Isn't this the same old argument where architects traditionally fall into 2 camps:
1. Architecture is the subjective application of ideas and theory to built form
2. Architecture is about technique and mass and theory is overrated and/or completely superfluous
You cant win that argument. And I don't think you can use the 'real world' of the traditional practice as an arbiter either because we all know that is flawed.
Having said that, investing 5-7 years and $200k even before you start a career with a limited pay-off doesn't make a lot of sense - but that's largely an American problem.
Not to say that in NZ, for example, we don't have student loans (we do, I do - I am still paying mine off, bring on 2013!). But my investment of 5 years and $60k, including transferring to a school in Australia from NZ was worth it.
5 years and 60K sounds very realistic. If that were the case here, I wouldn't be questioning the value of a third rate film schools in America, because then it's just art so it justifies a mediocre salary. I bet your income is proportionally way better than the return the average moron here gets after 5-7 years.
True, there are flaws with the profession. Producing future architects armed with the jumbles of outdated theory or teaching them how to script bone marrows in Rhino and justifying it as architecture isn't going to help the situation anytime soon. Arguments on architecture should have some measurable basis, like understanding business and how to design a viable downtown and understanding what has worked or failed, as opposed to arguing over whether the subjective pedagogy of some inexperienced bloke is better than that of another.
are you trying to get a job and not succeeding? if so, i do understand some of your frustration. but there are people out there who have years of experience building and all those technical skills you would have liked to be taught, and they still can't get work........
Total tuition for my 5 year was around $25k. Still too much. Arch degree at McGill (Montreal) would set you back around $15k. But that was back in the 90's. I'm not even gonna mention what Europeans (don't) pay.
I think the issue here is that most of you are far too emotionally attached to the situation which makes you both partial and unable to detach to observe the situation from a third-party stand point. There are many facets to the costs associated with higher education with some problems specific to architecture itself.
It's been discussed numerous times that many costs associated with education are hidden costs that burden the student rather than the university or community that surrounds the university-- disproportionately high rents, single-room occupancy living arrangements, cost of transportation, cost of healthcare and inability to properly forecast materials that support education.
While graduate and undergraduate school does cost more for architecture students, school in general costs more than the price listed by the university for all students. Some universities lack these issues due to environment of the school or that their expected operations involve these costs as a foundation of how their school is run.
Architecture is an expensive major-- those computer labs, various shops, studio spaces unique to architecture have significant capital costs. Architecture students simply require more space, more machines and more computers than almost any other student on a university.
A simply breakdown is that at any given time a single student at a university may require say 35 square feet. Those feet are flexible however-- a psychology student could be given a lecture anywhere, in any room with or without equipment.
An architecture student, however, may require 3 or more specialized areas set aside specifically for different intended uses. That means at any specific time, an architecture student really needs upwards of 80 or 90 square feet of space.
At $250 a square foot, a typical student occupies $8750 of capital. An architecture student occupies $20000 of capital.
And we're not even throwing in 3d printers, lasers or even sliderules.
glitter, you can stick an arch student in a warehouse, and they'll make the most of it. There is more to a proper lecture hall that seats 400.
One of the projects I worked on was a law school. It came complete with mock courtrooms. In fact, all of the education facilities I worked on in the last decade were over the top. Both in price and design. The thinking at the time was that these schools needed elaborate facilities to attract the best students. The price of all this construction was reflected in the tuition fees.
I see post-crash colleges returning back to use of more utilitarian type spaces.
thanks for the krugman article, won...the framing of the issue makes sense
BUT, his conclusion feels stuck on there, whatever its merits may be.
and even if it is a well-fitted conclusion, the lack of articulation of how the conclusion relates to the analysis of the 'education-makes-good' "mistruth" offers no guidance for how to remedy the situation.
should we devalue education? should we change it? is there any literature or are there case studies on ways to address the problem?
it definitely suggests that the issues we face in architecture are just vestiges of a larger structural problem in the economy that have been in development for a few decades; for which there is as yet no solution
which suggests, frustration, tension, anger and feelings of disillusionment and hopelessness will continue to escalate until a path forward becomes clear
less than 30 years ago, you could work summers and pay the tuition and room and board to attend the best architecture schools, and come out with no student loans. And they aren't producing anything better with the astronomical costs these days. Enough said.
jman, i actually thought krugman's conclusion, something about empowering labor's collective bargaining ability to build a better society, was more ideologically motivated and less compelling than his framing of the argument that higher education does not necessarily lead to a higher quality of life. the problem is there is no clear answer to the question right now. personally i believe higher education should provide graduates with the critical thinking skills to adapt to change and not necessarily provide training for a prescribed career. most professions are changing so rapidly with new technologies that the ability to adapt to change is far more important than learning a defined skillset that may become archaic shortly after entering the workforce.
bottom line for me is that schools are only partially responsible; students also need to be more active in both selecting the appropriate school to match their interests and then working with faculty to determine a course of study that will achieve long-term benefit appropriate to individual interests and career-goals. there really is no one right school or one right curriculum. to pretend there is one is being overly simplistic.
students also need to be more active in both selecting the appropriate school to match their interests and then working with faculty to determine a course of study that will achieve long-term benefit appropriate to individual interests and career-goals.
