there are also firms that look for fresh graduates. but most of the time most graduates use the practical training/year out period to present themselves to a firm for about 6 months. students look at practical training as a way to gain professional experience before working in the real world, but the employers see it as a 6 months long interview . the best way is to show ur best in that 6 months, and before u finish, try and convince the boss to offer u a job by the time u graduate. alot of my friends did this and so did i. my boss in AKB was pretty disappointed when i chose the academic line coz at that time AKB was about to open a branch in bosnia herzegovina, and i was one of the staff he planned to spearhead the firm there. so practical training is not just some work u need to do, it has its benefits that most students never realized.

however, some students dont realize that firms \"talk\". for example, if u do shitty job in firm A during ur 6 months practical, the boss might one way or another talk to boss in firm B and C. so when u wanna apply for a job at firm B or C, they wont take u in bcoz of what u did in firm A.

bottom line is, there are lots of jobs out there. firms are just not that willing to spend time for 6 months to a year just to realize that u are incapable of doing certain jobs.

as an academic, i'll say: malaysia will continuously need architects until it becomes a fully developed nation. and even after that, private sector will thrive and will continuously demand architects. this is thanks to the architecture legislation that requires construction projects to be endorsed by architects. even if it is just a simple house renovation.

as an architect, i'll say: no, malaysia is dying. u should go find job in some other sector. (the lesser architects out there, the more jobs for me )

1. asasi alam bina is 1 year if i recall correctly. after that it's another 5 years (3+2) for part 1 and part 2 degrees.

2. asasi alam bina is a foundation programme. it sets out to bridge students' knowledge and understanding between O-levels/SPM and a degree course, practically what any pre-u courses do technically. pre-U does not instill any appliable or practical knowledge of the profession. it just introduces what's what, who's who, which's which etc.

diploma on the other is a professional qualification that allows u to work in the industry. bottom line is, u DONT stop at asasi alam bina. it's like taking lesen L but didnt get a full license.

3. i have no idea. ask clayclws.

what do u think?

world doesnt come with answers given

1. yes, that is the tendency of most graduates from any diploma programme. u will only continue straight to degree IF u score ur diploma, mainly in the top 20%. if u couldnt, u're recommended to gain 1 or 2 years experience working in related field. this is the requirement of the profession as well as the university. the downside is students who've started earning usually dont wanna study anymore.

2. there are only 2 schools of architecture in UiTM, one is in shah alam, the other in sri iskandar. both have complete facilities, and even more that u can say about any IPTS offering architecture in malaysia. not sure what's going on with UiTM kuala pilah though. it could probably that ur school have a deal with UiTM where the school lets the university use its facilities while the school gain certain things from them.

3. asasi alam bina is a foundation course. look at UIA, UCSI and limkokwing, they have foundations too. UTM used to have its alam bina foundation too, but we scrapped it bcoz it consumed too much resources and some other technical issues.

also, UM does not conduct interviews for any of its architecture courses. this is a prerogative of the ministry. it means that only the top academic achievers will ever find their way into architecture in UM. interview system practiced by other IPTAs allows lower achievers with great talent to join the course.

i dont think u get how uitm orgazination is. each university caters for specific purposes and function indendently. UiTM kuala pilah is the newest branch which started in 1999, and it is not a permanent campus. this explains why they dont have enough facilities yet. to provide a permanent branch, u need to have the students and staffs ready to go. so UiTM KP is opened to pave way for the bigger, permanent UiTM branch in negeri sembilan.

dont use UiTM KP as a gauge for how big UiTM campuses are. especially not UiTM shah alam. it is the only university in malaysia that has 3 satellite campuses .

lonelyjay,

1. there's not much difference, other than slightly different structure of learning, level of certificate, location and environment of studies, facilities and resources and probably some difference in approach to design focus. the only big difference might be the fees and different lecturers.

2. personally, taylor's and UCSI is on top of my list. but i must stress that the difference between the private schools are minute. it boils down to which path u wanna take (refer to page 1).

3. WHAT?

4. since NONE of them are accredited with part 1 or part 2, then no, there's no difference. but it's a huge difference when u compare them with accredited IPTAs.

