Hi. I completed a 3 year architectural technology degree and gained a 2:1, which I was very happy with. After 18 months of looking (thanks bankers) I finally found a job in an architectural practice with the aim of getting my head down and working hard. The practice has snce employed a senior project architect and a part 2 student and I’ve noticed a snobbery which has, to be frank, really annoyed me.
According to the senior guy ‘there is no difference between a technician and a technologist’. Given the fact that CIAT states otherwise and that I could have settled for the HNC/D instead of the full degree and followed the technician route this seemed either ignorant or plain rude.
To make matters worse (or my perception of it) the part 2 student didn’t know what a birdsmouth was for timber framed construction and went on to admit they had no idea what Part F of the building regs covered. Part 1 completed and 3 years in a previous practice yet I who ‘merely studied architectural technology’ knew these simple facts but appear to be held in lower esteem than the ‘pure architecture’ colleagues.
I’ve examined the architecture modules and compared them to architectural technology and annoyance aside it seems reasonably obvious that actually, the architectural technology degree covers a far more technical and useful range of construction related issues than the pure architecture course. I for one did not have to photograph a chair on a beach as one architectural student informed me he’d been made to do, neither did I present a swirly line to a tutor and have to explain it away as a ‘concept building outline’ or similar.
I spent three solid years learning about building technology with no ‘arty farty’ distractions or dreamy imagination yet I’m the one who appears to be considered as being inferior due to the naming of the course I chose. Now for the question. Is it really fair to award RIBA part 1 exemption to ‘architecture’ students and not ‘architectural technology’ students when both could go on to do their part 2 and 3?
I may be wrong but it does seem that actually the arc tech route is more useful in the real world…after all no-one is going to buy a building made out of angel dust and gravity is hardly likely to be a non-consideration when the client comes knocking. Can anyone throw some light on all of this?
Many thanks.
Josh Berkovitch
[ Editor ]
Let me just clarify something;
You say this:
“I spent three solid years learning about building technology with no
‘arty farty’ distractions or dreamy imagination yet I’m the one who
appears to be considered as being inferior due to the naming of the
course I chose.”
In that paragraph it would appear as though you are clearly speaking in a condescending manner on one of the very foundations of Architecture and/or what Architecture students are taught, yet you are then, in the same sentence, claiming to be spoken of and looked at in a condescending manner by the Architects.
Architecture is Art. Just as much as Architecture can be engineering, philosophy and science.
After all, how many students do you feel would be attracted to the career if there were not any “arty farty” buildings built to admire in their younger years, such as buildings built by Architects called Gehry, ranging to Stalinist Architecture? These buildings are popular because of their beauty amongst other feats, and their beauty comes from aesthetic perfection (in ones eyes) residing on or with engineering perfection or whatever it is they admire in the building.
Perhaps the “arty farty” stuff is closer than you previously thought when compared to technical side that you have studied if you want to be looked at in the same manner as the Architects.
I also believe a part2 student who does not know his Part F is a bit stupid and that is the fault of himself, not his school/qualification. If you want to get ahead learn it all, including the “arty farty” part. As i stated they are tightly knit.
Of course i am not referring to your run of the mill brick cloned council block here, but who wants to have a life of standard council block drawing? We didn’t take on a 7 year course to do that, we took it on to achieve something, perhaps a fulfilling career and lifestyle whereby beauty is achieved through a building.
The technician will always be useful, and so will the Architect.