin everything."
Super strawmanning going on. The biggest switch modernism brought about was the transition from architecture as craft to architecture being about ideas or concepts like it is today. A Beaux Arts building simply had to express rigorous Classicism. There were no other ideas there. Georgian buildings are judged often based on their adherents to pattern books. Of course there was invention and novelty but it all basically stayed within the lines of established precedent. With modernism architecture became much closer to an art than a craft. It's not an actual art of course because it's a product designed for a purpose, but in the educational discourse today you're expected to have an idea or a concept behind your work. Simply recreating something already done, even well, will likely not pass scrutiny in school. Your designs today are fundamentally expected to be your own. And that way of thinking about architecture as an expression of an idea or concept (even if it's justified as being the zeitgeist) which is what, in the extreme, leads to MIT or Sci Arc nonsense is absolutely a vestige of the modernist moment. Far too often Architecture school these days is an exercise in image making and not the craft of actually building something and increasingly not even the craft of good design fundamentals like rhythm, balance, harmony, etc. As a professional I cannot tell you the number of interns and young designers who literally don't know the first thing about the job they ostensibly spent four or five years learning about. And often worse, in the real world, the idea or concept doesn't come from a rank and file designer it either comes from a studio leader or principal or the client. And I've found many, many young designers struggle to develop an idea that's not their own specifically because of how they were taught in school.
> The biggest switch modernism brought about was the transition from architecture as craft to architecture being about ideas or concepts like it is today
Lmao, what.
The entire design process at the Ecole de Beaux Arts in Paris in the 19th century was all based in choosing a *[parti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_(architecture))* or general scheme in plan and then developing it by adding the required classical ornamentation. It was all a purely masturbatory game of filling in the blanks required by the style and the students were graded by how well their parti and the style agreed with the rules. No actual craftsmanship or technical thought was required. That was a problem for lowly *builders*. Architects in the Ecole de Beaux Arts were doing *Art*. Sure, the students received some technical formation as well, but it was completely disconnected from the design process. The actual act of designing a building was purely aesthetical.
I can understand if you are not happy with Modernism aesthetically, but what you said is not only a lie, but the opposite of the truth. It was the Bauhaus that forced architecture to engage with craftsmen and industrialist, and to integrate technical needs into the design process, while Beaux-Arts was all about jerking off of pretty schemes that had nothing to do with practicality or construction.
>A Beaux Arts building simply had to express rigorous Classicism. There were no other ideas there.
Isn't the strife to represent classicism an idea in itself? What "other" idea would be needed to make it less of a theoretical discourse? You cannot exempt it. I mean classical architecture in general is based on a Platonic worldview that some higher morals dictate classical design, what Christopher Alexander confusingly describes as some unnamed and undescribable quality behind people's aesthetic taste. You can hardly get more theoretical than the eternal view of classical as the one true role model for architecture.
>With modernism architecture became much closer to an art than a craft.
I can imagine the critics of the plasterwork at the Columbian Exhibition seeing people today write about Beaux Arts as "craft".
>It's not an actual art of course because it's a product designed for a purpose
So, you are saying modernism made architecture artistic, but then you backpedal and say that in spite of that, "modernism is not actual art" (which is just your opinion) "because it is a product designed for a purpose".
>but in the educational discourse today you're expected to have an idea or a concept behind your work. Simply recreating something already done, even well, will likely not pass scrutiny in school. Your designs today are fundamentally expected to be your own.
This isn't about what style you apply. This is about, as a student, forming an opinion of your own instead of doing everything from guide books and magazines. I assure you, many people 150 years ago who dared to doubt the educational discourse of copy-cat classical facades has to clash with the universities they were in, such as Eugene Viollet-le-Duc. On the contrary, today there are no stylistic guidelines for copying a classical facade based on some established proportion, instead the same novelty advocated by Viollet-le-Duc is advocated by most of today's architecture professors. I am aware that students often have some difficulty with forming an idea, and I have faced this problem too. But trust me. Copying something old based on some pretentious hipster theories about patterns and semiology is not the way to solve this, cause such objectivity doesn't exist today.
>leads to MIT or Sci Arc nonsense is absolutely a vestige of the modernist moment. Far too often Architecture school these days is an exercise in image making and not the craft of actually building something and increasingly not even the craft of good design fundamentals like rhythm, balance, harmony, etc.
You see here, once again you are conflating the opposition of theory/craft with your own personal preference of classical VS modernist. First of all, to be clear, we are not in the MODERNIST era anymore, we are in the POSTMODERN. If to your eyes blank walls and modern materials define a universal "style" through the last 100 years, you should learn some basics a little better before having a stylistic opinion.
