Author Topic: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?  (Read 5817 times)

Awan_Larat

  • Guest
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2007, 08:09:45 PM »
Quote
pyan have nailed the entire diploma programme right on the dot. so r u trying to say otherwise? the diploma programme have a prior disposition that they will be trained to become an architect's assistant by default, until they decide to get a degree and become an architect. hence why in the integrated programme (where u, me and everyone else went through), design philosophy is only taught at degree level. it's not even in the design matrix! go look at it.

it is based on this statement alone that you are wrong, to the contradiction of here in Tanggam. Philosophy is in the Design Matrix-its in Architecture History. I don't want to argue more, the decision had clearly been made.   

Pyan, you did put the entire diploma program right on the dot, as it is the DIRECTIVE needs drafted by the University, but it is an explanation that bears no SOUL to the profession. Being an architect is not merely one way of doing it, doing more is always good, and the profession does not want mindless drones in the job, plus a DIPLOMA holder from UTM can do Design, even better that the Architect. 6000 thousand students applied from IPT, we only took 30 students, that at least hold some privilege for just training..draftsperson eh Pyan? 

Thanks. 



« Last Edit: February 20, 2007, 08:12:28 PM by Awan_Larat »

Offline azarimy

  • Lecturer GILA!
  • Administrator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,982
    • azarimy's sketchstation version 3.0
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2007, 02:03:25 AM »
yuri, please dont try to bend this ur way. architecture history DOES NOT CONTAIN design philosophy module at diploma level. i know the design matrix like the back of my hand. u want to argue? then post here exactly what the learning outcome of the architecture history subject.

oh lets not wait for u, coz i got it here (directly from the design matrix):

Objective of architecture history (from teacher's perspective)
i. Introduction to the planning-type theories and site plannings
ii. Introduction to Urban and Contextual designs
iii. Introduction to Landscape design
iv. Introduction to the theory of ideas and methods.

Learning outcome (from student's perspective)

- Abilities to recognize aspects of the above (stated in the objective).



u see, yuri, whatever u wanna teach above and beyond the design matrix is fine. but failing to achieve the core objectives and learning outcome of the subject is totally another matter. for architecture history, the students need only to RECOGNIZE. they dont have to know, they dont have to utilize the knowledge or apply it. RECOGNIZE. implying the subject only teaches BASIC knowledge of the above listed.
what gets us into trouble is not what we dont know. it's what we know for sure that just ain't so - mark twain

Offline pyan

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,974
    • design portfolio
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2007, 05:40:32 AM »

Pyan, you did put the entire diploma program right on the dot, as it is the DIRECTIVE needs drafted by the University, but it is an explanation that bears no SOUL to the profession. Being an architect is not merely one way of doing it, doing more is always good, and the profession does not want mindless drones in the job, plus a DIPLOMA holder from UTM can do Design, even better that the Architect. 6000 thousand students applied from IPT, we only took 30 students, that at least hold some privilege for just training..draftsperson eh Pyan? 

since when does being popular give anybody any special priveleges? if 30 from 6000 were chosen..i hope they end up being the best draftsmen around...because thats wat theyre qualified to do...at least till they get more qualification..
« Last Edit: February 21, 2007, 02:16:31 PM by pyan »
dumb di dumb di dumb..

Offline azarimy

  • Lecturer GILA!
  • Administrator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,982
    • azarimy's sketchstation version 3.0
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2007, 09:02:19 AM »
i'm not sure the word u're referring to is "drafperson". although without part 1, UTM diploma holders are quite capable of performing as tehcnical or architect assistant. frankly, u just need a course in manual/computer drafting to become a draftperson.
what gets us into trouble is not what we dont know. it's what we know for sure that just ain't so - mark twain

Offline pyan

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,974
    • design portfolio
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2007, 02:21:48 PM »
no, i actually think its right, architectural draftsmen. i actually hold high regards for the term used...why should there be any sort of stigma associated to it? takyah ah emo
dumb di dumb di dumb..

Offline segumpal_tanah

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,262
  • dari tanah aku datang, ke tanah jua aku pulang
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2007, 04:56:48 PM »
I'd have to agree with Aza there for I believe the diploma graduates bear much more value than just being mere draftsmen. This doesn't have anything to do with 'double-standards' or academic prejudice. It's just that our diploma grads, eventhough they don't qualify to be architects (obviously), they do have more to offer than just do draftmanship. From my diploma years in UTM, I do think that I've learnt a bit more than producing drawings and documentations.

