Posted by Rob Ley on March 5, 2007
I remember having an accreditation discussion with Bill last July, though if I remember correctly, the topic came up after a few glasses of beer at a small, Viennese kitchen table. It started with Bill starting the discussion under no assumed biases either for or against, and then sitting back to listen to a jet-lagged, slightly inebriated response. It’s a discussion I’ve thought about several times since then, especially during the two month period that both WAASC and NAAB (the respective regional and national accreditation boards) that visited Sci-Arc last October and November. During this rather stressful time of preparation, presentation, and reflection, I also questioned the purpose of accreditation at an institution that surely has the best interests of architectural investigation and education in its forefront. It was during this time that I came to my own opinion that accreditation does not matter… though perhaps not in the same way others may argue.It seems that the most important issue is the creativity of the work that is produced, the experiences that are gained, and the minds that are cultivated. Accreditation does not guarantee any of these things, in the same way that the refusal of accreditation does not ensure an automatic edgy or radical status. I’m less interested in the pedagogical ramifications as a result of accreditation as I’m convinced the quality of the school, its students, and the work produced is substantially more affected by the leadership of the school and the day-to-day interactions between instructors and students, than it is the status of its degree granting capacity.
This said, however, I would tend to support accreditation, or at least a strategic plan that included a direction towards accreditation down the road. This support is largely, if not entirely, based on the financial aid opportunities of future students attending the school, especially if accreditation meant that certain financial (and resulting mental) stresses would be alleviated for a lot of the students through easier access to grants, fellowships, and affordable student loans. While we might leave the matter of the type of students Umbau should seek for another discussion, we perhaps should be concerned about missing out on great students that want dearly to be a part of Umbau, but can not due to financial limitations.
As this discussion continues, it would be helpful if we can start to reference specifics with regards to NAAB’s process. Ultimately, it seems like the most prudent decision will be one that is made less on preconceptions we may all have on the matter, but rather on solid facts such as:
- Costs involved (both literal and time/energy costs)
- Pedagogical expectations from the accrediting agency
- Timelines involved for candidacy vs. full accreditation
- Limitations on creative/unusual learning experiences
Posted by Ed Pease on March 4, 2007
Umbau is less about educating students in preparation for the profession of architecture, and more about educating architects for life. I know that might sound excessively grand, but I think it’s an accurate statement. If Umbau were focused on the former, then accreditation would be mandatory. Given that Umbau seems far more concerned with the latter, then I think accreditation is a distraction and unnecessary. Now, the more difficult part is how Umbau can legitimize itself in a world that values the more superficial aspects of accomplishment and certification. In other words, where and how does Umbau fit in? I think there are several models to look to. Tate has already referred to Kaospilot, Cranbrook and the Black Mountain School; there’s also the Rural Studio, SCI-ARC, Taliesen, Arcosanti, etc.—all representing alternatives to orthodoxy, some more successfully than others. The basic answer for me is that Umbau should play to its strengths, which include a depth of spirit, authenticity, passion and intellect, not to mention a range of excellent connections cultivated by Tate. If students want to be registered architects and jump into an office career, than there are numerous paths they can take to do so. If a student is searching for something different, deeper, more immediate and more real, then there’s Umbau. I feel like if Umbau can leave its imprint on students, regardless of the duration of their stay, then the profession will be the beneficiary.
On a more practical level, it would be good for us to imagine what awaits a student who stays at Umbau for two or three years. Is there an official end, or can Umbau be an ongoing experience? This may not be a particularly apt reference, but I think of the Berklee School of Music in Boston. They do grant degrees, but from my son’s brief experience there, and from others I know who’ve gone there, it seems that many students (perhaps a majority, I really don’t know) go for a year or two, then go out and work, perform, record, etc. Some of them return within a year or two, and some return after having achieved a level of success, but want time away from a professional career to try and push their art to a higher level. In other words, it seems somewhat open-ended as to how people come and go. There may be a lesson there for Umbau, I’m not sure.
I’ve also wondered if Umbau should have an open policy of admission, that is, could it accept a wide range of people: practicing architects, those without a college degree, or even high school students. This does not mean they would accept just anyone—there would be standards, and I suggest that they be rigorous, but admission would not be limited to those who already have a BA or BS. Instead of a graduating class of students, I imagine a more fluid and changing student body. I know this presents its own challenges, but it seems with a critical mass, some ideal number (and I don’t know what that might be), then this wider mix of students could work. Perhaps there could even be levels within the Umbau group. People with more experience or who are already working within the profession in some capacity could have something like mentor status, while younger, less experienced students go through more of a foundation level of design before moving into the studio realm with more accomplished students. Perhaps this is too hierarchical, but I’m trying to imagine how a group of Umbau people, varying in age, education and experience, might all work together. And just as important, is there an end to the Umbau experience, or can it be ongoing? And what about Brian Mackay-Lyons summer studio? Does this tell us anything about possibilities for Umbau?