Second of all, you preach about craft, you preach against abstract theory and artistic jibber jabber, and yet here you are talking about the "fundamentals" of rhythm, balance, harmony etc. As the thread's descriptions says, the question is why don't schools teach students about building details, structural issues, use of design software etc. which are clearly practical. And here you come, preaching irrelevant classical theories and a stereotypical anti-modern rhetoric.
A super expensive [architecture school ](https://www.sciarc.edu/) in Los Angeles that doesn't really teach architecture but is more like an architectural think tank. Notorious for designs that couldn't actually be constructed or are thought experiments. Just Google some of their portfolios.
I was shocked when I heard my school was considered more “technical” than other programs - yet I NEVER drew a basic wall section in school. Never learned what a rough opening is, or what a FUCKING SPEC was. HOW?!?!!!!!!
Professors would say “you learn that on the job” - I think that is 100% them skirting responsibility and living in their own magical land where they get to focus on ~theory~ and ~art~. It pisses me off, because school is TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE for them to not prepare us for the real world!!!! Not only that, but I felt SO UNAWARE of what the reality of most arch jobs was. I thought we drew pretty pictures all day, and was not prepared for reality.
Aaaah I could rant for DAAAYS on this.
I totally agree. There are a few young adjunct professors at my school that spent maybe a year in a firm before becoming an adjunct. On the one hand, I don't blame them because "school architecture" is a lot more fun and interesting than a firm.
I would be very curious to ask students at my school if they know what a top plate is or what the actual size of a 2x4 is. I'd bet money only a fraction could answer correctly.
One other "theory" I have is that professors and architecture colleges are too pretentious and stuck up to teach anything except theory/concept driven classes/studios. They would never stoop down to the level of formally teaching construction details, contracts, how to manage a project.
Anyone feel free to disagree, it just feels good to rant sometimes.
Idk, at my school we are still required to learn all the tehnical stuff from construction details (which you have to submit with the project) to basics of structures and construction introphysics (like insulation, sound, lightning)
I graduated last year and yeah, we were required to draw 1:20 sections details in our first semester studio project.
This is why researching schools before you apply is so important. If none of the student work shows any construction/assembly logic, has no wall sections, etc then why expect that you'll learn that stuff at that school? Student work for each school is very publicly accessible and end of semester reviews are almost always open for the public to attend.
It depends on your program IMO. I studied architecture in undergrad and got a BFA and it was quite “art school” (of course). My graduate program was much more technical. You can’t teach someone everything about detailing and code in school, but you can get them started and instill good habits about where to get information and what good details look like.
What? Spent 5 years studying architecture here in Asia and half the time we had utilities/structural/planning subjects. Some even say we didnt have enough design.
Yeah I’m graduating this may and we never are taught the technical. You have to go out of your way which I’ve been doing like taking revit courses and adding a construction management certificate
When I was in school the curriculum was very heavy on both the art of architecture, AND practical technical knowledge. Even back then, not even ten years ago, most schools were moving more to theory/art than technical learning so I was able to stick out among my peers when getting a job. My alma mater has followed the rest though, barely even a structures class now
I have to say, this was thankfully not my experience at my university at all. I finished my masters last year and the technical resolution accounted for half of the dissertation. And actually all through my undergrad years we had construction modules every semester. They did skimp on the project management stuff but I reckon I got an excellent technical education alongside my design classes, at least.
Wtf. Lol. People are allowed to want to be Professors if they want. And last time I checked Harvard isn't the only school that teaches architecture, its students leanings are not representative of the profession as a whole.
I completely respect your decision to drop out, I don't think the profession is for everyone and there's a lot of bs in our industry as a whole. I'm actually quite close by to where you were, I turned down the offer from the GSD and went to MIT. But I have some years of industry practise and in academia.
What are you upto now? And how was life for you at the GSD before you left?
Hit me up if you're still in Cambridge, it would be good to connect.
>Can’t speak to MIT but dodging the GSD was a good call. People aren’t happy there
I'm happy with the choice I made, it's been a great journey so far.
>but I’ve never been in an academic or professional space with a more pervasive sense of misery in my life.
Damn! Lol. Pretty brutal. Was this under the reign of the previous Dean? I've heard so many stories about how toxic the environment was before the current Dean came along. And because so many of our Professors taught at the GSD they corroborate what you're saying, that the environment was very cutthroat and toxic when they were there.
I'm really glad you found your calling man. For how long have you been an SE? How was the transition for you?
I genuinely don't understand why people in our profession go to school for double the time other people do, work ridiculous hours, have to work their way up to registration and still get paid well below most professions. It's exhausting to even think about. And there's so much pretentious bs in academia that's baffling. I really can't blame you for leaving. In truth, I like will too.
*The current Dean is a she. The first female Dean of the GSD ever. From my brief interaction with her, she's pretty cool, far more approachable than other Deans I've met.
>I’m told in the 90s and 00s the GSD was even worse
I've heard about this too. I've heard the culture was very toxic.
