Dear Terry & listers,
Teaching studio may very well be the most expensive form of teaching at some
institutions, but not so much at QUT. Design studio tutors in Architecture
at QUT are paid considerably less then at other comparable institutions. My
understanding is that at, for example RMIT, a tutor in design might be paid
around AU$90 for the first hour, and then around AU$70 for every hour after
that. QUT pays AU$36 flat
per hour. The reasons for this disparity is honestly beyond me but it is
the cost structure that we have. That being said, the design studio is still
generally costs more then other units in technology or communication etc.,
because there is a lower staff student ratio [1:17 in design and 1:25 in
other units].
As you can well imaging, due to the poor pay, it is often difficult to
attract the brightest and best teaching staff. This is made particularly
difficult at the moment as the building industry is absolutely out of
control in Brisbane. Getting any staff, let alone good staff, is really
quite a challenge both within the building industry and for us in academe.
This is a big problem and one that we don¹t see being alleviated any time
soon.
A fundamental strategy of the selective design studio¹ model therefore is
to encourage and incorporate research activity from professional practice
directly into the design studios themselves. Or rather, to frame and make
explicit the tacit knowledge that informs judgment in professional practice,
in order to subsequently frame other research endeavours in the studio. The
selective design studio¹ model provides design professionals whom are
engaged in commercial practice, and whom have established themselves as
experts through a track record of design excellence, with a means through
which to explore and develop research projects which advance the
intellectual and academic rigor of their current and future built projects.
Under this model design professionals are provided with the scope to engage
directly with students to explore emerging technical and conceptual concerns
of their practice. It provides a framework through which to respond to,
inform, and potentially solve real world¹ challenges, providing the
building industry with a direct connection to research resources, projects,
and outcomes that would normally not be able to be accessible. In
particular, it provides an opportunity for progressive young practices to
establish connections and collaborations with academe that would normally
only be available to large financially established organizations.
I am not skirting your question, I am attempting to demonstrate that there
is another potentially more beneficial carrot that we are offering potential
selective studio leaders: that advancement of knowledge. Selective design
studio leaders therefore are still paid at a pitiful rate, but are
remunerated ten fold through the knowledge that is gained through their
studio.
I am not suggesting that a practice can simply come in and do what they do
in practice within an academic environment: Clearly this is not research.
However, I am interested in aiding professionals whom have a pre-existing
thirst and passion for knowledge and inquiry with a forum through which to
develop scholarly research questions and projects. These sorts of practices
are generally not interested in formulating formal research partnerships
with the university in the form of ARC grants etc., because they are far to
onerous and unappealing. The wealth of experience these practices have to
offer is an untapped resources, and more importantly the vast knowledge that
we have to gain through research collaboration with these practices offers
wholly new pathways and partnerships than the current education structure
provides.
To get back to your initial question about costings, as I seem to have gone
off on a slight tangent. The new model will not cost us any more then the
old as the contact hours are the same, and the staff are still paid at the
same rate: at least for now. There is however quite a bit of discussion
being conducted right now about increasing the remuneration rates for this
form of teaching being lead by a number of our professoriate. If this
happens, then teaching through the selective design studio¹ model will cost
approximately double the current model.
On 5/04/08 1:23 PM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> How do you go about costing compared to other courses?
>
> Studios are an expensive way of teaching - public purse and all that.
>
> Cheers,
> Terrry
Regards,
: : c h r i s b r i s b I n : :
B. Des. Studies, B. Architecture [ hon I ]
Lecturer in Design [ Architecture ]
Doctoral Candidate of the ATCH Research Group UQ
[ architecture/theory/criticism/history ]
http://www.architect.uq.edu.au/atch/
Research Member of the AMDM Research Group QUT
[ arts/media/design/modernity ]
personal web site
http://web.mac.com/christopherbrisbin/
s-architecture web blog
http://s-architecture.blogspot.com/
downloadable e-print publications
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Brisbin,_Christopher.html
[ postal ]
School of Design
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
2 George Street, Brisbane 4000
[GPO Box 2434]
CRICOS No. 00213J
[ e ] [log in to unmask]
[ p ] +61 7 3138 2903
|