5. refer to page 1. i will only suggest a school that will eventually award u with a part 2. which means u should opt for overseas studies eventually according to each university's partner/twinning programme.

i dont know. i'll try and inquire with them and put the answers later on.

hmmm

i'm not sure how to really compare the two. in a way, the path is quite different, but in the end it goes on to the same thing: becoming an architect.

society have been trying to understand about the architecture profession, and found it very confusing. architects have specializations, yet they have a very open and broad degree which all architects subscribe to. sometimes the paths are straight, sometimes its intertwining, yet everything will eventually make one an architect. just look at medicine, after their MD, they start specializing. after that they'll become a proper doctor. MD alone is not enough.

architects specialize at the lower levels, but eventually lead up to a single degree of architecture that makes u an architect. but the path taken is very different. if u join UTM u'll go into a very technical yet theoretical approach. if u join UM it'll be very practical yet progressive approach. so does any other school. but whatever whichever path u take, u'll end up as an architect.

the only problem with twinning programmes is that, it's very hard for a third part like LAN or LAM to accredit it bcoz it is a very "closed-door" learning. it's a very taylors-melbourne business, and others dont get to mess into that. hence LAN and LAM took the easier solution: to NOT accredit that path. what they do is to accredit the students AFTER they finished part 2, come back and sit for the exams. easier. no need for automatic accreditations.

but this also means there's no third party guarantee that ur path is "safe". if melbourne suddenly say "no, we dont wanna be partners anymore with taylor's", then u're screwed. but that dont happen too often, but it did happen when UTM stopped accrediting a college some year ago bcoz the failure of the college to maintain the high standards of UTM's architecture diploma.

hey, dont worry about it. whichever path u take, as long as u end up with an accredited part 2 architecture degree, it's fine by me.

---

Added on February 15, 2008, 8:46 pmthere are two issues here:

i. are art skills important to studying architecture?
ii. are art subjects important to apply for architecture?

it does seem u're focusing on the 2nd point, so lets talk about that. yes, those with basics in art subjects (including all sorts of technical/engineering drawings) will be given priorities. but that does not mean those without them will not be given priorities at all. that's why the interview is there. it serves to gauge at what level each of the candidate is at that moment. alot of candidates without art background actually manage to get in simply bcoz of superior academic background, and usually they'll pick up their art skills later on in architecture. those who have both superior academic background AND art skills will definitely be given priority. u dont get priority on art skills alone. architecture has more science in it that most people believe.

This post has been edited by azarimy: Feb 15 2008, 08:46 PM

europology, i dont have the details at the moment. i've seen the construction drawings for that. the construction is simple enough, but the mechanism for the water distribution differs from manufacturer to manufacturer. most of the time architects just allocate a space big enough for the installation of the distributor.

and yes, not all distributors has a pump on top of the glass wall. most of it installed the pumps at the bottom or hidden somewhere that wont be noisy. water is then pumped from bottom to the upper part of the wall for silent distribution.

ben,



although part 2 is interchangeable cross countries of practice, part 3 is an exclusive license. holding a RIBA/RAIA part 3 in australia doesnt give u exclusive rights to practice in malaysia and vise versa. what people with RIBA part 3 usually do is attach themselves with a LAM part 3 holder an practice in malaysia until they sat for their own LAM part 3.

RIBA part 3 and LAM part 3 is about equally hard.



what?

i think u should start to specify which part 3 u're talking about. we have LAM, RIBA and RAIA. part 3.



UTM has alot of collaboration with taylor's, and we can see that despite being am unaccredited new school, taylor's are quite capable in producing good sub-part 1 graduates, while providing a decent facilities and teaching expertise. the same can be said to UCSI.

