CONNECTING THE ACADEMY WITH THE PROFESSION IN ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION Daniel Davis, AIA University of Hartford West Hartford, CT Abstract For many years, architects, engineers and educators have been trying to more effectively connect architecture, engineering, and construction education with the design and construction profession. Clearly, architecture, engineering and construction need a higher degree of academy/practice integration, and our response at the University of Hartford has been to connect both academics with the profession and professionals with academia. We have developed an integrated comprehensive project based design course (AET 367) which is connected to and reflects the conditions of practice. Ernest L. Boyer often said that the future belongs to the integrators. Architecture, engineering and construction involve so centrally the integration of many disciplines. Unfortunately, at many schools individuals with wellbalanced careers in teaching and practice are an increasingly rare breed, and courses with a well balanced curriculum in practice are even rarer. Connecting academics with the profession: Our integrated course recognizes the need for fostering faculty/professional relationships. Therefore we utilize faculty with current practice experience. And for those that are not actively involved we are creating continuing education opportunities, faculty/practice fellowships, faculty/practice mentorship, academy/firm workshops, and more engagement through professor in practice positions. Connecting professionals with academia: Our integrated course is a comprehensive design studio that integrates material learned in a variety of professionally based courses such as building design, landscape design, sustainable design, construction, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, building economics, and project development. On a weekly basis architecture, engineering and construction professionals are brought into the classroom to present their discipline help the students integrate the material into their design, and finally review the students work for successful integration. Successfully developed this course satisfies many concerns: faculty and professionals become partners in the educational process, students learn how to integrate material from a variety of disciplines and are better prepared for the workplace, the educator learns how to become an integrator, and accreditation agencies are thrilled with the documented integration. History Identifies the Issue In 1865, eight years after the founding of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology offered the first formal, campus-based architecture courses in the United States. This was followed by the University of Illinois in 1868, Cornell University in 1871, Syracuse University in 1873, and Columbia University in 1881. 1 An early history of architectural education by Arthur Clason Weatherhead noted that the typical curriculum in the early twentieth century lacked cohesiveness, for example, the business side of architecture was neglected, and little effort was made to aid in the transition of students from the academy
to the office. 2 Years later, A Study of Architectural Schools: 1929-1932, sponsored by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) and funded by the Carnegie Corporation, criticized the dominance of design faculty over those specializing in construction. Design projects at many schools, it said, resulted in paper architecture whose real purpose and function was often unclear and unrealistic. 3 In 1954, almost twenty-five years afterward, an AIA commission produced a two volume report: The Architect at Mid-Century. Preparing for the second half of the twentieth century, the report encouraged educators and practitioners to close the developing gap between them. The report said that faculty will do well to maintain the closest possible relationship with the profession in order to adjust content and method to the changing needs of practice. A decade later, the AIA sponsored the 1967 Study of Education for Environmental Design. Widely referred to as the Princeton Report, this study is a frequently cited but often misconstrued. However, the study does stress the importance of ending the isolation of the architectural discipline. It called for making connections building ladders and bridges, once again, closing the gap between the schools and the profession. In 1996, Building Community: A New Future for Architectural Education and Practice (The Boyer Report) by Ernest L. Boyer and Lee D. Mitgang of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, was intended to be a comprehensive study of education and practice for the 21st century. It was commissioned by the five national architectural organizations that joined together with a common goal of seeing the need for an independent study of professional education and practice. The Boyer Report identified problems, opportunities, and challenges not only for the primary audience of architecture educators and practitioners but also others in higher education. Boyer and Mitgang challenged architects and educators to a new vision. This vision would connect architecture schools and the profession more effectively to the changing social context. The academy was challenged with providing A Connected Curriculum and practicing architects were challenged with providing A Unified Profession. The authors of Building Community were optimistic that the challenges could be met. However, twelve years later little progress has been made. Furthermore, it has been noted by many that the current architectural school curriculum at many programs actually delivers a smaller percentage of the total knowledge and ability required for practice than in any period since professional programs were established. The voices of many recognized and respected members of the architecture profession echo this same often-repeated message: Robert Frasca of Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership: If more academics would build and more professionals would teach, everyone would benefit. Boone Powell of Ford, Powell & Carson: One engineer recommended starting a unified school of building, because our architecture and engineering schools don t relate to each other and are too narrow and inflexible. Harold Adams of RTKL: Architecture education is too detached from the world of practice. Students need a better understanding of what s really required to succeed as architects and be leaders in today s global economy.
