14/06/10
Dear Professor Oswalt,
I was one of the participants of Kolleg program 2009-2010. Due to the series of problems I decided to quit the program on the 26th of May and I felt the need to share some of these problems with you as I feel you should be aware of the reality in the Kolleg program.
- I personally came to this program with hope and reverence to the legacy created by Bauhaus over the years. I was very quickly disappointed on the quality of the course.
- As it is indicated in the agenda for Kolleg program, it's a post professional research program, but surprisingly participants are treated as UG students and advisors act more as teacher if not say as dictators to extend that among us Regina is called Bauhaus queen! Anything except "yes" to her lead you to the hell, she doesn't let participants or even the other advisors to express or do differently than her desire. This is unfortunate as there is absolutely no question of a collaborative relationship between the advisors and participants. Most of the decisions are enforced upon us and tolerance with contradictory dialogue is minimal. There is absolutely no levy towards adopting a different approach to the project. I expected much more from the advisors and is therefore disappointing
- The Kolleg program is an urban study program, but how is it that the principal advisors are
architects and socio-cultural specialists and not urban designers. This considering the fact that
majority of the participants is architects. Therefore the input taken from the so called expert
advisors does not hold much value. This is highly questionable.
- The pre-selection procedure for mid-term and final presentation is done only 3 days prior to the deadline. This is highly unprofessional. I was not here to present at the mid term because my
project was conceived as being too "controversial"'. I was simply stating facts and questioning
certain practices of the Open University. This actually goes against all that the legendary Bauhaus stood for – freedom of speech, revolutionary ideas and pushing the envelope.
- Even the critics invited to the midterm presentation were students of PhD, which is surprising as to how a "prestigious program" can invite PhD students as critics for a mid term presentation. Is it not better to get experts in the field to judge the participant's work? I wonder if this is done
deliberately so as to escape the inevitable question of incompetence put forward by an expert critic to the advisors, because of the poor quality of work produced by some of the participants, who surprisingly qualified to present at the mid term. This is beyond me.
- The first semester was consumed by the pointless intervention and not enough time was given to concentrate on our personal research. A lot of effort went into trying to make the intervention work even though we wanted to do it very differently. This fell on deaf ears as we were forced to play out a "role playing act" which fell flat as none of us had any acting experience. The intervention was a huge failure. We learnt nothing from it considering the amount of money and effort that was put into it. This was hugely disappointing as I we feel it would have been a lot more productive if I had spent more time on my research and learnt something new in the process.
- Sometimes the course seems amateurish when presentations made by the advisors are actually repeated in the second semester with different headings. It feels like they are running through the motions. This creates an extremely poor environment in the studio as motivation to produce good work continues to dip as the course progresses.
- I fail to understand as to how Stefan continues to be accepted as an advisor as he is unprofessional, arrogant and incompetent. He possesses negative body language and makes derogatory and demeaning personal comments. He has no qualities of an academician and has contributed nothing to my experience here at the program.
- As this is purely my opinion I would request you to please arrange for an anonymous evaluation of the advisors and the course in general from the participants. This is a common practice in all post graduate and offices, as you would know. You would be surprised with the results. I have been an architect for the past 4 years and run my own practice in Iran. I have won international competitions and achieved enough professionally up until now. My reason for joining the Bauhaus was not to collect an international degree, but more to be part of this great institution and broaden my knowledge. Most of the participants here are professionals who expect to be treated with respect and tolerance to a new way of thinking. If the program continues like this it will soon stagnate and tarnish the image of the Bauhaus, as word spreads fast. It is a pity.
My purpose for writing this letter is purely to express my disappointment over an institution which I had great respect for. I feel responsible to put this across to you as I feel you can make a positive difference and regain the true Bauhaus legacy that is so admired and revered around the world.
Best Regards
Kolleg Participant – (2009-2010)
Dear Professor Oswalt,
I was one of the participants of Kolleg program 2009-2010. Due to the series of problems I decided to quit the program on the 26th of May and I felt the need to share some of these problems with you as I feel you should be aware of the reality in the Kolleg program.
- I personally came to this program with hope and reverence to the legacy created by Bauhaus over the years. I was very quickly disappointed on the quality of the course.
- As it is indicated in the agenda for Kolleg program, it's a post professional research program, but surprisingly participants are treated as UG students and advisors act more as teacher if not say as dictators to extend that among us Regina is called Bauhaus queen! Anything except "yes" to her lead you to the hell, she doesn't let participants or even the other advisors to express or do differently than her desire. This is unfortunate as there is absolutely no question of a collaborative relationship between the advisors and participants. Most of the decisions are enforced upon us and tolerance with contradictory dialogue is minimal. There is absolutely no levy towards adopting a different approach to the project. I expected much more from the advisors and is therefore disappointing
- The Kolleg program is an urban study program, but how is it that the principal advisors are
architects and socio-cultural specialists and not urban designers. This considering the fact that
majority of the participants is architects. Therefore the input taken from the so called expert
advisors does not hold much value. This is highly questionable.
- The pre-selection procedure for mid-term and final presentation is done only 3 days prior to the deadline. This is highly unprofessional. I was not here to present at the mid term because my
project was conceived as being too "controversial"'. I was simply stating facts and questioning
certain practices of the Open University. This actually goes against all that the legendary Bauhaus stood for – freedom of speech, revolutionary ideas and pushing the envelope.
- Even the critics invited to the midterm presentation were students of PhD, which is surprising as to how a "prestigious program" can invite PhD students as critics for a mid term presentation. Is it not better to get experts in the field to judge the participant's work? I wonder if this is done
deliberately so as to escape the inevitable question of incompetence put forward by an expert critic to the advisors, because of the poor quality of work produced by some of the participants, who surprisingly qualified to present at the mid term. This is beyond me.
- The first semester was consumed by the pointless intervention and not enough time was given to concentrate on our personal research. A lot of effort went into trying to make the intervention work even though we wanted to do it very differently. This fell on deaf ears as we were forced to play out a "role playing act" which fell flat as none of us had any acting experience. The intervention was a huge failure. We learnt nothing from it considering the amount of money and effort that was put into it. This was hugely disappointing as I we feel it would have been a lot more productive if I had spent more time on my research and learnt something new in the process.
- Sometimes the course seems amateurish when presentations made by the advisors are actually repeated in the second semester with different headings. It feels like they are running through the motions. This creates an extremely poor environment in the studio as motivation to produce good work continues to dip as the course progresses.
- I fail to understand as to how Stefan continues to be accepted as an advisor as he is unprofessional, arrogant and incompetent. He possesses negative body language and makes derogatory and demeaning personal comments. He has no qualities of an academician and has contributed nothing to my experience here at the program.
- As this is purely my opinion I would request you to please arrange for an anonymous evaluation of the advisors and the course in general from the participants. This is a common practice in all post graduate and offices, as you would know. You would be surprised with the results. I have been an architect for the past 4 years and run my own practice in Iran. I have won international competitions and achieved enough professionally up until now. My reason for joining the Bauhaus was not to collect an international degree, but more to be part of this great institution and broaden my knowledge. Most of the participants here are professionals who expect to be treated with respect and tolerance to a new way of thinking. If the program continues like this it will soon stagnate and tarnish the image of the Bauhaus, as word spreads fast. It is a pity.
My purpose for writing this letter is purely to express my disappointment over an institution which I had great respect for. I feel responsible to put this across to you as I feel you can make a positive difference and regain the true Bauhaus legacy that is so admired and revered around the world.
Best Regards
Kolleg Participant – (2009-2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment