The education of an architect

[Ted Sturges]

Some architects have earned a degree in landscape architecture (Robert Trent Jones and Tom Doak are two I can name), while others came from backgrounds of a golf course superintendent or a playing professional.  Still others have come up by working for a bigger name architect, and then branching out on their own.  Another level of education some architects have embraced is to travel the world to see the work of others.  I understand seeing the great courses in the UK early in his career had a big impact on Mr. Dye, and Tom Doak has probably seen more courses around the world than any architect (living or dead). 

How important is seeing the work of others in the education of an architect?  How important is it to have a degree in landscape architecture?  Does seeing other courses  encourage "copying" of great holes seen elsewhere?  Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  I understand Bill Coore had not seen many courses outside the US until very late in his career and his work is as appealing to me as anyone's.  Is his work more creative because he had not seen as much of the work of others? 

These are questions I have been thinking about.  I'd love to hear the answers from others, especially the architects who visit this site.

TS

[Tom_Doak]

Ted:

One factual correction:  Robert Trent Jones did not earn a degree in Landscape Architecture.  He attended Cornell for two years on his own agenda, taking classes in various subjects he thought would be of use.  I'm not even sure he received a degree for that study, but I know he didn't get a degree in L.A.  [And his sons went to Yale, which doesn't have an L.A. program.]

If you named 25 famous architects you might find a couple of them (besides me) who have degrees in Landscape Architecture.  That should tell you how important it really is.  It's good training for the business, and it looks good on someone's resume when there are way more job candidates than jobs -- that's why it has been accepted as the best route to success.  But it's hardly the only way to go.

I'm personally a big fan of getting out and seeing others' work -- it only encourages "copying" if that's what's in your blood.  But the number one way to learn about golf architecture is to apprentice for someone who's doing really good work, or, like Mr. Dye, to just go out and start working at it yourself, if you can.

[Tom MacWood]

Perhaps it was a different era, but...
Mackenzie = physician
Colt = solicitor
Fowler = financier
Macdonald = stock broker
Abercromby = secretary
Simpson = dabbled in art among other things
Tillinghast = journalist
Alison = journalist
Gannon = Catholic priest
Wilson = insurance salesman

[David Bartman]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but landscape architecture was much more about , and still may be, urban planning, and not specific to golf course design. 

[Steve Burrows]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but landscape architecture was much more about , and still may be, urban planning, and not specific to golf course design.  

You are right in so far as there is actually no degree program (in America, at least) specific to golf course design.  The lessons learned from an LA curriculum, however, are the ones that can best be abstracted into a career in golf design.  And, as Tom Doak suggests, in the modern world that demands credentials, it is an appropriate educational path.  

But even if there were such a degree program as golf course design, it would hardly prepare someone to be a professional designer any more than a degree in architecture qualifies someone to design a skyscraper, or in law to actually practice law.  In each other those instances, and so many others, the formal education is simply a stepping stone; it is only through years of practical experience that anyone can really be good at them.  This notion hints at the varied career paths of the past designers that Tom Macwood mentioned, who all came from an era when degrees and credentials were not as important as talent and an overwhelming desire to be good at something.  Perhaps unfortunately, however, those days are pretty much over.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve is mostly right.  While some offices may require credentials, in fact, LA is the closest degree to golf design, as far as technical skills needed.    The degree gives you a head start in surveying, grading and drainage, basic design principles, etc.  Some schools periodically offer specialty advanced design classes for those so inclined, or allow independent study.

Then you need an apprenticeship with some firm that really knows what it's doing.  I remember sitting on an ASLA accreditation board for U of I.  In some sense, the ASLA was pushing the school to go to a five year degree (some schools do have five year Bachelors degrees, often with the fifth being an intern somewhere).  My response ( and the schools) was that the extra year as an unpaid intern wasn't as good as being a paid entry level person, really learning by their mistakes and from those who really do it every day.

It would be nice to see all the famous courses, and others not so famous.  I believe the best architects just love looking at golf courses of all types to learn, even 30 or more years into their career.  I am often surprised though, but how many architects really haven't taken the time to see a lot of courses.

[Tom_Doak]

Perhaps it was a different era, but...
Mackenzie = physician
Colt = solicitor
Fowler = financier
Macdonald = stock broker
Abercromby = secretary
Simpson = dabbled in art among other things
Tillinghast = journalist
Alison = journalist
Gannon = Catholic priest
Wilson = insurance salesman

Tom:  That was indeed a different era.  How many of those guys actually had college degrees in their previous fields of employment?  I know MacKenzie had the medical degree and assume Colt had a law degree, but who among the rest?

