Opinion On UoA School of Architecture and Planning (SoAP)
Looking back at the architecture studio experience I had, it probably wasn't as good as we were convinced it was. Young students spend their youthful years tweaking CAD, gluing models and conjuring images that are already abundant everywhere on websites like Pinterest and Instagram (only much better!), and now AI can generate them.... than to find companies only hire graduates with 5 years of consenting experience (when they hiring), and there are 500+ applications.
I mean I could have spent some time to improve myself on read/write properly, learn excel/accounting, make public speech, AI, investment, or find a part-time job and get into the workforce earlier make connections etc. But year after year of repetitive design labor, confusions with briefs and terminologies, ambiguity and emotional struggle with the ones whose supposed to "teach/mentor" us have slowly made me adapt to "Stockholm syndrome" like a coping mechanism, just to survive until graduation. Contrast to how much and fast the world around us is changing in the last couple of years makes me feel very deprived.
A couple of lucky ones still land a job with local firms, or return as tutor, but if you feel that you're not that well connected to the school and the industry (everyone knows everyone, as they proudly announce to newcomers), seriously you need to wake up. Just look up what Stockholm syndrome means.
"Stockholm syndrome is a coping mechanism where captives or abuse victims develop deep emotional bonds, sympathy, or feelings of loyalty toward their captors. It acts as a survival strategy, usually developing when a victim interprets a lack of abuse as kindness or relies entirely on the abuser for basic needs."
There is a lot of blame on funding cuts and bad decisions from university's administration. But really it's the faculty's lack of passion and ingenuity. If they were able to create real value for students, funding and admin decisions would naturally be in their favor. If they are genuinely passionate and have the right methodology in teaching, I don't understand how merging into Eng. or losing a dedicated library would impede their duties.
Instead there is actually only a few lecturers has robust and up to date architectural knowledge (winning an argument against them is so easy, it feels sad), but all most all of them are just bad at teaching (Performative critique, soundbites, namedrops, bad at explaining, misinterpret others‘ ideas, reusing obsolete ideas for years, hallucinations, inconsistency, defensive, arrogant against learners, and worst of all habitual gaslighting). Some are just straight mean and viscous, especially towards non-locals.
I'm pro art and theory though, I think the UoA is on the right track on this one. It's not like people saying UoA is impractical. UoA students are very keen on developing their pragmatic skills, and I think they are naturally just more keen on learning. As for an architect/individual, the ability to make sound aesthetic judgment, have overarching foresights, and asking/solving metaphysical questions for the built environment are much more valuable skills then just consenting skills, in the long run.
However, many people, including the lecturers, don't understand the genuine underlying cause of why art theory and philosophy is this architecture school's strength. They use this abstract artistic flair as a firewall against criticisms toward their lack practical morality (lack from faculty not students). The infamous arcane "Archi-talk" is still treasured by many of the faculty members to build a mystic aura around themselves just to appear glamorous and cloak their lack of substance.
They use mysticism and ambiguity to maintain statues above students as an end goal. Like they are happy as long as students don't raise questions they struggle to answer or produce content that test their knowledge base. (if they tell you that you "often ask good questions" or "there are no stupid questions", it's not a compliment, it's a warning gaslight, and you should run.) Our strength are turning into our weakness, which allow other schools to arbitrage it (fleeing students), and guess who to blame.
Young students graduate and you never hear from them again, except the ones who maintained a good connection with the permanent faculty members (which essentially just assimilated as their pets). Pretty sure a few lucky ones got what they wanted, but looking at the survival rate, suddenly you understand what people mean when they say this place has been deteriorating and failing its students.
There is an example how things are failing, but not for the reason people think:
The studio is neither too big or too small, it was a place with ample space and amenities so people could stay longer and concentrate better (provided they know what they are doing). The impression of it's under utilization has multiple underlying causes:
- People don't really understand the intrinsic value of hands-on work and teamwork. They were just doing it because they were told to, it's the norm, or it feels like a privilege and looks cute. They lose interest over time. The faculty failed to mentor this, or they simply don't care neither. They just want the studio to look filled when someone inspect, so they can keep the space and maintain their own relevance.
- The amount of confusion, isolation, and ambiguity in students' learning both in and outside the studio cause learners to lose focus and will of rigorous pursuit which are vital in project oriented learning environment (studio design last whole semester, every semester, every year, for 5 years). So, even surrounded with the conveniences of computers, big screens, modeling gadgets, reference pictures on the wall, and appliances they brought with them, they don't have a reliable knowledge path toward their set goals. The lack of teaching skills and robust and structured learning framework is to blame (not to mention the occasional cheaters). Their "eight aspects of learning outcome" or whatever they call it is just a marking checklist for themselves, not an adequate educational framework to ensure effectiveness.
- There is no healthy learning partnership, which leads to disingenuous interactions that slowly but surely deteriorate the studio atmosphere. Students get their ideas brutally trashed, sabotaged and gaslighted by their teachers, because their teachers need to maintain "status" above learners at all times (I literally heard them express their concern of losing status in a big lecture). Over time, students adapt to this pseudo-intellectual mentality and start to abuse each other with it, which causes defensiveness and blocks the flow of ideas and partnership. For example, I often see engineering students form spontaneous groups to discuss engineering principles and their own perspectives and encourage each other. But when I talk about architectural theories with students they often get disinterested and frustrated, as nobody really cares and asking critical questions is a teacher's privilege. Tutors tell you critical questions ≠ criticism but never a sound explanation to students of why.
That is just the tip of the iceberg of the problems here.
Many of this is because students come and go and there is no platform or mechanism for them to accumulate reflections and recursively improve their understanding of the underlying causes. On the other hand, the bad actors of the faculty get to get away with what they do, stay indefinitely and get paid to bully students year after year, decide how to spend all the money, then blame everything on the university administration.
This got to change.
PS: I graduate almost 3 years ago and happily employed as Airbnb property manager.