ARTICLES ON STUDIO CULTURE
Click on the following links to go to the articles.
- STUDIOMANIA
- AT WHAT PRICE
- STUDIO CULTURE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- WHO DO WE REALLY WANT TO BE?

STUDIOMANIA
An interview with Richard Quinn, FAIA,
President, National Architectural Accrediting Board
(Crit 48, Fall 2000, p. 24-25)

Crit: What is studiomania?
If you really look at what you should be learning while in architecture school, a big part of that takes place in the studio. At the same time, there's this romantic notion that staying up all night needs to be part of us; something to the effect of a requirement for 100 percent dedication to design. If you think about what you should be learning while in school, it should extend well beyond studio to include much more outreach, rather than being sequestered in a building 24 hours a day. Any outside/non-architecture experiences and knowledge that you gain are going to have the greatest impact on your success. This broad, general knowledge comes from greater university experiences through outreach to other departments, lectures, and visiting scholars, and many other things - not just architects or architecture.

This idea that you should be locked up on the upper throngs of a building in some campus building is dangerous and shortsighted. But there is another negative as well. As a result of that seclusion, we lose consideration for the value of time. Once you get out into practice, you have to determine what you are going to charge for your skills and time; if you have some kind of nagging concept of what your time is worth, you will probably have the same complaint about the level of income or compensation that you'll see.

Crit: How does this prepare students for practice or whatever they choose to do?
That's another aspect of teaching that I think gets very little attention in school- actually talking about the value of what you're doing in practice and how to calculate the costs that are inherent in practice. Sometimes I hear students say, "If I had $50 an hour, that's a lot of money." Well, the problem with that is that you have to pay many other things such as support staff, leaving little to pay yourself what you are worth.
In other words, that kind of education doesn't give adequate insight into the actual cost of your services, without saying anything about neglecting the outreach that should be going on. If, for example, the fine arts department has a visiting sculptor, go meet him. Those couple hours away from studio could do more for your project than you might ever imagine. And rather than returning to studio until around two o'clock in the morning, go home and sleep.

Crit: Does NAAB speak to outreach?
We certainly encourage interdisciplinary work. Still Many schools are very introspective; some have never even met with other disciplines on their own campus. It is crucial to somehow gain an understanding for other professions.
It's interesting to think that there is a direct carryover of this mystique into many practices. Some offices believe that their employees should live and breathe architecture. Some would even say, "that's what you have to do to be a good architect." My belief is that you're going to burn yourself or your people out pretty quickly. Demanding young parents with young children to come in and work, even a few nights a week much less all sorts of crazy hours, just to meet your belief of working nonstop, is totally irresponsible. If you're a professional, you need to have balance; that's nearly impossible to do if you're working 70-hour weeks.

Crit: How will this come up in the Validation Conference? And who should bring it up?
I've stated my opinion to the NAAB, and will continue to do so. But I really think that students should speak out against this. A student gets exposed to this and I would imagine that their first thought is, "This is kind of fun." But that romance wears off pretty rapidly considering the demands of an individual's schedule.
When you are given the impression that the only way to complete the project is by working all night, the whole process becomes cannibalized. It becomes expected that in order to accomplish the design program, you have to work long hours. What happens to your math, creative writing, and philosophy courses? What happens to other elements of your architecture curriculum? They suffer. In practice, the same kind of thing happens to a practicing architect who works all these crazy hours and doesn't go home, never sees their kids, or take care of the obligations that go on with having a family. Many even end up divorced because of it. It's not a good idea. Education, especially design theory education, ought to be able to be taught in a way that doesn't demand that someone sacrifices their life. Now, many faculty members will say, "The students just like it; we don't demand it." But that's not totally true.

Crit: Are you impressed by couches or showers in the studios?
It should be pretty clear how I feel. While I was at school, they used to shut the lights off every night at the same time, and while I wouldn't go so far as to propose that, it might not be a bad idea. Still, I got a perfectly fine education. Sure, we worked some late hours, but if you put your mind to it and develop your schemes, you'll be successful.
If you have this mania that you have to give up everything for studio, your faculty members will lock on to this idea that "I can ask them to build a basswood model for every phase of the project." Well, how many times do you have to build perfect basswood models before you understand the media or three-dimensional design? I've been in a couple of schools where they fill entire rooms with cardboard models of exactly the same thing. And the pragmatic side of it is that it takes a lot of time to build these things.
What practice demands is just reverse of that-figuring out more efficient ways to illustrate your ideas. The basic design has nothing to do with basswood models, those are just ways to show your ideas.