But still I remember these powerful words from our own En.Dino, "Awak nak jadi akitek ke draftman ni? Kalau nak jadi draftman je, tak payah susah2 pikir pasal design. Awak siapkan drawing je, lepas tu saya bagi C+!"
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

Awan_Larat

  • Guest
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2007, 05:02:52 PM »
AM I TRYING TO SAY OTHERWISE TANAH?

ah...malas nak argue dengan orang2 straight forward nih, maybe if you would know what the practicing industry need, baru le you've guys setuju...isn't it ironic that the design matrix was from UTM Skudai..hehehe, ha Aza?, yet what you are telling seems far from what you wrote, do not undermined everyone under you pre-assumption oligarchy...

Anyway, lets stop arguing about the things that yet to make a mark on the architectural scene, rather than reading to your vindicate comments i rather read reports on our studio running from Serina Hijjas & Prof Elyas, its valid. if you took the time to understand, maybe you won't be too vindicated and act like you know everything. END.

 

Offline azarimy

  • Lecturer GILA!
  • Administrator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,982
    • azarimy's sketchstation version 3.0
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2007, 05:24:44 PM »
oligarchy? my god, if u dont know how to use a word, DONT. let alone put it in a sentence.

yuri, one thing u're really good at is reading. but one thing u're absolutely bad at is picking up which is the important points in what u read.

inlight of tanah's agreement to my points of UTM diploma = technical assistant, it is not indicated in the design matrix. i'm not sure how to explain to u any simpler than this: UTM diploma curriculum is not catering for architects. hence no design philosophy, architectural practice or implementation of theories. wanna know what's the real irony?

u teaching design philosophy at diploma level (which u're not supposed to), whereby u urself have been through the same system!

u can run yuri. u can try and dodge every argument thrown at u. but be aware that u've brought this on urself. when u start preaching the wrong stuff the students, i take it as part of my responsibility as a lecturer to do whatever that's necessary to address it.
what gets us into trouble is not what we dont know. it's what we know for sure that just ain't so - mark twain

Offline segumpal_tanah

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,262
  • dari tanah aku datang, ke tanah jua aku pulang
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2007, 06:00:05 PM »
Quote
ah...malas nak argue dengan orang2 straight forward nih, maybe if you would know what the practicing industry need, baru le you've guys setuju...

It's either we're straight forward or you're hell-bent. Take your pick, whatever suits your conscience.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

Awan_Larat

  • Guest
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2007, 06:16:28 PM »
You crazy eh AZA? Diploma Level tak perlu belajar philosophy?  :hmm: Tadika pun ada philosophy...
Listen all to yourself...making yourself silly with those kind of statement...hehehe

The more i give you 'syak-wasangka' the better AZA...since its seems to feed you a lot..

There is a lot of accusations in your sentence alone..very brave considering what your are accusing does not affects me alone.

I am not answering to accusations...

Yes I am teaching the wrong stuff to the students (who are you to tell me that?-you are not even here, you have no clue to what we are doing here?-you are judging us on pre-assumption)...watch me do it! And just reading how wrong you are give us joy..hehehe.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2007, 06:45:48 PM by Awan_Larat »

Awan_Larat

  • Guest
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2007, 06:20:40 PM »
 I like hell-bent.hehehehe... i don't bent-over for no one...haw haw
« Last Edit: February 21, 2007, 06:35:48 PM by Awan_Larat »

Offline unfold

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,602
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2007, 07:57:18 PM »
Uhmm, langsung cannot touch design philosophy in Diploma level? I would have thought that we covered some of their 'elusive aspects' in the frist year alone. Not to mention other years...

Offline lyceum

  • Administrator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,684
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2007, 08:17:16 PM »
Quote
maybe if you would know what the practicing industry need, baru le you've guys setuju...

I do know what the industry needs. Do you?

One of the annoying things that practices have to do is to retrain the fresh graduates (at diploma, part 1 and part II levels) that are employed as they lack the appropriate skills and the right attitudes towards work and the profession.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2007, 08:20:54 PM by lyceum »
"Resistance is futile! Your posterior shall be violated!!"

Awan_Larat

  • Guest
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2007, 08:19:19 PM »
I do know what the industry needs. Do you?

