There could be, just as there are research set-aside times, models where offices set aside dollars for offices, like up to 28 percent, or maybe it is just 10 percent. We could say that maybe offices would set aside certainly 1 percent of their income to support schools, either by giving its time or some other form like that. There had been attempts to institute a 10-year-out rule where you could not teach unless you had been practicing for 10 years. This could maybe be problematic in some areas of the country.

We also talked about how what we are potentially doing is getting a bunch of baby boomers educated in the 1980s and '90s to come back to school and teach what they learned in the ‘80s and '90s, which could be really bad. That was just something we addressed.

The other aspect we addressed goes down into the potholes that could occur. What would happen if you are introducing a lot of building technology earlier in the curriculum and it’s not well done? You need to have personal experience because it is difficult to do well. If you do not do it well, you actually could do some damage. You could create a generation of problem solvers rather than inventers. People would be coming out of schools who cannot think synthetically. The good news is that at least they would know how to do wall section. The bad news is they would only know how to do one kind of wall section or maybe two. That was something we acknowledged as a pothole.

Somehow we need to value local intelligence in every project so that environmental expertise and the culture of the building practice help you take in the place. That goes back to the question someone was talking about, the global economy and the local economy. We really thought it would be great if that was required on MArch projects. You would have to have true partnership collaboration with a local firm and it wouldn't be just a firm that was not necessarily based in the area.

   >
01  02  03  04  05  06  07