Crit: How could NAAB take a position on time management?
It certainly could be demonstrated very nicely in studio work. I really think we're under-utilizing the studio as a place for comprehensive learning. Within the course of a semester or school year, we could almost set up mini offices. We could have teams working in similar ways as they work in an office.
There are also aspects of the curriculum that are very powerful design issues, but we always talk about design and think about it in relation to problems. But, in essence, all aspects of what you are doing can and should be designed. You really need a clear understanding of how to convey things to critics, clients, and teammates as creatively and clearly as possible. Likewise, if you do it "right" the first time, you won't have to constantly go back to fix things. The other part of this is being creative on financial aspects of the project, so figure out new ways, materials, methodologies, etc. That's as much design as coming up with something on paper.

Crit: Maybe we have to redefine or realize what design is.
Coming out of school, I had the opportunity to work for a short time in the offices of Eero Saarinen. The office had a policy that almost everything required design. Every single project had a custom-designed title block that the team who was working on the project to be relevant to the kind of building or client. What happened was that everything was designed; how you presented your ideas and even your verbal presentation. The people who are successful in practice are the ones that can articulately describe their work.
If I had to rate what is the most important part of education, I'd say communication and an understanding of time. Graphic ability would obviously come in a close second, but these things are a lot more critical than a lot of people understand.

AT WHAT PRICE
by Brad Lunz, 2000-2001 South Quadrant Director
Savannah College of Art and Design
(Crit 51, Spring 2001, p.24-25)
Presented with deadlines that are unachievable. Burdened with a disproportionate ratio of earned hours versus contact hours. The mentality that an all-nighter means dedication. Brandishing scars from X-acto blades like wounds attributed to heroic battles. Architecture schools have become the battlegrounds of survival. We are conditioned to believe that this is the manner in which the education of an architect is conducted. After all it has been this way for decades, why change it now?

This cycle of unhealthy behavior does not merely manifest itself in a few students who are struggling. Rather it affects the majority. At the close of business during FORUM, a last minute business item was presented to the Council of Presidents in light of a tragic loss of a fellow architecture student. This piece of business was the initiation of the Studio Culture Task Force, which was charged with researching this issue and making recommendations to the Board of Directors for action.

This is not a new problem. Thomas Fisher, Dean of the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the University on Minnesota, wrote on the subject in the magazine P/A almost ten years ago. Sparked by recent events the editors of ArchVoices felt inclined to issue it again. The editorial entitled "Patterns of Exploitation" was recently republished in ArchVoices in the January 26th, 2001 issue (http://www.egroups.com/group/archvoices). The article raised valid questions. These questions have lain dormant for almost a decade; how much longer can they continue to exist without a resolution? Many believe the students can make great strides in accomplishing this goal. Many view the students as an ideological balance to the profession. Oftentimes it our own naïve nature that can raise the standard.

What can the task force accomplish? Do we think that we as students can change the academic setting? The answer is simply yes. Fisher's article pointed out another problem that many in school take for granted unpaid internship. It was only through the efforts of the students that this unethical practice has dwindled to a point close to non-existence. Again it is time that the students become critical of our professional practices.

The task force has commenced researching information related to the health and safety of students. Statistics such as suicide rates, alcoholism, serious illnesses of students, and minor injuries are some of the topics of inquiry. The task force plans to prepare a report based on statistical comparisons of these facts with other majors. Furthermore, it will examine how these factors may vary between schools with 24-hour studio access versus controlled access. The task force also requests that the students send anecdotal stories about their specific studio experiences to the national office to augment the report. Hopefully this report can serve as instrument to open a dialogue with the other collateral organizations as to the seriousness of this issue. Already the ACSA (Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture) has indicated concern. During the annual ACSA conference this March they added a panel discussion on the topic of Studio Culture, led by AIAS students.

Beyond the collection of data and figures the task force is trying to identify the causes of the problem. Many students place this burden on the faculty. It is not only the faculty to blame but the students as well. We simply do not value our time. The AIAS can take a very proactive role in initiating a time management program. Director-Elect for the Northeast Quad, Larry Fabbroni has spent the past month discussing the inclusion of time management coursework into the curriculum at the freshmen level at his own school. This is not a novel idea. At the Georgia Institute of Technology, all freshmen are required to take a course entitled "Introduction to College Life". My own school requires the same type of course. Though both of these courses lightly touch on time management skills, it provides an excellent point of departure for further exploration.

