yeah,but the thought he puts do scare me to study locally, i didnt have the privilege to study abroad, but to think of it making me somewhat skeptical, im working right now before furthering into part2,

and i can see exactly what he said, the employer demands us (me ) to works overtime just to show that you're in the right path to become full fledge architect, and his ideas of successful design is to just throw every information be it in green strategies, innovation etc just to show that youve put enough work into it and claim that we deserve that project because of this.

it somewhat clouded my thinking, better create something that is workable although it might seem simple at first right? rather than having an extravagant ideas with all infos and all possible technology there is and throw all of it in the design boards.

more focus unto one thing, rather than shooting bullets into all direction.

happens to me and my mates especially during competition for a tender or just a competition. and blaming us for not winning... no for not even get mentioned(our project) in any of the event/competitions

and i think for a people like me to experience what those oversea graduates have experience is to work under a small/medium but design oriented firms like ZLG who practise more on designing rather than more on how much product you have done/completed

This post has been edited by finger_waverz: May 31 2011, 01:04 AM

well, at least u've got ur priorities straight. couldnt say the same to most people of ur age. architecture have to be both broad and focused at the same time. u have to deal with the macro and micro and juggle everything between it.

yes, ur boss probably is correct when it comes to production of a building, u HAVE to cover every single aspect. but in design production, u have to focus on something that sells - the strength of ur design.

so as u can see, the blogger is an academic. he approached his writing from an academic's point of view, which something i would do. but there's another side of the story, which is the practice point of view, which tehtmc here can shed more light on. just dont get caught on the whirlwind. there are truth in both sides, u just have to figure out which one to follow, should u fall on to one side or the other.

well thx azarimy, that really explain the lots of it, maybe experience is the better teacher, but the place to gain that experience matters to me now, whether im gonna stay in one company and learn everything there is, or gaining bits here and there by jumping from one comp to another. I just didnt want to be stuck as a worker ant, and i enjoy doing what i love be it designing, visualizing or meeting people

Working short stints in different firms does not really help much in terms of gaining experience. You need to work for at least 2-3 years at a firm to get some worthwhile experience. Building projects are such that you don't see the full picture unless you get involved long enough. You experience will not be complete if you don't get be involved in the nitty-gritty of details to make a design work.

Learn everything there is? I don't think it is possible.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: May 31 2011, 12:04 PM

Architecture is oh so interesting =\ I might reject my offer from Warwick and do architecture,I don't really see myself as an accountant

I want to ask a few questions
a)my sister want to continue architectural klmu but it not in list mqa it is ok?
b)iwhat a chance after my sister finish diploma and take bach archit at utm
c)which want better continue STPM or diploma
d)what the priority utm....stpm or diploma

p/s:sori if this question already has been asked

a. i would only recommend LAM accreditation. MQA is much lower than LAM. so anything that's not even accredited by MQA is a straight away no for me.

b. if it's not accredited by MQA, IPTAs will not even recognize it as a diploma, let alone diploma in architecture.

c. STPM gives u better and wider choice.

d. the degree course at UTM does not take diploma into the 1st year. they go to 2nd year. so there's no competition between the two.

This post has been edited by azarimy: May 31 2011, 09:42 PM

well you are right. maybe needed more than a year to actually able to pick up something. but the thing is right now ive been working for about a year and so far for me, ive not learnt much from it, when i try to compare it with my other friends who graduated at the same time i can see that they know a lot more than what I'm now.

My work in my office were always doing the same thing that i have already good at, and because of it they keep on giving me jobs doing 3ds and visualizing all the time never had chance to do maybe some construction dwgs, or any detail work.Even worse the webpage of the company were handed down to me in charge of it, I feel im the IT guy in there and when i ask to have more part in doing other type of jobs they somewhat diss me like ignoring my request. the only thing that i get a chance to learn at it by asking to other seniors and that is for sure not enough.

and now im thinking maybe its time for me to change firm.

Well, the author is entitled to his/her opinion no matter what...

