![]()
Â
Â
Numerous descriptions from different schools of architecture reveal that students have difficulties figuring out what their education is all about. The joy of being chosen in stiff competition among many others can revert to doubt. Many questions arise: Will I make it through the course? Can I live up to my own expectationsâand those of others? Does everyone else know more than me? What is actually going on? The transition from the education at high school or other colleges to the one used at an architecture school demands changes. It is rarely explained explicitly that a whole new way of thinking is needed.
Various accounts and results from surveys show that architecture students feel bad because they are worried daily by too many uncertainties. But you canât say that these studies form a scientifically proven universal truth, because they were not set up very systematically or broadly enough. Also, there is no way of knowing the opinions of the students who did not participate. It is, however, thought-provoking that that testimony about the uncertainties of architecture students comes from different parts of the world, during a span of at least 30 years, and both from schools of architecture and landscape architecture.
To start with, it is about reading social codes. Every new social situation requires a certain adaptation, as described in a thesis from Chalmers University of Technology:
I remember how I noticed that my classmates looked completely normal. They seemed to be a collection of average people between 18 and 40 years old. I also noticed that the students in the upper classes did not look normal in the same way. The majority of them had a style I would soon call âarchitectyâ. I noted that the style did not just include clothing, but instead, a whole concept that could even encompassâbelieve it or notâbody language, facial expressions, opinions, and food habits. It really felt like they had understood something that I had yet to understand. They were on their way toward becoming real architects while I often felt like a forlorn guest. They had all the qualities needed to become something. (WingĂ„rd 2004/2005, 15)
Sooner or later you find your place in, or your relationship to, a new social group, but understanding what the education is about can often be more difficult. Swedish architecture students said in surveys from the 1980s:
This education is so different; you canât compare it with anything else. In the beginning, it was almost a shock.
(Bessman and Villner 1989, 2)
The studentsâ disorientation increases when, in their first few days at school, they can be asked to forget most of what they have learned, come into the project studio ânakedâ, and let themselves be led by those whom they often consider the great authoritiesâtheir teachers.2
I remember feeling very anxious about my early days in the undergraduate architecture program at Miami University. I was unsure about the way we were being directed toward knowledge, although I was willing to trust that there was a particular design in the minds of our professorsâŠwe were expected to unlearn everything we absorbed in high school and before. (Willenbrock 1991, 97)
And it is not just about the projects, but also oneâs own identity. It can also be difficult to understand the esoteric terms the teachers are using.
Because the first year involves so many artistic assignments, it was easy to get scared if, like me, you did not have a well-developed artistic pathos. I was amazed by how calm everyone seemed to be when faced by the vaguest assignments, with thousands of possible interpretations. I now know that I was hardly alone. Many of us were extremely nervous. We looked everywhere for clear signals that could guide us in these very difficult creative situations, where no one could say what was right or wrong. I remember being like a sponge, absorbing anything that could make the ground a little more solid. At the same time, I got very tired of no one using clear language, and I still am. (WingÄrd 2004/2005, 15)
You are more emotionally involved when youâre sitting and struggling with a project presentation than if you take an exam and then are done with it. You are much more engaged. You expose yourselfâcompletely! That is the formative part, the creative part. (Bessman and Villner 1989, 2)
It is especially hard to never get the correct answers; to never know if youâve got it right or wrong.
Itâs not just the start of the course that can be difficult. Many uncertainties remain after the third year, as shown in another study. Students can be unsure about what they know (weâre not taught, we have to find the answers ourselves, then guess), which working methods are available, what the architectâs field of knowledge and methods of practice are, what is good and why, unclear goals and unclear project descriptions.
When asked what the worst part of studying architecture is, one woman says:
The uncertainty; because no one can tell me if I did something wrong, I have to constantly question myself: Have I done something right? Am I good enough? Should I quit right now? (WingÄrd 2004/2005, 104)
However, that which is considered worst is also considered the most positive, according to some of the students who were interviewed.
The best thing about studying architecture is:
That you are given the freedom to develop your own thoughts. That you get to âdoâ something and not just write out what you know on a sheet of paper. All the practical and creative work! You plan your own time. There is no right or wrong. You take responsibility for yourself. More like a workplace than a school⊠Openness. You find yourself and get a chance to express yourself. (WingĂ„rd 2004/2005, 107)
One of the methods of architectural education that many students have particular difficulty relating to is critique.
I remember my first desk crit as a landscape architecture student. I was so proud of the work I had produced. âThis was goodâ, I was thinking to myself. My professor didnât exactly agree. My intentions were questioned. Feedback was given to me on how I could change my work in order to take my ideas to the next level. It took a few minutes to get over my bruised ego and absorb the criticism that I was given before I could continue working on my project. Now that I think about it, I was looking for approval. Instead, I received my first spoonful of criticism. (Graham 2003, 2)
Critiques and assessment reviews as educational methods are covered in many survey answers. I will discuss this in more detail in Chapters 7â9.
Thus there are several aspects that architecture students struggle with. It is a paradox that many students feel disoriented and insecure, just as the architectâs working methods are praised internationally as a way of dealing with precisely that: uncertainties.3
Notes
1 Cited by Forty, 2004 (2000), 136.
2 Willenbrock, L., 1991, 98, 112, my cursives.
3 This interest was sparked by Donald Schönâs pioneering work on the role of refection during practical work. See also Chapter 4.
References
Bessman, Mona; Villner, Lena: Mötet med arkitektur. LĂ€rarnas roll i projektundervisningen. Rapport frĂ„n det Pedagogiska utvecklingsarbetet vid KTH 1989: 60, 2â3
Forty, Adrian: Words and Buildings. A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. Thames and Hudson 2000, 136
Graham, Elizabeth Marie: Studio Design Critique: Student and Faculty Expectations and Reality. A Thesis. The School of Landscape Architecture. Christian Brothers University 2003, 2
Willenbrock, Laura L.: An Undergraduate Voice in Architectural Education. In: Dutton, Thomas A (ed.): Voices in Architectural Education. Cultural Politics and Pedagogy.
Bergin & Garvey, New York1991, 97â112
WingÄrd, Lisa: Om att bli arkitekt (On Becoming an Architect).
In Swedish. Examensarbete Chalmers Arkitektur 2004/2005
![]()
The architect: a historical overview
As a first step, I want to give an outline of the historical process to approach the questions raised by several students: What is the architectural profession? What is the architectâs role and responsibility in society? Somewhat simplified, one could say that the development of architecture as a profession has been a tug-of-war with the other forces involved in building and construction. During some periods, the architectâs desire for independence, which characterizes creative individuals (see the section entitled âCreative personalityâ in Chapter 8), has been particularly evident, but not always successful when interacting with the various players in the field of construction.
The concept of arkhitekton was already used by Herodotus in the 5th decade BC. The word is a combination of the Greek word arkhiâfrom archos, or chief (from the same root as in archbishop)âand tekton (master builder). One could say that the word architect means master of the building arts, or chief master builder. Until recently, this was invariably a man. Traditionally, the architect has always been associated with the rich and powerful, since they were the ones who could afford to build. He had a special position in society, but this did not always mean that he was favored in the social hierarchy. Nevertheless, an architect was not, as Plato describes it, a worker, but was instead the one who actually made the rules for the workers; he supplied knowledge but not the handcraft (Kostof 1977a).
In ancient Egypt he was âthe chief (boss) over the foremenâ as Ineni, the chief of the workmen in Karnak, was described on...
