Industrial Experience: Its Role In The University Of Hartford's Aet Program

Abstract

The University of Hartford's Architectural Engineering Technology (AET) Program curriculum is based on the blending of academic-based theoretical studies with industry-based problem solving activities. Integral to accomplishing our educational goals is having the participation of industry in the educational process. It is extremely beneficial to have practitioners in the classroom on a daily basis. This practitioner involvement comes from both our full-time and part-time faculty.The goal for educators and practitioners should be a unified profession. The time has come for educators and practitioners to put aside their differences and join in a common purpose: that of preparing people for their profession. Our approach takes steps to create avenues for more open, sustained dialogue, and fully acknowledges the shared goals and responsibilities of educators and practitioners. We are attempting to redefine the boundaries between education and practice, while building mutual respect and an integrated model.According to Dr. Ernest L. Boyer, this century's great educational leader, "the future belongs to the integrator", and it is through the integration of industrial experience that we have developed the AET Program at the University of Hartford. History Repeats ItselfIn 1865, eight years after the founding of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology offered the first formal, campus-based architecture courses in the United States. 1 An early history of architectural education by Arthur Clason Weatherhead noted that the typical curriculum in the early twentieth century lacked cohesiveness. For example, the business side of architecture was neglected, and little effort was made to aid in the transition of students from the academy to the office. 2 Years later, 'A Study of Architectural Schools: 1929-1932', sponsored by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) and funded by the Carnegie Corporation, criticized the dominance of design faculty over those specializing in 'construction.' Design projects at many schools, it said, resulted in 'paper architecture' whose real purpose and function was often unclear and unrealistic. 3