Other ACSA Websites

Study Architecture ProPEL

2014 ACSA Board Candidates

/in /by

NEW ONLINE VOTING
Below is information for the 2014 ACSA elections, including candidate information (links). Official ballots were emailed to Faculty Councilors of each full-member school. The Faculty Councilor from each ACSA full-member school is the voting representative. Faculty Councilors must complete the online ballot by 5pm PT, February 14, 2014.
 

2014 ACSA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
The President-Elect will serve on the Board for a three-year term, beginning on July 1, 2014, with the first year served as Vice President, the second year served as President, and the third year served as Past President. The links below include campaign statements written by each candidate and short curriculum vitae.


Peter B. MacKeith II, Washington University in St. Louis



Marilys R. Nepomechie, FAIA, Florida International University


2014 ACSA SECRETARY ELECTION
The Secretary serves for a two-year term, beginning on July 1, 2014. The links below include campaign statements written by each candidate and short curriculum vitae.

 


Gregory A. Luhan, University of Kentucky


Edward Mitchell, Yale University


2014 ACSA REGIONAL DIRECTOR ELECTIONS
The Regional Director will serve on the Board for a three-year term, beginning on July 1, 2014. Regional Directors serve as leaders of their regional constituent associations and chair meetings of their respective regional councils. They maintain regional records and have responsibility for the fiscal affairs of the constituent associations, and are accountable to their regional council for these funds. They provide assistance to regional schools and organizations applying for institutional membership. They prepare annual reports of regional activities for publication in the Association’s Annual Report. They participate in the nomination and election of their respective succeeding regional directors; and perform such other duties as may be assigned by the board, Regional Directors also sit on the ACSA board and are required to attend up to three board meetings a year. The links below include campaign statements written by each candidate and short curriculum vitae.

 

2013 Northeast Candidates


John Cays, New Jersey Institute of Technology


Patricia Seitz, Massachusetts College of Art and Design


2013 Mid Atlantic Candidates

 


Craig S. Griffen, Philadelphia University


Carlos A. Reimers, Catholic University of America


ACSA ELECTION PROCESS
Faculty Councilors of member schools shall be responsible for encouraging colleagues to express their views regarding candidates for Association elections, and shall submit the vote of the member school they represent on behalf of all members of the faculty. The Association shall announce the results of elections and appointments as soon as feasible, consistent with the Rules of the Board of Directors.
The Faculty Councilor from each ACSA full-member school is the voting representative. Faculty Councilors must complete the online ballot by 5pm PT, February 14, 2014.

 

2014 ACSA BOARD ELECTION TIMELINE

January 16, 2014
 Ballots emailed to Faculty Councilors at full-member schools
February 15, 2014, 5pm PT
 Deadline for submission of online ballots
April 2014
 Winners announced at ACSA Annual Business Meeting in Miami Beach, FL

The Faculty Councilor from each ACSA full-member school is the voting representative and must completed the online ballot by 5pm PT, February 14, 2014.  

CONTACT
Eric Ellis, ACSA Director of Operations and Programs

Open-Source Architecture: Housing Crisis Solution or More Potential Harm than Good?

/in /by

Barbara Opar and Barret Havens, column editors
Article submitted by Barret Havens, Assistant Professor and Outreach Librarian, Woodbury University

Over the last decade the web has become synonymous with user-contributed content. The architecture-related realm of cyberspace is no exception. Blogs, e-zines, and wikis like Archiplanet and Archdaily invite users to comment on articles or even, in the case of the former, to author articles themselves. Like the controversy surrounding the reliability of Wikipedia, sites such as these have sparked debate and pose a challenge for librarians, professors and students alike when considering their usefulness–or lack thereof–in an academic context. With such publications, authority, accuracy, and even ethics have sometimes taken a backseat to convenience of access and speed of publication. Take, for instance, Archdaily’s admission of plagiarism when its publishers incorporated, without proper attribution, bits and pieces of an article that originally appeared in Architectural Record. (But even The New York Times and some noteworthy scholarly publications have admitted similar or even more egregious errors so critical thinking should not be reserved for any particular format of publishing.)

