Talk:Architecture

CONTINUED FROM http://risdarchitecture.blogspot.com

 "TOWN HALL" MEETING; Tuesday, March 14th.

Discussion included the following

- Widder, Lynnette: opening comments/meeting objectives

- Barnes, Jim: (objective) information on accreditation

- Feld, Gabriel: reflection on last accreditation review

- Barrett, Dawn: spoke about headship/candidacy; encouraged student body to speak with the faculty directly on the matter, as well as developing this conversation around what "you want to see more of"/values should be engendered by the department (with the aid of Feld, Gabriel; Tate, Anne; Better, Hansy)

Comments/concerns regarding this meeting:

3rd Floor Forum

This is a sub post of A Forum for first year grads and sophmores. Please feel free to leave any comments on what criteria you would like to see in the future headship, suggestions of headship, questions about the process of selection, or comments/questions regarding the accreditation process. Thanks.

Posted by 1st Year Architect at 7:20 PM

comments from blogspot
3rd Floor Forum

This is a sub post of A Forum for first year grads and sophmores. Please feel free to leave any comments on what criteria you would like to see in the future headship, suggestions of headship, questions about the process of selection, or comments/questions regarding the accreditation process. Thanks.

Posted by 1st Year Architect at 7:20 PM

1st Year Architect said...


 * Since we 1st years don't know all the faculty and 3 are on sabbatical, here is the link to the list of architecture faculty on the RISD web page.


 * http://www.risd.edu/graduate_arch_faculty.cfm
 * March 14, 2007 11:39 PM

liz said...


 * just out of curiosity... does anyone know if there has been any talk of breaking off the graduate program from the undergraduate? i feel that there is a lot of
 * disgruntled-ness on the 3rd floor about it...
 * March 17, 2007 1:09 PM

Honsa said...


 * Keep in mind that just a few years ago there were seperate programs. There is a very crucial symbiotic relationship between undergrads and grads that I would not under-estimate, and I have not heard any sentiment about dividing again.


 * There is, however, a general trend in American architectural education to phase out BArch degrees, but RISD has not taken action.
 * March 20, 2007 6:45 PM

Anonymous said...


 * hhmm, does the silence mean that you are all busy in studio? the faculty (or i am) are interested in what you think, this is as good a forum as any. Ok? L
 * March 15, 2007 8:03 PM

Tiffany said...


 * Yes, I think there is a little bitterness on the 3rd floor about the undergrads and grads being together. I would agree that it could be a good thing, but in every class, and during group semester hell.  I'm sorry but the undergrads just don't have the same kind of commitment to group thinking.  I hear a lot of comments from undergrads like, "what do you think our professor would think", or "how should we explain this in the critique", or "we better get an A on this project".  I think they are still in college mode and we are more trying to become architects, in the way we think, design, work, and collaborate.
 * I strongly think that undergrads and grads could have moments of partnership without being together constantly.
 * Also, I definately think that the level of communication between the professors and students is compromised when you have such a range of ages, maturity levels, and experiences. (maybe that doesn't HAVE to be the case, but it currently is.)

Undergrad said...


 * I find this latest note to be another completely uncalled for and inappropriate comment.
 * First, this is clearly a gross generalization of personal problems that is unwarranted and innacurate on the scale of the studio and most likely on the scale of that group as well. I think it is terrible that I must defend myself just because I am an undergrad, but I feel I must.  For example, just last night (during spring break)  I was in the studio between 12am and 4am and there were two people other than me there. They were both undergrads.  There are undergrads that don't work as hard, but there are plenty of undergrads that dedicate incredible time and energy into this program and it is an injustice that stereotypes like these are being perpetuated.  Shocking as this may be, there are also some graduate students that do not work as hard as others.
 * Second, these "quotes" are taken out of context and most likely skewed or twisted. Even so, I have also heard similar comments from graduate students.  There is no distinction there either.
 * Third, in terms of group work and collaboration I have found the undergrads to be very cooperative and compromising, perhaps because undergrads do not work under the false pretense that their method of thinking is superior to that of others. I have found it difficult to navigate group work at times because the importance of my opinion has been mitigated by the fact that I am an undergrad.  Not a week ago a graduate student made a disparaging remark towards undergrads while he was clearly and obviously within my earshot. The idea of this program is that we are all on a level playing field in beginning our architectural education and if there are people with less experience they should be helped, not criticized, penalized, and held back.  As an aside, perhaps one should not condescend to others about their intellect when one cannot write a grammatically correct sentence.
 * Lastly, and most importantly, personal issues with group work should not be brought up in a public forum in this manner. Lashing out at undergraduates in an attempt to use them as a scapegoat for group problems will only lead to hostility and resentment.  It is shocking that a critique on maturity would be handled in such an inappropriate and immature manner.  There should always be an attempt to handle issues with individuals or groups privately and in person.  Next, one can approach a professor with problems.  It is unfortunate that this topic had to be broached in such a pugnacious and immature manner.  I think it has been a great experience working with graduate students on such a close level, and I could not see this program with a hard division of grad from undergrad.

