摘要：PurposeStudents were not allowed to transfer to undergraduate programs in Architecture through Graduate Transfer Exam before the regulation made in 1999 since the curricula of the two-year degree programs did not match the curricula of the architecture programs. However, after this regulation the students were admitted to undergraduate programs in architecture through Graduate Transfer Exam without taking into account the differences in the two-year degree programs and curricula. The present study aims to lay bare; whether the curricula of the two-year degree programs that send students to undergraduate programs in architecture through Graduate Transfer Exam are compatible with architectural education, the problems faced during the process of adaptation, and the academic achievements of those students admitted to Selcuk University, Department of Architecture through Graduate Transfer Exam.ResultsIn view of the 5 fields, the students of which are allowed to transfer to architecture education, a sum of 31 two-year degree programs exist at both the state and private universities in Turkey. As per the 2008 DGS guide a total of 39 architecture departments at state universities, private universities and universities at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus accept students through DGS. Moreover, when 2008 ÖSYS guide is examined it is observed that there are only 6 state and private universities that offer architecture education yet do not accept DGS students. The number of prospective students that might transfer from vocational schools is 1014 while the quota of architecture departments is 96. When the two-year degree programs and curricula are studied it is observed that they do not provide a sound basis for architectural education. The vocational degree program that corresponds for the most part to architectural education in view of curriculum has been determined to be “Construction Draft”. Moreover, it might be asserted that “Natural Stone Decoration” and “Restoration and Conservation” programs have almost nothing in common with the curriculum of architectural education. There are only a limited number of courses offered at the two-year degree programs of the vocational schools which might form a basis to design/architectural education. Hence, the adaptation process becomes challenging for the students. Among the 26 students admitted to Selcuk University, Department of Architecture through DGS; 17 transferred from Restoration (65%), 6 transferred from Construction Draft (23%), and 3 transferred from Conservation (12%) programs, respectively. Generally, those students admitted to the undergraduate program through DGS have been observed to show poor academic achievements that usually result in some additional semesters of education. When the academic achievements of the mentioned students are studied; it has been observed that, the most fruitless are transfers from Restoration and Conservation while Construction draft students prove to be relatively more successful. However, it should be noted that the DGS students have been observed to complete the core courses of architectural education, that is, the architectural design projects courses, usually with the lower limits of successful grades. DiscussionIt is clearly observed that “Natural Stone Decoration” vocational program is not compatible with architectural education in view of the contents of the courses offered. While “Architectural Restoration” and “Restoration” programs offer courses on history of architecture, restoration and building science, courses on architectural design unit exists only in one of the programs. The vocational program of Restoration and Conservation includes courses on restoration and conservation of materials (stone, glass and ceramics) and are more based on archeology. These programs partly offer courses on restoration and history of architecture yet courses on building science unit and architectural design unit are not offered. Another program that is not compatible with undergraduate architecture education is vocational program of Restoration and Conservation. Vocational program in “Construction Draft” provides the best match for and is mostly compatible with architecture education. This program offers courses pertaining to four different fields of architecture. Due to the distribution pattern of the vocational programs, both quantitative and qualitative problems are observed in view of teaching staff and curriculum. The adaptation period which is precisely deliberated under law needs to be extended for architecture and similar academic fields. It has been observed that those students transferred to Selcuk University, Department of Architecture through DGS face many problems of academic achievement in design related courses due to the lack of design courses in their previous academic disciplines, the short duration of adaptation period, and the inability to compensate for the lack of design education in such short periods. Although these students manage to complete their undergraduate education, they suffer the lack of design education especially during the earlier semesters and generally become insufficient in reflecting the understanding of architectural design. ConclusionIt is an undisputed fact that vocational and technical education and training is important for Turkey. The present and planned regulations point at an increasing number of students to be admitted to two-year degree programs and even more students admitted to undergraduate programs in different fields. Hence, the education of transfer students through DGS becomes more and more important. Evaluating the present situation and programs of vocational training, it is recommended that further Construction Draft Departments shall be opened and transfers from these departments should be encouraged. Restoration departments might be converted to architectural restoration departments considering the quantity and quality of teaching staff and these programs should be enhanced with courses on design education facilitating graduate transfer to departments of architecture. The students from those departments of Restoration and Restoration and Conservation which were not converted to Architectural Restoration should not be admitted to undergraduate architecture education through DGS. The transfer of such students to undergraduate education in Archeology and History of Art shall be enabled and facilitated. Moreover, it is observed that students of vocational training in Natural Stone Decoration might perform better in mining engineering, geology and civil engineering undergraduate programs. To conclude, given the present situation, it has been observed that vocational training in Construction Draft mostly overlaps with architectural education. It should be compulsory for the programs that should be permitted to transfer students to architecture departments through DGS to host architect teaching staff. Moreover, the adaptation period should be flexible for undergraduate architecture education.