Lately, user-contributed architecture-related content has taken on a 3rd dimension: actual files that can be downloaded and used to produce structures. For example, the website Wikihouse, whose stated goal is to “allow anyone to design, download and ‘print’ CNC milled houses and components which can be assembled with minimal formal skills and training,” provides such files. The .dxf format cutting files the site makes available are capable of guiding a router as it cuts out what resemble plywood pieces of an oversized jigsaw puzzle. Pieces are combined to form components of the structure analogous to ribs that are light enough to be put into place by two people, and most joints are designed to function effectively without bolts, screws, or nails. Instead, a single peg hammered in with a wooden mallet (both of which can be printed using the router) joins pieces of the design.

The ease of production and assembly of these structures has profound implications, especially with regard to housing challenges in crisis areas where war, natural disaster, and poverty have ravaged the landscape. With a personal computer, a router, and a supply of plywood, housing could be produced so rapidly that the term “viral architecture” comes to mind.

But as the term “viral” can suggest an innocuous phenomenon that spreads rapidly, or, alternately, something that is capable of causing harm, we may consider the Wikihouse approach to design in a similar light. The potential harm lies in the lack of quality control.  Wikihouse offers an affordable means to quick housing. But it offers little in the way of process or standards for testing and improving design.

For instance, though the Wikihouse website offers a status for each house design indicating whether it has been structurally checked, tested, or built, this author could find no qualifications for what constitutes a successful structural check or test. Furthermore, there are few critical details regarding the construction process–prospective builders who visit the site are provided with only the name of the informal organization that attempted construction and a very brief synopsis of their experience. In the case of the “Makerfaire Pavilion” design, for example, a team calling themselves “SketchUp” offered the following bit of helpful, albeit scant, advice: “we had problems with having to build onto improvised block footings, in future, be sure to establish a level surface or beam to make assembly easier (in the end, a car jack was used). A weak floor joint has been corrected in this model.” Not a lot to go on for a project that involves the production and assembly of dozens of interlocking pieces. (It should be noted, however, that further advice might be sought through the Google Groups forums where the Wikihouse community discussions take place.)

Furthermore, only very basic principles and guidelines, along with some drawings providing examples of well-designed details, are offered by the Wikihouse site. With regard to safety, Wikihouse offers the following advice, the brevity and vagueness of which suggest its appropriateness as a fortune cookie fortune: “design in such a way as to offer maximum provision for the safety, security and health.”

Wikihouse’s relaxed approach to process and critique is not much of an endorsement to one whom might consider dedicating a serious stack of plywood and a couple days’ worth of effort. But the potential benefit of evolving and implementing these designs, especially in the aforementioned areas of great need, warrants continued exploration. In light of this, and the strong emphasis on social responsibility and problem-based learning in academic architecture programs around the world, could the dilemma of quality control posed by open source architecture present a learning opportunity? What if architecture students were to engage, through their coursework, in building, testing, and improving these open source designs? A student-led peer-review process could further the proliferation of a beneficial viral architecture in areas where housing solutions are desperately needed, improving the lives of thousands, if not millions.

 

University at Buffalo

/in /by

Dean Robert Shibley was a member of the conference organizing committee for the 2013 Remaking Cities Conference in Pittsburgh, PA., which convened urbanists and leaders last fall from around the world to assess and share best practices for the future of post-industrial cities. Sponsored by the Remaking Cities Institute of Carnegie Mellon University and the American Institute of Architects, the first Remaking Cities Conference was held in Pittsburgh in 1988 to address the precipitous decline of industrial cities and regions and North American and Europe in the 1980s. Shibley presented “Post-Industrialism and the Physical City,” a case study on Buffalo and its resurgence based on a legacy of historic architecture and world-class urban design and a community-driven planning framework that has facilitated investment in the urban core. The Buffalo case study, along with Germany’s Ruhr Valley, was also explored through a workshop on community-building strategies for the post-industrial city, with topics including urban design, preservation, infill development strategies, and the role of industrial legacies in urban regeneration.

