on architecture entry requirements.

does anyone remember taking the architecture aptitude test back when they were applying? i took mine twice -- once in 2001 (and then i failed to turn up for the interview), and again in 2002. from what i recall, there're a couple of drawing questions, coupled by some open-ended questions like "Describe your favourite place" and "Describe the following pictures in five words".

well, allow me to describe the following pictures that i took in june in five words:



you. must. be. fucking. kidding.

pre-university results aside, i'm not sure what the entry requirements of other architecture schools are like. to my admittedly limited knowledge, some very prestigious schools in the states have such a thorough process of filtration -- involving running through architecture portfolios of aki students from all around the world -- that they only ever get the best students. then there're those, quite alike nus at its interview stage, that require a portfolio of creative works -- not necessarily architectural (e.g. drawings, paintings, sculptures, music, dance, videos, etc) -- capable of suggesting some potential or affinity for architecture or simply creating. again, from what little i know, the architecture aptitude test seems to be by no means completely prevalent in the circuit.

unsurprisingly, there're good reasons for this. one of which i suppose is that most countries have the luxury of more than one architecture school, therefore do not feel quite as much the pressure to suss out only the most inclined for the limited seats in a single intake. as a result, these schools are also endowed with the liberty to widen their filtering holes to let in a wider range of students. some accuse this process as being nothing but a higher 'margin of error', which sounds logical since the filtration seems less rigorous, but at the same time quite warped.

the fact is, architecture school is not always all that logical, at least in the sense that it is never what most people logically make of it before they enter. we all have rosy ideals of what architecture is about: some people are into it because they enjoy taking postcard-perfect pictures of buildings (another issue i'd touch on another day) in their travels, some are into it because they think architects earn a lot of money (haha... $ucker, demand your refund today!), some are into it because their parents are into it, some are into it because they don't know what else to do, some are into it because it's the only remotely designy/ artistic/ creative endeavour they can accept as validated, so on and so forth. one, two, three, four semesters later and people begin to wake up to the reality of things. every semester, schools around the globe are experiencing the a similar attrition rate as some decide to bid farewell. now, if the attrition rates are so sticky, shouldn't it say something about the aforementioned higher 'margin of error'? [1]

besides, success rates are always not as much about space-making as they are about politics. but i digree.

returning to the issue at hand, another reason why some schools find it unnecessary to hold apt tests is that they do not see the need for their fresh students to show any innate affinity. they believe that their programmes alone will be capable of equipping these clean-slated minds with enough skills and design sensibilities to continue in this life-long lesson in architecture. this, i feel, is a reasonable but very important stand of any school -- that the school would commit to investing architectural knowledge in the willing student.

so, when a school takes a step further into testing it applicants on their architectural abilities (innate or otherwise) as part of its entry requirements -- revising even to include a spatial modeling test filter, on top of which continuing to employ the interview-cum-portfolio-review device, we must really sit ourselves up and ponder the question "why".

at some junction, do consider the politics of education, of a school's pride, and of the tall order from the higher powers that govern the state of things of a bigger campus and then of a bigger country.

my dear nus aki friends from pre-05/06 era, do yourself two favours:

a) congratulate yourself for having emerged a successful applicant for aki@nus, and
b) recognise the real new architecture course at nus.



=========
footnotes:
[1] i don't have solid figures on attrition rates, but if anyone does, please feel free to share.

=========
disclaimer:
this is not so much about inciting discontent. instead, it is my urging everyone to remain sharp and critical in order to truly appreciate the implications of what we see. especially since some of us will one day take the helm of becoming architecture educators, practitioners, members of SIA or BOA, and what other important figures capable of shaping our aki schools.