The Gap and Its Effect on Architectural Education - College of ...

Finishing School
Inquiries into the Completion of an Architectural Education
Proceedings from the ACSA Southeast Regional Meeting
Editors
Ron Dulaney
Francis Lyn
Stephen Schreiber
Book Design
Leonardo Lunardi

Published by
School of Architecture <strong>and</strong> Community Design
University of South Florida
3702 spectrum blvd., ste 180
Tampa, fl 33612
www.arch.usf.edu
No part of this book my be used or repoduced in any manner
without written permission from the publisher, except
in the context of reviews.
Every reasonable attempt has made to identify owners of
copyright. Errors or omissions will be corrected in subsequent
editions
Printed <strong>and</strong> Bound in the United States
Book Design <strong>and</strong> Production by Leonardo Lunardi
Editors
Ron Dulaney
Francis Lyn
Stephen Schreiber

Introduction
This meeting served to share <strong>and</strong> discuss the purposes, pedagogies, methodologies,
<strong>and</strong> effectiveness of the finishing year in professional architectural education. Specifically,
the meeting focused on the roles of final design studios within architectural curricula <strong>and</strong>
their roles in preparing for professional practices beyond degree completion.
According to a recent survey, nearly one-third of all undergraduate programs <strong>and</strong>
one-half of all graduate programs require a “design thesis.” Other programs might require
an alternate “capstone” experience such as a terminal project, diploma project, special
studio, masters project, or final project, or an ending studio without special designation.
It is surprising that so little organized academic or professional attention has been
given to these requirements because there seems to be no consensus among academic
institutions regarding the best paradigm forthe final design studio.
Should the final design studio be focused on a speculative “design thesis” that sets
a course for the learner’s exploration of architectural issues? Should it be focused on a
“capstone” experiencethat measures or evaluates the competency of graduating students?
What is the role of thesestudio experiences in the transition between an academic curriculum
<strong>and</strong> a professional internship? Do the final design studios receive too much emphasis
in light of exp<strong>and</strong>ing opportunities available to architectural graduates?
We invited contributions from a broad range of perspectives that reflected on finishing
school <strong>and</strong> the ending studio. Tangible ideas or supportive programs <strong>and</strong> case studies
that have been tested <strong>and</strong> put into practice were encouraged.

ABSTRACT
72
Finishing School : 2003 ACSA-SE Regional Meeting
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Gap</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Its</strong> <strong>Effect</strong> on Architectural Education
Chris Ford
Rob Paulus Architect, Ltd. & <strong>The</strong> University of Arizona
In plain view, the <strong>Gap</strong> is the void as defined by the edges of where an individual’s formal architectural education
ends <strong>and</strong> where one’s contribution to the profession begins. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Gap</strong> has interesting implications for architectural education.
A degree in architecture signifies the completion of a curriculum that refines one’s ability to create <strong>and</strong> hones their
ability to problem-solve. It is the role of the academe to create critical thinkers equipped with the sensibilities <strong>and</strong> skills
to become architectural-minded problem solvers. Such a position on part of the academy has not only yielded capable
architects, but also individuals who ultimately choose to pursue sibling design disciplines. <strong>The</strong> receipt of an architectural
degree signifies the acquisition of a particular abstract set of skills, <strong>and</strong> not the acquisition of the technical know-how
necessary to be an immediate contributing force to the architectural profession.
It is the role of the profession, not the academe, to educate young architects to the realities of the profession. As
suggested by the atelier studio model, the profession must be reminded of its own responsibility for (<strong>and</strong> proficiency
with) the education of recent graduates <strong>and</strong> interns. (<strong>The</strong> NCARB IDP program, at least in principle, is indicative of this
realization.) While architectural education was first institutionalized by American universities in the late 1800s, a formal
education was not required for professional licensure. <strong>The</strong> “greenlight” for the ARE was awarded only after having
served significant time in a professional office.
Yet, schools of architecture have recently been showing signs of extreme self-consciousness. Polls in architectural
trade journals as well as the Carnegie / Boyer Task Force have prompted many schools of architecture to undergo both
an individual <strong>and</strong> collective self-examination. <strong>The</strong> title of this very conference -- “Finishing School” – reiterates an
implied need to make a figurative distinction, however fine or broad, between the end of preperatory education <strong>and</strong> the
start of professional practice.
