2019 2 Texas A&M University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY Texas A&M University - Department of Architecture - Academic Program Review Self-Study Report - 2019 2 TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY Jorge Vanegas Dean, College of Architecture Robert B. Warden Interim Head, Department of Architecture Shelley Holliday Executive Associate Department Head Koichiro Aitani Associate Department Head, Undergraduate Programs, BED Coordinator James Haliburton Associate Department Head, Professional Programs, M.Arch Program Stephen Caffey Associate Department Head, Research Programs, MS and PhD Texas A&M University - Department of Architecture - Academic Program Review Self-Study Report - 2019 3 Texas A&M University - Department of Architecture - Academic Program Review Self-Study Report - 2019 4 Introduction 1 1.1 Charge to Review Committee 7 1.2 Schedule of Review 11 1.3 Primary Contacts 13 Table of Contents Texas A&M University - Department of Architecture - Academic Program Review Self-Study Report - 2019 6 Charge to Review Committee 1.1 Critique is an important component for progress in every discipline but few disciplines embrace a culture of daily public criticism like Architecture. The Academic Program Review (APR) is a welcomed opportunity to engage external review teams with our history, present practice, and future dreams. The APR process at Texas A&M is taken very seriously and we thank you for your time and effort to engage with us to learn about our current practices and our vision for our future. The APR document is not the sole, but perhaps the major vehicle for understanding our Master of Science and PhD programs. Our research‐ based programs are sometimes understood as siloed endeavors from our undergraduate Environmental Design program and our professional Master of Architecture program; however, we intend all of our academic programs to be tethered together in unique ways. This APR will, we hope, illuminate the value of the MS and PhD programs through their interconnections within the Department of Architecture, the College of Architecture and the University Peer Review Team Charge Please examine the MS and PhD programs through the collective lens of the Department of Architecture and their cultural and academic contributions to the college, university and beyond. We understand the team review as a positive measure of how we can improve these programs and prepare them to meet future public demands. Your resources are a self‐study report prepared by the department, copies of materials from the program’s last review, information you gain through personal interactions while visiting Texas A&M University, copies of strategic plans and goal‐setting documents at the department, college, and/or university level, and any additional information requested by you or by the department. Within the broad charge of recommending ways the department can continue to improve are some specific questions that we would like you to address: Given the information provided in the self‐study report or gathered by the review team through interviews and discussions, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the department that promote and hinder the quality of the MS and PhD programs? Texas A&M University - Department of Architecture - Academic Program Review Self-Study Report - 2019 7 Does the Review Committee feel that the goals and implementation strategies for the MS and PhD programs align with the strategic goals of the College of Architecture and the University? How do the MS and PhD programs compare to their peers? Specifically, is the curriculum directly related and appropriate to the mission and goals of the institution? What improvements (including student learning and faculty development) has the department made since the previous program review? Are the future goals of the department consistent with improving the quality of the MS and PhD programs? Are there near term and/or far term recommendations for the MS and PhD programs that would enhance their quality in relation to their service to students, the profession, and the public? We look forward to meeting with you during your time on campus. If you have any questions or require additional information prior to your visit, Ms. Bettyann Zito, APR Program Coordinator, at [email protected]. Thank you. Portions of several Texas A&M University documents were paraphrased and quoted in this document including the 2009‐2010 Graduate Advising Handbook, the 2009‐2010 Graduate Catalog, Vision 2020: Creating a Culture of Excellence, the Department of Architecture Graduate Programs in Architecture, and the Department of Architecture Strategic Plan 2015‐2020. All text originating from sources outside the university is specifically referenced. Texas A&M University - Department of Architecture - Academic Program Review Self-Study Report - 2019 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Self‐Study Report on the MS and PhD programs in the Department of Architecture at Texas A&M University gives an overview of these two programs within the larger context of the university, college, and department. Context is extremely important to understand the current state of these programs through the evolution of past thought processes and the conditions in which those were developed. To develop that context this report will contain an overview of information on all programs in the department, with much more detail given to the MS and PhD programs. Texas A&M University has experienced tremendous growth of 41% since 2010. Growth in the College of Architecture was 67% in that same time frame, while overall growth in the Department was 14%. The MS/PhD growth during this time, however was over 22%. These numbers mark not only a consistency between the university and the departmental enrollment goals, but they also mark a conceptual consistency between our research programs and the university. Texas A&M became a member of the Association of American Universities in 2001. That membership has become a defining criterion for much of the university’s academic and research initiatives. Strong emphases in graduate research in the department predated the AAU membership but for the following two decades, the MS/ PhD programs were symbols of strength and ingenuity for the department as a whole. In the 21st century, creativity and inquisitiveness, characteristics well understood and honored traditionally in architectural design have become hallmarks of education in secondary schools, universities, and business. These traits have also long been every bit as necessary to successful research. The interdisciplinary team‐based activity of exploration in architectural design is a recognized paradigm of 21st c. transformational education, again a trait well understood in both basic and practical research. With all of these shared traits, it seems odd that research efforts in academe and professional design were often understood to occupy opposing sides of the putative art / science dichotomy. Yet, that disposition has persisted until recently. The Department of Architecture has seized the opportunity to use the 30‐year tradition of research through the MS and PhD programs to set new initiatives at both the undergraduate B.E.D. and professional M.Arch programs. Research as an inspirational creative force will drive the future of our department. Section 2 provides brief histories of the four degree programs in the department: Bachelor of Environmental Design (BED), Master of Architecture (MArch), Master of Science (MS), and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). Prior to 1986, the Department of Architecture and the Texas A&M University - Department of Architecture - Academic Program Review Self-Study Report - 2019 9 Department of Environmental Design were separate. The Department of Architecture experienced a fundamental shift in the late 1980’s when it joined the undergraduate BED program as the new Department of Architecture. This change was nearly simultaneous with the transformation of the Doctor of Environmental Design degree (1960s) into a PhD in Architecture (1986) and a few years later with the birth of the MS Architecture degree. With these new research degrees, the department’s identity was no longer singularly tied to professional practice and hiring of faculty and recruitment of students began to reflect their effects on the nature of the department. Research was important, yet still different from design. The research programs remained distinct from the design programs during their growth and maturity, but their influence on the other programs also strengthened. The PhD program averages around 50 to 70 students operating today in much the same way it has for 30 years. Accepted students are assigned mentors in the field with which they are most closely aligned. These fields are defined by our faculty composition which coincides with Design, History/Theory, Structures, Energy and Sustainability, Historic Preservation, Health, and Computational Design. Students design their studies and form graduate committees that align with the needs of their study. The MS program averages 2 ‐7 students with operational methods similar to the PhD program. The low enrollment of this program over its history is most likely due to the attraction of the PhD. label and the ability of students to matriculate quickly to the Ph.D. through their 90 credit hour option as opposed to the 64 credit hour requirement for students with masters degrees. Nevertheless, it has served the needs for those students interested in research related to architectural issues who cannot afford the time required by the PhD. Section 3 ‐ 5 cover