get funding for externally. That was more like practicing and teaching. We would get together in the mornings and work on that project, and then teach in the afternoons. Talk about how you migrated to different institutions. I’d been in Tucson for six years and was up for tenure and promotion. It was based on my research, publication, and lecturing. The first round it was denied saying, “Everybody else has been put up on practice. Why isn’t he?” The dean said, “We want to challenge this ruling.” Being somewhat savvy, I had already sent out feelers for other teaching positions. I figured the smartest thing to do is have something in your back pocket because you just didn’t know what was going to happen. One of the places I had lectured was Kansas State, and I had a really good time there. They had an opening and I applied. They called me and asked, “You want to come and interview?” I did. When the dean said they were going to challenge my tenure decision, I told them it wasn’t needed because I’d accepted a position at K-State. It was a good decision. Arizona didn’t really support architecture faculty the way they did at K-State. There, they said, “You’re going to go to Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture meetings. You’re going to present things, you need to get out of Manhattan, Kansas, a couple of times a year.” I was supported as an academic, as a scholar. For those 15 years I was publishing internationally and lecturing. I became the faculty counselor for the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) and a regional director on their board of directors. I taught design and history theory courses, and I developed my Scandinavian architecture course. I gained a national profile, and became department head the last two years there. Then we decided we needed to move back west. I was from California and Beverly’s family was from the Boise area, and our parents were not getting any younger. I was a department head and the only way I could move academically was as an administrator. One couldn’t move as a full professor. You just can’t do that in normal circumstances. There were three dean’s positions open: Utah, Idaho, and Washington. I applied to all three and heard back from Utah. I came and interviewed. Then I got a call from Jeri McIntye, a senior vice president saying, “We’d like you to offer you the job. We want to negotiate.” The next day, I got a call from Idaho saying, “Would you like to come and interview?” I said, “This is where I am with Utah; if we can reach an agreement, I will I go there.” The University of Utah has a great deal of advantages: You’re in the capital city; it’s the flagship institution; there’s only one architecture program in the state; and 85% of the alumni population is within a 90-mile radius. I went home that night and said, “By the way, I got a call from Idaho this morning and they want me to come and interview.” My oldest son said, “Dad, Moscow, Idaho, is smaller than Manhattan, Kansas.” And Beverly said, “Go to Idaho if you want, but we’re not going.” When you came to Utah, what did you want to do? We didn’t have a consistent teaching responsibility throughout the faculty. Everyone negotiated with the dean. Some faculty taught one course a quarter while others taught two or three courses a quarter. The younger faculty were getting heavier assignments while some of the senior faculty were teaching one course a quarter. One of the first things I did was realign the teaching assignments, putting out an analysis showing everyone’s teaching responsibility. The inequities were visually obvious. Then I put out my recommendation for what our teaching schedule should be. It worked well because it addressed another issue: credit hour production. With more courses being taught, more credit hours are produced. Our numbers went up, and resources from the university increased. We had one of the higher growth rates percentage wise in the university because we expanded our teaching responsibilities. Also, we admitted more students and we grew from about 36 students in the senior studio to 50 or 60. It was noticed by the university, and we began getting things that the school hadn’t gotten before. Talk about the evolution in architectural education. Architectural education, when I was in school and when I was first teaching, was a reactive process. You were given a project — a library here or a community center there or housing wherever. Students would propose a solution, you would critique it, and they would refine it. It was on ongoing cycle: Refine and critique. There were not articulated goals or expectations. 24 REFLEXION
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==