The American Architect
Wednesday, January 29, 1919Number 2249Vol CXV
The New Architectural Education
Report of Sub-Committee on Education of the Reconstruction Committee of the Illinois Chapter, A. I. A and the Illinois Society of Architects
LEADERS in architectural education should not be behind those in other lines of endeavor in realizing the necessity for reconstructional measures, even though they be revolutionary in character. The student of the architectural schools has always been educated to look to the past. A large part of his time has been misspent in the study of subjects of which he is never called upon to make use, and which he soon absolutely forgets. Many subjects, the knowledge of which is necessary in the pursuit of his profession, are not touched upon, to his everlasting detriment and regret. After graduation, the first two years or so of his experience are taken up with the most elementary work, such as tracing, etc., under an assumption of his employer that he knows nothing, and its tacit admission by himself.
Our educational system should be reorganized so that the graduate can become of immediate value to his employer and his services a source of income to himself. It also should aim to cast off in some fashion the shackles of the past and help architecture to take a more honorable part in the destiny of this nation.
The practicing architect, which it is assumed the student intends to become, functions in three entirely diverse directions—the aesthetic, in which he designs his buildings in plan and elevation; the practical, in which he constructs them; and the social, in which he deals with those consummating his plans, and with his clients, present and prospective. These obvious divisions of an architect’s practice are, to a greater or less extent, recognized by all the architectural schools, and special studies are provided in their curriculum, intended to prepare the student for these diverse demands.
Your committee is of the opinion that while the program or the ideal toward which the schools work is excellent, yet great improvement could be wrought in the subjects selected for this chosen nurnose. and also in the manner in which they are
taught. We believe that some should be omitted, and others now untaught should also be included.
We believe, furthermore, that there is a fatal lack of correlation in the subdivision of the aesthetic, practical and social studies, and that it is both unnecessary and unwise to leave such correlation to the architect after he has left school.
At present the courses of instruction in the principal architectural schools are almost identical, and are all founded on that of the Ecole des Beaux Arts, with which they still agree in general in subject but from which they differ widely in administration. These subjects, taken from one of our best architectural schools, and accomplished within the hours of school work and preparation required for the entire course, which covers four years, are substantially as follows:
Aesthetic—Architectural design, 1555; Freehand Drawing, 510; Shades and Shadows, 45; Perspective, 120; Watercolor, 70; History of Architecture, 305; History of Ornament, 43; Total, 2650.
Practical—College Algebra, 90; Plain Trigonometry, go; Analytical Geometry and Calculus (elements), 180; Descriptive Geometry, 240; Applied Mechanics, 200; Physics, 270; Chemistry (inorganic), 180; Design, 120; Sanitary Engineering, 30; Steel Construction, 143; Acoustics, 3; Total, 1550.
Social—History of Civilization, 330; English, 210; French, 105; Flistory of Sculpture and History of Painting, included in History of Civilization and Art; Arch. Prac. & Bldg. Law, 45; Philosophy of Arch., 15; Political Economy, 90; Office Practice, 60; Military Science, 90; Total, 945.
This curriculum seems to be comprehensive, and the hours required are certainly as many as the student will stand. Criticisms and suggestions for improving such a course to meet post-war conditions will be taken up in order as follows:
1. Obtain a better correlation of subjects in the
curriculum.
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)
Wednesday, January 29, 1919Number 2249Vol CXV
The New Architectural Education
Report of Sub-Committee on Education of the Reconstruction Committee of the Illinois Chapter, A. I. A and the Illinois Society of Architects
LEADERS in architectural education should not be behind those in other lines of endeavor in realizing the necessity for reconstructional measures, even though they be revolutionary in character. The student of the architectural schools has always been educated to look to the past. A large part of his time has been misspent in the study of subjects of which he is never called upon to make use, and which he soon absolutely forgets. Many subjects, the knowledge of which is necessary in the pursuit of his profession, are not touched upon, to his everlasting detriment and regret. After graduation, the first two years or so of his experience are taken up with the most elementary work, such as tracing, etc., under an assumption of his employer that he knows nothing, and its tacit admission by himself.
Our educational system should be reorganized so that the graduate can become of immediate value to his employer and his services a source of income to himself. It also should aim to cast off in some fashion the shackles of the past and help architecture to take a more honorable part in the destiny of this nation.
The practicing architect, which it is assumed the student intends to become, functions in three entirely diverse directions—the aesthetic, in which he designs his buildings in plan and elevation; the practical, in which he constructs them; and the social, in which he deals with those consummating his plans, and with his clients, present and prospective. These obvious divisions of an architect’s practice are, to a greater or less extent, recognized by all the architectural schools, and special studies are provided in their curriculum, intended to prepare the student for these diverse demands.
Your committee is of the opinion that while the program or the ideal toward which the schools work is excellent, yet great improvement could be wrought in the subjects selected for this chosen nurnose. and also in the manner in which they are
taught. We believe that some should be omitted, and others now untaught should also be included.
We believe, furthermore, that there is a fatal lack of correlation in the subdivision of the aesthetic, practical and social studies, and that it is both unnecessary and unwise to leave such correlation to the architect after he has left school.
At present the courses of instruction in the principal architectural schools are almost identical, and are all founded on that of the Ecole des Beaux Arts, with which they still agree in general in subject but from which they differ widely in administration. These subjects, taken from one of our best architectural schools, and accomplished within the hours of school work and preparation required for the entire course, which covers four years, are substantially as follows:
Aesthetic—Architectural design, 1555; Freehand Drawing, 510; Shades and Shadows, 45; Perspective, 120; Watercolor, 70; History of Architecture, 305; History of Ornament, 43; Total, 2650.
Practical—College Algebra, 90; Plain Trigonometry, go; Analytical Geometry and Calculus (elements), 180; Descriptive Geometry, 240; Applied Mechanics, 200; Physics, 270; Chemistry (inorganic), 180; Design, 120; Sanitary Engineering, 30; Steel Construction, 143; Acoustics, 3; Total, 1550.
Social—History of Civilization, 330; English, 210; French, 105; Flistory of Sculpture and History of Painting, included in History of Civilization and Art; Arch. Prac. & Bldg. Law, 45; Philosophy of Arch., 15; Political Economy, 90; Office Practice, 60; Military Science, 90; Total, 945.
This curriculum seems to be comprehensive, and the hours required are certainly as many as the student will stand. Criticisms and suggestions for improving such a course to meet post-war conditions will be taken up in order as follows:
1. Obtain a better correlation of subjects in the
curriculum.
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)