One must remember that architectural education is the result of both our discipline’s academy <strong>and</strong> profession, together.
Each serves a different role <strong>and</strong>, as such, teaches the future architect in different, yet equally beneficial ways.

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Gap</strong>
Our discipline of Architecture is oftentimes thought
of in two components; the architectural academy <strong>and</strong> the
architectural profession. While the academy is generally
understood as the realm in which one receives his or her
formal architectural education, the profession is generally
understood as the realm in which one gives form to the
built environment through the rendering of both architectural
service <strong>and</strong> product.
Considering the sequential relationship between these
two, an objective observer to the discipline might presume
a healthy level of coexistence between these two components,
especially as evidenced by the now nationally st<strong>and</strong>ardized
path towards professional licensure. However, in
truth, architectural educators <strong>and</strong> practitioners alike have
spoken for decades about the <strong>Gap</strong> (or rift, or gulf, or Great
Divide) that exists between these two entities. 1 Although
this <strong>Gap</strong> remains a figurative construct, we can begin to
quantify its width by spanning the distance between the
goals <strong>and</strong> intentions of the architectural academy with respect
to the goals <strong>and</strong> aspirations of the architectural profession.
Over the past 20 years, the arguments used to bolster
support for either the academy or the profession have
been strategic in their ability to identify <strong>and</strong> expose the
ailments found within the thinking, motivation <strong>and</strong> action
of the other sibling realm. However, most diagnoses are
unavoidably coupled with a particular author’s tone <strong>and</strong>
some are even peppered with language that provides for
interesting, if not emotionally-charged, reading. Some authors
have heralded the importance of this <strong>Gap</strong> <strong>and</strong> called
for its fortification, while other authors have taken a more
adversarial role by firing accusatory salvos which heighten
both the anxieties <strong>and</strong> shortcomings of its sibling counterpart
while simultaneously taunts a response. 2 Indeed, at
times it has been a heated debate. <strong>The</strong> level of emotional
fervor with which the opposing arguments are crafted has
dramatically subsided in recent years, but nonetheless the
debate continues.
In plain view, the <strong>Gap</strong> is the void as defined by the
edges of where an individual’s formal architectural education
ends <strong>and</strong> where one’s contribution to the profession
begins. Due to the chronological necessity of having one’s
formal university experience prior to one’s commitment to
professional experience, the <strong>Gap</strong> can never relocate. 3 It is a
territorial discrepancy that neither academy nor profession
can occupy at the same time. It does however fluctuate
in both size <strong>and</strong> shape, as the massive bodies that determine
its form alter their own compositional boundaries.
To What End? Preparation for Practices
<strong>The</strong> overall size of the <strong>Gap</strong>, <strong>and</strong> whether or not it is exp<strong>and</strong>ing
or contracting in size, is oftentimes the implied
subject, if not outright focus, of commissioned polls <strong>and</strong>
articles in architectural trade journals, surveys taken on behalf
of educational foundations, investigations by federal
education offices, NAAB accreditation visits, intern summit
meetings, <strong>and</strong> finally, topical conferences sponsored by
academic organizations. <strong>The</strong> title of this very conference
-- “Finishing School” -- reiterates an implied need to make
a figurative distinction, however fine or broad, between the
end of preparatory education <strong>and</strong> the start of professional
practice.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Gap</strong> has interesting implications for the education
of today’s architect. Considering the frequency in which
it is showcased, the resources with which it is tackled <strong>and</strong>
the converging angles from which the <strong>Gap</strong> is discussed,
it is surprising the <strong>Gap</strong> has not yet been transcended by
a workable plan that satisfies the needs <strong>and</strong> desires of
those concerned. <strong>The</strong> problem of the <strong>Gap</strong> remains welldefined
by its critics <strong>and</strong> yet of the approximately 4500
yearly graduates of accredited architecture programs that
choose to pursue architecture as a career, all of them will
pass through this necessary purgatory, however quickly or
slowly, for an undetermined period of time. 4
<strong>The</strong> Inception of the University-Based Architectural
Education
Prior to the late 1800s when states began to establish
st<strong>and</strong>ards for professional licensing, any individual who so
desired could establish an architectural practice <strong>and</strong> selfappoint
himself as an architect. 5 During this time, most
self-proclaimed architects could only receive architectural
training from ateliers, or established practices. While the
atelier provided an environment for the newly-initiated to
learn as they worked, the level of their professional development
was largely determined by the size of firm, its level
of organization, <strong>and</strong> length of personal stay. It was commonplace
for employees who developed their skills within
one atelier to leave <strong>and</strong> then open their own practice with
their own atelier. 6
As the first attempt to incorporate architectural education
into the university setting, Thomas Jefferson, with
the establishment of the University of Virginia in 1814,
intended for a formal architectural curriculum to be offered
as part of the university’s School of Mathematics. 7
For a variety of logistical reasons, Jefferson’s concept for
an architectural curriculum did not come to fruition on the
campus until more than a century later.