In my first post, I was thinking that it wasn't just that era ... Pete Dye and Tom Fazio never studied landscape architecture, nor did the Jones clan, and Nicklaus and Palmer didn't, either [although many of the people working in their offices DO have L.A. degrees, whereas, not many of the guys who work for me, do].  Bill Coore's degree was in Greek history or some such thing.    A landscape architecture degree has been more the exception than the rule, until fairly recently.

[Steve Burrows]

I remember sitting on an ASLA accreditation board for U of I.  In some sense, the ASLA was pushing the school to go to a five year degree (some schools do have five year Bachelors degrees, often with the fifth being an intern somewhere).  My response ( and the schools) was that the extra year as an unpaid intern wasn't as good as being a paid entry level person, really learning by their mistakes and from those who really do it every day.

Jeff,

I'm not sure when those accreditation board meetings took place, but it is interesting that you bring this up, as the LA department at the U of I just altered their curriculum again (I am currently in the doctoral program in the LA Department).  Rather than just offering a 4 year program, now students can take what is being called a "4-plus", which gives them the option of taking an extended internship, typically the summer and fall semester after their 3rd year.  But whereas the students technically do have the option, but I think the department is not very subtly encouraging students to take the "4-plus" route.  I imagine that keeping them there for longer puts a few more dollars in the department's pocket and that has something to do with it as well.

[David Bartman]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but landscape architecture was much more about , and still may be, urban planning, and not specific to golf course design.  

You are right in so far as there is actually no degree program (in America, at least) specific to golf course design.  The lessons learned from an LA curriculum, however, are the ones that can best be abstracted into a career in golf design.  And, as Tom Doak suggests, in the modern world that demands credentials, it is an appropriate educational path.  

But even if there were such a degree program as golf course design, it would hardly prepare someone to be a professional designer any more than a degree in architecture qualifies someone to design a skyscraper, or in law to actually practice law.  In each other those instances, and so many others, the formal education is simply a stepping stone; it is only through years of practical experience that anyone can really be good at them.  This notion hints at the varied career paths of the past designers that Tom Macwood mentioned, who all came from an era when degrees and credentials were not as important as talent and an overwhelming desire to be good at something.  Perhaps unfortunately, however, those days are pretty much over.

I didn't mean to imply that a specific program would have someone prepared to design golf courses, experience is usually essential to being good at ones trade, no doubt!

[Blake Conant]

I believe Michigan State is the only school offering a certificate in golf course design right now.  UGA has offered a golf course architecture studio off and on throughout the years and currently offers one. 

There are problems with having any formal class dedicated to the discipline:  qualifications of the person teaching are probably not going to be the level of expertise needed.  On top of that, most of the design in the class is done from the topo without a site visit.  Finally, getting a class of 14 to tour good golf courses is difficult. 

It is, however, a great way to introduce young people to golf course architecture and take advantage of Georgia's golf notoriety.  It's also a great way to learn a lot of different aspects of LA in one class.  You can gain baseline knowledge of design, engineering, construction, plant ID, and graphics in one class. 

As someone getting an LA degree, a lot of what I learn is applicable to golf course construction, as Jeff already pointed out.  It's also a professional degree.  In a field as in flux as golf course design, having a fallback option is a nice cushion if things ever come to a screeching hault(however, that doesn't guarantee landscape architecture is a field that's doing all that great, anyway).  Whether it was worth the 3 years of tuition?  Who knows.

[Jonathan Davison]

Edinburgh College of Art ran a Masters course and a Diploma course in golf course architecture for a number of years

[Ted Sturges]

This is very interesting.  Appreciate the comments.

To Tom Doak and the other architects:

If you were designing a 4 year program for someone wanting to prepare themselves to make entry into this field, what would it look like?  How much "golf course viewing"?  How much study of landscape concepts?  How much work experience?  Would you include courses in "marketing"?  I recall learning that Tom spend a semester caddying in the UK to allow him the experience of seeing lots of different shots played.  That seems like it would be valuable.  Would 3-4 months of looping be in the 4 year plan?  Just curious what the curriculum would look like if one of today's experienced architects were putting it together.

TS

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ted,

The fact is, there is so much more to building a golf course before you ever get to what you might benefit out of caddying that it should really be considered extra credit, or post graduate work.  Now, it can be argued that it is necessary to build great golf courses, but no course would be great if it didn't drain, have good circulation, etc.