Michael E. Willis of Michael Willis and Associates: Architects should get themselves involved in the development of architecture school curricula. Adele Naude Santos of Adele N. Santos and Associates: One of the Achilles heels of architecture education continues to be the lack of integration of technical subjects with design studios, despite the fact that this fusion is essential to architectural education. The Boyer Report proposed as their first and foremost goal an enriched mission, one which would effectively connect academia with the profession and a connected curriculum that encourages integration and a more productive partnership between schools and the profession. These concerns, while more clearly stated in the Boyer/Mitgang study than in other studies, are not new. Connecting Academics with the Profession As many studies suggest, architectural education should be connected to practice and reflect the conditions of practice. Boyer often said that the future belongs to the integrators, and architecture, which involves so centrally the integration of many disciplines through the design act, deeply intrigued him. 4 But at many schools those with well-balanced careers in teaching and practice are an increasingly rare breed. 5 Our integrated and genuine teacher-practitioner philosophy combines scholarly productivity and teaching excellence with professional experience and accomplishment. Remarkably, less than half the nation s full-time and part-time architecture faculty members (some 48%) are licensed architects, according to data from the National Architectural Accrediting Board. 6 At the University of Hartford s Department of Architectural Engineering Technology more than 85% of the full-time faculty members are registered architects and 80 percent of the part-time architecture faculty members are registered architects or professional engineers. On a course by course basis, 90 percent of our courses are taught by either registered architects or professional engineers, all of which have current industrial experience. Strong connections to industry have developed because most of our full-time and part-time faculty work or consult with local architectural/engineering firms. The benefits include: relevant real-life project assignments, student employment opportunities, field trips to local offices and job sites, visiting critics and lecturers, student mentoring, and more. Educators and practitioners should help establish a more unified profession; one based on a new, more productive partnership between schools and the profession. The priorities for sustained action between the academy and the profession should include the strengthening the educational experience of students during school, creating a more satisfying system of internship after graduation, and extending learning throughout professional life. The new alliance or partnership between architects and educators should begin with enriching the daily activities and the curriculum of schools themselves. By involving practicing architects more often in studios and classrooms, and on committees that deliberate about and establish curriculum and school missions, a sense of shared purpose will develop. This relationship would be based on strengthening the profession and meeting the needs of future architects. The challenge of working on industrial projects and in close contact with architects and engineers, who themselves are concurrently working on the similar projects, provides valuable experience which can ease the post-graduate transition from student to employee.