In this case, the author is certainly 'bias' towards the emotional/emotive response, conceptual, "process (trial & error/go with the flow) - based", expressive, subjective/playful approach, flamboyant, spontaneous, & (or) "perceptual" aspects in design/architecture; as "opposed" to any attempted objectivity, formal/serious approach, the technicalities, systematic procedure based, technology, predefined-settings, established tradition/theories/principles, "functional/objective" approach, and (or) any form of predefined/preconceived rules & orders in architecture (that one might already be having at the beginning - and ready to be executed into final productions immediately).

Even within the design studios here at Taylors, it has ever been a constant war/battle/conflict and also an increasingly tough effort to try to justify or to uphold one of this sides in architecture. However, "Most" of the students at Taylors are always very typically/characteristically found on one of this two sides, while only a very small handful of minorities (if there is even 0.1% of such at Taylors) are riding the other side/territory (hint: and this particular group do not create or fancy colorful looking presentation boards and or "pompous" / "pretentious" form making).

Regards.

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Jun 1 2011, 09:46 PM

I'm guessing that 0.1% is you ?

I wonder if that matters... (I was just mentioning about 2 primary characteristics in architecture; which I've been basically observing all around me that's all. )

Regarding my choice of architecture schools;

I will choose the oversea universities (in western countries) for their 'profound' emphasis & incredibly "high priority" on "nurturing" absolute design creativity/expressiveness/responsiveness/process/exploration" into their students as such...

But;

I will select the local public universities (IPTAs) for the 'profound' emphasis & "priority" on the "architectural technicalities/construction/problem solving/workability/functionality/practicality/build-ability" aspects of a building.

Regards.

u'll be surprised that their syllabus are not much different than ours. mainly because we took most of it from them.

the students consist of those who have an existing predisposition on creativity, arts and sense of self. they want to do architecture because they know that's what they wanna be, and know that they have the ability to be that. so when they jump into architecture, they are surging to show off what they can do, explore things and be creative.

compare this to average malaysians who wanna be an architect because it pays alot, can become rich and own 5 cars, a big house and a couple of mistresses.

it's about attitude first. all the rest comes much, much later.

hi, quite possibly the first time i'm posting on this forum even though i've been following this thread for a loooong time. and i just wanted to say that it gave me a lot of encouragement just by reading that. i'm very much inclined to think that i'm the former of the two examples (who wouldn't la) and well yeah, it's encouraging to know that at least someone thinks attitude is very much part of the contributing factors in becoming an architect. i'm afraid i don't have an inborn talent at art nor do i have inexhaustible creative juice and i've always been worried that that mean the end for me.

so... yay for attitude? heh.

If you are the hybrid of both; it will be awesome breed.

er, just wanna ask something. I want to ask that about the portfolio or interview, is it for the new applicant or what? Meaning if i wanna go to that school to study ID or Architecture i have to hand in a portfolio>?

Not all schools require a portfolio and interview.
IPTA's require that. Don't think the IPTS need that.
It's also a requirement by some of the prestigious overseas unis, not all.

How about Limkokwing at kuching one? Portfolio means like you have to prepare a project? But i don't even study yet how should i know how to? If i know i wouldnt study again though

a portfolio is something any designer or artist should have, regardless if u're an aspiring designer, a practicing one or an old fart of a designer. it's a collection of works that u have done that showcases what u can do.

so if u're a school leaver applying to an IPT, ur portfolio should consist of works u've done before, regardless in class for a particular subject or just something u did for fun.

it's a good practice to keep a portfolio starting from now. dont wait till a school asks, because by then it'll be too late.

But i have seen from their website (limkokwing) the information given is if applicable for portfolio. Does it means that i dont need also can right?

IPTS normally have more places than applicants, so it's highly unlikely u'll ever see the need to have a tie breaker (the portfolio) in order to apply.

however, what i'm saying is, if u WANT to become a proper designer, start building up ur portfolio from now on. a designer without a portfolio is just talking cock.

being a designer is mostly about attitude. if u dont have the attitude, then u're not going anywhere.