I wouldn't really do much to my landscape architecture curriculum, other than remove some of those urban and regional planning classes which weren't much use to me, although I did find them interesting.  I supplemented my basic curriculum with a semester of turf science, two summers working at a golf course, one in landscape construction, as well as surveying, agricultural drainage, business writing and a few others.  One might dabble in construction management intro classes, architecture, intro to site engineering, urban design (subdivisions) etc.

But, the basic LA curriculum gives you site design, grading, drainage, construction detailing, and some other things that universally apply to any outside design.  I even recall using my LA history class to write about the history of golf design, and finding all the then unknown to me classics in the storage section of the U of I library system. Great reads!  And some of those old landscape design principles do come in handy, so studying "Capability Brown", Repton, and others provided some guidance.

[Tom_Doak]

This is very interesting.  Appreciate the comments.

To Tom Doak and the other architects:

If you were designing a 4 year program for someone wanting to prepare themselves to make entry into this field, what would it look like?  How much "golf course viewing"?  How much study of landscape concepts?  How much work experience?  Would you include courses in "marketing"?  I recall learning that Tom spend a semester caddying in the UK to allow him the experience of seeing lots of different shots played.  That seems like it would be valuable.  Would 3-4 months of looping be in the 4 year plan?  Just curious what the curriculum would look like if one of today's experienced architects were putting it together.

TS

Ted:

I've thought a lot about that over the years, because of my internship program, and I've even thought of starting to take interns on a 4- or 5-year training program to get them to where they have a chance to be successful in the business without paying for three years of grad school.  But, to do so I would be taking on a great deal more responsibility for the success of certain individuals than I am comfortable with.

To your questions above:

How much "golf course viewing"? --  a lot, but spaced out over the four years.  You learn a lot more from seeing other golf courses after you've spent a few months out on a construction site, so that you understand some of the many things you should be looking for BESIDES where to put the bunkers for strategy.  Walking a golf course when you have an eye for shaping and drainage is a far different experience than trying to break 80.
 
How much study of landscape concepts? -- The important things I learned from landscape architecture school were (1) how to draw grading plans [which also teaches you how to read and understand a topo map], (2) the design process generally, (3) a bit about environmental aspects specifically, and (4) a perspective on what the land planners are thinking about for the many projects that are bigger than just a golf course [housing development, resort, etc.].  I don't know what you are thinking of when you say "landscape concepts" -- some people would define those as composition, harmony, etc. -- but those are things you consider, not things you study.

How much work experience?  60-80 hours a week in the field, 75% of the time; 40 hours a week in the office, the other 25% of the time.  That is the relative importance I place on the two aspects of design, and also an idea of how more complex one is than the other.  And if someone doesn't want to spend a lot of time on site and away from home, they probably ought to seek another career.

Would you include courses in "marketing"?  --  I would recommend courses on BUSINESS, which I never really had in college; it took me ten years on my own before I thought of myself as owning a business, and another 5-10 years before I really started running it like a business.  Having worked for Mr. Dye for a while was not so helpful in this arena; I learned most of what I know through trial and error afterward, although I did several things right from the beginning, totally by accident.  I have tried to give most of my interns a taste of this, but I could probably sit them all down and teach them what they needed to know in a week or two.

Would 3-4 months of looping be in the 4 year plan?  Caddying is grad school.  I think the ideal would be for every student to go back and caddie for a summer at a course they helped to build, provided that they would be quiet and observe what things worked as they thought and what didn't, instead of trying to convince all the players how brilliant the course was.    It wouldn't hurt them to work on the maintenance crew for a summer, as well, even though I never did.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ted - Jeff and Tom have done an excellent job (especially in the last two posts) of answering your question. I would just add this: I believe Bill Coore's degree was in Philosophy (as was mine).  I think this vitally important, and an excellent degree for any aspiring architect -- because once you graduate with a degree in Philosophy and find yourself completely unfit/unprepared to earn a living, you'll take ANY kind of job just to make sure you have enough to eat....and architects are always looking for a bright hungry kid to take over the pick and shovel duties!!

[Tom_Doak]

Ted - Jeff and Tom have done an excellent job (especially in the last two posts) of answering your question. I would just add this: I believe Bill Coore's degree was in Philosophy (as was mine).  I think this vitally important, and an excellent degree for any aspiring architect -- because once you graduate with a degree in Philosophy and find yourself completely unfit/unprepared to earn a living, you'll take ANY kind of job just to make sure you have enough to eat....and architects are always looking for a bright hungry kid to take over the pick and shovel duties!!

