26
Sept 2008 -
Mike writes:
Hi Matt,
I'm O-Archy on the DC blog, and I'm heeding your call to request information...
I'd like to clarify a few points, your graphics leave out the bottom end,
those who graduate and then become licensed, correct? Is that the info
missing?
We need transparency on the statistics for how many graduates sit for
and then pass the exams, regardless of how many times / divisions they
succeed / fail at... I hope that is the info you're attempting to gain.
Please let me know if this is correct, and if you have a scripted form
of request, then I can just copy it into the e.mail I send. I'll be glad
to mass e.mail a call to action on the part of my colleagues around the
Intermountain west. If this is confusing please help me understand...
Architecture Matters.
Regards,
Mike
Mike --
Thanks for your interest, it's very encouraging.
Here's the deal. NCARB publishes the pass rates by division for
the ARE. They don't publish what the final results are. I want to
know how long the graduates of each accredited program are taking
to complete their IDP and pass the ARE in it's entirety. There are
half as many new licensees as graduates currently. What's happening?
Somebody knows the answers, they should be public. How long are
graduates taking to take and pass the exam, and how many of them
are doing it?
If you write to them, I'd simply say something like
I'm writing because the Request for Information prepared by Matthew
Arnold that has been submitted to the IDP Advisory Committee.
Please take action to provide the information that Matt has requested.
We need to know how the IDP is working.---
Please tell anyone you know who might be interested about this.
--
Matt |
|
29
Sept 2008 -
D. Peter Bacot writes:
Matt,
I look forward to an article breaking-down the data into an analysis.
Such would be from someone's point of view certainly, but could help point
out what the data is saying in general and how one might understand a
particular college is performing in different areas. And how NCARB and
the ARE are performing.
I suppose it can be argued that the colleges are not meant to be the whole
picture for passing the ARE. However it's obvious that poor performance
by significant number of graduates, with varying experiences post-graduation,
shows there's a deficiency that must be attributed to the college.
Anyway there's a lot of data to be worked by someone with knowledge of
the system.
If a college fails a large number of students (dropouts mostly) is it
because of justifiable rigor or something else? Does a low acceptance
rate say anything except there are too many applicants and the college
is too popular (whether deservedly or not)?
I have worked in the small firm side of the business, and cut a niche
for myself working freelance for architects and my own residential design
business. It is almost a second career, although I did not really have
a career before. At this late time I am finally taking the ARE. It's almost
more of a personal thing than a business solution. I've had some wonderful
bosses while with firms, but I wonder if one had spent one half day at
the beginning only for training and discussion of method and protocol--what
we might have done. Together we sometimes got into office procedure discussions
at lunch and tried to revamp the scrawled checklists. I undertook, myself
, to write protocol papers, filing systems, checklist etc. but, although
the boss might check them and "accept" them, they weren't supported
as something we had to follow or learn (except the filing--when you simply
can't find something, it's bad). All these efforts would be spurred by
failings in the practice, where we did not do the right research or notify
the client on critical issues for example. Sometimes there would be some
impetus from on top, but it's almost always just a short-lived effort
due to exasperation with poor drawings etc.
And then there's the learning of Practice itself. I don't know HOW people
get this, but obviously they eventually do. It reminds me how my parents
NEVER discussed or explained our family finances with us kids. We never
knew what they dealt with to raise a family, though they did it well in
all other aspects, and we started out pretty naive about it all.
Good luck on your book.
Peter
Well said Peter. I suspect your experience is not uncommon. We certainly
have a target-rich environment for improvement.
--
Matt |
|
4
September 2008
This
is an email inquiry for Stephen Kieran, James Timberlake, and Max
Underwood
I recently learned from AIA KnowledeNet about the Deep
Matters Seminar that you conducted at Cranbrook Acadamy this
past June, regarding deep research. I'm curious about how Cranbrook
came to be the chosen venue -- Cranbrook is not included in the
list of institutions with an accredited program of architecture
by the NAAB. Am I incorrect to think this choice speaks clearly
about the relationship of research in architectural education as
an informant of architecture in practice.
