设计智能和专业建筑项目排名:问题、影响和建议

Mahbub Rashid
{"title":"设计智能和专业建筑项目排名:问题、影响和建议","authors":"Mahbub Rashid","doi":"10.3390/architecture2030032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper studies the annual rankings of professional architectural degree programs by DesignIntelligence (DI). It uses a literature review and the statistical analysis of DI rankings and program-specific data to explore the limitations of the ranking system and its impacts on programs and public opinion. According to the findings of the study, the limitations of this system are related to the data it uses, the methods it uses to collect the data, and the way it uses the data for ranking purposes. Still, the ranking system can force architectural programs into a costly campaign for better ranks. It can also mislead prospective students in choosing programs that may not match their expectations. Additionally, it does not provide a reliable assessment of the capacity of a program to serve the profession and produce public good. It is suggested that a more objective, reliable, and relevant ranking system is needed for professional architecture degree programs. For this, the ranking system should emphasize criteria and methods different from the current DI system of rankings and should allow users to personalize rankings based on their perspectives, needs, and priorities.","PeriodicalId":79561,"journal":{"name":"Architecture (Washington, D.C.)","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DesignIntelligence and the Ranking of Professional Architecture Programs: Issues, Impacts, and Suggestions\",\"authors\":\"Mahbub Rashid\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/architecture2030032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper studies the annual rankings of professional architectural degree programs by DesignIntelligence (DI). It uses a literature review and the statistical analysis of DI rankings and program-specific data to explore the limitations of the ranking system and its impacts on programs and public opinion. According to the findings of the study, the limitations of this system are related to the data it uses, the methods it uses to collect the data, and the way it uses the data for ranking purposes. Still, the ranking system can force architectural programs into a costly campaign for better ranks. It can also mislead prospective students in choosing programs that may not match their expectations. Additionally, it does not provide a reliable assessment of the capacity of a program to serve the profession and produce public good. It is suggested that a more objective, reliable, and relevant ranking system is needed for professional architecture degree programs. For this, the ranking system should emphasize criteria and methods different from the current DI system of rankings and should allow users to personalize rankings based on their perspectives, needs, and priorities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":79561,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Architecture (Washington, D.C.)\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Architecture (Washington, D.C.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2030032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Architecture (Washington, D.C.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2030032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文研究了DesignIntelligence (DI)对建筑学专业学位项目的年度排名。它使用文献综述和DI排名和特定项目数据的统计分析来探索排名系统的局限性及其对项目和公众舆论的影响。根据研究结果,该系统的局限性与其使用的数据,收集数据的方法以及使用数据进行排名的方式有关。尽管如此,排名系统可能会迫使建筑项目投入一场昂贵的运动,以获得更好的排名。它还可能误导未来的学生选择可能不符合他们期望的课程。此外,它没有提供一个可靠的评估程序的能力,以服务于专业和产生公共利益。建议建立一个更加客观、可靠和相关的建筑专业学位排名系统。为此,排名系统应强调不同于当前DI排名系统的标准和方法,并允许用户根据自己的观点、需求和优先级进行个性化排名。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
DesignIntelligence and the Ranking of Professional Architecture Programs: Issues, Impacts, and Suggestions
This paper studies the annual rankings of professional architectural degree programs by DesignIntelligence (DI). It uses a literature review and the statistical analysis of DI rankings and program-specific data to explore the limitations of the ranking system and its impacts on programs and public opinion. According to the findings of the study, the limitations of this system are related to the data it uses, the methods it uses to collect the data, and the way it uses the data for ranking purposes. Still, the ranking system can force architectural programs into a costly campaign for better ranks. It can also mislead prospective students in choosing programs that may not match their expectations. Additionally, it does not provide a reliable assessment of the capacity of a program to serve the profession and produce public good. It is suggested that a more objective, reliable, and relevant ranking system is needed for professional architecture degree programs. For this, the ranking system should emphasize criteria and methods different from the current DI system of rankings and should allow users to personalize rankings based on their perspectives, needs, and priorities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信