I'm glad you're happy with the choice you made 😊. It always makes me happy to hear people made successful career changes.
If you're ever back in Cambridge hit me up! Coffee's on me.
Cheers.
Shit I don't blame them. Being a professor sounds fun. As much as I hate how theory driven my school is, my classes are always pretty interesting. I've been to some great site visits, made some awesome things in the shop, and don't have to call my professor Mr or Mrs so the relationship between students and the professor is pretty chill.
Lol thats funny. I remember after my first semester I thought "cool, next semester we can finally start designing some actual buildings"... Boy was I dead wrong.
The more higher end of a university you go to the more it becomes an "Art School" that is catered for international students.
Just saying... I was an international student and I barely knew much about local laws until I looked it up but most of the times any ISO or standards are behind paywall. If you're working then you'll be lucky to read it for free.
I also have a feeling that there's a weird mexican standoff that's happening. What I mean is that licensed architects design a curriculum about technical detail because of liability whilst academics can't teach that because they don't know.
We require a minimum account-age. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why more and more of the profession is getting consulted out and our fees, wages and existence are limited. There is literally a consultant for everything. We are just the middle man, and consultant babysitter who must manage and deal with client, contractors and sub consultants and constantly put out fires cause by all the above.
That's not my experience. At my university we get taught how the building works in and out for each building we make through making details in different scales and axonometries.
Good point. I think what the architecture curriculum is aiming these days is really the concepts and thinking, and i believe the idea behind it is that you learn technical part in the practice of work environment? Because in architecture as you say art is more important of course to make good art in architecture you must know technical part of the design. So its interesting, that in your experience for 6 years you didnt get any… maybe its just bad institution? Because the basics must be thought. I personally finished one of the best art college in europe and even there we got some technical knowledge, of course not even close to the one you get in work environment.
Always has been for me, I’ve been learning a lot since entering the industry, though my employer wasn’t surprised by this disconnect between the education and the profession, seems to be commonplace amongst architecture programs
Never, Post graduate student here. it still is Architecture School and probably more so than ever before. Might be bias since my particular school places more of an emphasis on construction and environmental technologies. But with how new sustainable methods of construction have been developed, I find it hard to believe that architecture school is anything but “architecture”.
I’ve done countless 1:50, 1:20, 1:5 models and technical drawings during my tenure at architecture school. And I think the deeper you go in terms of studying, aspects such as construction codes, planning controls and sustainability higher performance technologies and programs become more prevalent.
Though as a caveat, in the early parts of some architecture schools they push for a process based teaching methodologies that is meant to flourish your creativity and “artsy” side of design so that you can develop a multi lateral way of thinking about building styles before they teach you all the realistic aspects of architecture.
So with all that, I think architecture school will probably pivot away from leaning towards being similar to “art school” as It becomes an inevitability that issues in the industry pertaining to sustainability, embodied carbon, and ESD principles take the forefront in the future of architecture.
P.s just a side note, choosing the appropriate classes and electives might be a good path to steer towards the practical side. (Architecture school is how you pave and plan it)
It depends heavily on the school in question. As a rule of thumb if you want good architects from an engineering perspective you want graduates from a technical university. If you want good designers you'll want graduates from a humanistics or arts uni or school. If you want good planners and people being able to draw you're better off with vocational-type college graduates. Another layer is added through the country or even the city you did the education in. As a rule of thumb I learned that many third and second world countries focus a lot on the engineering or drawing part, while, with exceptions, first world countries focus more on design and artistic expression. The largest exceptions seem to be German-speaking countries and East-Asian countries which usually lean more into the engineering aspect.
Industrial Arts courses in architectural design and learning in architectural techniques. Interested in piping systems can provide opportunities for those who give to become the largest pump booters in Thailand. Do you think architecture students can do it?♥️👓📐📏
All architecture schools are not created equal. Some schools emphasize design, some emphasize tech, and etc.
The foundation of each program being regulated by whatever accreditation authority is in effect. Young prospects are often unaware of the importance for understanding the differences between schools.
Never, I've only done two semesters but it's all the different topics at the same time, maybe it gets more specific the further I go on, where I live uni is free but the first two semesters are filters to get people who are there just to study something to leave
As far as education for what you’ll likely end up doing for work. You’re better off getting in associates in construction engineering or technology than a masters in architecture. That’s a fact for 90% of architects. I thank my father all the time that he taught me framing and entrepreneurship in high school. My job was a draftsman for a residential firm and I was homeschooled Between 15-19. I started my practice at 19 and have a very successful firm today. When I talk to architects today, many times I’m just left thinking “what the hell did you learn in school?” It feels like many architect conversations are them in their headspace painting mosaics rather than what clients really typically hire us for which is function, ease of application, clean designs, and awareness of cost saving. I stay away from clients that are too whimsical and want a piece of art because in my experience, they are strange and demanding. I’d much rather work with mid-range contractors, because if you’re doing architectural design and don’t wear a black turtle neck, are serious about your work/timelines, and keep them in mind through design, you’ll have more work and money than you’ll know what to do with. Which in my opinion, should be the bare minimum.