I'd also be interested to know the how many practicing architects
were included among the participants of the conference. Is this
information available?
Can you point me to the document that defines architectural research?
Thanks in advance,
Matthew Arnold AIA
|
4 September 2008 - James Timberlake
FAIA writes:
Thursday
Mr. Arnold:
ACSA (Associated Collegiate Schools of Architecture) has been holding
Cranbrook Conferences at The Cranbrook School for nearly 30 years. The
AIA has jointly participated, and has advertised these, during many of
the years, particularly the last two which addressed architectural education,
and this year on research. The AIA and ACSA over the past decade have
developed a more collaborative and close relationship. With regard to
how many practitioners were there, I would say out of roughly 100 participants
about 30-40% held some professional relationship, either in tandem w/teaching
or as sole practitioners.
ACSA also works with their Canadian counterparts to create similar conferences
– ACADIA is a joint conference of the North American Collegiate
Schools of Architecture usually held in the fall and over the years has
had research as a component.
Cranbrook is available, central and generally convenient to the vast majority
of the 48 states. That is one of the reasons it has been held there; the
other is that the Saarinen's, Eames' and others created a culture of collaboration
which is deeply held and nourished even today, that other public venues
and educational institutions only aspire to.
With regard to proceedings there will be soon an outcome which will be
made public. In the spring 2009, Stephen Kieran, Max Underwood and I as
co-chairs will be presenting the results to the AIA convention as one
of the seminar topics.
Personally, I don't think your 'read' is correct and the tone of the message,
if I read it correctly, is also off a bit as well.
These conferences are widely advertised for participation and inclusion
in a variety of venues and we're deeply sorry if you missed any of these
advertisements.
We trust you will sign up for the venue in the spring in San Francisco.
Regards,
James
| Thank
you James.
I'm very interested in reading the final papers, and I would love
to be there in San Francisco. Please include me in upcoming notices.
--
Matt |
|
26
August 2008 - Jim Drebelbis writes:
Thank you for
taking the time to correspond and share your findings. These articles
extremely interesting and verify what I have suspected for many years.
My own education was in Architectural Engineering at the University of
Kansas. When I applied to take the professional Architectural exam in
Michigan, I was told that I was not qualified, would have to take the
qualifying exam (not required at the time for those with an Architectural
education but now a requirement), and serve a 3-year apprenticeship before
taking the professional exam. I did that, and passed all exams on the
first try. I maintain that the ArchE education better prepares individuals
to practice architecture.
I am continually amazed by practicing Architects' lack of knowledge of
technology, professional practice, law, and their responsibilities to
their clients, the project and the public. Although this situation is
appalling, it provides a continuous stream of work in the forensic, diagnostic
and expert witness field. To my surprise, rather than being a stogy, backwater
area of practice, I have found it to be exciting and challenging area
with unlimited variety. Much more fun and fast paced than traditional
practice (which I did for 15 years). I also know that if schools of architecture
and engineering prepared their students better, I would have less work.
But it would be a small sacrifice because the world be better for the
change.
I occasionally conduct cont. ed courses for professionals but I wish there
more I could do to bring awareness to the profession, to make a change
in this area. But when you are trying to run a business, it is difficult
to conduct a crusade in a challenge I compare to herding marbles up a
hill.
You did not share your credential and interest in this topic. You raise
my curiosity.
Thank you again for taking the time.
Jim Drebelbis
I'm an architect in private practice in Virginia. I was curious
about the ARE pass rates by school and was dumbfounded to learn
that NCARB and NAAB do not track it. Moreover they seem affronted
that I would ask for it. This is in contrast to the medical profession,
for example, where the schools advertise pass rates as a part of
their recruiting efforts.
So I drew pictures of the information I could get my hands on and
am going to ask them for the rest. We'll see what happens..
--
Matt |
|
29
August 2008 - Gregory La Vardera writes:
Its staggering.
I love theoretical design, but what does it mean if the model we demonstrate
to our students says that to pursue design you don't need to practice,
you don't need to prepare to practice. We aspire to become more and more
irrelevant to the industry in which we work.
Greg |
~ |
