Over the past year, the discussion around architectural education and the need to reform it has developed with renewed vigor. It seems that everyone is unhappy with the current situation: students, teachers and employers. We discussed how constructive this discussion and what the first steps to solving the problem might be with the architect Vsevolod Medvedev, who heads his own bureau and has been teaching at Moscow Architectural Institute since 1999.
Archi.ru:
The problem of architectural education in Russia did not arise today, but in 2016 it again found itself in the focus of everyone's attention. And oddly enough from the filing of the Moscow Committee for Architecture. What, in your opinion, can this be connected with and what is the risk?
Vsevolod Medvedev
- The topic of education has become fashionable. It is not surprising that Moskomarkhitektura joined in its discussion in order to express its position and try to propose some solutions. But so far it looks somewhat strange and unconvincing. "Experts" are involved in the conversation, who give superficial recommendations that cause great doubts. But the fact that the topic is being discussed at this level is very good. Previously, the architectural authorities did not participate in any way in the activities of specialized universities. Now the situation is changing, the leaders of the committee are open for communication, and students need it and it is very interesting. This way they can better understand the system of architectural activity. And thanks to the new Department of Comprehensive Professional Training, created in conjunction with the SMA, it is possible to acquaint students with the experience of leading practicing architects. But all these rather important innovations do not solve the main problems, including the problems associated with the introduction of the Bologna system.
It seems that this system has proven its effectiveness
- Where and in what? Initially, it is generally not clear why Russia adopted the Bologna system. It is focused exclusively on the European Union, of which we are unlikely to be a part. It is useless for us. Formally, it opened up our market for Western architects, but not a tiny European market for our architects who find it difficult to count on decent work. Competition is a necessary condition for normal development, but it seems to me that one could have acted more subtly. For example, in Italy and France, several universities abandoned the Bologna system, returning to the previous training format. Different schools use different methods, combining them depending on the tasks they face, in order to qualitatively prepare specialists for professional activity, first of all at home. And Moscow Architectural Institute, in turn, must correct the principles of the Bologna system, with a focus on the peculiarities of the national architectural school.
We have not yet debugged everything and is not logical. In fact, no one understood how it works and the approach is absolutely formal. Do you need bachelors and masters? Please just change the wording in the diploma. Diploma for two years? For God's sake! That is, on the face of the mechanical merger of the two systems. Those who graduated for the first time last year, having studied in the Bologna system, simply do not understand what to do. Some left to work after the 5th year, some went somewhere to finish their studies in the second round, and some of the people study in the magistracy, and actually make the same diploma that they did before, only it now lasts not a year, but two, since a fictitious theoretical part has been added to it. It turns out the replacement of graduate school. And then what to do in graduate school? In MARCHI there is no complete understanding of how this should work.
In addition, this copying of someone else's system led, in my opinion, to an unjustified delay in the learning process. Now they have been studying at the Moscow Architectural Institute for 7 years! 5 years - bachelor's degree and 2 years - master's degree. Seven years of such a lazy, stretched, uncompetitive education. I am convinced that the quality of education will only increase if the program is shortened and optimized. The first 2 years should be reduced to one. What is happening today at the faculty of general training does not correspond to reality at all. Then 3 years of intensive vocational training combined with practical programs and 1 year of a diploma. If a person has motivation and wants to study, he will complete a diploma in six months. We checked this last year.
Will this increase the competitiveness of education at MARHI? Now it matters, with the emergence of alternative architectural schools such as MARSH, Strelka and others?
- I do not think that now MARCH and Strelka are a competition of MARCHI. Wrong tasks and wrong volume of students. Perhaps in the future, but not now. Moreover, these are “near-architectural” institutes that train not architects, but rather interdisciplinary specialists. But the fact that they appeared is very natural. I hope that they will encourage MARCHI to at least some reforms, but, apparently, “star fever”, inertia and conviction in the inviolability of the accumulated traditions of alma mater are still irresistible. It is hard to imagine, but the curriculum under which design training is now conducted is identical to the one we studied 20 years ago: a village club and everything else in the same spirit. Unthinkable! Education was free then. Now there are more paysites and this pleasure costs 4,500 euros per year. And nothing has changed! Even the furniture is the same! And there is no need to dream of model workshops, 3D printers, personal computers. For example, at the University of Vienna, with a very high degree of equipment, education is free for EU citizens, and 700 euros for the rest. But this is a completely different conversation.
But within your group, are you going to change the program?
- Yes, we have achieved it. Including due to the high quality of projects of our students, confirmed by numerous diplomas and prizes. We are defending projects, applying modern filing technologies, traveling the world, watching, researching and constantly learning ourselves. We have a horizontal scheme, partnership of architects. In the end, it all depends on the teachers. But the problem is that there are few teachers, there is no competition, there is no rotation, there is no constant influx of new ideas and methods. As a result, there is no incentive for development and reform. Everything is limited to the zones of influence of individual teachers, most often practicing architects, who perceive their work as a kind of social responsibility and a way to find personnel for their bureaus. There are very few of them at the institute: Yuri Grigoryan, Nikolai Lyzlov, Oscar Mamleev, Dmitry Pshenichnikov, Yuliy Borisov, Alexander Tsimailo, Nikolai Lyashenko, and a few other people.
And what can these 10 people change?
- I really count on support from the Union of Moscow Architects. Now, when a new department has been created, which is responsible for introducing students to professional activities, the influence of the SMA on the Moscow Architectural Institute has increased. It is necessary to use this lever and propose various reforms that will increase the effectiveness of education. In particular, it seems to me advisable to revise the system of division into departments.
