Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

New 3+2 archi degrees

edited February 2008 in architecture
What's people's general perceptions on the new degree structure introduced by UNSW and USyd this year? Will it dramatically effect how people are taught?

Comments

  • edited 3:55AM
    under the direction and agreement of the aasa all architecture schools in australia and new zealand will move to the 3+2. so it will become the base standard. not much to discuss really....MArch becomes the base registration degree after 2009. we align with euro + usa + china.
  • edited March 2008

    Is there some sort of inflation (or deflation?) present with the archi degree. In the 1960s people graduated quite happily with a diploma. At some point soon after that was elevated to a Bachelors. Now the base degree is a Masters, which used to be an intense few years of self-guided work resulting in a thesis. I do hope that kids aren't graduating with doctorates in a few years. Then we will run out of higher levels.

    I was interested to hear Paul Walker talking about the 3+2 system at Melbourne Uni (at Process last Monday). I hadn't realised that after the first three years, when you get a Bachelor of the Environment (a new B.A.?) there is no guarantee that they'll be able to continue to Masters, in fact only sixty something percent will be permitted through the gate. The rest will apparently have to find something else interesting to do for a career.

    Somewhere I read that a "benefit" of the Melbourne Model was that the university would become more of a graduate school, leaving cheaper universities to do the dirty work of educating the undergraduates. As in the U.S.

    I guess this means that the students at 4th year level often won't know one another, and that a school will be less able to maintain a distinctive design culture?

  • edited 3:55AM
    I don't know when Australia switched to the model that is being phased out and replaced with 2+3's, but from my meagre research and past travels overseas, most universities have a 2+3 system and have had for bloomin years. It is the origin of the term 'undergraduate' since in the system your 'real' degree is awarded after you have done a masters which can only begin after you have completed the 'undergraduate' components. Here is a link to a powerpoint presentation from Melb Uni explaining the process quite clearly.
    http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=2+3+melbourne+model&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

    It is actually a 3+2+3 system where you do 3 years all round education before you begin to specialise. It makes sense to me because without a background in many ostensibly 'unrelated' subjects, it often comes too late for people to realise the applications possible with the degrees they eventually obtain. Specialisation from the begining creates insularity and this in turn 'dumbs down' the research possibilties for those who reach the doctorate stages of their education. This implies that many graduates used to stop at the degree stage because they can see no point in going further or they can't see that there is a further to go.
    Melb Uni would of course benefit financially if more students went further with their education but really the point is that a broader education will create broad mindedness within the community of graduates. This has to be a good thing regardless of other considerations, if only that graduates of architecture will charge more for their more valuable services.
Sign In or Register to comment.