Results suggest that efforts to enhance the value of teaching in AET programs cannot be addressed solely through efforts to reform the attitudes of existing faculty. Instead, adding experience in industry as an important criterion in the hiring new faculty and the awarding of tenure to existing faculty with industrial experience may be fundamental to changing the existing culture. These efforts would also place a greater emphasis on teaching, for studies have shown that industrially active teachers typically spend a greater percentage of their time on teaching above and beyond their work assignments. For those faculty members that are not actively involved we are creating continuing education opportunities, faculty/practice fellowships, faculty/practice mentorship, academy/firm workshops, and more engagement through professor in practice positions. Connecting Professionals with Academia Boyer and Mitgang discovered that architecture students, and faculty also, are too often disconnected from other disciplines, and distant from the social and cultural mainstream of campus life. At some schools, curriculum seems removed from the concerns of clients and the community at large. In a recent survey, 655 architectural professionals in California were asked what curricular areas needed to be improved at the school they attended. The four most frequently mentioned were business practice, practice realities, liberal studies, and marketing. 7 We have designed a course that addresses the concerns noted above while addressing ABET s concern for a comprehensive project-based capstone course. The course is Architectural Design V, and the course is described as an architectural design studio course with a focus on schematic design, design development and construction documents, including selected details of a commercial building. Emphasis will be in developing the student s ability to select, apply and evaluate materials and construction techniques for a design project based on the integration of elements of architectural design, structure and environmental systems, design factors, cost, specification and code applicability. The course is scheduled for 15 weeks and meets three times a week, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday afternoons from 1:30 to 5:00. The students are encouraged to do their work in the studio, to that end they are all provided with dedicated desks which are theirs for the semester. Each week has a different focus including site visits, plant visits, visiting experts, and design reviews. The semester is divided into three five week blocks as follows: Phase One: Site and Sustainability Concerns Week 1 Project Understanding and Site Visit Week 2 Green Building/LEED Professional Presentation/Review Week 3 Concrete Building Material Representative Presentation/Review Week 4 City Planner and Landscape Architect Presentation/Review Week 5 Preliminary Review Focused on Site Issues and Sustainability Phase Two: Preliminary Design Week 6 Code Reviewer and Facility Manager Presentation/Review Week 7 Structural Engineer Presentation/Review Week 8 Mechanical Engineer Presentation/Review Week 9 Real Estate Developer and Construction Manager Presentation/Review Week 10 Preliminary Review Focused on Building Design
Phase Three: Final Design Week 11 Model Maker/Renderer Presentation/Review Week 12 Writer/Editor Presentation/Review Week 13 Graphic Designer Presentation/Review Week 14 In-House Presentation Week 15 Final Presentation A typical week would have the invited expert come to class on Monday and give an overview presentation about their discipline. This would be followed by a question and answer session regarding the discipline as it relates to the construction industry. Then the expert would give a lecture about their discipline s specific influences and concerns for the project the students are designing, frequently involving handouts and/or slide presentations. On Wednesday the students would be required to take what was presented on Monday and start addressing that discipline s design concerns for their project with the assistance of their studio professor. On Friday the expert would be invited back and do one-to-one reviews with the individual students. At the end of that particular phase of the semester (week 5, 10, and 15) the invited experts would be invited back for a more formal pin-up review of the student projects. In most architecture schools, when students are asked to present their projects to juries, it is only to architects. Many design studios seem not to be living up to their vast potential as settings where integration of knowledge might be fostered. 8 But, in reality architects are frequently presenting their projects to financiers, developers, contractors, clients and others outside the immediate field of architecture. So our final jury includes architects but it also includes others from the construction industry such as sustainability experts, construction material experts, city planners, landscape architects, facility managers, engineers, real estate developers, and construction managers. Conclusion The curriculum should investigate and test ways that schools can effectively respond to the changing conditions of architectural practice. Students who work in studios with active professionals get exposure to an expanded view of the architectural process, from pre-design through post-construction. Accrediting agencies should increase the pressure on architecture and engineering programs to integrate relevant job-related skills into undergraduate curriculum. Academic institutions, when considering faculty for tenure, should also weigh the time spent in the active practice of architecture as scholarship worthy of merit. 9 The current tenure review process is forcing faculty to specialize, resulting in a faculty group of specialists who are more focused than you will find in most architectural or engineering offices. At the University of Hartford s Architectural Engineering Program we have experienced both the opportunities and challenges that come with starting any new program at a university. The research and evaluation provided by recent studies have been valuable to the architectural community at large but especially to us as we work to develop a meaningful architectural educational experience for our students. 1 Ernest L. Boyer and Lee D. Mitgang, Building Community A New Future for Architectural Education and Practice (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching) p.14.
2 Ibid., p. 16. 3 Ibid., p. 20. 4 Ibid., p. xiii. 5 Ibid., p 51. 6 Ibid., p 51. 7 Ibid., p. 69. 8 Ibid., p. 67. 9 Robert Ivy, Carnegie Study Sets Goals for Educating Architects: Calls for Renewal, Architectural Record, pp. 22 and 28.