One of the annoying things that practices have to do is to retrain the fresh graduates (at diploma, part 1 and part II levels) that are employed as they lack the appropriate skills and the right attitudes towards work and the profession.


Your 'deraan' had taught me well in its positive lights, i have nothing but myself to blame...Ramesh, hehehe...Maybe tutor/lecturer's attitude towards the profession should change, the mentality of a student fresh from graduation seems to undermined the practicing profession. Although good apples are around. Plus, i do think it is vital for a lecturer to at least 'taste' a small portion of the profession.


If you could comment on the Project 3 Design Brief..that would be swell.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2007, 08:36:50 PM by Awan_Larat »

Offline azarimy

  • Lecturer GILA!
  • Administrator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,982
    • azarimy's sketchstation version 3.0
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2007, 02:42:58 AM »
You crazy eh AZA? Diploma Level tak perlu belajar philosophy?  :hmm: Tadika pun ada philosophy...
Listen all to yourself...making yourself silly with those kind of statement...hehehe

The more i give you 'syak-wasangka' the better AZA...since its seems to feed you a lot..

There is a lot of accusations in your sentence alone..very brave considering what your are accusing does not affects me alone.

I am not answering to accusations...

Yes I am teaching the wrong stuff to the students (who are you to tell me that?-you are not even here, you have no clue to what we are doing here?-you are judging us on pre-assumption)...watch me do it! And just reading how wrong you are give us joy..hehehe.

this is where, again, u're wrong. like i said, u didnt read what i've posted, so i'm gonna rub it in ur face. early in this topic u mentioned design philosophy, so i wanna know what u actually teach to diploma students. but u prefer to avoid, implying a very big notion that u know that it's not in the syllabus.

so now u proceed on making this everything about me against UTM KL. well boo hoo, as any first year could read, i'm addressing the issue of u teaching the wrong stuff to ur students, which u amazingly did not deny. and u call urself an academic.

i dont have any problem going against anyone for what i believe in. i know basri's strong inclination of not changing the original pedagogy of UTM diploma, hence why he headed the KL school. i was part of the curriculum review committee to upgrade the old syllabus, to change the goal of producing draftmen or technical assistants into atleast architect assistant. guess who were strongly against it? basri, apai and mahmud hussein.

so basri did not head to KL bcoz merajuk or anything, it's becoz he still believes in the technical system. UTM diploma produces technical assistants. unless they take a degree, which will make them an architect with strong technical base. that's who we are. well, atleast that's all who graduated from UTM before 2008 are.

u wanna still teach philosophy? i dont have a quarrel if u still understand what the goal of studying it would be. i asked the learning outcome or objective, again, u fancifully avoid. it's actually a good exercise to introduce to them a basic understanding of philosophy (or recognition of it) for technical students. but u urself wrote that u dont believe that UTM KL is just to produce technical assistants. how would anyone believe what u teach, if u urself try to be above the system? like pyan said, if 15% of them would only become an architect, shouldnt u be concentrating on how to get them to continue for a degree instead of teaching what u like?

and i would like to clarify, i dont judge u on any pre-assumptions. i judge u solely by your words alone. stuff u say (wrote) here in tanggam. i dont have to assume anything, coz u've given me plenty to work on.

as an academic, u're doing an absolutely poor job at standing up for urself.
what gets us into trouble is not what we dont know. it's what we know for sure that just ain't so - mark twain

Offline unfold

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,602
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2007, 03:16:45 AM »
By pyan
Quote
since when does being popular give anybody any special priveleges?

I don't like to intrude much on stuffs which I couldn't bother with, but the above sentence can ricochet back to your face, pyan.
Popular people (or events, objects) do have (and pay for them) certain priveleges that societies allowed to bestow on them. I know you meant UTM, but the sentence you displayed was too much a generalization that I cannot avoid but dispute eagerly and heatedly.

Since when, you ask? Since the earliest of time till the end of the earth.

Offline pyan

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,974
    • design portfolio
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2007, 04:00:48 AM »
btul gak tuh beb...
dumb di dumb di dumb..

Offline Yuki_Onna

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2007, 05:00:46 AM »
... kinda regret coming in here to read up...... i'm speechless and feeling like a kid watching her parents quarrel. honestly. i'm not sure what it's all about.

