Creative Education? An Analysis of Existing Architecture Education in Singapore
The author of this article is a final year architecture student in NUS who wishes to remain anonymous.
I am currently a 4th Year Architecture student in NUS. After spending 4 whole years here, I have finally made up my mind to voice out what had been my observations and experiences.
The existing architecture education in NUS has some long-standing deficiencies that I wish to highlight. While these may just be my observations on the ground, I sometimes wonder – if a formal survey is carried out within the School – how many senior Architecture students would echo the same degree of frustration as I have.
Firstly, the system is just too focussed towards end-results. Professors pay lip service to the importance of the creative processes, verbally encouraging them yet not giving much weightage to these strongly-encouraged processes in the assessment.
How many tutors actually spend time to look through our process portfolio, and scrutinize our part models if they have discovered that our final product is not as wonderful as they envision the potential to be? So far, I have only observed my past tutors barely showing interest in my process portfolios, even when I have taken much effort to present them professionally.
Secondly, the feeling among us students is that deadlines are just too tight. Given the amount of scrutiny and supervision—twice every week, sometimes more – one wonders whether any architectural student can even find the creative space for thoughts and exploration.
For the unfamiliar, let’s break this down more clearly: twice every week means Monday and Thursday. After Monday’s review, the student has to further rush his/her work within a short span of two days to produce something by Thursday’s review. And then he/she works again on Friday, Saturday and Sunday before the next review the following Monday. This cycle goes on for 13 weeks. For whatever benefits there are in the intensive amount of supervision (which till today I fail to comprehend), the stressful scrutiny the student is subjected to is detrimental to the needs of some students who might require plenty of space to explore and discover.
It is understandable that the importance of deadlines is stressed to the architecture undergraduate. After all, having such a rigorous system ensures students are ready for a future career in architecture which demands strict adherence to deadlines.
However, deadlines in this country are too important for another less forgivable reason—not meeting deadlines means failures, and failing in this country(or in this Course) is hard to redeem. Students who are still in the midst of trying and failing, and have yet to stumble upon success, would become increasingly disadvantaged as they continued in this harsh and rigid results-driven system. There is no room for “late bloomers”; either you adapt early, or you are not suitable to be an architect.
And we talk about breeding creative architecture in Singapore. Either one grows a nonchalant resilience to criticism of failures, or he learns to survive the system by “giving what the tutors want”. The latter totally defeats the purpose of creative education. How can this be a good place to express one’s creativity, to experiment with new ideas, if stringent, merciless and rigid assessment methods in the Course have ingrained a deep fear of failure into the typical architecture student?
Needless to say, the school grading system – in the form of the Normal Distribution Curve – inevitably leads to comparison between students. Again, the advantage of peer learning has been demeaned by the need to excel over another peer, if one desires to clamber to the top of the league. Comparison becomes unhealthy and is not conducive to peer learning. After all, why help the others given this competitive environment? The most rational course of action is to selfishly fend for one’s survival in this fight of the fittest. In the design field, this factor can be a huge detriment to the education where healthy sharing of ideas among peers can provide plenty of creative stimulation.
Unfathomably, students seldom, if ever, receive adequate feedback on the other (non-DESIGN) modules’ assignments. How often do we receive our graded assignments back for review, and how often are we given the opportunity to understand our areas of weaknesses, and learn from the mistakes we made from the assignments ?
Approaching the tutor personally for feedback is the only way, subject to whether he cares enough to dig out your work and review them again before replying you. From my architecture peers, it seems that with the high work stress and tight deadlines, many would simply forfeit the time to find tutors for feedback and channel their energy into meeting that dreaded deadline.
All such structural limitations like numerous deadlines and rigid assessment criteria which overlook the process in favour of the end product, are in addition to an inherently unfocussed syllabus. Well-known architecture schools model their education programmes with a specific direction in mind. For example, MIT, UCL, and even the newly set-up SUTD place their education emphasis on sustainability. On the other hand, the NUS architecture course gives an impression of trying to cover too many genres without a specific direction.
The lack of technological skill courses is also a major concern. For instance, the teaching of prefabrication machinery and computer simulation skills or Building Information Modelling –which are widely used nowadays in the industry – is only restricted to a limited group of students who choose the specific studio in their final year. Schools like SUTD are already embarking on technology-driven architecture education, while NUS Architecture seems to place little emphasis on keeping up with the times.
