(extract from 15 Reasons NOT to study Architecture - available on Amazon in any country)
The system of marking is difficult to
explain because there is no coherent one. It is all subjective, a game of luck;
heads you win, tails you lose. Sadly, students
of architecture are regularly failed at the end of first, second, third,
fourth, even fifth year and some vague reason given.
In
the course of the academic year, students are given three buildings to design
and they are expected to submit a body of work that demonstrates that the
building could be built and would fit into its surroundings e.g. site analysis,
plans, sections, elevations, axonometric and perspective drawings and a model.
However,
in the case of project work, students are never tested on what they are taught.
They are definitely not taught
technical drawing skills, or how to make models or how to produce perspective,
3D drawings, or how to use the various computer software packages. Yet these
are the things they are tested on when it comes to project work; the only thing
that matters on this course. And some
students don’t “just pick it up” like the young guy I knew who received a medal
for being the best student out of around 60 at the end of 1st year
yet, because of his poor technical drawing skills, had to repeat third year
(TWICE) before scraping a lowest pass mark on the third sitting. It took that
brilliant, creative person, who gained entrance to one of the top universities
in the UK, FIVE years to gain an Ordinary Degree in Architecture. If that makes
sense to you, please stop reading now, leave a nasty review of this book and
apply to study architecture – you’re well suited to it.
Students
who have previously worked in architects’ offices and have gained qualifications
(like a BTech in Building Construction) from a college, instead of staying on
to do A-levels at school, come ready equipped, but the entrance requirements
for architecture continue to insist on an Scottish Higher/A-level in Maths,
which will help the student not one bit as, once they begin the architecture
course, they will be marked solely on their building designs and their, or
someone else’s, ability to draw them up.
When it comes to marking
these drawings, marks are not given for each part of the submission as might
seem logical. Students who do not submit a drawing on the list, are not awarded
a zero or a fail, yet students who submit every drawing can be failed. It all
comes down to what the tutor thinks of the student's design and, in fact, whether
the tutor likes the student. If a student is favoured, any missing drawings can
be overlooked. There is no methodical method of marking, which allows them
carte blanche to award any marks they like; just think of a number.
It’s very easy to find an
excuse to fail a student if they want to. And, even if a student is award pass
marks for two out of three projects, they can be subsequently be failed if
tutors think the third project is a fail and, conversely, they can pass a
student who has failed the first two projects. So nobody knows what’s happening
and the overall mark given to a student for his/her project work is completely
random.
I have been to three
different architecture schools and they all operate in the same manner. Any
lecturer from a “normal” department in a good university might be quite shocked
at their methods. No matter how talented a student, no matter how hard they
work, they can never be guaranteed even the lowest pass mark of 40%. Students,
who at school have been in the top set, can suddenly, through no fault of their
own, become university drop-outs.
One
student, still in the system, wrote to me anonymously, “I believe the marking
is completely unfair… The first semester, it was a group submission and since
it’s not the same marker per student, the marks ranged from 2:2 to 1st
Honours with the SAME portfolio!...It is all so upsetting as it’s a course now
dependent on the tutor’s theory, the tutor’s likings and our personality. With
all the regular crits, and work in progress, and expectations from tutors,
anxiety is one of my biggest problems right now.”
Some “academics” do abuse
the power they are given. However, by law, complaints in Higher Education
relating to assessment of work, cannot be examined by the Public Sector
Ombudsman. A retired architect told me that, when he qualified at Edinburgh
College of Art in the 1950s, two-thirds of his class were failed at the end of
third year. He knew to stay quiet, anger no one and to keep his head down. It
would seem that nothing has changed since then.
On all RIBA “validated” courses there is no fair method of marking
project work. The process always has been, and looks like always will be,
completely arbitrary. The schools would certainly oppose any change to their
current system because having to mark work, based on a set of criteria, would
inevitably involve more work than conjuring up a number.
No comments:
Post a Comment