The Academic Senate voted unanimously to support the Architecture Department’s bid to remain part of the School of Visual, Media and Performing Arts after the department was informed by administrators that it will be moving to the Career and Technical Education division.
In a letter presented to the senate, Coleman Griffith, Architecture Department Head, asked for the Senate’s support for the Architecture Department to remain in the VAMS department and requested that their physical class space be retained.
“On Friday, April 11th afternoon I was informed by Vice President Bell of his impending decision to move the Architecture Department from the School of Visual, Media and Performing Arts to the CTE, Career and Technical Education Division,” Coleman said. “He indicated that the rooms currently utilized by the Architecture Department would be given to the Second Year Experience program.”
In his resolution, Coleman gave a list of potential negative impacts, arguing that the move could create negative financial and educational impacts on both current and future architecture students, eliminate the F1 Visa student transfer population, and block access by underrepresented minority and economically disadvantaged students.
Coleman said a recent technical visit from the Community College League of California made it clear that “any changes that impact either the faculty, the students or the curriculum must be implemented by mutual agreement.
“If there is no mutual agreement, the status quo stands,” Coleman said.
The resolution also went on to state that the PCC Architecture Department is widely recognized in Southern California as the number one transfer school for students seeking transfer to a four to five year University Degree in Architecture.
Members of the Senate openly expressed their disapproval of the move, with Rod Foster, visual arts and media studies, pointing out the temporariness of grant-funded programs, which will replace architecture in the department.
“Grant programs are inherently temporary, what’s the value in moving it for a program that might not be here in a couple years,” Foster said. “More of the same from the gang that can’t shoot straight.”
Kris Pilon, engineering and technology, feels that classroom space played a role behind the scheduled move.
“There is no reason except they want classroom space,” Pilon said. “We have to take a strong stand against this.”
- Columbus deserves his day - October 17, 2014
- Struggles continue for women’s water polo - October 16, 2014
- Root Root for the away team? - October 8, 2014
As an architecture student, I feel so shock about this news. PCC’s architecture program is one of the best programs among all community colleges. I don’t who wants to do this out of what purpose.
I hope PCC architecture should remain as it is.
We need study, we need transfer and we pay for our class!
WHO is running this college?
—-
If Architecture is exiled into that vocational part of PCC (“Career and Tech”), that’s the beginning of the end for that program. The “Career” department management is dead-set on dismantling existing programs, substituting “Happy Meal” career certificates.
Oh, look! Another Bell screw-up.
Strike…twelve? When’s he out again?
PCC’s Architecture Transter Program is a gem, a one-of-a-kind jewel that no other Community College in the county can compete with. In fact, it regularly competes with University-level programs in design competiion–and wins! To toss PCC’s Architecture Program into the “Career and Tech” bin will be a disservice to the students, and to PCC.
The administration is doing this for what? For Pathways? I hear so many negative things about Pathways and College 1. It only favors transfer full-time students who have the time. It’s not for the whole community but a lot of resources are being spent for them – like giving away the Architecture space! When will the school decide if Pathways is really working for students and not just promising them seats in courses — and when they do that, they are certainly not promising students the section with the professor they want – so what’s the point?