Students, however, were practically unanimous in their praise of the course, and petitioned President Conant to continue it. Only a few were disappointed, thinking, like Stubbins, that the course "would be better placed on a high school level."

Stubbins argues that "Fundamentals of Design" lacked theory of architectural design. "Students were cutting our paper shapes." Stubbins recalls, "and how does this effect architecture." The course was based on one taught at the Rauhaus in 1928. We should be able to improve on that now."

Only Copied

Gropins answers that "Stubbins still does not understand the course. The Rambans course has been copied but never equaled."

Gropius first argued for the course in a 1948 faculty meeting. He was unsatisfied with the basic design course taught by LeBounllen (new reinstated), and he felt that Planning 1, then a required curse for architects, landscapes architects, and regional planners, was taking too much time from the architects. He though there eight to be an equally intensive basic design course. The faculty agreed such a course was needed, and Conant gave him $20,00 to experiment to two years.

To run the program Gropins bought in Rich and Filipowski, and Rauhans trained designer from Chicago Institute of Design. It would seem that Gropius' enemies, afraid of the given man, feel out then feelings on Filipowski. They co-operated half hearted's, not feeling him what they wanted and criticizing him for not satisfying. If the course was not successful, it was due to lack of time for development and assistance by Filipowski's colleagues. Filopowski left last spring when the grant ran out, and LeBoutillier's course is back again, not covering Design I's material, but costing the school less money and the students less time. But there is till need for a fundamental course, and even 'Gropius enemies agree on this, although they might disagree on its organization, if the school ever intimates another fundamentals of design program, it will, of course, need more money. But whether or not the course will ever materials depends mainly on the character of the new dean.

President Conant has indicated he will choose Hudnut's successor before the next Overseer's meeting on January 11. The faculty now asks itself who the new dean will be, and, perhaps, even more important; what kind of a dean doss Conant want.

Largely, this depends on what kind of a Design School Conant would like to see at the University. Will it be a school dedicated to a single doctrine of design or will it be more of a forum, where different professors espouse variations of architectural and planning philosophies, letting the students choose from among them?

Dogmatism

While Gropius was at the school, outsiders accused him of forcing students dogmatically into his own discipline. Although this probably was not true and Gropius never had the opportunity to model the courses into what he would consider an ideal framework, he doss believe a school should draw its interpretation of the future from one man.

"If you allow every professor in a school to give a different theory, as some people misinterpret democracy, you will educate cynics," states Gropius.

"The student would have the free choice to go to a contemporary, or a Beaux-Arts design school. But in that school the staff should click together. If the student does not like one school, he should transfer to another."

Gropius makes it clear that he does not want a complete academic tyrant to run the school. He thinks it needs a positive, artistic man, who has a unique theory, broad enough to encompass his students and faculty, giving them room to satisfy their particular fancies and ideas.

"The school does not need a strong man to make carbon copies. The teacher must put himself in his students' place, and get their interpretations, thereby enriching himself. We must encourage men to find their own approach, integrating these different methods in a common spirit.

"There is no direction in the school now," Gropius concludes.