Many people responded both to ArchVoices and the AIAS discussion board (http://www.aiasnatl.org/letstalk). These initial responses help to craft the direction in which the Studio Culture Task Force is headed. I would urge everyone to join the discussion and add his or her respective comments. It is only from the students that the Task Force can continue. The following are two separate excerpts from some of the responses generated by the reprint of the Thomas Fisher editorial:

"As a parent of an architecture student, I have always thought that the rigors of the program are insane. My daughter had a job this past summer working for an architect. She in no way had to work anywhere near as hard as she does in school. What is the purpose of giving so much work? It is unrealistic and unfair. I would be happy to help in any way I could to get the word out that architecture schools have to change their minds about the amount of work that they assign. I believe that every Dean of every architecture school should be emailed a copy of what I received so they can see and read for themselves what the overly demanding workload is doing to students!"

" I don't believe that any of our family, friends or spouses realize what a trial Architecture school is. I have forwarded it to all of my family and friends to try and make a point that I have been trying to make for 10 years. At one point and time during school, my mother actually signed me up for alcohol treatment because she believed I was always partying due to me never answering my phone at home. She didn't realize that I was at studio all the time. I had my sister explain to her my REAL schedule and we all had a laugh... (but maybe it wasn't so funny?)"

STUDIO CULTURE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
by Aaron Koch, 2001-2002 AIAS Vice President
(ACSANEWS, January 2002, p. 6)
At the recent ACSA Administrator's Conference, I gave a presentation concerning the examination of studio culture. For those not in attendance, this column will share my comments and provide more information on the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force.

Since December of 2000, the AIAS has led the discussion on the critical issue of analyzing current practices in architecture education. The vision of the Studio Culture Task Force is to make the education and profession of architecture as successful as possible. It is the goal of the AIAS to see that all students are prepared to elevate the value of architecture. We are at a time when the skills and talents of the architecture profession have never been needed more urgently. Communities have become more fragmented, many cities are in decline, the public does not place enough value on design, and the world's resources are in jeopardy. Architecture students, as the designers of the future, should be educated to address these issues of concern. However, numerous people and groups have questioned whether this is actually happening. Many feel that architecture education doesn't successfully prepare students to promote our discipline, communicate outside of the profession, collaborate effectively, think critically, use design as a process, serve as leaders, or elevate the value of architecture. Also, questions have arisen asking whether students are taught to understand all of the forces that impact the built environment, such as political, economic, and social issues. Above all, many question whether architecture students are taught to effectively serve communities and the public, the same public that so badly needs our services. The AIAS feels that architecture education must be more balanced to educate students for a life of leadership, service and critical citizenship. Does the core of architecture education, the design studio, successfully prepare students to serve as leaders in designing the future?

The questioning of studio culture is not new. Thomas Fisher wrote an article entitled, "Patterns of Exploitation" for Progressive Architecture over ten years ago. Other works, such as the Building Community report by the late Dr. Ernest Boyer and Lee Mitgang, Design Juries on Trial by Kathryn Anthony, and the Reflective Practitioner by Donald Schon also critically examine the studio environment. This examination is not new because the same set of issues have existed for a long time. The design studio exists without much variation across the country, and it has resisted major change despite vast transformation in social values, cultural attitudes or even the changing nature of architecture practice.

The AIAS recognizes that the studio model is one of the major strengths of architecture education. In fact, so many positive aspects exist that other disciplines have looked at architecture education as a model to emulate. In few other disciplines do students have such strong one-on-one interactions with faculty and receive direct feedback concerning their work. The studio environment offers an unparalleled opportunity for creative discovery, exploration of ideas, critical discussion, and risk taking. Above all, students find that the studio environment offers a strong community where life long friendships are cultivated. While there are numerous positives, an equal set of concerns exists about studio education.

When the Studio Culture Task Force was formed, its main area of focus was the health, safety, and welfare of architecture students. The AIAS began its investigation after a student from a Southern University died in a head-on car accident after "pulling two-all-nighters" in a row in preparation for a studio review. I imagine that everyone who completed an architecture program has their own vivid stories about long nights and "all-nighters". While some may look back at these memories with fondness, there is no doubt that these experiences contribute to physical, emotional, and intellectual deprivation, and even death. There are widespread reports of increased stress, poor eating habits, lack of sleep, depression and cases of substance abuse. If we want professionals to lead balanced, healthy lives, we should not expect them to put off practicing that mindset until later in life. In "Patterns of Exploitation", Thomas Fisher wrote, "at issue is not the value or even the necessity of hard work, commitment, or dedication. The question is: When do we cross the fine line between hard work and exploitation?" In addition to obvious health risks, does working in an environment where time is not valued most effectively produce strong citizens and successful architects?