A cutting-edge education in the architecture school may be too much to hope for, since the hiring of many older professors with little or no digital skills restricts the innovation of architectural education. I have also observed that many young and fresh tutors, who are able to teach modern technological skills, leave the faculty after just teaching for a while. Why is this so? Could it possibly be the teaching or research environment which favours the old, is resistant to renewal, inevitably leading our younger tutors to a mass exodus? I hope to know the reasons too.
Judging from the students’ attendance during guest lectures and external workshops, it appears that there is very little interest among student to learn more about architecture externally. Something about the system has killed quite some passion or curiosity to learn.
If we have a mundane academic life, we have even less of a social life. There is simply not enough time to strike a balance in life in this field of study. Once in a long while, we hear passionate tutors talk about the need to expand our knowledge beyond architecture. But there are simply so many redundant core architecture modules to take i.e. Sustainability, Integrated Design Sustainability, Architectural Environment etc. Redundant – in the sense that these modules cover the same, repeated content.
We are then left with so little time and energy to take modules that we are interested in from other faculties. Meeting friends beyond school becomes a feat, and this inevitably takes a toll on one’s social life. Finding a balance in school life comes with the price of being labelled the “phantom architecture student”– with all obvious reasons. Not surprisingly, discrimination arises quite often from friends and project mates outside of the Architecture faculty due to the fact that you don’t really have much time for them. Inconspicuously engraved in the code of conduct, architecture students are implicitly “advised” not to have a life outside design work, and should reside in studio all day long as part of the de rigueur of the curriculum.
Of course, given that architecture students have to stay in school for the bulk of their time, it would seem reasonable that we are provided an ideal environment that is comfortable at least.
Now, the irony: For all the emphasis on spaces, ventilation, creativity and aesthetics that NUS Architecture has taught us, NUS Architecture students have had to put up with a badly-ventilated environment for years. Insular, cold, stuffy, lack of chill-out spaces, even ugly. Greyish. Definitely not in line with the image of a decent Architecture School. Coincidentally, the state of this environment seems to reflect some personalities of the school’s teaching body.
One would not expect the best brains to be nurtured here, but I imagine that the powers that be will give some environmentally deterministic argument that harsh conditions produce the best talent.
Conclusion: Hope for the Future
I have friends in their final year who lament not having learnt anything significant in the course of architectural study. I concur with such sentiments, because what we have been taught repetitively over the course of 4 years is to design in a very logical/rational manner of Conceptà ProgramàBuilding; or in any other permutation along the 3 parts. In the end, the process becomes extremely mundane.
Perhaps with competition from SUTD, NUS architecture school will finally lose its glamour of being the sole accredited architectural school in the country, and clean up its act.
I don’t know much about the archi curriculum since I don’t study there, but I’ll just say this:
I don’t think there is an issue in “giving what the tutors want”. Let me put it this way: You’d have to deal with clients in future. Clients will similarly want stuff, and half the time their choices will make waaaay less sense than your tutor’s. Are you just going to ignore the client’s wishes? Good luck making money then.
Pleasing your client/tutor wants doesn’t necessarily mean giving up what you want. It’s tough, but I think real creativity comes when you manage to produce a solution that gives both parties satisfaction. The times I’ve actually managed that, I always ended up producing my best work.
And if you say it can’t be done, chances are you’re just being too inflexible/obstinate/narrow-minded :)
P.S. I’m typing this after 2 all-nighters, so its the same world-round :) Hang on, and sometimes just say “whatever” and go out with your friends. After all, you do need to eat.
Hi all,
I am sad to see so many negative comments regarding TAS in the comments section of the article, even sadder to see other people posing as TAS and commenting. I believe as the 32nd EXCO we are trying to address many issues that the students have raised, they are all in the process of being finalised and we hope to see results soon. I hope you continue to support us, thank you.
broken record. all talk no action.
Thanks MINUS for providing great software workshops to help the weaker students catch up on digital skills. TAS sux.
why MINUS.. NOT PLUS
MINUS = minimally – us
i applaud them for their efforts so far and having the initiative of conducting the workshops as mentioned, great job!
but whats the deal with the TAS – MINUS “rivalry”? the way i see it they are run differently and has different targets (specific ones). whats with the negativity of TAS tt everyone seem to have? “TAS sux” — that makes you sound like a primary school kid saying wolverine is more awesome than spiderman. I’ve been seeing TAS asking for feedbacks, the question is did you participate with useful feedback?. MINUS helped, no doubt. but they dont (not within their powers/objective?) provide a platform for students to speak to the sch and vice versa. people are just rant-happy, “TAS is useless, did nothing, just a name.” Do you try to effectively utilize that platform? I know i didnt, i just couldnt be bothered. the thing is if you are like me, someone who is just plain lazy to voice out anything, then why all the sudden hate when theres a new “club”? dont just sit there and whine when you didnt put in any effort, and cheer when you get a free meal.
