The Second Studio (formerly The Midnight Charette) is an explicit podcast about design, architecture, and the everyday. Hosted by Architects David Lee and Marina Bourderonnet, it features different creative professionals in unscripted conversations that allow for thoughtful takes and personal discussions.
A variety of subjects are covered with honesty and humor: some episodes are interviews, while others are tips for fellow designers, reviews of buildings and other projects, or casual explorations of everyday life and design. The Second Studio is also available on iTunes, Spotify, and YouTube.
This week David and Marina have a discussion about how schools can better prepare students for their careers and to tackle issues of equity, social justice, and climate change. The questions are from EQiA’s (Equity in Architecture) 2023 Forum panel which took place in Georgia Institute of Technology. The EQiA is a student organization at the Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Design. It is dedicated to unity and equity in architecture.
Highlights & Timestamps
(01:15) Introduction
(04:47) What does equity mean as it relates to academia?
I went to school and I paid 500 euros per year in France and everyone in my school was from a bunch of different backgrounds, socially, racially, sexually. They were probably as diverse as you could hope for. And it was just because of the fact that it was easy enough to afford. There was a selection based on grades and application, but the money was not really one of the criteria which made a huge difference. (07:35)
(08:20) Did your architecture education inadequately prepare you for your career?
There is a huge network of people who just went you through those things and they're still freshly out of school. They have a little bit more vision of what's happening after you graduate. […] and can eventually help you apply [to offices]. Some people could say, "Oh, you're taking shortcuts. You're networking." But if it works, it works. You're paying the high price of higher education to use that network. It's very common knowledge in business schools that that is what’s happening. We’re networking, we're helping each other out, and that's how we're moving. I don't see why architecture school should not be the same. (16:32)
(24:25) What should design education be teaching students for the AEC industry?
(34:11) What sort of disconnects have you personally faced when interacting with architecture firms, educators, or students?
(42:26) Are there patterns you’ve noticed that frustrate you?
If you were to design a school, and the primary objective of the school was to make students who, when they graduate, were the most ideal candidate to be hired, so they can be productive employees when they start, then yes, you would learn Revit from day one in school. You would learn about technical stuff. You would become a production person. That's what we think of when we think of contributing to an office and being a productive employee. But that's a really big if. And that is not the objective of most schools and nor should it be because, the school exists, yes, to prepare students, but also to challenge the profession. So if those two [school and practice] are too much in sync and the only thing you're doing is creating a pipeline into the profession, the profession's not going to evolve. You're not gonna produce people who will think outside of the box. You've stunted professional growth.
(52:35) How important is interdisciplinary education is early on?
(56:43) What are the necessary skills and knowledge emerging professionals need to have to tackle equity, justice and climate change issues that are heavily affecting our society.
(01:08:52) How can curricula adapt to be more proactive to current global challenges?
If you want people to graduate and be successful within the profession, but then also do these greater things like solving equity, climate change, and whatever, what you need are people who are good at problem-solving, smart, and will take initiative on their own. That third one is huge. If you have the skills and the talent, but you don't take initiative, then the other two are meaningless. The problem with a lot of schools is that they focus on the first two, but they don't focus on initiative and they don't give opportunity for initiative. More specifically, design studios that prescribe a step-by-step process [for the students’ projects] result in zero initiative from the student. Zero creativity, also. So how do you expect a person, when they graduate with these skills, to go off and start their own foundation, join a foundation, talk to their city council, or do whatever it might be when you haven't given them the opportunity for them to even think that way on their own? (01:09:04)
(01:16:20) Advice for the next generation of professionals.