While student health is a foremost concern, there are many other aspects of studio education that equally require examination. To meet the goal of better serving society, it is essential to analyze how effectively our studios allow interaction with society. In a June issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Peter Monaghan authored an article, "The Insane Little Bubble of Nonreality", depicting architecture studios as detached entities isolated from the rest of the campus and society as a whole. If students are spending long and late hours isolated in an architecture studio, are they learning about the world they will be designing in? Carla Corroto, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro claimed in a response to the AIAS that the culture of studio, "prizes form over content, making over meaning, time laboring above time reflecting, imagining independent of reading, and competition among us over cooperation between disciplines." Due to these factors, she states that much of student work becomes "essentially irrelevant to a society that demands real solutions to a myriad of social problems that architects cannot even begin to understand, let alone help solve." Another example comes from Frances Bronet in her November President's column in which she described student disengagement from critical social issues due to the culture of their studios. How can architecture school graduates design responsibly for a society if studio education doesn't allow them to be part of it?

To more effectively serve society, it is important to examine how design is taught and how that relates to other equally important areas. Design is at the heart of architecture education, as it should be, but do our studios focus on the design process or just the design of objects? When students spend a majority of hours on perfectly crafted models or precise illustrations, what skills and abilities are not being developed? In far too many cases, our studio culture rewards students who produce the most work or manipulate form in the most interesting ways, regardless of content. At many schools, students are barely engaged in learning from other disciplines on campus and, more importantly, design studios tend to take precedence over architecture "support courses." To marginalize non-design subjects in architecture school is to devalue elements vital to the existence and realization of architecture. In an increasingly complex world where the lines between disciplines are blurred and clients demand a wide variety of services, do our current studio practices prepare students to succeed?

Not only must architecture graduates know about aspects other than design, they must also understand how to work collaboratively. Too often, design in schools is seen as a solo and heroic effort, although this is rarely the way that architects practice. In many studios, students guard ideas and view their classmates as competitors. Thompson Penney, AIA President-elect responded to the AIAS by saying, "If we want professionals to be confident, contributing leaders in society, we should take every care in making sure that the educational system encourages confidence (not defensiveness), empathy (not self-centeredness), and teamwork (not a star mentality)." Many individuals have emphasized the necessity of team projects, while others have questioned the value of grading. Some schools, such as the University of Oregon, do not use grades for studio courses. Does giving a grade do justice to the work produced? Or, does grading just promote an unhealthy type of competition?

One last issue to consider is whether all architecture faculty members and critics are successfully prepared to educate students. Considering that most professors are educated to be architects, not teachers, do schools and the ACSA need to place more emphasis on educating its faculty members? Many people have raised this concern especially as it relates to adjunct professors, visiting instructors, and guest critics, as they mostly teach studios and serve on juries. Far too often, studio instructors tend to use the same pedagogical teaching approach that was used when they were students, which would explain our "patterns of exploitation."
The AIAS's examination of studio culture has produced many questions. While this organization will take positions on many aspects of this discussion, it is clear that we don't have all the answers. Above all, the AIAS is committed to work for improvements. The Studio Culture Task Force will hold a special focus session at the ACSA Annual Meeting, and more updates will be given throughout the spring. As educators, we need your feedback and consideration. If one thing is clear, it is that both students and educators need to communicate and collaborate to make necessary changes to strengthen the discipline of architecture.

WHO DO WE REALLY WANT TO BE?
An editorial by Sarah Peden, AIAS West Quadrant Director, Studio Culture Task Force Chair
How many of you have heard one of your professors or studio critics refer to architects as "The Last Great Generalists?" Usually it is in the context of a discussion of how architects can design anything they put their minds to… After much thoughtful consideration and some very interesting discussions, I have to say, I disagree. Architects of today are not "The Last Great Generalists," nor are they really generalists at all.

How many of you would say that architecture school trains you to be a generalist? Anyone…? If you ask a student around campus about architecture students, they would probably say they work really hard, pull a lot of all nighters, and that they themselves have rarely ever met one. Is this what you would call the education of a future generalist?