Peter:

There are plenty of bright hungry kids working on Master's degrees in Landscape Architecture, too -- I've had an army of them working out at Dismal River this summer.    But, some of my best guys have had degrees in completely unrelated fields like biochemistry or game theory, and one of the best only spent a year in college before realizing it wasn't where he wanted to be.

[Tony Ristola]

Went to three schools of higher learning before leaving with nothing to show for it. I was there for the golf to be honest. I knew which direction my future was pointed.

After leaving school, I played tournament golf, was a teaching professional (and am a 27-year PGA member). The teaching end of it really gave me insight to how all players attack the game. That’s important, but only a fraction of the puzzle.

Since 18 I figured I’d design a golf course at some point and first landed at a club under construction after asking the architect 6-months earlier for such an opportunity; never thought at 28 I’d be involved in the business so quick, but was eager and happy. I lucked out by having a guy who was smart and cared a great deal who was leading construction. It was a hand picked, close knit team of locals. That was on a coastal property in Finland.

After that I went to work for a major builder, in SoCal and Mexico, and spent a season in maintenance.

I was pretty sure I’d follow one of my Grandfather’s footsteps and become an artist; something I’d planned on since age 7 after he sat me at his easel, gave me his palette and a fair size canvas and let me have a go (as well as planning on playing center for the Boston Bruins). He did a lot of landscape and seascape art; so since a young age I began developing an eye for Nature. This made reading & drawing plans pretty easy as I was able to imagine what might be.

All in all it provided a good foundation… but you never stop learning.

Nothing beats being out in the dirt; it’s where you learn the most. It's why I love the process and enjoy being in or on a machine.

In application: To say planning doesn’t matter would be idiotic, but plans don’t really mean much when you’re on the ground looking for harmony, and especially if you are in the machine.

It’s like Clausewitz said… plans change with the first encounter with the enemy. You’re always altering and evaluating what you’re building with what you’ve built and with what you think you might be building… so the course has variety. The process of building provides massive opportunities to improve, alter, zig-and-zag... daily.

You're always learning because every site is different & every crew is different (at least for me, and most of the time they don't know golf).

[Ted Sturges]

  But, some of my best guys have had degrees in completely unrelated fields like biochemistry or game theory, and one of the best only spent a year in college before realizing it wasn't where he wanted to be.

Tom, interesting point and though this is a separate (non golf) topic on it's own, I personally believe we are less than 20 years from employers going into high schools and plucking out the best students based on test scores and personal interviews and hiring them at 18 (allowing them to bypass college).  Those employers could then train and develop that talent into their organizations. Colleges seem clueless to the fact that a small percentage of what they teach is actually transferred/applied into a particular career (and that the majority of those skills are acquired "on the job" via a trainer or mentor).  US colleges continue to raise tuition at twice the rate of inflation (how high can it go?) in spite of a challenging economic period in our country's history (to me, this is arrogance).  Many of the most successful people in countless fields didn't earn a college degree.  I think US colleges are doing everything in their power to price themselves out of relavancy.  Your comments seem to support that notion.

TS

[Jeff_Brauer]

Probably the more relevant thread would be the recent ones on gca personality types, if it means predicting those who go into the business and are somewhat successful.  There is a design personality, and it appears that over the decades, many gca's simply took a while to find out where they fit in!  Maybe family pressures to go into some particular field rather than "waste one's life" in the golf biz?

I was lucky to know what I wanted to do early, for reasons posted here a few times.  Others know it deep down, I suppose, or come to golf later in life and realize what they want to do.

I am also over run with applications, probably not as many as Tom D gets, but lots.  Over the years, I have hired many young LA's (not much else, since I do prefer guys who can draw plans over those who might want to run equipment).  It works the other way, too - where people with no real talent for design seem to be able to muddle through 4 years of design school, put together a decent looking portfolio - all it takes is your best graphic project to impress - and get hired.

I always gave them a six month probation period, but frankly, I could tell within weeks whether or not these guys had a chance at being good golf course architects (or designers of any kind)  

BTW, I have yet to see a college student golf design project that was anything but laughable.  A few had it closer than others, but some impressed right off with graphics, but if I looked closely at the designs, they were weak.  Of course, I was in the same boat in 1977.  I graded out a golf green, using some standard detail sheet I had seen.  Hearing that greens needed good drainage, my plan was sort of domed in the middle, perhaps best for drainage, but also the absolute worst for holding golf shots.  I took it in to Killian and Nugent, and they kindly told me that they made their greens more concave to help hold shots and the contour lines should have been inverse.  