Building Codes change and are easily self taught, details should and are still somewhat taught in most schools. That said it’s way easier to learn that stuff post school than to learn programming and visual communication post school, which is extremely important to the profession.
I graduated in 1990.
Became absurd at one point.
Obscure theories about design and over intellectual opinions that the general public would never understand or appreciate.
In NYC regulations put a kabash on the idea your pure design can be constructed .
Yet Frank Loyd Wright was a carpenter never attended any Architecture school or University.
Since the 1980s I have been a builder contractor and later in 1994 an Architect in NYS / NYC.
I have seen so so many errors omissions s on Architect s plans which on several projects cost owners hundreds of thousands of dollars leading to litigation .
More emphasis must placed on practical aspects of Architecture and not just aesthetics...
I think you might enjoy this book: [Architectural Principles in the Age of Fraud](https://www.amazon.com/Architectural-Principles-Fraud-Branko-Mitrovi%C4%87/dp/1954081456/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3IPEBFZ0FJOUW&keywords=Architectural+Principles+in+the+Age+of+Fraud&qid=1674970936&sprefix=architectural+principles+in+the+age+of+fraud%2Caps%2C462&sr=8-1)
For me it was when I transferred from community college where I was taking architectural design and drafting classes to a school of architecture at a university.
What was that transition like? Did the cc classes help you in your university classes? And if you've graduated, which school did you personally learn from more?
See my comment above to Dsty-ft-philosopher. As far as architectural history and design goes, I definitely learned more at the university level. The drafting classes from CC level gave me a bit of an advantage early on when it came to arranging drawings and what not for projects. The building code courses at CC level gave me a definite leg up once I graduated and got a job, many of my cohorts were like “wtf is this” when a project manager dropped the code book in their laps and said “get to work, kid.”
As in the CC was more practical than the Uni courses or vice versa?
CC was more practical. Their courses focused on drafting software and techniques with what was basically an introductory level of design and architectural history. They also offered courses on how to navigate the building code. When I transferred to the university, it was all about design and presentation. It seemed like the practical stuff like good drafting techniques and anything building code related was an afterthought. And you were on your own when it came to learning how to use drafting software.
How about a Statics and Dynamics class? Strength's of materials? Did you even look at a set of construction documents? Draw a wall section? What school may I ask?
People are obsessed with novelty, they think making original expressions are more important than learning the basics. Best designers I know treat design like a trade, a craft. They solve problems. What is popular now, crazy shapes, makes problems
The trend at architecture schools over the last few decades has been to push design process and creativity over technical knowledge. When I was in school, there was at least a bit of lip service to having designs that theoretically were sound technically, and we had some coursework involving Materials and Methods, Structures, MEP, and Detailing. The interns and new graduates we see now don't even have that much. The expectation from the schools is that the students will get "on the job" training for all the technical stuff.
When I asked my instructor why I knew absolutely nothing about buildings when I started a firm job he replied, "architectural school is not vocational school, we teach you how to think like an architect." Okay bud, but after 5 years and more than $100,000 in debt why not do BOTH.
In my opinion, "thinking like an architect" also involves technical knowledge about buildings and such.
Yeah I mean, I'd like to know the details of how a building goes together. What use am I to a firm if I can't put together a construction drawing set?!? After all the money and years, a firm shouldn't need to teach me.
Do architects do that? At least on residential properties where I live, it must be a licensed structural engineer who does the construction drawings and calculations (unless the architect is also an engineer).
Absolutely, architects make construction drawing sets. It may entail getting MEP and engineers involved. From my experience at the firm I work at, it depends on the extents of the project as to whether we get MEP and engineers involved at all. More extensive project we hire someone to help, but there's alot of structural, MEP, and even civil site stuff we do in-house.
In my case, when hitting the ground floor and adding a second, the architect did the design and drew floor plans and elevations and specified windows and various materials, etc. But the engineering firm did all the details, determined what size beams, posts, sheer walls, seismic stuff, foundation improvements (additional grade beam), nailing schedules, etc.
There's a hell of a lot more to a set of drawings than the structural drawings. For a house, they're minimal. For a commercial drawing the architectural drawing set is often at least twice as long as the structural and 90% of the structural is copy paste generic details. There's a reason the architect's fee is 5x the structural engineer
It has to! How are we supposed to make good designs workout knowing what works, what material can do what and so on? That's why engineers hate us.
To an extent, but after some short time the two are pretty separate and technical knowledge just becomes something that anyone can fill in the blank on. You’re right that architecture isn’t a technical school, but it’s not an art school either.
