As professionals we celebrate diversity in architecture. Diversity has become a something of a marketing phrase in order to promote both the education and subsequent practice of architecture to people not yet to be immersed in it as we are. However, within the field of architecture, diversity has become problematic, most noticeably during the period of one’s internship. If we are truly to capitalize on the
diverse nature of architecture, we must all keep this in mind in three key phases of architecture; education, practice and internship. I would like to describe them as parts of a coin, each having a distinct relationship to the other.

I would like to consider the faces of the coin first, those being education and practice. The face of education is broad to say the least, ranging from pure theory to concentration on construction methods. One thing does remain consistent within all these variations, and that is the desire for innovation. In school, we are pushed to be unique, striving to resolve the problem in the best manner possible. In order to achieve this goal, new methods of thinking, designing, and building are explored through the use of texts, lectures and machinery.

The opposite face of the coin is practice. I am not suggesting that thinking or diversity is not encouraged in practice. In fact, the diverse nature of practice is equal to that of academia. However, with the imposition of reality, the student is suddenly faced with the true difficulties of construction. In many cases, they are considered to be unprepared for this, as they have not been taught how to produce deliverables in the manner consistent with that office. In truth, one would be hard pressed to find two offices that execute projects in the exact same manner, let alone finding a national or international standard. Too often it is taken for granted that interns are there to produce, versus learning how to produce.

If we concentrate solely on either of the two faces the result would be simple. Only one side of the coin would be evident and the practice of architecture would not move forward. However, if we capitalize on the third side, the edge we can critically gauge or discipline. The internship is the edge by which the other two practices may be gauged and adjusted according to the requirements of both academia and practice.

I propose that this be kept in mind during at all times. Faculty must be aware of the kind of student they produce while offices should be mindful of the fact that students have come there to discover what an office has to teach them. The intern has the most difficult task of all in tying to e open to learning and critical of practice at the same time. But by allowing the intern a more critical role in the development of the practice we will achieve to things. First, we create a dynamic condition where the practice is able to roll with changes. Second, we maintain the one of the most sought after parts of architecture, value.