At least they hired me anyway, and I gave them seven years of good service.  They could look past that school project, luckily and understood I had basic talent, and that they could teach me as I went.  Tony makes an intersting point about the genetics of being a gca - I have been told that my family tree includes both English landscape painters and German engineers.  I suspect the perfect gca is about 60% of the former and 40% of the latter.

Related, but my first week on the job they gave me a par 3 from a local reno to draw.  It needed a pond, and I put one in along the front of the green.  Nugent walked in, said he didn't like it and walked out.  Thought he was mad, and that my career might span about three days, but about an hour later, he came back and told me his reasons - they did a forced carry a decade previous and were critiqued badly for it.  Besides, in theory, they preferred angled and lateral water so as to always give the poor player a way around.

As someone stated, after the basics, you really start to learn gca when you work for a firm.  Of course, the firm you start with sort of sets your career, as apprentices to Dye and Nicklaus have tended to go on to bigger things than apprentices for other firms.  Mostly, if you get taught one way (in my case, less bold, more practical) it stays with you, and then you tend to get the same kind of projects your mentors got.

[Colin Macqueen]

Ted,

This has been an enlightening thread. I have no experience in this field, cannot sketch, struggle imagining 3D space from 2D plans, "..poor, poor pitiful me"!  Because of this I have great admiration for the golf course architect and have enjoyed the insights offered here. My gut instinct has always been that, as Jeff B. mentioned and Tony R. stated, an ability to draw with engineering nouse must be a terrific start.  I wonder, Tom D., where you put yourself in the pantheon of golf hole sketchers?

Jonathon D. you mention "Edinburgh College of Art ran a Masters course and a Diploma course in golf course architecture for a number of years" and you are correct. I am intrigued that one Marty Glynn Bonnar has not been blowing his own trumpet (or at least beating his drum) as he completed this very course.......but he seems to be a shrinking violet in this instance!

Peter P. You could have had all your dreams come to fruition. The proud owner of a Philosophy degree and be delving into golf course history, evolution and design. Doubly blessed! ..... other than you would likely be out of work once again given the present decline in the industry! A Dismal thought!!

Cheers Colin

[Tom_Doak]

  But, some of my best guys have had degrees in completely unrelated fields like biochemistry or game theory, and one of the best only spent a year in college before realizing it wasn't where he wanted to be.

Tom, interesting point and though this is a separate (non golf) topic on it's own, I personally believe we are less than 20 years from employers going into high schools and plucking out the best students based on test scores and personal interviews and hiring them at 18 (allowing them to bypass college).  Those employers could then train and develop that talent into their organizations. Colleges seem clueless to the fact that a small percentage of what they teach is actually transferred/applied into a particular career (and that the majority of those skills are acquired "on the job" via a trainer or mentor).  US colleges continue to raise tuition at twice the rate of inflation (how high can it go?) in spite of a challenging economic period in our country's history (to me, this is arrogance).  Many of the most successful people in countless fields didn't earn a college degree.  I think US colleges are doing everything in their power to price themselves out of relavancy.  Your comments seem to support that notion.

TS

Ted:

I would agree with a lot of your rant.  Colleges seem like the dinosaurs -- too big and bulky and entrenched in their ways to adapt to a changing world.  But they'll keep on doing what they are doing until the students stop paying (and borrowing money to do it).  And there is still a great market for college, mainly because public schools are so poor that most kids are ill prepared for life in the real world at 18, even if they do know what they want to do with their lives (which most don't).

All that said, generally speaking, we've had better luck with grad students for our interns than undergrads ... they are just a little more ready to dig into work and to deal with a difficult construction environment.  And then I think that when I was 25, I was getting hired to design High Pointe.

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder, Tom D., where you put yourself in the pantheon of golf hole sketchers?

Cheers Colin

Colin:

I have confessed here on numerous occasions that I am much lower than the 50th percentile at doing drawings of golf holes ... though I can assure you I am better at it than Pete Dye was!

One of the many things I learned from Mr. Dye was that there were a lot of different ways to get your ideas across, and it didn't matter if it was pretty as long as it succeeded.  What I figured out on my own was that if I could find places where a lot of the golf hole was already there, I didn't have to communicate nearly as much.