<strong>The</strong> Massachusetts Institute of Technology was
73

founded in 1860 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Within the
5 years that followed, MIT had established the first university-based
architecture school in the English-speaking
world. 8 University programs were also soon established at
the University of Illinois – Urbana <strong>and</strong> Cornell University
in 1867 <strong>and</strong> 1871, respectively.
Within these newly established programs, a model was
sought for improving the practice of architecture through
better education. 9 During this time, the Ecole des Beaux
Arts in Paris was regarded as the premiere architectural
school in the world. Since American universities sought
Ecole-trained architects to serve as instructors, there was a
certain amount of academic pollenization that took place
in their schools of architecture where the means, methods
<strong>and</strong> sensibilities of the Ecole were instilled into these
curricularly-infant programs. Some of the ported means
<strong>and</strong> methods that are commonplace today include the design
problem, the charrette <strong>and</strong> the critique. 10 Furthermore,
while the successful Ecole methodology was largely
dependent upon the effectiveness of its teachers, it was
also dependent upon the individual student’s capacity for
learning-by-doing. To ensure survival in these competitive
environments, the development of self-critical skills was a
necessity for students.
<strong>The</strong> Implications of a University-Based Architectural
Education
Once universities began to incorporate architectural
education in a classroom setting, the office environment of
the atelier was no longer the exclusive location for the acquisition
of architectural knowledge. And while the characteristics
of these university schools were heavily under
the influence of established <strong>and</strong> proven Beaux Arts doctrine,
it seems that the threads of the architectural academy
<strong>and</strong> profession have historically diverged ever since.
This divergence is an inherently natural effect when
placing a school of architecture within the larger university
systems, values <strong>and</strong> procedures that are commonplace
with other similarly-goaled university disciplines. 11 However,
there are also others who believe that modern-day
architectural educators have exacerbated this divergence
by cultivating <strong>and</strong> bolstering an ivory tower attitude. For
them, architectural educators are establishing architecture
as an abstract discipline, which is studied for its own intrinsic
interest <strong>and</strong> is directly contrary to the ideals of the
architectural profession. 12
<strong>The</strong> persistent observation on behalf of practitioners
that architecture schools, as a whole, are too disconnected
from the realities of the profession has been the bearing
point for decades worth of complaints. Furthermore,
these same practitioners are of the common belief that
educators are deaf to the evolving needs of the increasingly
complex profession. According to Stephen Gegner,
AIA, architects “have always talked about the lack of prep-
74
Finishing School : 2003 ACSA-SE Regional Meeting
aration for practice that architecture schools provide. <strong>The</strong>
schools do not listen.” 13
<strong>The</strong> criticism that members of the architectural profession
have directed towards the academy varies from the
general to the specific. From a generalized perspective,
practitioners want a steady stream of talented new grads
who can hit the boards running. 14 While this is a shared
view for the majority of the profession, some criticism is
more precise. In their 1995 report, the National Academy
of Sciences concluded most architectural graduates “lack
knowledge of the practical <strong>and</strong> technical aspects of construction,
such as designing to a budget.” 15
For the academy to respond to these criticisms in a
meaningfully active way would require a significant <strong>and</strong>
fundamental change from their current curricular mission.