Also this past fall, Shibley participated in the Legacy City Design Bruner Loeb Forum in Detroit, MI. The forum convened change agents in urban design, architecture, planning and community leadership to share best practices, learn from failed implementation and brainstorm new innovations in design and development that address the common issues of chronic population loss and excessive land vacancy in the rustbelt cities of Southeast Michigan, Northeast Ohio and Upstate New York. Shibley presented “Vacancy, Density, and New Neighborhoods,” addressing innovative strategies in infill development and urban design in Buffalo. The Bruner Loeb Forum is a partnership between the Rudy Bruner Award for Urban Excellence and the Loeb Fellowship Program that brings together distinguished practitioners from across the country to advance creative thinking about placemaking in American cities. The Legacy City Design forum was hosted by the J. Max Bond Center on Design for the Just City, The City College of New York Spitzer School of Architecture, The American Assembly at Columbia University and the Detroit Collaborative Design Center.

Research Associate Professor Bradshaw Hovey was a participant in both conferences and will co-author a book chapter on the Remaking Cities conference with Shibley. Professor Emeritus Lynda Schneekloth was also an invited participant in the Remaking Cities conference.

In December, Christopher Romano attended final reviews at both University of Detroit Mercy (second year) and Alfred State University (third year).

2014 Haiti Summer Studio Ð Call for Participation

/in /by

Submission Deadline: February 19, 2014

The 2014 Haiti Summer Studio is a public-interest design education and service-learning project organized through a partnership with Howard University (HU), Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), and conducted with University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) with support from the Fetzer Institute. The 2014 Haiti Summer Studio is the continuation of the “2011 Haiti Idea Challenge” where students were challenged to design permanent solutions to rebuild the infrastructure, cities, neighborhoods and structures affected by the 2010 earthquake. 

The 6-credit architectural studio, under the auspices of the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), will expose up to 16 students to readings, design exercises, and a two week trip to work with local organizations and schools in Haiti on a design project that will help residents develop the capacity to improve their daily lives through architectural solutions. Through this service learning opportunity, students will be exposed to educational content that fosters awareness of the power of love and forgiveness in the emerging global community. The outcomes of the studio will be documented and published by the ACSA as a model for other schools to use service learning to implement collaborative and participatory design processes that empower local citizens and foster community resilience.

The studio will be led by Professor Lynne M. Dearborn of University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), School of Architecture and the project led by the partnership of Professors Edward Dunson, Victor Dzidzienyo and Bradford Grant of Howard University  (HU) School of Architecture and Design along with Michael Monti and Eric Ellis of the ACSA. A three-person committee will review the applications and select students to participate.

Curriculum for Service Learning
The curriculum is composed of a four preparatory workshops in early May 2014 conducted via electronic communications and an eight-week studio course in June and July. Students and faculty will travel to Haiti during two of the eight weeks.

Four Preliminary Preparatory workshops, late spring 2014
These digital workshops will include readings and discussion of Haiti and travel along with Exposing students to the principles of love, forgiveness, and compassion

Eight-Week Studio (June 2–July 26, 2014)

(June 2-7, 2014) First week spent in Champaign (UIUC).
Doing research and beginning to practice journaling, meditative sketching and drawing, and initial work on the design project.

(June 8-22, 2014) Two weeks spent in Haiti.
 Initial activities include working with the local school of architecture to understand the experience and processes of Haitian students, participating in a short-term design charrette. Remaining activities will involve working with a rural community on a design project linked to the efforts of one or more NGOs in Haiti. Throughout students will continue discussions of collaborative and participatory design processes and carry out the reflective journaling and sketching.

