ÀҾ˹éÒ˹ѧÊ×Í
PDF
ePub
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

dents in architecture, based upon the preparation given and adapted to the needs of the architect rather than those of the engineer. Such courses can be properly organized only by a thoroughly competent and experienced constructing architect, a man who knows what is required and who knows the subject thoroughly. Were the College large enough, it would be entirely feasible to have such courses organized with a competent man at the head and comparatively inexperienced instructors in charge of sections under him; but such courses cannot be organized and administered satisfactorily by inexperienced men, or even by experienced men who are not architects: hence I am thoroughly convinced that the only satisfactory solution lies in the creation of a professorship in the College of Architecture for this branch of the work, as has already been done at Columbia and Pennsylvania. This point is unquestionably the weakest in our organization and instruction, and is the only point in which I think we are behind the other schools and give distinctly inferior training.

So far as expense to the University is concerned, I doubt if this work can be given any more economically in the College of Architecture than it is now given in the College of Civil Engineering, because no proper man for the work can be secured for a position lower than the higher grade of assistant professor; but, since the work is now given by assistant professors, I do not believe that the proposed change would involve any additional expense to the University, and I am sure that it would increase efficiency very greatly.

With the exception just noted, I believe that we have every reason to feel gratified with the high character of the work accomplished. In design and drawing especially our work has been second to none; but it is extremely doubtful whether our present relative position can be maintained without some change in method to keep abreast of the forward movement of the other schools. The thing that the architects of the country are most urgently demanding of the schools is that the instruction shall be of the highest possible character, that it shall be given by men of authority closely in touch with the practice of architecture, and that at least some of the instruction shall be under the direction of men engaged in actual practice rather than in teaching. In many quarters the adoption of the atelier system is strongly urged. Columbia has yielded to the pressure and has definitely adopted this system for her work in design. Harvard is trying a modification of the atelier system, under which the work in design is carried on at the school but under the direction of non-resident architects who take charge of the work in

turn, visiting the University for lectures and criticism as may be required.

At Cornell the atelier system is obviously impossible, a fact perhaps not altogether to be regretted. Unquestionably there is much to be said in favor of studying design directly under a master in the profession; but, while I recognize the value of the atelier as it exists in the French school, I believe, for reasons impossible to elucidate here, that any attempt to adopt the system in its entirety is inadvisable under American conditions. Under the intense pressure of the American way of doing business, even the most conscientious of patrons will at times find it almost impossible to give proper attention to his students. His first attention must be given, naturally and properly, to his practice; and his teaching is necessarily a side issue, even though the work be undertaken out of purely professional interest. In the French atelier with a hundred students, many of them of six, eight, or even ten years' standing, and quite as competent critics as the patron himself, this feature is comparatively unimportant; but in the American atelier with from ten to thirty students, most of them nouveaux in the art of criticism at least, it is everything.

The Harvard plan overcomes this defect in the atelier system by bringing the patron to the University away from his business environment; but it introduces a great diversity of criticism, diverse in direct proportion to the strength and personality of the several patrons, which, however valuable to the mature student, is likely to be misleading and discouraging to the undergraduate who has not yet attained sufficient breadth of view to enable him to reconcile apparent contradictions arising from different points of view. This system also requires the most careful organization and supervision; otherwise it must inevitably result in incoherent and incomplete

courses.

Better than either the Columbia or the Harvard system, it seems to me, would be the adoption of some plan whereby, while the organization and direction of the work and the greater part of the actual instruction should remain in the hands of professional teachers, the students could at the same time be brought under the instruction and criticism of prominent practitioners.

Cornell's isolation from the great centers of activity in architecture seems at first thought to place her at a disadvantage in the carrying out of any plan to enlist the services of leading men in the

profession. The disadvantage is, however, more apparent than real; for with an expenditure amounting to a very small part of the added cost of maintaining such a school in or near a great city, we can bring these men to Cornell for all work that they might profitably do for us, and once here their undivided attention would be ours for the time of their stay. While these men would have to be brought from considerable distance, we should be obliged to go no farther afield than does Harvard and would be at no disadvantage in that respect.

To carry out the two changes in organization outlined above, and to maintain our present strength in lines where no change is advocated, will inevitably involve increased expenditure. Our one great imperative need is additional and adequate financial support for instruction. All other needs sink into absolute insignificance in comparison. We need salaries sufficient to retain men of worth and standing on the permanent staff of resident teachers, and we need a fund to retain a corps of non-resident architects who may be called upon for lectures and criticism in certain portions or phases of our work.

If Cornell is to hold her place of distinction in the field of architectural education, we must move in no uncertain way to meet the well founded demands of the men who are directing the thought and doing the work of the profession. Within the past two decades architectural education has undergone very great changes in this country, and at no time have the changes and advance been more marked than within the past few years. The schools of twenty years ago had not attracted the interest and support of the profession and were handicapped accordingly. Today one of the most potent factors in urging them to higher standards is the direct interest manifested in their work by prominent architects personally, and by leading professional organizations through public discussion and official committees. The schools are being watched and their work criticised by the men who are doing the real work of the profession. It is a most hopeful state of affairs and one that augurs well for the schools that will read the signs aright.

There is an emphatic demand for broader cultural training on the one hand; on the other hand the demand is equally emphatic that the technical training not only be kept fully up to present standards bu that it be strengthened along certain lines. In other words, the profession is demanding that the schools furnish more training. In order to do this they must either advance their requirements for

admission or lengthen their course beyond the traditional four year period. In any case we seem to be moving very certainly toward the evolution of graduate schools, or possibly one great graduate school of architecture. Whatever the outcome, our duty at present is to develop our courses to the highest degree possible under the limiting conditions imposed by the traditional four year course and the necessity of accepting secondary school training for entrance. So far Cornell stands second to none of the great schools of architecture in America; but the rivalry is intense, and she can maintain her position only if she is accorded adequate support.

Respectfully submitted,

CLARENCE A. MARTIN,

Professor in Charge of the College of Architecture

APPENDIX X

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COLLEGE of

CIVIL ENGINEERING

To the President of the University:

SIR-I have the honor to submit the following report for the College of Civil Engineering for the year 1906-1907:

The work for the year has been very satisfactory both in quality and quantity and has, I believe, been enjoyed by all concerned.

The registration for the year, as shown by the class roll calls, has been as follows, classifying according to subjects taken rather than by official standing as in the register :

« ¡è͹˹éÒ´Óà¹Ô¹¡ÒõèÍ
 »