University-based schools of architecture are focused on
providing the future architect with an education: It is the
role of the academy to create critical thinkers equipped with
the sensibilities <strong>and</strong> skills to become architectural-minded
problem solvers. <strong>The</strong> empirical knowledge acquired within
this environment is the direct result of inquiry, experimentation,
<strong>and</strong> discovery. To shift this view would require the
redirection of the academy’s curricular mission to one that
is more vocational in nature.
A vocationally focused school provides the future
architect with training that is job-specific. <strong>The</strong> acquisition
of empirical knowledge from within this environment
would not come from a process of self-discovery,
but rather would be the result of familiarizing oneself
with the means <strong>and</strong> methods already implemented in the
profession. <strong>The</strong> recycling of the familiar would be ideal
for maximum efficiency <strong>and</strong> would encourage the pursuit
of empirical knowledge only if acquired through proven
<strong>and</strong> prescribed channels. If extended, the acquisition of
knowledge in such a fashion would not lead to an improvement
of either the architectural profession or the larger
architectural discipline.
<strong>The</strong> Academy Responds
University schools find themselves under greater duress
in the face of declining mentorship on behalf of the
architectural profession. In our ever-changing American
culture, the architectural profession has become more susceptible
to change <strong>and</strong> the older, more established methods
of imparting knowledge through the experience of mentors
to future architects have become diluted or eliminated
entirely. 16 Since university-based schools of architecture
are already responsible for the intellectual development of
future architects, is it equally reasonable to expect schools
to shoulder the responsibility for the student’s vocational
development as well?
In 1989, readers of Progressive Architecture responded
to a survey on Internship <strong>and</strong> Registration that was authored
<strong>and</strong> tabulated by P/A. On the subject of whether

architectural schools adequately prepare students for the
licensing exam, an overwhelming 76 percent of the readers
said “no.” 17
More recently in 1999, readers of Architectural Record
were asked: “To encourage schools to place greater
emphasis on practical <strong>and</strong> technical knowledge, students
should be permitted to take at least part of the ARE immediately
after graduating.” 55 percent agreed. 18 In this same
poll, a strong majority favored pressing schools to include
more practical content in their curricula. In particular,
readers advocated the requirement of practical experience
as a condition for graduation <strong>and</strong> to also permit students
to take the A.R.E. upon graduation. 19
<strong>The</strong> fact remains that schools are listening <strong>and</strong> they
have reacted to the profession’s criticism over the years on
a number of fronts. Two areas of note include new course
offerings geared towards professional practice <strong>and</strong> also the
provision of liaisons for cooperative learning.
As opposed to the once popular focus on the allied
arts, a quick review of architectural program curricula show
that architecture schools have added course offerings that
are more vocational in spirit relative to course offerings
of yesteryear. Classes on drawing, sculpting <strong>and</strong> photography
that were once elective offerings for furthering <strong>and</strong>
exp<strong>and</strong>ing an architectural students’ education have since
been encroached upon by course offerings such as Law &
Professional Practice, Construction Documents, <strong>and</strong> CAD
Applications.
Some of the course offerings offered by the academy
look to emulate the professional environment in order to
gain a better underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the context <strong>and</strong> shifting
dynamics of professional practice. Robert Greenstreet, an
educator <strong>and</strong> former chair of the Dept. of Architecture
at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, teaches a Law
& Professional Practice class that is required for 4th year
students. In considering the instruction of the class:
For purposes of the seminar, each student develops
a personal, simulated practice – inventing a structure, personnel,
<strong>and</strong> workload profile during the opening session.
<strong>The</strong>y then prepare simple stationary, an office diary, <strong>and</strong>
equip themselves with required AIA contracts <strong>and</strong> forms.
Following each lecture, the students are presented with
four homework questions which they must address within
the context of their “practice.” For example, they may be
informed that a client for whom they have undertaken design
work has not paid his fees despite repeated reminders.