LKW however is equally good, but being located in cyberjaya which is quite far away from the hectic areas of architectural concentrations, they become too secluded for my own preference. the group of students become less diverse: u get a massive amount of rich students who're either brats or snobs. the philosophy of the school that the "students are the clients" even makes this worse.

but this is my personal opinion.

ben, obtaining RIBA part 2 through taylor's>melbourne>melbourne does not put u at any disadvantage when sitting part 3. u may have to sit for LAM part 2 exam if LAM is not satisfied with ur RIBA part 2 portfolio. yes, holding a RIBA does not automatically gets u LAM, u will be interviewed during LAM part 2 registration.

this is perhaps the main issue may arise. but worse comes to worse, u will need to sit for LAM part 1 exam, and then LAM part 2 exam, before u can start ur part 3. it shouldnt be hard, u dont need to study hard for those exams, just a couple of assignments.

so, assuming u've completed ur LAM Part 2 successfully, u can start ur part 3 qualifications. remember that u cant start LAM part 3 with RIBA part 2. so ur fear of being discriminated bcoz of not having an LAM unaccredited degree/path does is moot. u simply CANT take LAM part 3 without LAM part 2 .

also: passing LAM part 3 exam means u're accredited with LAM part 3. it's the same thing with any LAM exams. if u pass the exam, no one's gonna dispute ur accreditations .

just a slight correction:

if u dont hold a LAM part 2, u cant sit for LAM part 3. if u've got RIBA part 2, u need to register for ur LAM part 2. the registration process is straightforward 2 steps:

i. a showcase of portfolio
ii. a brief interview

this is to ensure ur RIBA part 2 is really up to par. we dont want a RIBA part 2 with sub-2.00cgpa, if u know what i mean. if LAM is satisfied, u'll be registered as a part 2 architect, and ready to start ur LAM part 3. but if LAM is not satisfied with ur part 2 (in case of twinning programmes and such), they will require u to sit for an exam, usually in the form of assignment/logbook as well as written.

---

Added on February 18, 2008, 1:58 am

well, that's due to a turn-key / design-and-build methodology that we've adapted in order to cut the red tape. it's not necessarily bad. but most of the time people rather cut the design process short and not the construction process. this is the problem.



well, not exactly so in the UK. remember that in the UK, ANYBODY can submit. so who needs architects? haha.

This post has been edited by azarimy: Feb 18 2008, 01:58 AM

in a way, architectural practice in the UK is very much an expert service provider. meaning, anyone can design their own house, but when they submit, they'll have lots of things to consider like construction, buildability and most importantly - liability. but if they wanna make their lives easier, hire an architect.

something like, anybody can repair their plumbing in their house given time and determination, but to make ur life easier, just hire a plumber.

albirri,

fresh graduates working in singapore? err, good lah! i'd support anyone who're keen to widen their horizons first before settling to work in malaysia for good. most of my friends are working overseas: singapore, UK, US, china/hongkong as well as the middle-east. although quite a few of them have already starting to move back to msia...

believe me, that's what people in the UK compares architects to. either that, or the design whore. take ur pick LOL.

ken yeang likes ALL girls .

anyways, there are several good schools for architecture studies in the UK. AA and bartlett are pretty strong in undergraduate studies, and focus on theories and design explorations. cambridge, sheffield and edinburgh are very strong in research, making them the best post-grad archi schools in the UK.

there are also schools which has their own specializations that some of the top schools arent that good in. for example, bath has the best conservation/archaeological research, strathclyde in architectural computings and so on.

a. there's no way to know for sure. just look at the world economy, then macro and micro economies in each country. from there u can derive some understanding of whether architecture has a future or not. remember that architecture is one of the fields most reliant on the economy. when the economy is good, they can be one of the largest money makers amongst the professions, but if economy goes down, they'd be the first to go.

b. it depends on what skills u have.

c. it is adequate. the starting pay is still pretty low, but after 5 years it should be good. by average my friends earn RM1800 starting pay (this was in 2001, economy is not strong enough after 1997 recession), but now their average is about RM3000, which is quite good, just after 6-7 years. if u manage to outperform ur boss and acquire a higher post in the firm, u can earn pretty high. the highest grosser amongst my friends is already earning RM6,700 working in KL. he's already setting up his own firm now.

d. jobs are everywhere. and u dont need to work overseas to exchange ideas.