christinetan said...

-in regards to the latter discussion about the dynamic between grads and undergrads...
 * i feel a separation of programs would be less productive than beneficial. i honestly feel both grad and undergrads can work and learn from each other and i totally understand the feelings from both sides' view of the others' "immaturity" or "superiority." just wondering, were these comments from 2nd years?
 * as an undergrad, i felt that from the past year and a half, i've learned more than what i would have just from a professor from those in my section in terms of how to work/how to think/ideas/processes, etc. and i have always appreciated and looked to those with more experience as sort of role models. as a student, i have always experienced better learning from peers of different backgrounds (whether in arch. or foundational studies); that's what makes RISD's programs so awesome.
 * i kinda feel bad that some grads feel undergrads are not as committed to group crits or do not have the same thoughts about school. first of all, i definitely know that not all undergrads are "not as committed" as the person above had also stated, and i was kind of upset to read that someone feels this way and that there is this huge difference that applies to undergrads that it impacts their experience in studio. i think the range of maturity/experience or whatever are what make crits interesting and and should never be viewed as something that compromises the discussions, but something that can help create dynamic conversations. i dont think i've ever experienced a crit/discussion where the level of communication was a problem. i understand this was one grad's views and i hope not all students feel a separation would be best. maybe this is a minor issue that can be solved so that all students can get the education they came to RISD for. i think everyone needs to remember every department/class has problems like these (students' ranges of committment, experience, etc.) and i hardly feel it is an issue of age. maybe it was just that section you were in?
 * also, you'll find in firms the issues of different levels of experience and that even if you are one of the older ones, you can always learn from everyone. if you are one of the younger ones, you definitely have a lot to learn from older peers.
 * are there any other students who feel that the unity of grad/undergrads has been a more positive experience for them?
 * P.S.- sorry if i have misinterpreted anything anyone may have said...correct me if i have.

-AND ABOUT ACCREDITATION/HEADSHIP...
 * what's going on out there???? i'm in germany for the semester and i haven't really heard anything except for what was discussed and presented at the very first meeting. has there been any development? have any students been reading this board? and what did students say/feel about that meeting? i'm not sure when that last post was...


 * Evita: maybe you want to send out another email to remind kids this site exists and to post/comment on this blog?  -tan.
 * April 1, 2007 3:40 PM


 * Charlie: What do people think about the presentations by Jim Barnes and Lynnette Widder. I thought they were incredibly informative and I'm curious if other people agree. Also, did the presentations help people reach conclusions on who they want or what they want for department head?


 * unfortunately i missed the presentations as well, as i was working on studio... but from what i gathered (second hand, of course) is that they both kind of said similar things... never really highlighting the differences between them (which i imagine would serve as a basis for the selection).

but i think one thing is that the program could serve to have a bit more definition... no one knows what we do here/what RISD architecture is all about... even some students aren't sure what the mission/focus of the program is, or they think that what RISD projects as an approach to architecture as "making" is not thoroughly threaded through the entirety of the program, but rather is focused more in the first year with DP and such. so basically, either redefining the mission of the program based on what is already being taught, or really going all out. granted, this is obviously heresay, but yes. i know i came here becasue what makes RISD different is the program's firm grip on the tangible, rather than digital... holding onto a physical conception of architecture.