What alternatives are open to them? What are the implications
of their actions? How should they proceed? 20
Although Greenstreet later clarifies that the intent
behind this level of simulation is for purposes of introduction
only, it does raise the interesting question to what
degree schools of architecture can prepare future students
for the realities of the architectural profession. Do critics
of architectural education believe that if Greenstreet were
To What End? Preparation for Practices
to amplify the level of simulation in the class, that full preparedness
could be achieved to fully initiate a graduate of
their program into mainstream professional practice? Given
the time constraints of any given academic semester,
<strong>and</strong> the physical constraints of not learning these particular
skills in a true office, it seems that at best, the amounts
of useful knowledge <strong>and</strong> applicable skill would remain
minimal in light of a student having no real need for it.
By having no forum with the professional gravitas necessary
to use <strong>and</strong> develop this new vocational knowledge,
students will be hard pressed to translate their simulated
experience <strong>and</strong> knowledge from the academic environment
into a professional one with its own idiosyncratic
particularities. No matter how well conceived <strong>and</strong> executed
a simulated professional environment might be, it
remains a substitute of convenience for an otherwise robust,
dynamic <strong>and</strong> versatile architectural profession. It is
the absence of this accountability to perform, in a very live
way, that leads some advocates of architectural education
to conclude that technical <strong>and</strong> business aspects are simply
better learned in the work environment where there is a
direct application. 21
<strong>The</strong> academy alone cannot be expected to fully prepare
students for the endeavor of architecture without having a
student first learn the realities of the profession by engaging
the profession itself. Cooperative education, or co-op,
enables interested students to observe <strong>and</strong> learn about the
architectural profession from within. <strong>The</strong> co-op program
at the University of Cincinnati has been an integral component
to their program since the college was established
in 1906. Students alternate each three month academic
quarter between formal classroom education <strong>and</strong> officebased
education that takes place under the auspices of registered
architects. While engaged in this program, students
obtain firsth<strong>and</strong> knowledge of professional practices, expectations,
<strong>and</strong> opportunities, <strong>and</strong> a realistic perspective
on career interests <strong>and</strong> aptitudes. 22 Co-op programs such
as this not only create an opportunity for a great working
experience, but it also adds tremendous value to a student
in the eyes of future employers. Of respondents to a 1989
survey in Progressive Architecture, 73 percent believe that
graduates of co-operative programs perform better than
graduates of conventional degree programs. 23
<strong>The</strong> Profession Responds
<strong>The</strong> profession has also attempted to expedite the rate
at which recent graduates pass through this <strong>Gap</strong> by implementing
the Intern Development Program (IDP). Not
only does this program look to ensure each new graduate
with a variety of professional experiences from within an
architectural firm, it does so within a suggested timetable
of three years. Conceived in 1976, the IDP program is
now required by 48 states as an immediate prerequisite for
taking the Architectural Registration Exam. 24
75

University-based architectural education is essential for
the development of future architects. In turn, IDP is the
profession’s realization that there is no substitute for practice-based
education <strong>and</strong> training. Acting as a contract for
professional experience, IDP guarantees the recent graduate
will acquire a diverse array of professional experience
as long as he or she is motivated to seek it out. Through
the diversity of experience it requires, IDP will help recent
graduates make better <strong>and</strong> smoother transitions to the level
of architect. According to two-thirds of the respondents
in one poll, there was a gain in the strength of interns, at
least in some degree, because of IDP. 25
Conclusion
University-based schools of architecture, under heavy
criticism from the architectural profession, have responded
to the challenge of lessening the impact of the <strong>Gap</strong> on
future architects. While the academy has addressed direct
concerns on behalf of the profession, it has also managed
to preserve the teaching of those qualitative processes that
are imperative for a complete architectural education today.
<strong>The</strong> problem-solving skills that students learn in school are
second to none, <strong>and</strong> can be utilized in differing ways without
regret. 26
<strong>The</strong> receipt of an architectural degree signifies the acquisition
of a particular set of abstract skills, <strong>and</strong> not the
acquisition of the technical <strong>and</strong> vocational know-how necessary
to be an immediate contributing force to the architectural
profession. It is the role of the academy to create
critical thinkers equipped with the sensibilities <strong>and</strong> skills
that will then act as a springboard for becoming architectural-minded
problem solvers. Such a position on part of
the academy has not only yielded capable architects, but
also individuals who ultimately pursue career paths outside
of architecture.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Gap</strong> between the academy <strong>and</strong> the profession,
in <strong>and</strong> of itself, is not problematic per se. It is however,
an unavoidable <strong>and</strong> essential neutral territory between two
milestones. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Gap</strong>, <strong>and</strong> the forces which propel the developing
architect through it, behave much in the same way
as an automobile’s clutch <strong>and</strong> gearbox when shifting from
2nd to 3rd gear: <strong>Effect</strong>ive professional education cannot
begin until the developing architect has left the formal environs
of the university <strong>and</strong> immersed him or herself into
the profession’s realm where expediency, experience, <strong>and</strong>
expertise are plentiful.