Since 1st year, everyone said we can post our problems here and get some suggestions and advise from the seniors and other lecs. Thus, discouraging us to discuss our projects in the subcommunity section cos the other seniors/juniors not of our batch is not supposed to read or post there too much since it's kinda like our "private homes".

when in 1st yr, aza or lyc, moved us to the fundimental. But when we went up to 2nd yr, i was kinda like-- where do we belong to? actually, we cannot be just in ONE school of thought because in a way, all ur projects are quite general (to me) where we take into consideration almost all the topics in the school of thoughts. means, we do a bit of everything (sotra) urban, enviro, architectonic....

I do know that the DST posts many topics that are not of the curriculum, topics on exhibitions and stuff. but i still do see lots of ppl asking for help in projects..... i just hope that we can have a more general discussion of our projects that we do in the diploma to be discussed here (i dun see many of our members posting here anymore. everyone's sorta drifted off. and you know what? i dun blame them at all.)

If there's absolutely no other way. we have to kinda like break down our projects into parts then fir each part into its respective DST, we ask for contruction tips from architectonic, contextual tips from urban and so forth. Is that how it's supposed to work?

i dunno if i have the right to voice. i appologize if there's anything that i've said wrong..... I'm just a little bit confused.

Signing off,
Confused kid
"Seeing is not believing; believing IS seeing..."

\(^-^)/ Joyce
Yuki_Onna

Offline lyceum

  • Administrator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,684
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2007, 05:13:12 AM »
Don't worry Yuki... you may post whatever queries you want and we will answer them and help out as much as we can.

Its not that the other seniors or members are not allowed to post in the sub community batches... but many members, tend to ignore those posts if they see it belongs to a sub community or batch that is not theirs.

We're just trying to put it in a more open and general area.

I've adjusted the arrangement of the boards so UTM KL is under an "Academic Community" together with other UTM related announcements.  As you can see, i've also included the LKW Global Classroom in there as a group discussion.  Eventually, i'll bring in Interior Design and others as well. Hopefully, in this board... other members would feel more inclined to join in.  Its still not the best solution and we're still looking for ideas.

You can start your discussions in there first... regarding the project briefs, site analysis , input lectures or other general issues.

However, if your particular project has a strong or obvious approach in either urban, vernacular or one of the other DSOT approaches, please, by all means, post it there... or request that one of us do it for you.  True, your projects may have different approaches, but one may be more prominent.
Take your community centre project for example.... if i were you, i'd post your project queries and discussion about your project under the Community and Social Architecture.

« Last Edit: February 26, 2007, 05:20:29 AM by lyceum »
"Resistance is futile! Your posterior shall be violated!!"

Offline azarimy

  • Lecturer GILA!
  • Administrator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,982
    • azarimy's sketchstation version 3.0
Re: So what is the pedagogy of 2nd year diploma?
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2007, 05:25:36 AM »
ok, to clarify ur confusion:

we structure the discussion not based on an individual project but rather into a specific discussion topics or issues. when u were in 1st year, as all 1st years are generally the same, we lumped the discussions into fundamental. why? bcoz we have people who have experienced in teaching fundamental for more than 10 years in there.

so now u went up to the upper years. same thing. even if u DONT have a workbase system, any issues u brought up can be assigned to a specific DSoT, regardless of whether u have/have not a specific DSoT that u belong to. be aware that DSoT is not a reflection of UTM's degree curriculum anymore. DSoT is a way of categorizing the discussion, so that u and members in the future will have easier navigation especially to get to the topic that they want.

i'm not in the habit of letting a discussion drift waaay off the actual topic of discussion.

for example, a discussion as open as "need to study museum" will be SO vague that u will spend 2 pages just to define what the original poster wants. then the discussion drifts into other unrelated topics. assigning a specific category will help people to narrow down what they need. common problem for students of architecture and designers in general is they dont know what they dont know (cross 1981, lawson 1997). if u want people to help u, use the system that is geared to create some form of structure to ur thoughts.

i know the problem u're facing. sometimes u just havent focused on a specific issue or problem. fair enough. we now have structured the discussion into academic group-based categories which u can already see here now. this is where u discuss non-specific issues or class-related matters.



but i would still insist that this is not the best way to do it. it might be easier for u, but it wont be for other students to find what they need once u've graduated or left the school. u'll see what i mean in 2 years time.
what gets us into trouble is not what we dont know. it's what we know for sure that just ain't so - mark twain