the session originally arranged for the evening of the last day, and which was to be devoted to the subject of education and registration, was advanced to the afternoon of the second day. There were present not only the regular delegates to the convention but a large number of men connected with various universities and schools where departments of architecture are now already established. The report of the Committee on Education, signed by Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Medary and Mr. Dwight Perkins of Chicago, awakened great discussion, both for and against the principles maintained by the committee. The report attacked the problem in its fundamentals. It pointed out that the faults of our architectural schools are also the faults of our whole system of education. The common and secondary schools and our universities do little to develop independence of thought on the part of their pupils, and so the men who then study architecture have no adequate foundation to work on. Our schools of architecture, it was claimed, are bound by traditional methods of teaching and are out of touch with reality. They do little to give their students a sense of social responsibility and so their methods and their ideals are in need of radical change.
It was interesting to note the varying points of view expressed on the floor during the debate. There was no attempt to deny that the men going through our architectural institutions are inadequately trained. Some claimed, however, that it was impossible to teach men in any institution under any system so that they would be capable of practicing architecture efficiently when graduated. Some of the speakers claimed that the methods of teaching are right in principle, but need more thoroughness in application; that a longer period of instruction is essential; and that the men should be required to go through a number of years of practical training after graduation before being allowed to practice. In this connection the discussion on the value of the registration of architects was interesting. Mr. Waid clearly pointed out that when the standard of qualifications set for registration in the various States was placed sufficiently high, then registration would be an important element in the educational problem. Many who had rather grudgingly agreed to registration laws merely as a means to prevent the obviously inefficient from practicing now recognize that in some States registration has actually raised the educational standards of the profession.
Throughout the entire discussion of the problems of education there was displayed a very broadminded willingness on the part of teachers to accept constructive suggestions for reform. They seemed
to realize the justice of many of the points made in the report on education, and so expressed themselves, saying that they welcomed this analysis of their problems. What they did urge, however, was that they might have the help of the members of the profession toward securing constructive reforms, not the least of which would be in the placing of architectural schools in a position where they would be independent of the schools of engineering, which in some cases still controlled their policy. Any tendency that the debate might have had to become acrimonious was prevented by an exceedingly amusing paper read by Mr. Magonigle, in which, among other things he listed the colossal number of subjects in which the architect is supposed to be proficient. On the whole the discussion was very well worth while, and indicated certain constructive lines of study which the Post-War Committee will now follow up.
The evening session of the second day was very well attended, and started off splendidly with the report of Mr. Russell of St. Louis on the recently organized National Board of Jurisdictional Awards of the Building Industry. This Board has been recently created to pass on all questions of trade jurisdiction in the building industries. It owes its existence in a great measure to the efforts of the American Institute of Architects, and indeed it is the first formal and definite act of participation on the part of the architectural profession in questions of adjustment between employers and employees in the building trades. The membership of the board includes representatives of the building trades department of the American Federation of Labor, the Associated General Contractors, the National Association of Builders, Executives of the Engineering Council, and the American Institute of Architects. The organization of the board seemed almost like a direct answer to that question in the Post- War Committee’s program, which referred to the need for closer co-operation on the part of architects with the men who execute their work. Nothing was more stirring in Mr. Russell’s report than the expression of his conviction borne of experience ‘that the step taken by the architects in this matter was most welcome to the Federation of Labor, and secondly that there already were evidences that all the interests represented in the board would benefit by the co-operation thus established, particularly in the way of enlightenment and understanding.
Under the head of item K of the program, Standardization, Mr. Boyd presented an interesting paper in which he indicated the ways in which certain forms of construction might be standardized along the lines established by various Govern
It was interesting to note the varying points of view expressed on the floor during the debate. There was no attempt to deny that the men going through our architectural institutions are inadequately trained. Some claimed, however, that it was impossible to teach men in any institution under any system so that they would be capable of practicing architecture efficiently when graduated. Some of the speakers claimed that the methods of teaching are right in principle, but need more thoroughness in application; that a longer period of instruction is essential; and that the men should be required to go through a number of years of practical training after graduation before being allowed to practice. In this connection the discussion on the value of the registration of architects was interesting. Mr. Waid clearly pointed out that when the standard of qualifications set for registration in the various States was placed sufficiently high, then registration would be an important element in the educational problem. Many who had rather grudgingly agreed to registration laws merely as a means to prevent the obviously inefficient from practicing now recognize that in some States registration has actually raised the educational standards of the profession.
Throughout the entire discussion of the problems of education there was displayed a very broadminded willingness on the part of teachers to accept constructive suggestions for reform. They seemed
to realize the justice of many of the points made in the report on education, and so expressed themselves, saying that they welcomed this analysis of their problems. What they did urge, however, was that they might have the help of the members of the profession toward securing constructive reforms, not the least of which would be in the placing of architectural schools in a position where they would be independent of the schools of engineering, which in some cases still controlled their policy. Any tendency that the debate might have had to become acrimonious was prevented by an exceedingly amusing paper read by Mr. Magonigle, in which, among other things he listed the colossal number of subjects in which the architect is supposed to be proficient. On the whole the discussion was very well worth while, and indicated certain constructive lines of study which the Post-War Committee will now follow up.
The evening session of the second day was very well attended, and started off splendidly with the report of Mr. Russell of St. Louis on the recently organized National Board of Jurisdictional Awards of the Building Industry. This Board has been recently created to pass on all questions of trade jurisdiction in the building industries. It owes its existence in a great measure to the efforts of the American Institute of Architects, and indeed it is the first formal and definite act of participation on the part of the architectural profession in questions of adjustment between employers and employees in the building trades. The membership of the board includes representatives of the building trades department of the American Federation of Labor, the Associated General Contractors, the National Association of Builders, Executives of the Engineering Council, and the American Institute of Architects. The organization of the board seemed almost like a direct answer to that question in the Post- War Committee’s program, which referred to the need for closer co-operation on the part of architects with the men who execute their work. Nothing was more stirring in Mr. Russell’s report than the expression of his conviction borne of experience ‘that the step taken by the architects in this matter was most welcome to the Federation of Labor, and secondly that there already were evidences that all the interests represented in the board would benefit by the co-operation thus established, particularly in the way of enlightenment and understanding.
Under the head of item K of the program, Standardization, Mr. Boyd presented an interesting paper in which he indicated the ways in which certain forms of construction might be standardized along the lines established by various Govern