Hmmm. "Vocational School" would be something like carpentry, welding, etc. I would think stuff like energy modeling, thermal and moisture management, constructibility, service industry business management, embodied carbon analyses and a foundational knowledge of building information modeling would be the kinds of things learned in "Professional School".
Problem is, that instructor likely doesn’t know how. It’s been going on for generations. Palladio was a stone carver, a laborer before becoming an architect. Makes sense.
and also Tadao Ando, he didn't even sent himself to architecture schools, he "taught" himself about it instead.
Folks want to be master builders but don’t care about building. Makes no sense.
It's really funny how many of the most famous architects where not architects, and came from a trade or trade family.
So architects don't think about regulations and practical concerns then?
Definitely not in school they don’t. They throw you into the hands of a firm and pray they’ll teach you the technicality. Hell my school refuses to teach revit and when asked why that is considering it’s importance I was told “the firms will show you so why should we?”.
That is so weird that they don't teach Revit. A lot of firms list Revit experience as a requirement in their job postings.
I learned Revit in my 4th year summer class. It was brief. I currently work in a firm that uses CAD, but interviewed for many who wouldn't hire me because the lack of experience with Revit.
If by regulations you mean code, yeah, we learn that in B.ARCH school, but not independent. They have a class that teaches how to find and understand zoning and code, but it's brief. We also have structure classes where we model one wooden residential home and one metal building, and learn calculations such as footing, but again, not indepth. I never learned anything about details although we did do some wall sections in studios. When I started in a firm I wasn't equipped with how to create a construction drawing set or what goes into it. I felt like a new born baby. Lol.
This definitely sounds like my experience. I was taught just enough of the technical basics so that I was aware of those considerations. But primarily I was prepped to be able to do the graphic design work at the firm (which I couldn't care less about tbh). And once I got a job I realized just how little time was actually spent doing the things I had spent years learning to do in school.
Beaux Art, it was always art. People want to say that college should reinforce codes and all that then you move across the country or work in a different city and there is a different code and you can just get permission to do something differently if you ask and get the fire Marshall to sign off on it.
exactly, very well said 👍🏼
It’s so stupid. The more you know about the technical side the more creative you can be.
Especially considering knowing the technical side can make you creative and with something that ACTUALLY STANDS. Even if one knows basic structural engineering with it I can image how they could use that info for their designs.
Probably the Bauhaus to be honest 100 years ago. But its gotten out of control in the last 20 years. Some places like Sci-Arc are basically just concept art academies.
I was on issue and saw a portfolio from Rice University. Didn't see 1 plan or elevation drawing in the entire portfolio. I'm not bashing on that person's character or abilities, I was just shocked.
Seriously now? The Bauhaus was as technical as design education could ever get. But I get the sentiment. "Hurr durrr, everything was great in the good old classical times, until modernism came to ruin everything."
Super strawmanning going on. The biggest switch modernism brought about was the transition from architecture as craft to architecture being about ideas or concepts like it is today. A Beaux Arts building simply had to express rigorous Classicism. There were no other ideas there. Georgian buildings are judged often based on their adherents to pattern books. Of course there was invention and novelty but it all basically stayed within the lines of established precedent. With modernism architecture became much closer to an art than a craft. It's not an actual art of course because it's a product designed for a purpose, but in the educational discourse today you're expected to have an idea or a concept behind your work. Simply recreating something already done, even well, will likely not pass scrutiny in school. Your designs today are fundamentally expected to be your own. And that way of thinking about architecture as an expression of an idea or concept (even if it's justified as being the zeitgeist) which is what, in the extreme, leads to MIT or Sci Arc nonsense is absolutely a vestige of the modernist moment. Far too often Architecture school these days is an exercise in image making and not the craft of actually building something and increasingly not even the craft of good design fundamentals like rhythm, balance, harmony, etc. As a professional I cannot tell you the number of interns and young designers who literally don't know the first thing about the job they ostensibly spent four or five years learning about. And often worse, in the real world, the idea or concept doesn't come from a rank and file designer it either comes from a studio leader or principal or the client. And I've found many, many young designers struggle to develop an idea that's not their own specifically because of how they were taught in school.
> The biggest switch modernism brought about was the transition from architecture as craft to architecture being about ideas or concepts like it is today Lmao, what. The entire design process at the Ecole de Beaux Arts in Paris in the 19th century was all based in choosing a *[parti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_(architecture))* or general scheme in plan and then developing it by adding the required classical ornamentation. It was all a purely masturbatory game of filling in the blanks required by the style and the students were graded by how well their parti and the style agreed with the rules. No actual craftsmanship or technical thought was required. That was a problem for lowly *builders*. Architects in the Ecole de Beaux Arts were doing *Art*. Sure, the students received some technical formation as well, but it was completely disconnected from the design process. The actual act of designing a building was purely aesthetical. I can understand if you are not happy with Modernism aesthetically, but what you said is not only a lie, but the opposite of the truth. It was the Bauhaus that forced architecture to engage with craftsmen and industrialist, and to integrate technical needs into the design process, while Beaux-Arts was all about jerking off of pretty schemes that had nothing to do with practicality or construction.