---

Added on February 20, 2008, 6:09 pmi'm not sure there is a really scary experience in architecture, for me, that could make anyone NOT want to study architecture. there are some really bad experience i could share with u, but i doubt it'll shake ur foundations.

i guess the most grueling experience anyone WILL go through is the crit. or the worst: the final crit/assessment/judgement/review. i dread every time i walk into the halls. some background first:

the crit (short for critique) is a presentation session at certain points of the project. early crits are just casual sessions where u talk about ur design intentions and stuff like that. u dont have a substantial design at this point, but u're brainstorming ideas infront of the class. i ALWAYS put the craziest ideas first, and most of the time the tutors arent open enough to accept crazy ideas. u progress through a series of crits along the semester until u present ur final finished product amongst 3 or more panel of judges. this is the make or break point of the semester.

u will be grilled like no tomorrow. every aspect of u and ur design will be scrutinized, from the approach u took, the idea, up to the font size u picked on the presentation boards. i remember this one time during my thesis, i was the last person to present. all other panels have finished their presentations, so the lecturers and architects are waiting for my presentation to finish before they can all go to eat. my original judges already have an architect (i forgot his name) and 3 other judges who openly critiques my designs.

then suddenly all the other judges, tutors and architects from 5 other panels came into my presentation bcoz they're waiting for me to finish. at that point there were more judges than students in that room. so i got smashed from every different angels imaginable. PM saari (UM), prof parid (LKW) and prof tajuddin (UTM and prominent writer in the star) were some of the loudest. in that situation, u can only hold on to what u believe in, and fight all u can. if u think debating amongst ur friends in LYN are challenging enough, try debating against 12-15 architects who're more experienced than u will ever be. and non of them backed me!

it eventually took 2 hours to finish my presentation. i know that one of the reason was because my thesis was a bit radically, labeled as an anomaly in the thesis group. but it was worth it. people know me bcoz of that day, the day i stood up against 12 architects. yup, i was totally spent after that, but i got an A for it . so it's totally worth it.

This post has been edited by azarimy: Feb 20 2008, 06:09 PM

i havent read it, but if u notice my post about the crit earlier:



that tajuddin is the same tajuddin who wrote the book . he is a prominent writer and critique in malaysian architecture, having studied numerous approach and the evolution of architectural styles, history and philosophy. i'd recommend his writings anytime.

like clayclws said, being stuck in design is as hard as being stuck in maths. u need a solid creativity basis to navigate urself in design. designing maps may seem like a complex thing, being in 3D and all, but designing a building with components and dependent in 3D is not a simple feat.

just when u though u've solved one floor in plan, u realized that the next floor does not match the previous ones. when u start moving things around, u'll realize that ur building section does not fit the profile u intent anymore. then u start moving on in circle. the most dangerous thing in design is not being stuck, but not knowing u're stuck.

in maths, u know u're stuck when u cant progress towards the solution anymore. in design, u thought u're progressing forward, while in reality u're actually running around in circle. that's the time killer.

another important thing about design is that, everybody is a good designer. given enough time, everybody can produce an A scheme. the difference is, within the specified time frame, how far can u go? can u reach A scheme within 4 weeks? or do u need 6 weeks? in school, everybody is given the exact same timeframe. u work ur ass off to make sure u submit on time. when the bell rings, if u're incomplete, u're in trouble. in UTM, incomplete = total failure. u can still complete it if u want, but u can only earn minimum passing grade, which is C-.

now imagine the earlier scenario, where u thought u were progressing, but infact u're not... and time still moves on in a linear fashion...

well, too bad then . all the best!

---

Added on February 22, 2008, 2:39 amwow... i really have no idea. not my cuppatea, if u know what i mean . i could tell u about architectural education and its history in malaysia, but practice? hmmm... come to think of it, i've never actually tied architecture education in malaysia to practice, which funnily enough it is SUPPOSED to be connected haha. thanks for pointing another gap in my knowledge!

This post has been edited by azarimy: Feb 22 2008, 02:39 AM

i doubt architect would make the most mental case in hospitals. reason:

architect is one of the smallest professional population in malaysia. there's only about 1600 chartered architects, and roughly produces about 500-600 architects per year. how many of those would end up in hospitals, as opposed to, lets say, accountancy, which is equally stressful, yet have larger numbers and continuously churn out about 3000-4000 graduates each year?

if u calculate the probability between courses that are equally stressful with architecture, there's a small chance that architecture would dominate the number of mental cases simply bcoz of its small number in the first place.

akitek tak ramai kat malaysia babe. it's numbers is impossibly small compared to the population. 1600 architects vs 12million other professionals, and we dominate the mental cases in hospitals?