I do believe MINUS and TAS can co-exist effectively, benefiting us – students. make love not war.
To the anonymous writer: how irresponsible it is of you to post guerilla comments with baseless allegations based on your personal feelings. I am a recently graduated NUS student currently in practice, and although I may have my gripes about the education I had, I have witnessed the contributions of various individuals – both student and staff, who are sincerely trying to build a community. At this point, your comments are all about consumption, and not helping this process at all; they actually negate these efforts and the goodwill built up. I suggest you stop playing the role of armchair critic, identify yourself, get your hands dirty and take responsibility for your school and education. Similarly, I would have low regard for this publication, which allows damaging remarks from anonymous individuals to be considered ‘commentary’. This must be the height of cowardice.
At the same time, may I also suggest that well meaning individuals not respond to the specific content of the abovementioned ‘commentary’ as there is no basis for a discussion.
Yes Chairman Mao. Sure thing
To the author:
1. Have you been through other architectural academic systems in other countries? You have to have a certain level of knowledge and view things in a bigger picture before you start all these ‘comments’, you know just so that you sound more credible
2. Have you done anything about it in NUS? Sure there are many obstacles but I’m sure you can be more competent if you have so much energy to feel this way
3. How much effort have you put in your own life less munadane?
4. Are you trying to say to those who in a way succeeded through the system a bunch of fools who also know nothing and that they too have’ no life’ and learnt nothing?
etc…
Well I think there are many views on this and it can be discussed to death.There is no right or wrong but one should be giving a fair chance to every person in the system. If you dont like it quit. If you want to voice out, let some tutors know, I am sure you know that who are the tutors arnd who will listen. If you think they cant help you, I think you can give up on life; the world out there (and I mean out of Singapore is not as forgiving as in NUS)
Putting up your thoughts in such a public platform where there is a almost no two way communication is very selfish. Give others a chance and you will give yourself a chance, give life a chance and you will feel better =)
One more thing, don’t remain anonymous. There are many people who care. Talk to them.
I just found out about this article and was reading through the comments. I left the sch few years ago and am currently practicing overseas, and am saddened that it has come to this state.
I think that the school and the people in charge ultimately should bear responsibility for the way students have become so divided and defeated. A lots of things have changed apparently.
For me, I knew things were going downhill when I heard they were actually removing the Student Lounge in the studio and capitalising on the limited space by using it as a studio for an external university. For a long time that was the only form of gathering cum chillout space for Archi students and they had to give that away as well.
Though I had fond memories of the school, I’m sad to say much of the school’s culture has lost its way.
[...] the architectural education experience can often range from frustration to admiration. The article Creative Education? An Analysis of Existing Architecture Education in Singapore, written by a fourth year student attending the National University of Singapore, is a collection [...]
Dear Architecture community,
I’m glad this article is being featured on Archdaily. This article was a major discussion topic among my peers. Alas, like many the article resonated with the majority of us.
Having been to others schools and near the end of my education, I’m sad to admit that NUS simply doesn’t measure up.
Say what you will about the school’s ranking and such, but the truth is like the author says, the school is only concerned about its end results- grades,recognition from the international community etc. It is simply far too conceited and resistant to change.
Consider the fact that on the day the article debuted, there were professors instead of listening to the writer and the issues brought up began making personal attacks on the writer, calling he/she a “coward/cowardly” simply for choosing to remain anonymous.
Singapore is a country where freedom of speech is greatly repressed. It is filled with notorious libel laws where authorities threaten any individual or group even rallying even for a peaceful cause. Of course, school is as we know is a microcosm of the state.
An architecture school on the other hand, one which shapes a country’s aesthetic and pride is far more important.
Eventually, many of the proffesors in charge simply brushed off the article and the writer’s criticism as merely the “work of a weak student”, trying to steer attention away from it.
The aftermath of the article brought to attention the many division that existed in the school – two student societies for a small student population, the reluctance to teach local contextual architecture theory over revered architecture from the west. The latter due to the school and nation’s preference for hiring foreign professors and architects in hopes of garnering international recognition and accolades.
