Student Reports: Stuttgart

Universität Stuttgart
Department of Architecture

A comparison to that of the University of Oregon Department of Architecture

Analysis & Critique by Tyson Gillard,
Undergraduate Student, University of Oregon Department of Architecture
February 19, 2003

Statistical Overview - Excerpt from department program:

The Department of Architecture and Urban Planning at the Universität Stuttgart has about 2,000 students and is one of the largest in the Federal Republic of Germany. It is also one of the few departments to combine architecture and urban planning in one integrated course of studies, giving students the opportunity to define their professional profile out of a wide range of subjects. At this time, 28 professors and about 85 lecturers are teaching at 14 institutes. They are reinforced by numerous guest lecturers. It has always been a tradition in Stuttgart to give great value to the interdisciplinary collaboration of all institutes and departments.

Department Strengths:

1. Division into 14 institutes of research and study.
   • This division of the department allows students to dive into their areas of interest and gain a more focus and intense education.
   • Institutes include:
     • Fundamentals of Planning
     • Building Economics
     • Presentation and Design
     • Space, Media and Art
     • Building Technology, Construction and Design (1 & 2)
     • Building Structures and Structural Design
     • Building Technology and Design
     • Lightweight Structures
     • Public Building and Design
     • Housing and Design
     • Design and Construction
     • Spatial Conception and Design
     • Theory of Architecture and Design
     • Urban Planning and Design
     • Landscape Planning and Ecology
2. Academic year is broken up into 2 semesters, to which courses run the duration of six full months.
   • The longer duration of courses allows students to study at a tempo more of their liking.
   • Because the course work is not squeezed into a nine week period, students have more opportunities for outside research, and attentiveness to personal priorities.
3. Require/Tolerate highest standards of technical abilities.
   • With design studio lengths of up to 6+ months, students have to exercise and are expected to be well rehearsed in their technical skills (enfaces on media and presentation)
4. Flexible curriculum.
   • Students in the department most complete two years of rigid curriculum course work and studies. Once they have completed these first two years their curriculum of studies is practically open-ended.
   • Overseas students, who attend the university for temporary studies only need to require fulfillments of their home universities.
5. Research and Teaching of the most high-tech and contemporary practices of architecture.
   • The university holds a high regard to involvement of the most cutting age practices within the building industry.
   • Including: multi-media, CAD & 3-D modeling, building & construction technologies, material usage, etc.

Department Weaknesses:

1. Disassociation between student and teaching staff, as well as between fellow students.
   • Class time for both studios and courses is limited to meetings once a week.
   • Studios: Unlike at Oregon, to which studio work is taught and critiqued by the selected professor, your studio work is taught and critiqued by an advisor of the institute (ranging in experience, but many are post-graduate students). Interaction with professor consists of pin-up reviews generally held every three weeks. Outside of these reviews, interaction with professor is highly limited.
   • This fact amongst the students can be contributed to the absence of the studio environment. Most students rent work spaces in the city to which they work along side with their closest of friends, and/or work primarily at home.
2. Collaborative student discussion is not utilized for learning, and individual student experience is devalued.
   • Knowledge is determined primarily by experience and rank. As for students, reality is they none of the above, hence viewpoints and thoughts from students are often disaccredited or overlooked.
3. Individual institutes are so focused only in their perspective realm of research and teaching, the collective faculty follows a homogeneous train of thought.
   • Many of the institutes are run by a single professor. The rest of the institute's faculty is composed of teaching assistants (advisors). Due of the Hierarchical system for teaching prevalent at the university, many of these assistants become mere pawns for the professor, creating a lack of diversity within the institute.
4. Students are trained simply to be practicing architects: a highly focus education.
   • Pertaining mostly for fulltime students of the department
   • In Theory this is the primary goal of any architecture department. Unfortunately it is an escape from reality to which they are training more students then there are opening in the job field.
   • There is an overall surplus of architects in Europe. Left only with their practical and technical skills, many graduates did not acquire a Broad enough education to be flexible in the work force.

Comparison & Critique within the Stuttgart Department of Architecture:

Stuttgart Professors: Highly Competent Professionals, Irresponsible Teachers.

• Most of the professors are highly skilled in their perspective realms of research, and many are also pioneers of their particular fields, not only within Germany but also internationally.
• Simply: The University is an institute for research, not teaching. The Professors uphold this system and mentality. Even in class, studio, and during reviews it is apparent that the students thoughts, work, and efforts are to be used in a manor to which the professor can build off of and learn from; not the reverse, to which most Oregon students are accustomed.
• There is a general mentality that is unfortunately noticed in reference to many of the professors and facultys regard to teaching: The institutes are focused and their research is in-depth. Every minuet essence of their work is well researched; the perceived importance of their work seems to motivate them to great extents. But what is lacking is an overall concern for the state of architecture as a whole. The professors can be given credit for an honest desire to create better architects, but questionably the desire to create better architecture.

Stuttgart Students: Disciplined & Technically Knowledgeable, Many Naively Pop Culture Posers.

• Most Students at the university reflect directly the education received in the primary and secondary levels of German Schools. The level of discipline they maintain should be respected.
• Despite the practically free costs for studying when compared to prices in the states, the most students here do not take for granted their opportunity to study. In regards to course work, the open-ended curriculum and loose schedules only make them more responsible. The students seem to take a fairly large weight of accountability when it comes to their education. Because of the disassociation with their professors much more of their learning comes from self motivation. The question is what form of learning?
• Most students though do look for or need guidance for their motivated and creative energy. This is where many of the students are left treading water.
• Many of the students work is naively pop culture oriented. This phenomenon is an occurrence manifested by a lack of reassurance from those architectural teaching figures closest to them. The professors are critical and brutally honest, and because of the disassociation with these figures there is never a true understanding of the harsh critique given to them. It takes a great confidence to stand up to such tough critique, some are able to, but many turn to other sources of teaching for more positive interaction and feedback. The Media: Publications.
• For fast, easy, and stimulating learning periodicals are much more pervasive amongst students than text form written publications.
• Compared to Oregon students, Stuttgart students spend an immense amount of their time divulging in architectural/design periodicals. Full of vivid, colorful and shocking architectural photographs, a students mind is quickly entranced. The visual vocabulary of most of the students is quite remarkable. In their minds, the visual components can be well organized, and form a terrific composition of architectural aesthetic. When the students are asked how, when, and where these architectural components fall into place or how they can by exploited, they will be quick to answer. When asked why?, they will need more thought. When asked, How does it feel to be in such a place?, only few may return an answer.
• It is the Periodicals and fancy publications where Pop architecture is celebrated, and bread. Pop culture puts high value on aesthetic, but most of all it the icon to which anything goes. Pop culture does not fence down limitations. This is very attractive to students in an age of endless information (www.info.com) and world globalization.
• Today Pop culture is the Mass culture, and thats awfully reassuring. All the students were ever asking for was a little reassurance.

Oregon Students: Ideological Fighters for a Better Living Environment, Pampered by Optimistic Views of Reality.