24 / 52
EVALUATION REPORT 2015
24
like to emphasize the importance of a great team of teach-
ers contributing to this year. This is where the very best and
most inspiring professors should alternate in opening up the
world of architecture for new generations.
Currently the first year seems to be working well, but to
be rather traditional. Could it be rethought in terms of the
situations found in modern society? The overall development
‘from simple to complex’ in scale, could perhaps be chal-
lenged, as young people today seem to master complexity
differently from earlier generations.
There seems to be a great deal of discussion concerning
skills and knowledge, whereas values are less spoken of.
Is this intended as something to be provided for the more
mature students, or is this the wrong impression?
Student feedback, for example after finishing the Bachelor
stage, can be an important input into the process of con-
stantly improving the first three years. There is a question of
whether this is done systematically, or if it could be done.
The ‘Bachelor board’ is apparently a very strong and effec-
tively functioning forum for planning education, an idea one
would like to see tried out at Masters´ level as well.
Masters level
In spite of a range of high quality classes for the last two
years of study, these are easier to comment on at a struc-
tural level. The Master courses seem to be as chaotic and
fragmented as the Bachelor is organized. The courses seem
detached, the path through them random, and there seems
to be no planned relation between them.
First of all, it is hard to see how students make their choice.
One wonders if there could be some kind of student guid-
ance for informed choices. In particular this is important for
students from abroad, but also for each student to plan their
education based on their individual strengths and possibil-
ities. It is important to retain the freedom of choice, but for
some, certain routes through the last two years of study (let
us say within urbanism, sustainable developments, or build-
ing protection ) could be something to be tested.
Secondly, the Masters courses seem extremely different
from each other and hard to compare. Some deal with
different functional programs, such as complex programs or
housing, whereas others seem to deal with a niche aspect
of architecture for a full half year. It could be questioned
whether some of them have importance for professional
architects at all, and one would ask what the role of those
courses is intended to be.
Is this intentional, or is it just a result of professors´ prefer-
ences? Is it even discussed? Masters courses should obvi-
ously be part an overall academic idea of what the education
provision should contain.
For Masters courses, criteria for quality should be transpar-
ent and known by all students, and the level of quality from
course to course should be addressed frequently to ensure
that all courses keep up to standards.
Theory Courses
There is an intention that theory is integrated in the design
courses at Masters level at NTNU. But it is essential to keep
it integrated, but not melted into each other. In general,
theory seems to be a little thin, and there is no clear plan for
what should be in the education. It seems slightly random
what the theory is that each student learns in their last
years.
It is also important to focus on how theory informs practice
within the study. Could research inform Masters courses in a
more interesting way? Could disciplines from other parts of
NTNU be integrated to a greater degree?
Master´s thesis
There seem to be considerable anxiety in the thesis semes-
ter. This is considered a final test, but is not always the most
challenging or mature project during the study. To improve
this half year, one may wonder if, for some, too much energy
is spent on searching for the perfect program or project.
Perhaps some tasks or programs could be suggested and
prepared by the School?
For students less eager to do a design project, are there
alternatives? Is there a sufficient level of guidance?
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To attract and develop the best students as well as teachers,
are central priorities in a high quality institution.
Whereas the content and structure of the Bachelor cours-
es is being discussed regularly, and thought through, the
structure in the Master level seems less addressed. Masters
courses vary too much in quality as well as in their thematic
content.