Architectural Education

I think it should pass…..depends on how important the marks are. Is Bolton street still as woeful as it was a few years ago?
When you graduate and go for a job, it is bound to be largely on your portfolio rather than whether you got a 2.2 or 2.1.

Bolton Street used teach organic Chemistry and other irrelevant subjects, some strange vestiges of trying to validate the instotution as offering a 1920’s concept of ‘education.’ Do they still do this?

I feel the standard of architectural education in Ireland is fairly abysmal.

Anyone else?

It is impossible o answer this question in the abstract, as it were . . . there are so many variables, and architectural education is based partly on the premise that each student is in a process of improvement, judgement about which is made on her past and current performance, and allowance must be made for later development, earlier rather than too much later!

Such education is impossible to quantify in terms of simple slogans, so this subjet will not attract much comment.

‘Aedequate in terms of function’ seems to be the stumbling block here. There are a host of variables in assessing architectural design and the student’s authorship, and certainly just because a project is ‘aedequate in terms of function’ is never a pass! Other aspirant professionals such as engineers, surveyors, interior designers and even unqualified people can and have provided programmes that fulfill the ‘function’, I suppose, but the architect is expected to provide something significant, which can only be described as signifying the social role of the building, or in ancient terms, its ‘decor’, or ‘decorum’.

Modern architecture which neglects this aspect in favour of reductive answers based on notions of objectivity, are to be condemned. A few modern architects have, however, captured something extra in their productions, and have been rightly recognised. None the less, most architects really don’t know what they are doing, except to follow some fashions and hide behing pat formulas that they have picked up before or arfer graduating.

The real measure of the prevalent confusion is to be found in the weakness of criticism today. A breed of architectural journalist has emerged who seem to ‘tout’ large practices using the proffered press-releases, and they tend to dwell on the alledged ‘newness’ of such a fresh venture, and fightinh the battles of the Bauhaus all over again! In actual fact, very few people are to be found doing anything new at all, and if so, they are rarely recognised at the time.

Conservation awareness is perfectly fine, but is never a substitute for scholarship and real thinking about architecture. As for teachers of architecture, they are rarely on top of their reading ( architecure is a general discipline, usually ignored in favour of specialisation), and they reflect the faults of their professional brothers, in the main.

James McQuillan, Architect and Historian.

Brian,

Yes, I’d say that our hypothetical student should fail, but remember that there are too many variables to make any kind of judgement at this distance.

Your comments on the nature of education are saddening, as to do well in architecture means that students need high motivation. So I do hope that you are wrong on this! Also it’s a tough old world out there, and the ability to detail can be learned, whilst many other things seem to be ignored. Remember that formal education in architecture is very young, and even the modern profession is really an 18th. century creation. No-one can agree even on what the DISCIPLINE of architecture should be today, so there is much revision of accepted attitudes necessary on all sides.

JMcQ.