Today, however, I think there are other more pressing questions facing architectural education. Determining the proper role of technical courses requires questioning the premises underlying the entire curriculum. The simple reply is that architecture programs train junior architects who in twenty years will be senior architects. Undergraduate education in architecture must find a broader mission or face inevitable decline. The history of U.S. railroads is often cited as a case study of failed vision.
Architectural education faces a similar situation.
Many programs seem to see their business as training people to design buildings, rather than educating people to engage in creative, critical problem solving. These programs measure success by competence, the ability to perform in specific situations, rather than robustness, the ability to cope with novel situations. To prepare students for unprecedented change, we need to educate them to be intellectually robust, creative, and critical. Accreditation requirements for 5-year programs mandate an emphasis on competence. Fortunately, addressing technical issues in the context of architectural design provides many opportunities to challenge students and stretch their intellectual ability.