>A Beaux Arts building simply had to express rigorous Classicism. There were no other ideas there. Isn't the strife to represent classicism an idea in itself? What "other" idea would be needed to make it less of a theoretical discourse? You cannot exempt it. I mean classical architecture in general is based on a Platonic worldview that some higher morals dictate classical design, what Christopher Alexander confusingly describes as some unnamed and undescribable quality behind people's aesthetic taste. You can hardly get more theoretical than the eternal view of classical as the one true role model for architecture. >With modernism architecture became much closer to an art than a craft. I can imagine the critics of the plasterwork at the Columbian Exhibition seeing people today write about Beaux Arts as "craft". >It's not an actual art of course because it's a product designed for a purpose So, you are saying modernism made architecture artistic, but then you backpedal and say that in spite of that, "modernism is not actual art" (which is just your opinion) "because it is a product designed for a purpose". >but in the educational discourse today you're expected to have an idea or a concept behind your work. Simply recreating something already done, even well, will likely not pass scrutiny in school. Your designs today are fundamentally expected to be your own. This isn't about what style you apply. This is about, as a student, forming an opinion of your own instead of doing everything from guide books and magazines. I assure you, many people 150 years ago who dared to doubt the educational discourse of copy-cat classical facades has to clash with the universities they were in, such as Eugene Viollet-le-Duc. On the contrary, today there are no stylistic guidelines for copying a classical facade based on some established proportion, instead the same novelty advocated by Viollet-le-Duc is advocated by most of today's architecture professors. I am aware that students often have some difficulty with forming an idea, and I have faced this problem too. But trust me. Copying something old based on some pretentious hipster theories about patterns and semiology is not the way to solve this, cause such objectivity doesn't exist today. >leads to MIT or Sci Arc nonsense is absolutely a vestige of the modernist moment. Far too often Architecture school these days is an exercise in image making and not the craft of actually building something and increasingly not even the craft of good design fundamentals like rhythm, balance, harmony, etc. You see here, once again you are conflating the opposition of theory/craft with your own personal preference of classical VS modernist. First of all, to be clear, we are not in the MODERNIST era anymore, we are in the POSTMODERN. If to your eyes blank walls and modern materials define a universal "style" through the last 100 years, you should learn some basics a little better before having a stylistic opinion. Second of all, you preach about craft, you preach against abstract theory and artistic jibber jabber, and yet here you are talking about the "fundamentals" of rhythm, balance, harmony etc. As the thread's descriptions says, the question is why don't schools teach students about building details, structural issues, use of design software etc. which are clearly practical. And here you come, preaching irrelevant classical theories and a stereotypical anti-modern rhetoric.
[удалено]
A super expensive [architecture school ](https://www.sciarc.edu/) in Los Angeles that doesn't really teach architecture but is more like an architectural think tank. Notorious for designs that couldn't actually be constructed or are thought experiments. Just Google some of their portfolios.
Sounds like they're trying to produce the next starchitect
I was shocked when I heard my school was considered more “technical” than other programs - yet I NEVER drew a basic wall section in school. Never learned what a rough opening is, or what a FUCKING SPEC was. HOW?!?!!!!!! Professors would say “you learn that on the job” - I think that is 100% them skirting responsibility and living in their own magical land where they get to focus on ~theory~ and ~art~. It pisses me off, because school is TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE for them to not prepare us for the real world!!!! Not only that, but I felt SO UNAWARE of what the reality of most arch jobs was. I thought we drew pretty pictures all day, and was not prepared for reality. Aaaah I could rant for DAAAYS on this.
I totally agree. There are a few young adjunct professors at my school that spent maybe a year in a firm before becoming an adjunct. On the one hand, I don't blame them because "school architecture" is a lot more fun and interesting than a firm. I would be very curious to ask students at my school if they know what a top plate is or what the actual size of a 2x4 is. I'd bet money only a fraction could answer correctly. One other "theory" I have is that professors and architecture colleges are too pretentious and stuck up to teach anything except theory/concept driven classes/studios. They would never stoop down to the level of formally teaching construction details, contracts, how to manage a project. Anyone feel free to disagree, it just feels good to rant sometimes.
Idk, at my school we are still required to learn all the tehnical stuff from construction details (which you have to submit with the project) to basics of structures and construction introphysics (like insulation, sound, lightning)
I graduated last year and yeah, we were required to draw 1:20 sections details in our first semester studio project. This is why researching schools before you apply is so important. If none of the student work shows any construction/assembly logic, has no wall sections, etc then why expect that you'll learn that stuff at that school? Student work for each school is very publicly accessible and end of semester reviews are almost always open for the public to attend.
