Ladderized Arch Curriculum

The curriculum I followed during my college years had provisions for a certificate of building specialist upon finishing three years, and construction supervisor upon finishing fourth year. It looked cool, but I never got any certificate until I finished my undergrad.

When I came back to USC to teach, I noticed that they have removed those provisions. I even heard Arch't. Java mention that the ladderized curriculum is no longer applicable. Deep inside I thought that it sounded like a good idea because it offers a chance to those who are not able to finish the five years of bachelors degree in architecture to still earn something to show their possible employers.

In our faculty meeting yesterday, the issue of a ladderized curriculum surfaced again. It seems like there's a mandate from the university administration or the CHED to take this direction. This time, however, I looked at the proposal with a critical eye. Some faculty members said that the curriculum is already there, the problem lies in the implementation. Some said that we already have a standing approval from TESDA on the matter. Others question the need for it.

These are my thoughts about the matter:

First, I wonder if the curriculum right now is already designed to meet the requirements for a draftsman (after third year) and a supervisor (after fourth year). Majority of the graduates I know lack these skills and even the confidence to venture into these fields. If they want to pursue this ladderized curriculum, they'll have to revise the existing curriculum a little.

Second: I always thought that the Philippines is misguided in terms of education. We need more technicians who finish vocational courses than graduates in college. This is simply because most of the jobs here in the Philippines (and even abroad) require only this level of skills. Also, the cost of a vocational course is much, much cheaper than a full college degree. I don't think anyone will argue if I say that majority of the Filipinos are barely getting by in terms of income status.

Third: My second point is actually the reason why I would favor a ladderized curriculum. It would give a chance to those "misguided" students to earn the degree which is more suited for them. It is common knowledge that enrollment of a particular batch decreases as they reach the higher years. Not everyone is really cut out to become an architect. They just might do well as technicians. I know a lot of technicians who are actually earning a lot.

Fourth: What good will a certificate do if we finally give it away? Employers do not really look for it. Besides, someone armed with this certificate only will have to compete with another who is a college graduate even for a technician's position! The diploma or certificate handed out by CSCST is well respected though. CAFA's program should earn the same respect to make the ladderized curriculum worthwhile.

Fifth: A ladderized curriculum also calls for a two-track curriculum running parallel. On one side are the subjects needed for the "vocational degree", the other side for the "bachelor's degree". It would be better to have a different curriculum committee for each.

Finally: For this idea to take off the ground, the department needs a point man who will do the dirty work. One task, for example, is to define the vocational degree curriculum to follow, then review contents of existing curriculum...

Well, that's all I can download from my mind for now. I need to decide whether I should spend any more time on this task. Although this is a very easy thing to do for me, I'd rather spend my time relaxing =)

Coffee anyone?

PS
Someone suggested that certificates should be given only to those who requested for it. The person asking for it must satisfy the requirements for the certificate. Also. there should be an exam that they have to take to get the certificates... I think it's a good idea... Some details needed though but I think it's workable...