Does this division come from the past system of planned economy and the compulsory distribution of graduates to design institutes?
- Not only. It was beneficial for the institute itself, as it made it possible to increase the number of teaching positions and funding. In each department: residential and public architecture, industrial, rural, etc. - its own teaching staff. Now it makes absolutely no sense at all, because the students are doing almost identical programs.
Not to mention the fact that now the architectural typology is completely different
“There is no need for architects who design only industrial architecture in the sense in which this specialization existed before. But if we understand industrial architecture more broadly, as a place for the application of labor, it turns out that both the office and the transport infrastructure are all industry. And now no one at all in universities is engaged in transport. And the artificial division of typologies between departments weakens the school, creates unnecessary internal competition. It seems to me that in the current realities it is advisable to merge the existing departments of architectural design. Combine programs and teaching staff, highlighting four areas: the Department of Architecture (residential, public, industrial, rural buildings and structures), the Department of Urban Planning (urban planning, landscape), the Department of Design and the Department of Restoration (restoration and reconstruction, temple architecture), where and focus design disciplines. This would greatly help to optimize the training time and increase the effectiveness of the program. Moreover, everyone has the same diplomas, and further professional activities are very diverse.
What other methods could be used now?
- We need staff rotation, and more active participation of practitioners in working with students. Moreover, I am talking not only about direct teaching, but also about creating funds for paying scholarships or paying for tuition to the most talented students. Award winners of institute competitions, sponsor study trips and the like.
Now the attitude of the majority of practitioners to universities and professors is reduced to expressing dissatisfaction with the level of graduates in the format "who do you supply us with, these are people who do not know how to do anything." But in my opinion, the problem is much broader and more serious. Because all parties are dissatisfied. It is believed that the employer has the right to demand from the institute certain skills of the graduate, but for his part, the young specialist has the right to expect at work the setting of appropriate tasks and a decent level of salary. Very often a graduate gets a job in a company whose leader he admires, but does not do what he is capable of. He is absolutely not in demand as a creative person. He is a laborer, poorly fulfilling the will of the master. And it's no secret that career growth in architectural firms does not exist. This is a common situation and deeply wrong.
And how much creative people are in demand on the market in comparison with knowledgeable and competent performers?
- Market leaders don't need competition. And this is the main problem. The professional community and Moscow Architectural Institute together must decide who and why the institute prepares graduates. Or they train creators, or universal "soldiers", artisans. The institute has long been developing these two schools in parallel. In the opinion of my colleagues and me, artificially implanting the vision of one person, no matter how brilliant a teacher and architect he is, is a crime against a creative person who loses his individual style, his professional face. But we studied and now teach our students differently. The main principle is that a person should create his own projects, and the role of a teacher is to maximize individual creative potential and teach them how to correctly formulate their ideas professionally. The main thing is to educate a creative person, not a universal "performer".
But all can not be creators
- These are different things. The main thing for the teacher is not to kill his individuality in the student. If you train an artisan, a creator will never grow up. And if you train a creator, he will certainly master the craft skills. The Institute is not only training, but above all a search space.
Leaving the institute, an architect must be 1000% sure of himself that it is he who is waiting for modern architecture today, that he is the one who is able to solve many problems. If you don't have ambitions, if you don't have the desire and the creative impulse, then what's the point in architectural education at all? And it's not about stupid ambitions, but about faith in yourself and the readiness to solve problems, to continue learning all your life, to overcome problems, to prove your case again and again. When Khan-Magomedov asked Melnikov if he considered himself an innovator, he answered “How else? How can an architect not be an innovator? He not only should not repeat anyone, but he should not repeat himself in future projects either."
And what about artisans? They are necessary
- Craftsmen can be trained by other educational institutions. It can be something like a higher vocational education, including computer design skills, knowledge of the norms and principles of work of structures and materials, etc. Each applicant is able to determine the level of his request and choose his own direction. During our teaching, I often spoke with students about this, and many people told me that they did not have a request for a flight.
But in the best universities, and first of all in the Moscow Architectural Institute, as an officially recognized national treasure of Russia, the educational process should be structured in such a way as not to unify talents, but to educate professionals capable of generating unique ideas. An individual approach to each student is required and each group should have its own program based on the teacher's method and general principles of the educational process.
Let's summarize your proposals in a few theses that seem most relevant to you
- First of all, it is necessary to decide that MARCHI prepares creators. Then reduce the training period to 5 years. There are absolutely unnecessary subjects, and there are those that are not enough, for example, integral courses that include other areas of activity. You need to correctly prioritize. I tell my students: the main thing for you is the project, drawing, structures and the history of architecture. Four of our students are now studying with Hani Rashid and Greg Lynn at the University of Vienna, and that's where the project takes 80% of the time, and everything else is for reference. The third is the adjustment of the Bologna system, the creation of its own original program and the change in the entrance exams. Obviously, after 30 years, the drawing exam will certainly die out, and without knowledge of professional computer programs, nothing can be done today. Fourth - the revision of the division into departments. And fifth, to intensify cooperation with the professional community. It is the latter that I plan to do as vice-president of the Union of Moscow Architects. We have an idea to create a commission on education, which was once under the Russian Union. There she worked pretty well, but over time it faded away. It is necessary to revive it within the framework of the AHU and introduce teachers from various universities into it. A commission of about 10 people will be able to develop curricula and recommendations for universities, exhibitions, contests, and with the participation of the commission, it is possible to create a labor exchange or a ranking of graduates that will help them find a job. It is necessary to jointly formulate the requirements of qualification characteristics and develop professional standards on their basis.
