Author Topic: When should we split?  (Read 1493 times)

Offline segumpal_tanah

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,262
  • dari tanah aku datang, ke tanah jua aku pulang
When should we split?
« on: March 23, 2007, 05:09:31 PM »
This might be a dumb question but it's been lingering in my head for the past few years. It's regarding the structure of our architectural education, particularly its interval between diploma and degree. Back in the old days, the interval between the two would be after 3rd year. Furthermore after reading Lyceum's brief explanation of LUCT's syllibbus, I've found that this pattern is also evident elsewhere (other than UTM).

However, one would only gain Part 1 after 4th year... am I right? So why not synchronize the interval with that? I believe Uitm is doing it now. Shouldn't we follow suite?

At least it adds a bit more value to a diploma holder. I might be missing the bigger picture here, but that's how I think at least. So, could anyone especially those academia-inclined, clarify the merits of splitting the whole course after 3rd year instead of 4th?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

Offline azarimy

  • Lecturer GILA!
  • Administrator
  • Senior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,982
    • azarimy's sketchstation version 3.0
Re: When should we split?
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2007, 05:30:35 PM »
good question.

this issue have been addressed by the new UTM syllabus that is partially introduced currently. the issue is not just about UTM architectural scene, but goes way back to the earlier formation of the course in msia, and relates to the UK system very much.

in our old 6 year system (3+3), the separation is made before part 1. i have no idea why. a question only suitable for prof parid and his minions. part 1 is technically awarded after hi-rise, hence it's just one semester!

now we have the 5 year system. common assumption is we scrapped 1st year, bcoz that's what other courses did to shorten the length of study. in architecture, we cant do that simply bcoz 1st year (fundamental) is where we attempt to level off everyone with basic skills, vocabulary and knowledge. so we dissolved 2nd year instead, coz we dont really learn anything significant during 2nd year (old syllabus) other than having fun and exploring stuff. so 2nd year 1st sem gets dissolved into 1st year 2nd sem.

so shift everything up by 1 semester. now we have 5.5 years.

now throw away practical training. in the new syllabus, students are allowed to either:
    i. divide the required 6 months into smaller segments and distribute it during semester breaks; or
    ii. finish up the entire 6 months AFTER finishing thesis (which means u will actually do 5.5 years).

so now, we have full Part 1 compliance right after 3rd year. hence when the new syllabus finalized, it will be split into two degrees: 1st degree (Part 1) for 3 years, and 2nd degree (Part 2) for 2 years. this is inline with the international standard of architectural studies.

UiTM, on the other hand, as "universiti ini tolong melayu", takes their students directly from SPM (O-levels). but the duration is still 6 years (4+2). technically it's the same level.
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 ThomasVek

  • Fresh!
  • *
  • Posts: 16
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2016, 03:39:48 AM »
Согласитесь, что мужчина, которому просто нужен интим досуг
в проститутки новосибирска,
вряд ли согласится на случайный роман.