Perhaps one of the most noble acts of architects is their ability to integrate societies and communities. Taking into consideration the many facets of the holistic well-being of an individual all the way to a community and stitching that together to integrate them.
But why is there a disparity between the different respects in architecture school and sometimes in the work place? Why the lack of integration between The Bachelor of Architecture students/graduates, Architectural Technology students/graduates, and Interior Design students/graduates?
Our classical training are different parts of the same whole so why the segregation? Our syllabuses are isolated, there is no collaborating amongst us in architecture school. The challenges of making that happen are undoubtedly tough but there must a be a way right?
A classmate of mine came up with an idea where the BAS students would be in charge of the design aspect of a project which would then be technically resolved and detailed by the Technology students, and finally have the interiors designed by the Interior Design students. This taking place across one whole year and each department would be involved at all levels for consultation and participation reasons.
That way we would know each other on a personal and professional level, expand our networking, and learn from each other. But instead there is undermining and contempt between the different disciplines. When it is pin-up time students veer across to view their counterparts' work and more often than not the feedback is negative and downright ridiculing. The technology students do not understand how the BAS students get away with murder in their designs because most of what they see is simply unfeasible. The reverse is true.
What this has lead to is undermining of one another. Is that the fault of the way the course is structured though or could it be a more inherent societal reality? Could socioeconomic class-ism be deeply embedded in the segregation? From mere observation the BAS students generally come from old money, wealth, basically the upper economic class. The Technology students consist of children of the working class and some from the middle class. The Interior students generally middle class. This does not apply to everybody, of course, but it is a generalization. In this case then that cannot be blamed on anybody because, left on their own, people will organize each other based on familiarity and relatability.
But the students and working professionals are not undermining one another based on socio-economic class - At least I hope not. They judge one another across disciplines. So why is this? Though this may not be visibly obvious but the more we fraternise across disciplines the more you pick up the nuances, micro-aggressions, and misconceptions. This is when you start to hear things like; "Of course I want to do my masters. I don't want to be 'JUST A TECHNOLOGIST'. To things like 'They don't even know how their designs work' to 'what do they even do?'.
Is it about who brings in the most money? This is a business after all. But that has nothing to do with the students. Is it qualification preference and prestige? i.e. A Degree is more prestigious than a Diploma, right? Or is it about difficulty? All three disciplines have challenges tailored to fit the specifics of their inherent structure/nature. Is it workload? Perhaps a bias but from my perspective the technology students have a greater spectrum of work to cover, inevitably meaning a greater workload. When you hear how often BAS students go out and how seldom they are in the building it is easy to reach that conclusion. But they could argue that they work from home as a result of being better resourced.
What would be the least biased factor that can determine which discipline is harder or more important or perhaps one that has the greatest utility. (I do not even want to get into all the disparaging comments and perceptions about interior design, they are infuriating to them)
Clearly the attempt at integration with the 'Ice Breaker' is not a success. What I did find to be a massive success at integration is the collaboration Office Simulation Project between the B-Tech Tech and 2nd year Technology students. We get to know each other both professionally and personally. The greatest success is the continued communication between the two classes for things like guidance. This is a great model for integration, I don't know if the other disciplines have an exercise similar to this in place or not but wouldn't it be great if it were adopted across disciplines as well?
It is when you start getting questions like; "Why do you guys hate us so much?" and "Why are you guys always ridiculing our work?", that you can no longer speculate but be sure that there is a palpable tension. That is why I finally decided to investigate this dynamic.
All of that being said...I have always wondered why it is that the Technology students have to qualify with an average of 65 percent to join the BAS side. Clearly this implies a hierarchy. More pressing, why must we qualify with an average of 65 when you will be in a class with some students who might've passed with a 50 percent? Why that disparity?
If there is a hierarchy then why is it that it is commonly understood and accepted that Technology students invariably get better marks and it is said that they produce superior work to that of the BAS students in the class. If that stands then clearly the hierarchy is fallible and we shouldn't have to qualify if we want to change disciplines.
At a professional level, I have heard stories of Senior Technologists that get berated so much in the workplace that they decide to go back to school to pursue their Masters in Architecture. Just like I have heard people's stories of how when they finally start working at a firm they are completely useless.
The Interior Design Students hear comments about how they are decorators and not designers, despite the word 'design' appearing in the course title. They also hear about how Interior design does not have the three fundamental pillars that make up architecture and their course is therefore not architectural. Whether that is a fact or not, I do not know but I am simply highlighting the lack of cohesion.
Well this has been a presentation of the observed and questions. In the next segment expect to see some answers and exploration of what might be causing the rift. More importantly, whether or not the current situation is justified. Bis zum nächsten Mal
Comments