Our education is often quite insular-I would even go as far as to say there is an established, though unwritten, hierarchy of learning in architecture schools across the country. First and foremost is the studio-10 classes covering the same material, making up about a third (or more) of your total course load by the time you graduate. Theoretically, in studio, you learn the process of "designing", a skill that can then be applied to anything you choose.

Then are all the other architecture classes you take-history, structures, professional practice, theory, etc.… in order to give you a well rounded education in the design field.

The lowest are all those other classes you have to take outside the architecture school. These are the classes where you learn about everything else in the world. These are the subjects that define the culture in which our buildings are built-the social-societal context that our buildings must relate to if they are to be successful. In studio you learn about the importance of site context; you use site lines, traffic patterns, codes, and neighboring structures as starting points to create your building. While these are definitely important things to consider, they are not the whole story. History, finance, law, politics, art, and other cultures are all things that greatly influence the design of any project you do in the profession, but how often are you encouraged to learn about these things while in school? How can we be generalists if we aren't even encouraged to learn about other topics that greatly impact our architectural designs, much less those subjects that would "just" enhance us as people? I wish architecture schools would realize the importance of these other classes! Maybe then the profession wouldn't be in the trouble it is now.

The struggles the profession is undergoing right now, particularly the negative way architects are perceived by the public, can be directly linked to the way students in architecture schools are educated. We are now reaping exactly what our education has sown. We isolate ourselves socially, creatively, and intellectually during school. No wonder the public sees architects as unapproachable and irresponsive. We are trained to be that way, even if it is only taught inadvertently.

Architects are not automatically seen as the leader of the whole building design team anymore. Perhaps if leadership was taught, shown, or encouraged in education, future architects would feel more capable leading the design process. Extracurricular activities are fantastic ways to give students opportunities to develop real leadership skills, but all too often architecture students don't participate in them. Why? I venture to guess that is due to the enormous workload required in studio. What is considered in studio to be a reasonable amount to require of students is far more than many studio critics would expect of themselves or their firms. An architect needs to be able to design a building well, but they also need to be able to design teams, project schedules, marketing campaigns, and nurture successful relationships with clients if they are to build repeat business, necessary to the stability and growth of the firm. Architecture is about buildings, space, people, money, politics, leadership, and business. Those are all real skills students should be taught and encouraged to develop in order for them to succeed in our profession. We need to learn how to work in teams. Some students are needed to develop strong design skills. Some are also needed to develop strong leadership skills, business skills, construction skills, presentation skills, and people skills. In order for architects to once again regain their place in society, we need to start encouraging growth in all these different skill areas. Instead of creating a marketing campaign to educate the public about the importance of architects, let's start showing them why we are vital to the success of society. But before we can effectively do that, though, we need to develop those skills ourselves.

And we can.

We can start by broadening the studio curriculum to better train students to be successful in our social context. Perhaps our first step could be to see "design" as something larger than the conceptual design of a building. The design process is rightly the center of architectural education; it's just that the design process has grown to encompass so much more than what is stressed in studio currently. Why should students always do a conceptual building design in studio each semester? Some people have already begun to broaden the studio design curriculum. Design-build studios are growing in numbers and scope, largely in part to the efforts and publicity of the late Sam Mockbee and the Rural Studio. What if there were studios where you designed how a firm could be run successfully? Or a studio where architecture students worked with civil or structural engineering students to be able to better understand not only how structural requirements can inspire creative design solutions, but also how to communicate with engineers, and work as a team? The design process is so much richer than just conceptual design and design development alone. We should be educating our students to see the riches in others and their ideas. We pride ourselves on being creative, so why don't we start a profession-wide discussion about what studio could be? If we want to stay a vital part of society, this is something we need to start doing now, before we train ourselves into obsolescence.

Change is often quite slow in coming in architecture. Many of the current pressing issues are actually reoccurring issues. Degree nomenclature, studio culture, the public's perception of the aloof architect are all issues that have been at the forefront of discussion before, but haven't been resolved. Historically there has been too much talk about change and not enough effort to actually go through with it. We cannot continue to stall, for the world is starting to move on without us. If we want to stay active in society, we must change now. If we are truly the problem solvers we believe ourselves to be, we can solve these issues, and implement the necessary changes. We have the choice to face them and make the future better, or we can ignore them again. Either way, they aren't going to just disappear…

The value of the architect is tied directly with the value of the ideas she or he produces. Ayn Rand explains this quite eloquently in Atlas Shrugged:
Every man is free to rise as far as he's able or willing, but it's only the degree to which he thinks that determines the degree to which he'll rise. Physical labor as such can extend no further than the range of the moment. The man who does no more than physical labor, consumes the material value-equivalent of his own contribution to the process of production, and leaves no further value, neither for himself nor for others. But the man who produces an idea in any field of rational endeavor-the man who discovers new knowledge-is the permanent benefactor of humanity. Material products can't be shared, they belong to some ultimate consumer; it is only the value of an idea that can be shared with unlimited numbers of men, making all sharers richer at no one's sacrifice or loss, raising the productive capacity of whatever labor they perform.