(June 23-July 26, 2014) Final five weeks spent in Champaign (UIUC).
 Completing the remaining work on the Haiti design project, keeping up communications with Haiti contacts, developing perspectives on how to generalize the design and interaction processes the students experienced in Haiti, and preparing their final design projects for sharing with Haitian-American communities and other architecture schools. 

Call for Participation
Eligibility: Students who will be entering their 4th, 5th, or 6th year of a professional architecture education, in the Fall of 2014, are invited to apply for a position in the 2014 Haiti Summer Studio, June 2–July 26, 2014.  

Application Requirements:

  • Academic Record updated academic transcript(s) including all coursework that is being applied to applicant’s current academic architectural program.
  • 300 word (max) essay describing your background, skills, career interests within architecture, and why you should be considered.
  • Letter of Recommendation from a Faculty Sponsor (1-page, includes student’s range of interest, knowledge, and experience)
  • Sample of Free-hand Sketching demonstrating ability (3-page max)

What’s in it for the students?

  • A rich educational experience, helping students develop reflective design process
  • 6 studio credits
  • A trip to Haiti
  • Portfolio and resume builder
  • Direct experience in participatory and collaborative design with local Haitian residents

Student Expectations

  • Ability to pay University of Illinois UC tuition & fees (expected tuition & fees: undergraduate IL residents $3,045, non-residents $5652; graduate IL residents $3,616, non-residents $6,934)
  • Ability to secure housing in Champaign-Urbana (available University Housing: expected cost for 6 weeks on campus: $1,176 per person, shared room; $1,764 per person, single room)
  • Ability to Travel Internationally and if a non-US citizens to secure a visa if necessary.
  • Ability to pay/travel to Champaign (travel to Haiti, room and board and travel within Haiti are covered for all accepted students)
  • Willingness to abide by University of Illinois travel abroad health and safety requirements (and in case of emergency all sponsor protocols) and faculty instructions during the term of the summer course.
  • Willingness/Ability to meet University of Illinois requirements for immunizations for University enrollment and travel abroad.
  • Enrollment in the UIUC for the summer of 2014 for a 6-credit studio.

 

Submission Process

All submission should be sent digital in a single email to Eric W. Ellis, ACSA Director of Operations and Programs at eellis@acsa-arch.org by 5pm PT, February 19, 2014.

Additional questions on the studio and submissions should be addressed to:
Eric Wayne Ellis
ACSA Director of Operations and Programs
email: eellis@acsa-arch.org

 

Input Sought on Procedures for Accreditation

/in /by

Deadline February 7, 2014

The NAAB has announced a call for white papers, proposals, and other recommendations for changes, due to NAAB February 20, 2014. 

ACSA plans to respond to this call with a report and list of recommendations on the Procedures. As part of this process, the ACSA invites input from all member programs on the current Procedures as well as desirable changes to the Procedures. The deadline for input is February 7. Please send comments to arc@acsa-arch.org.

In preparation for the Accreditation Review Conference, ACSA identified a number of issues related to the Procedures (view this report here). We plan to include those recommendations and add further comments in the February 20 report.

Visit the NAAB website for more information on the Procedures revision process or to download the Procedures for Accreditation.

What Is at Stake for Education in a Discussion About Emerging Professionals?

/in /by

by Michael J. Monti, Executive Director

This weekend the AIA is hosting an Emerging Professionals Summit in Albuquerque. They will bring together around 60 people from a range of sectors and age ranges in the profession to talk about how “practice culture can be shaped to prepare current and future architects for their role in society.” 

President Norman Millar, myself, and Lian Chang will be participating for ACSA. Look for some updates over the weekend and beyond on how things turn out.

This is an important, if anodyne, goal. But it can be an elusive one, given the challenge of influencing culture. I expect the AIA leadership will push the group for concrete ideas that they can translate into programs that support the development of students into practitioners, not to mention AIA members.

The participants are broken into four working groups: Education, Firm Culture & Practice, Licensure, and Career Advancement.