It is the role of the profession, not the academy, to
educate young architects to the realities of the profession.
Architects acquire most of their knowledge through onthe-job
training, according to an AIA survey, <strong>and</strong> therefore
play an indispensable role in the development of young
architects. 27 Per the success of the atelier studio model, the
profession must be reminded of its own responsibility for,
<strong>and</strong> proficiency with, the professional education of young
76
Finishing School : 2003 ACSA-SE Regional Meeting
architects. <strong>The</strong> professionally conceived <strong>and</strong> implemented
Intern Development Program st<strong>and</strong>s as evidence to this
realization.
One must remember that a complete architectural education
is the result of both our discipline’s academy <strong>and</strong>
profession, together. Each serves a different role <strong>and</strong>, as
such, teaches the future architect in different, yet equally
beneficial ways.

Notes:
1. Michael J. Crosbie, “<strong>The</strong> Schools: How <strong>The</strong>y’re Failing
<strong>The</strong> Profession (<strong>and</strong> What We Can Do About It),”
Progressive Architecture 9 (1995): 48.
2. For further insight into this dynamic, one should compare
the tone of Michael Crosbie’s <strong>The</strong> Schools with the
response of Reed Kroloff ’s “How the Profession is
Failing the Schools,” Architecture 8 (1996): 92, 93.
3. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Gap</strong> can be experienced however, at smaller, separate
intervals, thereby lessening its overall impact on
the development of the future architect. According to
Michael Crosbie in <strong>The</strong> Schools, our British colleagues
have a system “where students study for three years,
spend a year in practice, study for two more years,
spend another year in practice, <strong>and</strong> then can sit for the
licensing exam,” 94.
4. Ernest L. Boyer <strong>and</strong> Lee D. Mitgang, Building Community:
A New Future for Architecture Education <strong>and</strong> Practice
(Princeton: Carnegie Foundation, 1996): 7.
5. Bernard Michael Boyle. “Architectural Practice in
America, 1865-1965 – Ideal <strong>and</strong> Reality,” <strong>The</strong> Architect:
Chapters in the History of the Profession. (Berkeley <strong>and</strong>
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000):
309.
6. It should be pointed out that American ateliers took
different forms. Whereas R.M. Hunt operated an atelier
that was separate from his office, H.H. Richardson
combined the two components within his office without
any organizational distinction. Boyle. Architectural
Practice, 312.
7. Karen Collier Hegener <strong>and</strong> David Clarke. Architecture
Schools in North America. (Princeton: Peterson’s Guides,
1976): 7.
8. Hegener <strong>and</strong> Clarke. Architecture, 7.
9. Joan Draper. “<strong>The</strong> Ecole des Beaux-Arts <strong>and</strong> the Architectural
Profession in the United States: <strong>The</strong> Case
of John Galen Howard,” <strong>The</strong> Architect: Chapters in the
History of the Profession (Berkeley <strong>and</strong> Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 2000): 209.
10. Hegener <strong>and</strong> Clarke. Architecture, 7.
11. Crosbie. Progressive Architecture, 48.
12. Mark Gelenter <strong>and</strong> Gordon Brown. “Education:
Veering From Practice,” Progressive Architecture 3 (1989):
61.
13. Lee D. Mitgang. “Back to School: Architects Sound
Off on 10 Critical Issues Facing Architectural Education,”
Architectural Record 9 (1999): 112.
14. Anthony James Catanese. “Architectural Education:
To What End? Preparation for Practices
Bridging the teaching / practice gap,” Architectural Record
7 (1989): 47.
