Expantion and diversity: On the footsteps of architectural education
A few days ago the online course Rethink the City: New Approaches to Global and Local Urban Challenges ended. This simple event is not as important as what it made me think about. The session was offered by TU Delft through edX, educational platform, and was free of charge. Anyone could participate by using edX’s website, which provides access to different courses, from a wide range of renowned universities such as MIT, ETH, Harvard and Oxford. What impressed me about this course, in particular, was the number of people it attracted. I have been part of online courses in the past (using both coursera.com and edX.org) but I never paid attention to how many people were in the class - heck of a virtual classmate I was. But with Rethink the City, I was surprised to find out that more than 9,000 people from 160 different countries registered, and that got me thinking. In a normal architecture degree, there are nowhere near that many people in one year, let alone one module. So how does online education change the way in which we gain access to higher learning and; In what way are we using technology to create new spaces for learning?
As a recent master degree graduate, it is easy to think back and analyse the experience of university, the physical one, and compare it with the sensation and amount learned through online courses, the virtual university. However, before getting into the atmosphere, I would like to talk about architecture education in general.
Britain has some of the best architectural and engineering courses in the world. Although shiny on the surface, there is a debate regarding their ability to prepare students for the scenarios faced by the real world practitioners. This topic has triggered reactions from practices and academics which are attempting to move things forward, towards what I would consider a Nouveau Beaux Art movement. Each of those attempts would still need to be marked by current qualification models est. 1950 by the RIBA in order to provide validation for students. In the 60+ years since this system has been in use, results have been marked by high levels of debt accumulated by students and complaints of ill-equipped graduates. It is considered by many that the UK's system of training future architects has focused more on academic education and less on providing a platform for future professionals.
Faced with those problems, would it be easier to say that it should all be handed over to the internet and its way of teaching?
There are plenty of online platforms that provide access to university level information. As I mentioned before, there are websites that provide a range of courses, some specialised (The Meaning of Rome: The Renaissance and Baroque city) and other more general (Smart City). Those virtual libraries of courses allow users to access the material for free and if certification is required, pay for it. Recently they even began packaging multiple courses in a 'Program' in order to deliver what I would consider specialisations. An online masters degree can be obtained from any number of established, real world universities which ensure classes are recorded, streamed or physical attendance reduced, in order to making it easier for long distance learning. Sessions like those provided by the Masterclass platform are becoming more and more popular. They enable students, professionals and non-architects to connect with big names such as Frank ‘Middle Finger Up’ Gehry which can provide valuable insight into the world of successful practices and what it takes to get there. Those are opportunities for everyone to learn things from people which have seen it all, done it all and succeeded.
The combination of all those resources begins to dissolve the walls full of pins and segments of torn paper, prints and napkins scribbled on and replace them with series of 1s and 0s. Most of the work produced today by architects is digital. Printing is for reviews and presentations, sketching is for those who still possess the skill - as it is definitely not part of the curriculum anymore - and model making, unfortunately, for deeper pockets, especially in London. So where would the drawback be? The obvious answer is that no one will recognise, at this point at least, an architecture degree obtained solely on online experience.
It can be argued that if face-to-face is the make or break in this deal than technology is again only one click away. VR devices are beginning to scratch the surface in terms of what the future holds. All of us can imagine Start Treck and interactive holograms but those moments are not too far away. By 2019 it is predicted that the VR industry would be worth $15.9 billion. With Google, Samsung and Facebook leading the way and platforms such as AltspaceVR and LectureVR developing learning platforms, new possibilities emerge in terms of face-to-face interaction during tutorials and crits. Furthermore, those platforms could not exist in isolation and the people cannot wonder about in the dark virtual space, just like uni feels like sometimes in real life. People need an environment to manifest their virtual existence. Instead of trying to come up with the next big idea for that, why not use one that someone has thought about earlier. Games such as Second Life and Minecraft are existing worlds which provide an environment for virtual beings to exist. The increased advantage for architects and engineers would be that in those virtual environments designs can be made, tested and changed much quicker, at no cost and with relatively increased accuracy. Arguments about a lack of experience in built projects, GONE! By the time students graduate from 'university', they have the experience of three or four built projects.
However, it could be argued that even that would not be enough. Those are still design or academic orientated environments. There are no policies to be respected, no regulations to be complied with.
This is where Part 3 of the RIBA comes into play. Obviously each city, country or region has different rules which would be inefficient to code as the design will need to be built in the real world, for now at least. Over the years I have heard from many acquaintances and friends, which have completed the validation process in the UK, that the Part 3 is when candies start falling from the sky and students begin to bring things together. But many do not make it so far due to money, time or lack of hope for a light at the end of the tunnel. Whichever the case may be, it seems like the business side of architecture is an afterthought. As many of us know, clients do not just start pouring in the minute the door is open. Therefore understanding the process and seeing the good, the bad and the ugly in procuring work, structuring the company, marketing, business ethics, fees, staff, client, insurance and team building is essential. Those elements provide future professionals with the tools needed to establish a flourishing company.
What about the atmosphere of studying at a physical university?
At this point, I will jump back to what I was saying at the start. The digital is promising a future in which things are done differently but I believe that the physical will be a tough act to replace. While at university, in bother undergrad and postgrad, I was able to gain experience and talk to people outside the classroom. Have ideas during random conversations and make connections during spontaneous encounters. When I undertook the online courses I was more focused on the task at hand. I did the work needed and left the website. It can be argued that it was a missed opportunity as there can be much learned from other people. I agree with that but for me, going on the forum and starting conversations would have been another task rather than leisure time as in the case of those idea sparking conversations I had at uni. Plus, most of the time the work I did was during the night, after a full day work, in which case BED was a much more familiar thought. However, if those sessions were part of the university degree, not and additional project, the involvement level would have been higher.
So what does that mean? Would universities begin to accept mixed degrees? Would there be university programs where students can take five core modules and then another five from other online sources in order to complete the required credits? Would people be able to connect from far away places and have tutorials using VR while still receiving the same attention their class counterparts do? Maybe. Maybe this will lead to lower fees making the entire process more affordable. Maybe the answer to all those questions is based on what we decide to do next.
I think that education, in general, is a robust industry, particularly the architectural one. On the surface, it changes, adapts and keeps up with the time only to find out that the foundation is in the same place it was a long time ago and it is showing signs of deterioration. It is not easy to move such a solid mass but it is possible. In the pursuit of training the next generation, there can be no doubt that things need to change, diversify and expand. However, after years of flatlining, it must be accepted that the status quo will not result in progress. Innovation and adaptation are not needed anymore but demanded in order to build a better tomorrow, starting today.