We need to train future architects to see their value in the continual development of the design process (the idea), rather than in the buildings they design (the product). When architects see their value in a process rather than a commodity, the public will see why architects are important.

If we want the profession to solve it's current identity crisis, and keep it from happening again, we need to change the way we educate future professionals. The hazing that has unfortunately become a part of architectural education needs to stop. If we want students to become professionals, they need to be treated like professionals. Students and studio critics need to learn to respect time. This includes learning time management skills and making studio requirements fit the reasonable university guidelines-two hours of work can be assigned to do out-of-class for each credit hour of class. Most studios meet around 12 hours a week but are only 6 credit hours. Many architecture schools use the reasoning that studios meet 12 hours a week, so there should be 24 hours a week of work done outside of class. That equals 36 hours a week of expected work for a 6 credit class. Most students take 16 to 18 credits a semester, so if they are already doing 36 hours just for studio, they are spending 66 to 72 hours a week just doing schoolwork. Architecture students in general are willing to work hard, but this is truly excessive. Few professionals would be willing to put in these hours, but yet, they expect students to put in those hours because they are in architecture school and "architecture school is hard." My question is, why don't we streamline education? I wonder what would happen if the business philosophy of Uncle Scrooge McDuck (from Disney's cartoon Duck Tails) were to be implemented at an architecture school. His philosophy? "Work smarter, not harder." I'm guessing that many of the future leaders of the profession would graduate from there! Who is willing to take a chance and open this school? If we are truly a profession who designs solutions to problems, eventually we will have to make Uncle Scrooge's mantra our own.

We need to define the word "design" more broadly in education. We often use it as a noun-"This is my design for a…"-rather than a verb-"I am designing." If we begin to teach students that the importance is in the process, then the students will be able to leverage their design experience, and thus will be able to design more creatively and efficiently. Therefore the profession becomes more valuable.

We need to have less focus on studio and more integration and importance placed on classes like professional practice. This will prepare future architects to work in the professional environment. Business schools teach this, architecture schools can as well. We need to have more opportunities-in class-to design and build projects with others. Teamwork is a vital component in today's society, both in architecture and in life. There needs to be more integration between practice and the academy. When they are at odds, the future of the profession is weakened. Maybe programs could be created where students could receive studio credit for time and learning done while working in a firm.

If we want architects to be active leaders within our society, we need to start encouraging students to take on leadership positions while in school. Teaching and encouraging civic involvement will give students the means to become more active in their communities. Architects have many skills that can improve communities, we just need to make more frequent use of them! Students and interns could even get the ball rolling by building relationships with local chapters of Habitat for Humanity or a community garden organization. Then approach the school for support. It can only help strengthen the schools, and it gives them the opportunity to generate positive publicity for the school, something they are always looking for! In the end, it benefits everyone to be an active community member.

Protecting and promoting the health, safety, and welfare are the architect's first goals when working with a client. The same needs to apply as the minimum standards in architectural education. If we want future architects to go beyond these minimums and truly take their place of leadership in society, we need to start seeing architectural education more broadly. The way architects are educated determines how they see themselves and their role in society. The division now seen between the architectural community and society at large is a by-product of the way architects were taught to view themselves and the world while in school. Until education changes, the profession's struggles will continue to reappear.

We can choose who we want to be in the future. We can be another group of architects who isolate ourselves from society, allowing the same problems to plague our profession. Or we could be the group who gives new value to architecture, society, and ourselves by choosing to become the leaders society needs us to be. Both choices have consequences-one negative, the other positive. Each of us has the responsibility to make this decision individually, but the consequences will have to be borne by us all. Instead of living in the past, defining ourselves as "the Last Great Generalists"-and consequently the end of the line, I challenge us, this next generation of architects and designers, to be the group who chooses to take action and become the leaders we are truly meant to be.