Core II theory research project: review of past University of Florida graduates

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Core II theory research project: review of past University of Florida graduates
Physical Description:
Mixed Material
Language:
English
Creator:
Golden, James William
Ferreri, Sam
Scamehorn, Keith
Publication Date:

Notes

General Note:
AFA Historic Preservation document

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the source institution.
System ID:
AA00004314:00001

Full Text
CORE Hi THEORY RESEARCH PROJECT


REVIEW OF PAST UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA GRADUATES
PROFESSIONAL CORE 11 SAM FERRERI
FEBRUARY 18, 1979 JIM GOLDEN
THEORY PRESENTATION KEITH SCAMEHORN


The scope of this project dealt with the interviewing of graduates of the School of Architecture at the University of Florida. The interviews were based on a questionaire which was to establish the influence of the graduates architectural education on their practice, where their education or lack of education led them, how they are furthering their architectural education, and their accomplishments in the field. There were a series of questions that actually got us involved in this project. The primary reason was that we were interested in what was going to happen to us when we completed school. Other reasons included--if this education really prepared us for practice, and what other areas of study were needed? -What type of work are the graduates of the University of Florida associated?
The actual formulation of the project was centered around talks with Mr. Arnold Butt (chairman school of architecture) and his refferal to Mr. Brock Hamacher who supplied us with a print out of names and addresses of University of Florida graduates registered in Florida. We attempted to locate graduates registered in other states but felt this would take too much of the projects time. Because of the number of graduates we originally considered (approx. 100) from 1931 to 1976. We dropped that inclination primarily because of the subjectiveness of the questions and the time period of the project. We picked architects whom we have had previous contact with or wanted to make contact with and derived a cross-sectional list. Two other groups were also dealing with education and theory and we attempted to coordinate our projects with them. This immediately


eliminated one of our areas of interviews-the faculty. (Suzanne and Vaughn's project dealt with this area specifically) .
We felt it necessary to develop a questionaire that would standardize our interviews and make it easier to compile generalizations from our data. As a basis for our questionaire we used an NCARB questionaire which had been sent out to practicing architects and also questions which we felt were important in developing trends in the personal philosophies of the architects interviewed. We then compared our questionaire with the group that was interviewing the faculty and attempted to assimilate the two.
The actual number of interviews were derived from the locations of the architects as well as the time available for travel. The interviews were centered on the Gainesville, Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Clearwat-er areas primarily because of our contacts in those areas. The locations of the interviews ranged from the professional atmosphere of the architects office to the social atmosphere of sipping wine infront of a fireplace at the architects home. Most of the interviews averaged about forty-five minutes. Many of the interviews occurred under unusual conditions. These included chasing an architect around his house as he installed a stereo wire system, being attacked by dogs and cats during an interview, and watching an architect stick his antique desk with his pocket knife.
The compiling of data centered around listening to approximately seven hours of taped interviews. Many of


these were of poor quality, because of recording equipment failure or background noise during the interview. The data was compiled in the format of a questionaire as it had been recorded to ease in associateing the architects to each other. Generalizations were formulated from the architects to establish trends.
The presentation format was centered around entertaining and educating the audience without losing their attention. This was one of the main reasons for formulating trends between the architects. The specifics of each architect were condensed and presented with a representation of the architects work (slide presentation). In this manner the audience could associate the philosophy of the architects, to his work. The only problems with handling the project this way was the lack of detailed coverage of each architect We felt that this was not as important as a generalized view of the architect. Many architects had promised to send us slides of their work and did not meet our deadline so some of the architects were only mentioned in the generalizations.
The results which were personally attained from the project can be related to satisfaction which many architects had related to success. We have answered our primary questions on why we had entered the project. In answering these questions we were able to relate our architectural education to how it is going to affect our future. We can conclude that our architectural education at the University of Florida will prepare us for practice. All of the architects did agree that the university education had lacked in the areas of buisness and architectural details. However, most of these architects felt that they could be picked up during the basic work experience.