This has ultimately jaded both local architecture and architects, ultimately further contributing to Singapore’s current crisis : a lack of national identity.
In the end, it doesn’t matter. The people in charge are indifferent. The students are too caught up in day to day living, in hopes of getting that prized internship/job and deluded into thinking that one day they too might land the next big project.
Still like the author says, professors pay lip service to the creative process making students “buy” into the “vision” of the school. Here i mean buy literally; the school fees for the faculty gets raised frequently, while the school doesn’t undergo any change. No one bothers asking why, cos the students know even if they did it wouldn’t make any difference.
>>>>PS: This is how the faculty and the people in charge have decided to resolve the issues — A Survey form with your usual vague open ended questions with names listed of those who offer opinions. So far the survey form has been successful in exactly way what it has been designed for — It has deterred anyone with strong opinions from speaking up and apathy among the student population for anyone who even looks at it.
I last saw it underneath a pile of waste cardboard in the corner of my studio. So much for creative education.
[...] the architectural education experience can often range from frustration to admiration. The article Creative Education? An Analysis of Existing Architecture Education in Singapore, written by a fourth year student attending the National University of Singapore, is a collection [...]
I’m really curious why are there so many “haters” of the system. I’m a y1 student and don’t want to be discouraged so early. If the system is really that bad, why are all of you guys still here? It must have its good points, doesn’t it? And I feel that we Singaporeans seem to be demeaning Singapore a little too much – we’re not that bad what. I agree the political system sucks but the school is not related to that issue. First you criticize the school for adopting western principles in design and not providing us with local contextual design. Then you shoot the locals down and worship the western education. So what next?
i kinda agree on the point being made that the response from the school for something that has reached Archdaily, (the most read archi website in our community) and garned so much discussion is quite disappointing.
i mean if the heads of the school and the student body, all designers mind you, can’t design a way to gather response effectively, then there’s something really wrong there, don’t you think?
[...] fall, a senior architecture student at the National University of Singapore wrote a campus-wide article illuminating many supposed wrongs done to students in a poorly [...]
Indeed, there is a lot of negative sentiment to a lot of newly grads in the architecture industry in the US; I think the architecture industry needs to drastically change how business and design is conducted if designers still want to design with any degree of integrity, while still maintaining a budget.
1. Is this truly written by a Yr 4 student, or someone else? – say a teaching assistant, an asst professor, a non-Yr 4 student, a drop-out, a disgruntled new & jobless M.Arch grad … ? Brilliant disguise if so!
2. Who is the Professor who slammed the writer as ‘cowardly’ and yet verbally bitches the System with his students in a casual collegiate ambience? Name him on the Net! Let him explain himself to the Head and the Dean and the Vice-chancellor. Then ask him if he would rather have remained anonymous.
3. In the 80s, I paid less than S$1.5k in yearly tuition fees. Now it’s S$5790 for 2012-2013 freshmen who are Singapore citizens (lowest compared to PRs and international). That’s about 4x what it cost 20 years ago. Still the same grey buildings, same grey faculty personalities, the same grey creative culture. So what’s new apart from the digital studios, which any self-respecting arch school must have to attract fee-paying students? I’m not asking for the likes of Hadid, Gehry, Calatrava etc to head the dept or the school, but exactly where will NUS M.Arch grads stand as the flag bearers of Singapore architecture? Who will step into the shoes of William Lim, Tay Kheng Soon, Chan Soo Khiang (albeit Penang-born, US-educated, Singapore-based)?
4. In the end, academic tenure leads to complacency, politicking and a sense of self-entitlement. Limit all teaching staff to max 3 contract terms. If the US president can only stay for 2 terms in office, why should mere mortals in the dept settle for more in their rice bowls till age 65?
The professor who slammed the writer as “cowardly” is Mr. Florian Benjamin Schatez. He is, if I’m not mistaken currently the year one coordinator of the sch. Having been a student of his before, I can confirm the fact that he does regularly criticise not just the school but Singapore itself. He has gripes on the field of architecture itself. Yet when the article was released, he chose to defend the school and protect his golden rice bowl.
He is a charismatic figure, I have to say and thus popular with some of the students. If you look at his CV and his current activities at the moment, you will realise he has completely abandoned the field of architecture and is delving in other opportunities such as working more towards the engineering side and less architecture on the whole. It is pretty clear from his activities outside the school, he is not interested in the academic side and merely using the school in an opportunistic way.