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.
