Education. We’ve all gone through it. Some of us flourished; some of us just survived. And probably all of us have said at least once since graduation, If only I had learned this, or If only I had have been taught that. And many of us have wanted to call a favorite professor to ask, Why didn’t you teach me this all those years ago? My life would have been better now. I would have been … (you fill in the blank: more effective, more capable, smarter, richer, better, whatever). Ah, the benefits of hindsight. But the issues of what should we be taught and when pose an ongoing challenge facing all educators, whether the student in front of them is a beginner, an intern, a newly registered architect, or even a professional made wiser and stronger (or sometimes weaker) by the turbulence of time.
Committed pedagogues never cease to ask, How can I get the information from my brain into their brains so that it expands their view of an issue in an actionable way? This same commitment to learning is shared by the collateral architecture societies, including the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, the American Institute of Architecture Students, and the National Architectural Accrediting Board, which work with students, and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards and the American Institute of Architects, which focus on expanding the knowledge of interns and registered architects. Taken together, the efforts of these organizations are reinforcing and expansive, simultaneously making learning easier and teaching more daunting. There is so much to impart.
That these five bodies are talking about education and building on their different institutional capacities and perspectives to strengthen architects’ viewpoints is easily taken for granted today. Of course they are working together to improve architectural education. Why wouldn’t they be? All five want architects to succeed; all five want the health, safety, and welfare of the public to be secure.
But 25 years ago, the thought of asking educators why they taught what they taught was radical; the thought of any dean answering those questions was heresy. At the time, most would have said education was a value unto itself and they owed the student nothing more. Anything that made the learned architect useful to himself or his firm was mere training and should be acquired outside the academy. And 25 years ago no one, but no one, asked whether educated architects needed to learn or know anything to serve their clients well. Indeed, many an architect was led to believe that clients were an impediment to the accomplishment of design objectives. Client needs had not yet reached the Richter importance scale in architectural education.
So much has changed and so swiftly. Today, deans meet routinely with the AIA Large Firm Roundtable, an entity representing the unique needs of large architectural firms. There are efforts such as the NCARB Prize for Creative Integration of Practice and Education in the Academy and the AIA Education Honor Awards for excellence in teaching and practice education. Everywhere there is something available to document, celebrate, and aid in learning: NCARB’s monograph series, AIA and NCARB’s Emerging Professional’s Companion resources, and AIA’s Architect’s Essentials series. Moreover, there are practice academies being piloted jointly by schools and private firms, ACSA is developing a National Academy of Environmental Design, and AIAS is expanding its powerful design studio initiative. These are just a few of the ways the associations are helping interested architects expand their knowledge and competency.
It seems as if no one can escape learning. Yet finding the best source and aligning its goals with the learner’s needs is ever more difficult. So the question of where something can be taught best and learned best — the academy or the firm — has a new urgency and poses a greater challenge to each of the five collateral organizations.
In the five years since I wrote “Rethinking Architecture Education” for DesignIntelligence’s “Focus on the Future” report, much has changed. Integrated project delivery, building information modeling, global practices, and increasingly strong profession-driven client representatives have gone from being new concepts to nearly routine expectations. Client demands have increased, and their design and cost expectations are more driven. Sustainability has rushed to the forefront of many architects’ and clients’ goals. And in this sometimes seeming chaos, the profession’s calls for architects as leaders have become louder. Have the education needs of architects changed accordingly?
Yes and no. In the June 2003 report I wrote that, at the minimum, in order to be successful in society by any definition, a student needs to graduate comfortably possessing six competencies (see “6 Essential Competencies” at left) I will posit this as true even now. Moreover, I assert that without these competencies (albeit with a constantly growing level of mastery), no practitioner can truly flourish. It was my hope then and is today that all the collateral organizations would adopt these or some variation of them so that a common language and direction could evolve that fosters learning, with mastery being the ultimate goal. I have in mind a performance-based system, but one that provides maximum flexibility to educators and allows for diverse approaches to education while yielding measureable accountability for both the institution and the learner.
With the five organizations increasingly talking, it is only a matter of time before those goals will be achieved. Simply put, they have too much common ground and too many common interests to work otherwise. Moreover, there is nary a quibble among them on important issues. Each organization wants strong practitioners who are fully capable of working responsively and responsibly with clients. Each wants the critical service of architecture delivered in a manner that is mindful of society’s health, safety, and welfare. The needs of architects and their clients are too great, the demands are too strong, and the payoff too beneficial to too many for the development of a common education language and interwoven process to be derailed. Yes, the NAAB Board has a lot to struggle with in accreditation review, but not with the commitment of the five collateral organizations to education excellence. At no time in architectural history has it been stronger.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent those of any organization with which she is affiliated.
Ava J. Abramowitz has served as deputy general counsel of the American Institute of Architects and is the author of the book Architect’s Essentials of Contract Negotiation. She teaches negotiation at George Washington University Law School and at the Catholic University School of Architecture and Planning and maintains a mediation practice. Abramowitz is a Senior Fellow of the Design Futures Council.