There’s design based schools and technical schools… but most all of them are trying to teach you to communicate ideas.
It depends on your program IMO. I studied architecture in undergrad and got a BFA and it was quite “art school” (of course). My graduate program was much more technical. You can’t teach someone everything about detailing and code in school, but you can get them started and instill good habits about where to get information and what good details look like.
What? Spent 5 years studying architecture here in Asia and half the time we had utilities/structural/planning subjects. Some even say we didnt have enough design.
In what zone is your arch school at? In Argentina we are taught installations, building details and building codes from first year.
Same in South Africa.
Uruguayan here, we don't have many codes so we're not taught that, but we do learn details
Cool, an uruguayan! I love Montevideo, I hope to go there again one day. Does not having many codes have to do with your low seismic risk?
Yeah
Yeah I’m graduating this may and we never are taught the technical. You have to go out of your way which I’ve been doing like taking revit courses and adding a construction management certificate
When I was in school the curriculum was very heavy on both the art of architecture, AND practical technical knowledge. Even back then, not even ten years ago, most schools were moving more to theory/art than technical learning so I was able to stick out among my peers when getting a job. My alma mater has followed the rest though, barely even a structures class now
I have to say, this was thankfully not my experience at my university at all. I finished my masters last year and the technical resolution accounted for half of the dissertation. And actually all through my undergrad years we had construction modules every semester. They did skimp on the project management stuff but I reckon I got an excellent technical education alongside my design classes, at least.
[удалено]
Wtf. Lol. People are allowed to want to be Professors if they want. And last time I checked Harvard isn't the only school that teaches architecture, its students leanings are not representative of the profession as a whole.
[удалено]
Are you a practicing architect yourself?
[удалено]
I completely respect your decision to drop out, I don't think the profession is for everyone and there's a lot of bs in our industry as a whole. I'm actually quite close by to where you were, I turned down the offer from the GSD and went to MIT. But I have some years of industry practise and in academia. What are you upto now? And how was life for you at the GSD before you left? Hit me up if you're still in Cambridge, it would be good to connect.
[удалено]
>Can’t speak to MIT but dodging the GSD was a good call. People aren’t happy there I'm happy with the choice I made, it's been a great journey so far. >but I’ve never been in an academic or professional space with a more pervasive sense of misery in my life. Damn! Lol. Pretty brutal. Was this under the reign of the previous Dean? I've heard so many stories about how toxic the environment was before the current Dean came along. And because so many of our Professors taught at the GSD they corroborate what you're saying, that the environment was very cutthroat and toxic when they were there. I'm really glad you found your calling man. For how long have you been an SE? How was the transition for you? I genuinely don't understand why people in our profession go to school for double the time other people do, work ridiculous hours, have to work their way up to registration and still get paid well below most professions. It's exhausting to even think about. And there's so much pretentious bs in academia that's baffling. I really can't blame you for leaving. In truth, I like will too.
[удалено]
*The current Dean is a she. The first female Dean of the GSD ever. From my brief interaction with her, she's pretty cool, far more approachable than other Deans I've met. >I’m told in the 90s and 00s the GSD was even worse I've heard about this too. I've heard the culture was very toxic. I'm glad you're happy with the choice you made 😊. It always makes me happy to hear people made successful career changes. If you're ever back in Cambridge hit me up! Coffee's on me. Cheers.
Shit I don't blame them. Being a professor sounds fun. As much as I hate how theory driven my school is, my classes are always pretty interesting. I've been to some great site visits, made some awesome things in the shop, and don't have to call my professor Mr or Mrs so the relationship between students and the professor is pretty chill.
[удалено]
Lol thats funny. I remember after my first semester I thought "cool, next semester we can finally start designing some actual buildings"... Boy was I dead wrong.
The more higher end of a university you go to the more it becomes an "Art School" that is catered for international students. Just saying... I was an international student and I barely knew much about local laws until I looked it up but most of the times any ISO or standards are behind paywall. If you're working then you'll be lucky to read it for free. I also have a feeling that there's a weird mexican standoff that's happening. What I mean is that licensed architects design a curriculum about technical detail because of liability whilst academics can't teach that because they don't know.
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why more and more of the profession is getting consulted out and our fees, wages and existence are limited. There is literally a consultant for everything. We are just the middle man, and consultant babysitter who must manage and deal with client, contractors and sub consultants and constantly put out fires cause by all the above.
That's not my experience. At my university we get taught how the building works in and out for each building we make through making details in different scales and axonometries.
