Architecture students in particular conveyed to the Committee their discouragement with attempts to increase the degree of communication between architecture faculty and students. They described an atmosphere of secrecy pervading departmental decision-making, resulting in rumors and frustration with last-minute information. Architecture students perceived a lack of dialogue, a lack of objectives, and a sense of boredom in the faculty. Professor Anselevicius, however, expressed the opinion that student-faculty relations in the department are close, especially in the design studios. Concerning the issue of boredom, Professor Soltan stressed that design is not now in an heroic period and that the environment is not emotionally charged as it was under Gropius and Sert. There was some complaining in all disciplines that students are not sufficiently guided through their curricula, but some students appreciated the experience of self-direction.
2. Departmental Curricula.
There was a sense on the one hand that the curricula of the different departments lack a single direction or continuity, and on the other that the curriculum of an individual department need not be characterized by either a quantitative or a physical approach to design. While architecture students complained that their department lacks theory courses, landscape architecture, planning, and urban design students called for greater emphasis on physical design. In planning, it was pointed out that by administrative agreement MIT has concentrated more on the social aspects of planning while Harvard maintains a more theoretical program. Thus, there is a greater flow of planning students down the river than there is coming up, as students are becoming more concerned for the human aspects of the design professions. Planning students noted the loss of a political scientist, a social historian, and a geographer, as indication that the department is not attempting to become involved in the social/human aspects of planning. A student in urban design, however, saw too great an emphasis on the behavioral sciences in planning and called for a physical planning approach.
As far as quality of curriculum is concerned, one planning student had particular praise for the department's core curriculum. Professor Mann pointed out that CRP has moved toward greater use of the case study method. One landscape architecture student was similarly pleased with the core in that department. Other L.A. students, however, complained that the caliber of the corefaculty is not adequate and that the program is not rigorous enough for those who have taken the preprofessional B.L.A. degree. They called for clearer catalog information about other resources available to L.A. students at the University. Architecture students remarked that their support courses lack a sense of order or relevance to the studios and should be taught at a higher level. Professor Anselevicius noted that architecture is reintroducing a structured, sequential program of options, with improved required courses and an increase in the number of electives from 16 to 34. Students in the urban design program commented that their curriculum requires a broader interdisciplinary base, but most seemed to find the quality of their training good. (Most U.D. students are studying for a second professional degree.)
4. Compartmentalization vs. interdisciplinary collaboration.
Despite apparent lack of disagreement between faculty members within departments, faculty and students hinted at the existence of interdepartmental friction. It was suggested that the plan of Gund Hall is not conductive to interaction between departments as there is no central meeting point. Professor Soltan pointed out that the Urban Design Program was founded as a bridge between the other three departments but was first an extension of architecture. He remarked that in order to implement its goals the program must be allembracing. U.D. students concurred that the program must be broadened beyond the architectural point of view and that studios must be made collaborative. There was a general consensus among students, however, that the autonomy of the program should be emphasized, because too close an alliance with another department causes too much specialization. A Committee member commented that if he were planning a city he would not seek an urban designer, because of the problem of making a discipline out of a "way of thinking." Students agreed, however, that the U.D. degrees should remain combined with one of the other disciplines (M.A.U.D., M.L.A.U.D., M.C.P.U.D.) rather than changing to the M.U.D. degree, because the combination degrees are identifiable. The interdisciplinarily trained urban designer has both broad and finite skills. One student suggested that Urban Design at GSD is in a constant state of administrative jeopardy, and that it must be made stronger and healthier to provide insulation and security from other departments and avoid dependence on other faculty and other budgets. It was also emphasized that the general admission prerequisite of evidence of design capability (with or without a first professional degree) must not be diluted.
As well as recognizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration within the GSD, students in other departments saw the value of utilizing the offerings of the other departments and schools in the University to supplement their own departmental curricula.
5. Placement
Planning students reported on the success of the first year of operation of the department's Professional Development Office (PDO). While it was clear that such a service would be beneficial to all GSD students, some planning students were reluctant to recommend its expansion and the resulting decrease in attention to the needs of planning students. Committee members considered the resume book potentially useful to employers. One member pointed out that if the GSD shows, by establishing a School-wide placement office, that it cares about jobs for its students, applications for admissions might increase greatly. The fact that the School has decreased the PDO's budget after the initial start-up budget may pose problems in planning what would inevitably be a very expensive expansion of services.
6. Affirmative Action.
The Committee shared the concern of the group that the present rate of decline in Black applications and admissions may result in no more Black students at GSD in two years. (There are now 17 Blacks out of a total enrollment of about 580-600.) The Chairman pointed out that the commitment to affirmative action has been made but that a combination of lack of funding and lack of recruiting effort has prevented the School from living up to its commitment. A half-time minority recruiter has been hired and a search is underway for scholarship funds specially designated for minority students. Students stressed that there must be consistency in the consideration of women and Blacks for staff positions along with the increased recruiting effort for minority applicants to the School. They encouraged observation of the spirit of the program, not just the letter. Respectfully submitted, Julia G. Fox Staff Assistant to the Visiting Committee