The Education group received a prompt from its facilitator, which seemed on the whole an adequate high-level summary of the state of discussions or concerns about education. I’m not sure I agree that NAAB accreditation of degrees that mix architecture with business is a high priority, but the other statements about the concerns of what education should deliver for students and for the profession is a good starting point.

What do you think?

Framing Statement for Education Working Group of Emerging Professionals Summit

Within the schools, curriculum discussions are related to what skills should be learned in school versus those learned in practice, and what role schools have in ensuring that their students are “job-ready” upon graduation. Practitioners are interested in graduates who can produce value immediately, but also recognize that education is valuable for teaching how to think, not just what to think.

Students are eager to learn as much as possible, but have two fears: first, finding a job, and second, landing in a job that does not help them develop additional skills necessary to become a well-rounded practitioner. Students also rightfully question whether a low percentage of registered architects on faculty affects their educational breadth.

Most states require an applicant for architect registration to have graduated from a school accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting board, NAAB. NAAB holds sole national responsibility for accrediting programs to grant Bachelor of Architecture, Master of Architecture, or Doctor of Architecture degrees.

Currently, NAAB is in the midst of a five year review cycle that will impact the conditions for accreditation in 2016. The feedback from schools has been to simplify the accreditation process and allow more flexibility in how the school can prove compliance with the conditions.

Additionally, some schools are offering cross-disciplinary programs that allow students to work with other departments, especially in the realm of design-thinking being applied to business programs. How NAAB would approach accrediting cross-disciplinary programs and whether a licensing board would allow a  2014 Emerging Professionals Summit graduate of such a program to take the registration exam are questions that will likely become more pressing in coming years.

ACSA Survey Shows Trends in Architecture Program Budgets and Enrollment

/in /by

ACSA conducted its fourth annual budget and enrollment survey of member schools this fall, asking programs about changes to their budgets, enrollment and applications, and hiring patterns. The results from 60 schools in the United States and Canada showed architecture programs facing slight reductions in enrollment, while budgets are holding steady or showing slight increases. 

Among the results found in this year’s report, presented in two dozen graphics, are drops in applications at about half of undergraduate programs, but more increases in applications at the graduate level. Additionally, many schools seeing drops in enrollment have the decreases tempered by growing numbers of international students. More schools reported increases in total budgets than decreases, and funding for faculty travel and discretionary stayed the same or increased. 

The Architecture School Budget and Enrollment Survey 2013-14 report also includes new analyses of trends based on Carnegie Foundation classifications and other data to provide a fuller picture of how ACSA schools are faring.

How are changes in budgets and enrollment affecting your schools? Please comment, or email Lian Chikako Chang at lchang@acsa-arch.org.

View past ACSA Budget Surveys here. 

Emerging Professionals Summit Attempts to Reframe the Future

/in /by

Video: Highlights from the AIA Emerging Professionals Summit: Engaging and Empowering the Next Generation

by Lian Chang, Director of Research and Information

What if architecture students received a license to practice upon graduation? What if real estate development, public policy, and user interface design attracted more professionals with an architectural background? What if we stopped calling our graduates “interns,” and let them be known simply as “architects?”

These were some of the ideas that came out of the 2014 Emerging Professionals Summit, hosted by the AIA January 24–26 in Albuquerque. More than 70 architects, emerging professionals, architecture students, and leaders from AIA, ACSA, AIAS, NCARB, and NAAB convened to imagine the future of  licensure, firm practice and culture, education, and career development.

I attended the summit as part of an ACSA delegation that also included President Norman Millar and Executive Director Michael Monti. We contributed to three of the four working groups—Licensure, Career Advancement, and Education—by sharing the perspectives of accredited schools of architecture and the work that they undertake to support emerging professionals.

AIA leadership, including 2014 AIA President Helene Combs Dreiling, FAIA, Chief Executive Officer Robert Ivy, FAIA, and 2013 President Mickey Jacob, FAIA, expressed a desire to strengthen the AIA’s future membership base by better engaging emerging professionals, while tying this goal to issues affecting the profession’s ability to address broader societal and environmental concerns.

