Author: Neil Frankel

In an information age, how is it possible that the design brief in both practice and the academy have remained the same since the mid-twentieth century?

In an information age, how is it possible that the design brief in both practice and the academy have remained the same since the mid-twentieth century?

Straddled between the world of architectural practice and architectural education, I can’t help wonder why there isn’t better alignment between the two.

Straddled between the world of architectural practice and architectural education, I can’t help wonder why there isn’t better alignment between the two. Both are key players in the subject of innovation; schools teach critical thinking strategies to maximize a student’s ability to innovate and firms rely on innovation to promote their differentiation among the competition. In concept, you’d think it a perfect partnership. But, it’s not. Just pick up a copy of last Sunday’s want ads and you’ll see where the problem lies. Most, if not all, entry-level job postings are seeking out CAD operators. It’s every student’s nightmare – the bottom of the architectural food chain – becoming a CAD monkey. Where or when, then, does innovation come in?

Let’s start by addressing the stalemate between the Academic and Practice communities about which institution bears the responsibility in helping entry-level architecture professionals achieve practice-ready status.