I am getting a little lost with so much discourse happening.. Was ther a recent rumour/ titbit about the AICTE removing the accreditation powers of the CoA.


Besides I did get the stats from one mail that the CoA has young architects to the tune of 50%


I wonder if this is relevant but with the present state of affairs and the Gats happening.. where do this sizable chunk stand? I am also inclined to belive that SPA and CEPT are on the verge of closure? I believe that the age of the Sweat shops is at hand because the present trend shows most young professionals end up cheap labour in the offices of the biggies?


Why are we talking about the CoA here.. we have the MCD chief asking for USAid to do out bnuilding Bylaws and guidelines for us and the CoA does not even whimper?


I and the opinion of a few of the young uns believe that like the old foggies need to go and digress on some one else's turf and not allow this rot to infiltrate the profession further (if we do have one stil left)


But to harp on Professionals.. Look at the ITPI and their representatives... we have the director of the SPA heading it who has a CBI enquiry on him and the institution.. why should he be asked to represent.


I believe the older generation has to give us an answer for this rot that has set in.. the institutions like CoA, ITPI, SPA, HUDCO, DDA, HSMI...


So pardon my scepticism when I read the voluminous dialogue.. anbd am not convinced...


Young Professional


 


>From: "Prem Chandavarkar"


>Reply-To: "Concerned about habitat and the professions."
>To: "Concerned about habitat and the professions."
>Subject: RE: [in-enaction] website: Council of Architecture
>Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:55:03 +0530
>
>Anand,
>To respond to a few key points:
>
> >
> > one, demand significant amandments in the CoA and IIA structures
> > another,
>
>Do you really want to take this on?
>
> > demand newer types of institutions and legislative frameworks,
> > which is quite stimulating.
> >
>
>Not clear on what you mean here - need more specific info.
>
>
> >
> > I am thinking about masters level courses and PhD programmes in
> > Architectural Education (M.Ed. in Architecture) and Design Informatics
> > (M.Tech Architecture), will gladly confuse research with education (or
> > education-as-research) and theory and design.
> >
>
>These are all spaces which require some degree of formalisation in terms of
>official structures - university recognition etc. Is there not a potential
>in informal spaces which do not require formalisation and only seek to churn
>up ideas.
>
> >
> > I am arguing the "alternative spaces" already exist (see above, the
> > deviations between architectural practice as observed and the CoA/IIA
> > nomenclatures), one just needs to occupy them and then wait for challenges
> > from the institutional stakeholders (who tend to negatively defend their
> > territories)
> >
>I agree - what specific suggestions do you have here.
>
> >
> > immediately contiguous, how do you imagine the professionals articulating
> > their stakes in architectural education? architecture-teaching isn't all
> > that it could be, it seems to me, because the employers aren't demanding
> > much.
> >
>I often get into arguments on this. As an architect who has academic
>interests and is also a partner in a 45 person practice I feel I am in a
>position to evaluate the interests of both sides. I have long argued
>against the vocationalisation of education with an overwhelming focus on
>skill development. The argument made is that students have to be usable by
>practices. As a practising architect, I feel it is just the opposite. I
>can cover to a certain extent for gaps in skills, but it is very difficult
>for me to cover for gaps in the ability to think independently, critically
>and with rigour. Therefore, my ability to use my staff to leverage my own
>time is seriously limited. However I find that very few practicing
>architects are willing to take such a view, and cling firmly to the view
>that vocationalising education is the 'practical' thing to do. The key is
>how you seek to differentiate yourself. If you wish to differentiate
>yourself in terms of design quality then you need a well-educated staff.
>But most Indian architects only attempt differentiation in terms of personal
>(and political) negotiation, price, and to a certain (but lesser) extent in
>terms of efficiency. Therefore, they only perceive a need for staff with
>easily definable vocational skills. To me this is a dangerous attitude for
>it does not work towards true differentiation and pushes architectural
>practice towards a commodity status. I find it difficult to push people out
>of this blinkered attitude - so I do not see much change in education coming
>from employers. I feel that a greater opportunity is to create alternative
>spaces for students - particularly those who are in the first half of the
>programme (as those in fourth and final year often begin to acquire the
>blinkers of convention).
>
>_______________________________________________
>in-enaction mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction


MSN Hotmail now on your Mobile phone. Click here.