15. Crosbie. Progressive Architecture, 48.
16. Jim Murphy. “P/A Reader Poll: Internship <strong>and</strong> Registration,”
Progressive Architecture 6 (1989): 15.
17. Murphy. Progressive Architecture, 15.
18. Mitgang. Architectural Record, 116.
19. Mitgang. Architectural Record, 112.
20. Robert C. Greenstreet. “Architectural Education: Integration
of law <strong>and</strong> practice into the curriculum,”
Architectural Record 3 (1987): 43.
21. Mitgang. Architectural Record, 116.
22. See http://said.uc.edu/programs/coop.php
23. Murphy. Progressive Architecture, 16.
24. Although the states of Arizona <strong>and</strong> California do not
yet require IDP for taking one’s Architectural Registration
Exam, the states strongly recommend for examination
entrants to fulfill IDP requirements in order
to ease the pursuit of license reciprocity in other
states.
25. Murphy. Progressive Architecture, 16.
26. Stephen A. Kliment, ed. “Academe or Boot Camp?,”
Progressive Architecture 7 (1991): 189.
27. Joseph Bilello <strong>and</strong> Cynthia Woodward, “Results of
AIA Learning Survey,” Architecture 9 (1992): 100.
With special thanks to Paul J. Boulifard, Christopher Domin,
John Folan, Àlvaro Malo, Rob Paulus <strong>and</strong> Steve
Raike.
77

Bibliography:
Bilello, Joseph & Woodward, Cynthia. “Results of AIA
Learning Survey,” Architecture 9 (1992): 100-102.
Boyer, Ernest L. <strong>and</strong> Mitgang, Lee D. Building Community:
A New Future for Architecture Education <strong>and</strong> Practice.
Princeton: Carnegie Foundation, 1996.
Catanese, Anthony James. “Architectural Education:
Bridging the teaching / practice gap,” Architectural Record
7 (1989): 47.
Crosbie, Michael J. “<strong>The</strong> Schools: How <strong>The</strong>y’re Failing <strong>The</strong>
Profession (<strong>and</strong> What We Can Do About It),” Progressive
Architecture 9 (1995): 47-51, 94, 96.
Cuff, Dana. Architecture: <strong>The</strong> Story of Practice. Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1993.
Cuff, Dana. “Celebrate the <strong>Gap</strong> between Education <strong>and</strong>
Practice,” Architecture 8 (1996): 94, 95.
Gelernter, Mark & Brown, Gordon. “Education: Veering
From Practice,” Progressive Architecture 3 (1989): 61-66.
Greenstreet, Robert C. “Architectural Education: Integration
of law <strong>and</strong> practice into the curriculum” Architectural
Record 3 (1987): 43.
Gutman, Robert. “Redesigning Architecture Schools,” Architecture
8 (1996): 87-89.
Hegener, Karen Collier <strong>and</strong> Clarke, David. Architecture
Schools in North America. Princeton: Peterson’s Guides,
1976.
IDP Coordinating Committee. “Architectural Education:
<strong>The</strong> Intern-Development Program, a status report
from the trenches,” Architectural Record 3 (1986):
49,51.
Ivy, Robert A. “Editorial: Lost in Space,” Architectural Record
10 (1999): 15.
Ivy, Robert A. “Pulse: RECORD Readers were asked:
Should faculty members at architecture schools be licensed?”
Architectural Record 7 (1997): 20.
Kliment, Stephen A., ed. “Academe or Boot Camp?,” Progressive
Architecture 7 (1991): 188-193.
Kostof, Spiro, ed. <strong>The</strong> Architect: Chapters in the History of
the Profession. Berkeley <strong>and</strong> Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 2000.
Kroloff, Reed. “How the Profession is Failing the Schools,”
Architecture 8 (1996): 92, 93.
Mitgang, Lee D. “Back to School: Architects Sound Off
on 10 Critical Issues Facing Architectural Education,”
Architectural Record 9 (1999): 112-120.
Murphy, Jim. “P/A Reader Poll: Internship <strong>and</strong> Registration,”
Progressive Architecture 6 (1989): 15-17.
78
Finishing School : 2003 ACSA-SE Regional Meeting