Summit attendees alternated between intensive sessions in the four workgroups to identify opportunities and priorities, and larger group conversations that critiqued and contextualized workgroup findings. Identified goals included promoting project-based K-12 curricula focusing on the built environment; opening the AIA to anyone interested in joining an “American Institute of Architecture”; and expanding partnerships between industry and academia to lower financial barriers for students. Disagreements surfaced between firm leaders looking for architecture school graduates to be more “job ready” upon graduation and educators and those following “alternative” career paths championing more open-ended exploration. But there was also a shared understanding that this is cannot be an either/or situation. How can we be both specialists and generalists, focused and diverse, expanding into a “big tent” profession without losing professional identity? This question is an issue for the academy and the profession alike, as schools look to expand training in design thinking and entrepreneurship while preparing graduates for licensure and the design of buildings.

There will be more to come. Last week, AIA posted a video and article in AIArchitect, promising more discussion and follow through into demonstrable actions. While we shouldn’t expect an “American Institute of Architecture” rebranding for the AIA anytime soon, banishing the name “intern” in favor of a more elevating term (such as “architect,” distinguishable from “licensed architect”) seemed to receive unanimous support. NCARB representatives noted that this could not be mandated at a national level, but that changes to the NCARB Model Law could encourage states to reconsider their regulation of the title “architect.” It’s a symbolic and semantic change, but one that could catalyze broader shifts in how people think of the profession.

ACSA is currently pursuing consensus outcomes related to the summit. Our Annual Meeting, to be held April 10-12, 2014 in Miami Beach, will bring a report on efforts to clarify (not to reduce, but to communicate) the range of paths through architectural education. The goal is for the public, prospective students, and those within the field to more easily understand what it means to “go to architecture school.” We also have an architecture graduate survey in development that will help to better understand what architecture graduates are doing and how they are doing it. We intend for the survey’s outcomes to put more reliable and comprehensive data about emerging professionals on the table.

What do you think? What can architecture schools and the ACSA do to better prepare our students and emerging professionals for practice?

CRIT: The Journal of the American Institute of Architecture Students

/in /by

 

Column written by George Guarino, CRIT editor
Barbara Opar and Barret Havens, column editors

The official journal of the American Institute of Architecture Students began as Telesis, first published in 1976 by AIAS President Jerry Compton of SCI-ARC and Vice President Robert Rosenfeld of UC-Berkeley. The publication was renamed Crit the following year by Rosenfeld. Ê37 years later, CRIT remains the only publication created, managed and produced by students of architecture.Ê It is also the only journal in the world that predominantly features student work as the primary source of content.

CRIT is an example of how aspiring architects see the world, and regularly features content directly relating to architecture as well as the place of architecture in the broader context of a global society.Ê Each issue features student design work, competitions and their winners, and articles that speak to the concerns of students today about topics such as sustainability, global integration, and the larger societal issues and challenges that we all face.

The primary purpose of CRIT from its initial production through today remains: to be a forum for the ideas and opinions of students in a world where young people are often relegated to lesser roles.Ê This publication allows for the voices of those who are sometimes discounted to be heard and taken seriously, for their work to be shown and recognized for the value it has and potentialÊ it can offer.

Over the last 37 years CRIT has undergone numerous revisions, from cover design, layouts, size and physical expression. As an expression of student work, CRIT is a continually evolving project that we hope will continue to change and adapt even as emerging professionals change to adapt to their own reality.Ê With the latest issue, #76, CRIT has launched a new cover, layout changes and full color interiors. Further, CRIT has expanded as a brand to other media including CRITnewsletter andÊ@CRITjournal on Twitter.