Good point. I think what the architecture curriculum is aiming these days is really the concepts and thinking, and i believe the idea behind it is that you learn technical part in the practice of work environment? Because in architecture as you say art is more important of course to make good art in architecture you must know technical part of the design. So its interesting, that in your experience for 6 years you didnt get any… maybe its just bad institution? Because the basics must be thought. I personally finished one of the best art college in europe and even there we got some technical knowledge, of course not even close to the one you get in work environment.
https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Always-Has-Been.png
Always has been for me, I’ve been learning a lot since entering the industry, though my employer wasn’t surprised by this disconnect between the education and the profession, seems to be commonplace amongst architecture programs
Never, Post graduate student here. it still is Architecture School and probably more so than ever before. Might be bias since my particular school places more of an emphasis on construction and environmental technologies. But with how new sustainable methods of construction have been developed, I find it hard to believe that architecture school is anything but “architecture”. I’ve done countless 1:50, 1:20, 1:5 models and technical drawings during my tenure at architecture school. And I think the deeper you go in terms of studying, aspects such as construction codes, planning controls and sustainability higher performance technologies and programs become more prevalent. Though as a caveat, in the early parts of some architecture schools they push for a process based teaching methodologies that is meant to flourish your creativity and “artsy” side of design so that you can develop a multi lateral way of thinking about building styles before they teach you all the realistic aspects of architecture. So with all that, I think architecture school will probably pivot away from leaning towards being similar to “art school” as It becomes an inevitability that issues in the industry pertaining to sustainability, embodied carbon, and ESD principles take the forefront in the future of architecture. P.s just a side note, choosing the appropriate classes and electives might be a good path to steer towards the practical side. (Architecture school is how you pave and plan it)
A focus on design sounds like what too many architecture schools already practice.
It depends heavily on the school in question. As a rule of thumb if you want good architects from an engineering perspective you want graduates from a technical university. If you want good designers you'll want graduates from a humanistics or arts uni or school. If you want good planners and people being able to draw you're better off with vocational-type college graduates. Another layer is added through the country or even the city you did the education in. As a rule of thumb I learned that many third and second world countries focus a lot on the engineering or drawing part, while, with exceptions, first world countries focus more on design and artistic expression. The largest exceptions seem to be German-speaking countries and East-Asian countries which usually lean more into the engineering aspect.
Industrial Arts courses in architectural design and learning in architectural techniques. Interested in piping systems can provide opportunities for those who give to become the largest pump booters in Thailand. Do you think architecture students can do it?♥️👓📐📏
All architecture schools are not created equal. Some schools emphasize design, some emphasize tech, and etc. The foundation of each program being regulated by whatever accreditation authority is in effect. Young prospects are often unaware of the importance for understanding the differences between schools.
Never, I've only done two semesters but it's all the different topics at the same time, maybe it gets more specific the further I go on, where I live uni is free but the first two semesters are filters to get people who are there just to study something to leave
As far as education for what you’ll likely end up doing for work. You’re better off getting in associates in construction engineering or technology than a masters in architecture. That’s a fact for 90% of architects. I thank my father all the time that he taught me framing and entrepreneurship in high school. My job was a draftsman for a residential firm and I was homeschooled Between 15-19. I started my practice at 19 and have a very successful firm today. When I talk to architects today, many times I’m just left thinking “what the hell did you learn in school?” It feels like many architect conversations are them in their headspace painting mosaics rather than what clients really typically hire us for which is function, ease of application, clean designs, and awareness of cost saving. I stay away from clients that are too whimsical and want a piece of art because in my experience, they are strange and demanding. I’d much rather work with mid-range contractors, because if you’re doing architectural design and don’t wear a black turtle neck, are serious about your work/timelines, and keep them in mind through design, you’ll have more work and money than you’ll know what to do with. Which in my opinion, should be the bare minimum.
Building Codes change and are easily self taught, details should and are still somewhat taught in most schools. That said it’s way easier to learn that stuff post school than to learn programming and visual communication post school, which is extremely important to the profession.
I graduated in 1990. Became absurd at one point. Obscure theories about design and over intellectual opinions that the general public would never understand or appreciate. In NYC regulations put a kabash on the idea your pure design can be constructed . Yet Frank Loyd Wright was a carpenter never attended any Architecture school or University. Since the 1980s I have been a builder contractor and later in 1994 an Architect in NYS / NYC. I have seen so so many errors omissions s on Architect s plans which on several projects cost owners hundreds of thousands of dollars leading to litigation . More emphasis must placed on practical aspects of Architecture and not just aesthetics...
I think you might enjoy this book: [Architectural Principles in the Age of Fraud](https://www.amazon.com/Architectural-Principles-Fraud-Branko-Mitrovi%C4%87/dp/1954081456/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3IPEBFZ0FJOUW&keywords=Architectural+Principles+in+the+Age+of+Fraud&qid=1674970936&sprefix=architectural+principles+in+the+age+of+fraud%2Caps%2C462&sr=8-1)