Forrest,
It shows that lots of kids, if exposed to golf, think about becoming golf course architects. It kind of reminds me of a youngster from AZ, who in the 1970's printed and distributed an architecture newsletter, and many architects actually subscribed. Wonder what ever happened to that kid?
But, if it plays out like our generation did, the vast majority of these kids will not go into architecture, some losing interest or thinking the dream is impossible, others steered away from it by well meaning (?) parents and counselors, or just graduating into a crappy job market, as the class of 2020 will find out, I think.
As to the value of plans, yeah I agree. For thousands of years, designers of all types knew they needed to figure things out ahead of construction/manufacturing, production, etc. And, those here poo pooh 3D and CAD but it seems like it does nothing but confirm or improve the ability to visualize your design (or for members) And as to the oft spread notion that those who draw plans don't fiddle on site (i.e., your continuation) is just false for most of us. As is the idea that CAD somehow can only spew out standard designs. Yes, garbage in, garbage out, but the input is still human driven.
Not to mention, while I agree that it is a waste to produce reams of plans, in fact, CAD allows those grassing, clearing, drainage, etc. separate sheets to be done with a few clicks of a button, once set up. It does not waste time that the architect could have spend designing, not anymore.
The romantic notion of doing it all in the ground is more marketing than design, and I am always surprised at how many love that notion. In reality, golf architecture becomes more scientific all the time, and you need very accurate plans for wetlands, ADA, etc. on many projects. Sure, we would all love dream project after dream project, a la Sand Hills, and it has obviously happened that way for a few, but it is not real life, even if that is what participants here always dream of being involved in.
I
t makes sense that there would be an "equal and opposite" reaction among many. In reality, and IMHO, I think the reaction is to the more standardized finished products after WWII, and not necessarily the planning method.