CRIT welcomes work of all varieties from students, both text and image oriented. We welcome your support in encouraging students to submit their work.Ê
Ê
As we refine CRIT’s design, layout, and content over the next year, the CRIT Editorial Team welcomes your feedback on Special Issue #76. Any questions or comments can be directed toÊCRIT@aias.org.Ê

Universities, colleges, libraries, and architectural firms seeking an institutional subscription to CRIT can contact the AIAS atÊmailbox@aias.orgÊor by phone at 202.626.7472.Ê

 

 

 

 

 

New ACSA Working Groups to Influence Policies

/in /by

Below is the contact information to join the working groups and the scheduled conference calls:

Learning Environments
environments@acsa-arch.org March 14 12:30Ð1:30pm ET
April 4 12:30Ð1:30pm ET

Community Colleges / Preprofessional Education
cccap@acsa-arch.org
March 14 2:00Ð3:00pm ET
April 4 2:00Ð3:00pm ET

This week we invited members to join two new working groups: Learning Environments and Community Colleges, addressing two strategic directions for many architecture programs.

The Working Group on Digital and Physical Learning Environments in Architecture Education seeks to open a broad conversation about digitally mediated education. Online education, MOOCs, and new models of course delivery are already happening at a handful of architecture schools, and at many more universities, other disciplines have been engaged in distance education, hybrid learning, among others. Given the unique nature and tradition of architecture’s studio model, online or hybrid online/in-person education introduces questions about quality that have not yet been addressed in a systematic way. Other questions, such as teaching loads, faculty development needs, and research opportunities, also loom.

We believe that ACSA should be the venue for these discussions to happen. For the first time, NAAB’s proposed revisions to the “physical resources” Condition for Accreditation address the difference between online and on-campus learning environments. The Condition is still called Physical Resources, however, when one could argue that higher education in North America has left behind the traditional college campus as the datum for any conversation on what environment higher education should take place in.

We know of at least three NAAB-accredited degree programs that are primarily online (Boston Architectural College, Lawrence Tech, and Academy of Art University). But we do not yet know how many architecture programs are launching into hybrid learning or architecture MOOCs, much less how many more are being pressured by upper administration to do the same.

Before upper administrations or other external bodies dictate the rules and expectations for online learning, the ACSA membership needs to shape how we collectively understand levels of quality, outcomes assessments, and ways to enable faculty to capitalize on the digital world, rather than be run over by it.

The ACSA also created the Working Group on Community Colleges & Preprofessional Education in Architecture in response to multiple strategic interests of the membership. First is widespread concern about student enrollments, which have dropped between 3% and 8% (and could be more were it not for fewer decreases in international students). Second is the need to increase the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the architecture student population. Third is the clear message from community colleges that they want to be at the table with accredited programs, as evidenced by the report for the NAAB Accreditation Review Conference from the Coalition of Community College Architecture Programs that cited nearly 200 programs in the United States.

The context for discussions in this group is the path through preprofessional education, into NAAB-accredited degree programs and on to careers in the profession. (For this reason, we also hope that representatives from four-year programs at institutions without a NAAB-accredited degree will join the group.)

We foresee conversations in this working group touching on beginning design education and other curriculum areas that community college and four-year programs cover. Also on the agenda will be formal and informal relationships between programs, including “articulation agreements” that streamline the transfer or placement of students into NAAB-accredited degree programs.

We expect both working groups to facilitate sharing syllabi, assessment instruments, policy documents, and more and our upcoming conferences will be byways for in-person conversations. In Miami at the 102nd ACSA Annual Meeting, we are planning an online education workshop for Thursday, April 10, from 9:00amÐ12:00pm, and on Saturday afternoon there will be a Special Focus Session on “Widening the Pipeline to the Profession.” (See the video from a November 2013 session here.

– Michael Monti, ACSA Executive Director

   

We use cookies and other tracking technologies for performance, analytics, marketing, and more customized site experiences. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our terms. Learn more about these in our Privacy Policy. ACSA reserves the right to delete content and suspend user accounts that it determines to be inappropriate.

OKLearn more