I believe that many architecture students do not really like architecture but they have to complete the course nevertheless.
Why I am saying this is that – I was really into architecture and now I still am. I noticed for some students they would do anything (distract themselves silly)… but architecture and they got through the course because they can really draw well and good at graphics. It is easier now than before due to all sorts of computer aided drawing softwares and tools.
I see some students avoid talking about architecture and have very little desire to know more. They are more concerned with periphery issues and other concerns. Why does architecture comes second for many of the students.
I suppose when we had to do manual drawings before (time before CAD and computers), the ones that did not like architecture could not fake it, as the effort to draw and to draw like a computer or at least competently was immense, unlike now which is “effortless”.
I suppose the number of students liking architecture to the students disliking architecture could be the same then and now, but the “gloss-over” or “faking-it” could be easily done now than before.
Why does this concern me?
For starters, I do not really want to help people who are not interested or dislike architecture and are just going through the motions. I mean, why should I? It is a vocation and the teacher that I am would only be interested to teach people who would really appreciate the subject and not just to pass.