This is difficult unless you are pursuing an MArch II or PhD... at many programs the curriculum for MArch I and especially BArch is very prescribed. you may have choices for electives and if you're lucky, non-core studios, but unless you do independent study or a thesis project your options are pretty limited.
besides, I know at least a couple programs that believe the students really don't know anything, and since they seem to see themselves as the primary means towards licensure, and often the only game in town - especially if they are a second or third tier program and most likely the student's "safety," they often take the attitude, "well if you don't like how we do things, then you should leave." It's a lot more of a fight for this particular student to get what they need than it would be at a top program.
and it's not like everyone can get into or afford the top programs anyway... basically if you are able to spend the money, you get to have more of a say in your own education.
I don't mean to bolster the OP's opinions about arch-school curricula (which I mostly disagree with), but unless students collectively rise up nothing is going to change.
And what is the point of going to get an MArch II, if you already have a BArch? Aside from becoming an architecture professor, what does either one of these degrees have to do with architecture?
I knew a guy with a PhD who came to our office. He looked great on paper, they were saying there was no need to interview this guy. I mean his credentials were through the roof... The gave him a managerial position just like that. He didn't have a clue how to work inside an office and lasted about 2 1/2 months.
First off you don't go to UPENN to learn architecture, you go to UPENN to hang out at parties where Wharton grads can be found...but most aspiring architects are to naïve to realize this.
A very successful firm and a very successful partner at the firm on my elevator ride down to the lobby said "oh you applied to UPENN? If you get in don't waste your time in the architecture building.". Common sense to me.
Philip johnson ruined it for all of us, turning it into a rich kid hobby.
But also expecting 250k for going to college is a bit naïve and ridiculous on your part burningman. First off no one deserves 250k for completing a degree and passing some exams, including doctors and lawyers. 250k is surely in the top percentile of US population anyway. 250k you earn through busting your ass and having big enough balls to take risks, this goes for all jobs.
The easiest way to make 250k in architecture out of school is start your own firm (licensed or not). You can't actually teach anyone how to wing it on a dime and negotiate themselves into serious work. Technical knowledge not needed.
Critical thinking - there are easier ways to arrive at this without staring at chipboard for hours, take a philosophy class and some LSD or beer beer beer
Technical thinking - take more engineering classes and work at shitty we do the work firm in the summer. Even construction (some countires require a 6 month construction internship to graduate as architect)
I thought most my professors were worthless from freshman year on based on a simple premiise "so what have you built on your own?". (I don't give a shit if Zaha brought the job in and Ove Arup figured it all out for you, are you Zaha or are you Ove Arup)
Jman - design ninja learn detailing on own and does construction sometimes.
I agree with you Olaf but you for the most part but you COMPLETELY missquoted or misread my 250K comments. Going to get a BArch these days at most schools is 5 years x 50K. Hence, 250K, or more at some schools. I'm not sure what you were reading.
PhD in Architecture is not a professional degree, so you shouldn't expect it to count for much in the typical office setting. PhD = Doctor of Philosophy (in Architecture), and so it is a degree in contemplating, researching in the field of architecture, furthering the theoretical aspect of the profession - and for those purposes it is fully practical. It won't teach you to put a building together, but that is not its purpose.
Likewise, why should there not be some MArch programs with a stronger theoretical and forward-looking component? Just because the "product" of these schools is not compatible with the market-wide demand, does not mean that it is useless. I think that this sort of usefulness is a niche profession, or perhaps a niche-finding profession. For such graduates, architecture cannot be taken head-on like a law or business or medical profession, but requires craftiness, of which arch grad schools teach plenty.
That is all in theory. I'm still about to go into grad school, but that is how I envision it at this time. However, I don't have illusions of a high-paying, high-ranking job at an office the minute I step out of grad school, or even years after that. I plan to be crafty.
ya2 - I think some M.Arch programs are more theoretically tilted, and we all know SCI-arc is "a 3rd rate film school masquerading as an architecture school"
Reforming Architecture School
glitter. You are the worst. wingman. ever.
Isn't this the same old argument where architects traditionally fall into 2 camps:
1. Architecture is the subjective application of ideas and theory to built form
2. Architecture is about technique and mass and theory is overrated and/or completely superfluous
You cant win that argument. And I don't think you can use the 'real world' of the traditional practice as an arbiter either because we all know that is flawed.
Having said that, investing 5-7 years and $200k even before you start a career with a limited pay-off doesn't make a lot of sense - but that's largely an American problem.
Not to say that in NZ, for example, we don't have student loans (we do, I do - I am still paying mine off, bring on 2013!). But my investment of 5 years and $60k, including transferring to a school in Australia from NZ was worth it.
Dia,
5 years and 60K sounds very realistic. If that were the case here, I wouldn't be questioning the value of a third rate film schools in America, because then it's just art so it justifies a mediocre salary. I bet your income is proportionally way better than the return the average moron here gets after 5-7 years.
True, there are flaws with the profession. Producing future architects armed with the jumbles of outdated theory or teaching them how to script bone marrows in Rhino and justifying it as architecture isn't going to help the situation anytime soon. Arguments on architecture should have some measurable basis, like understanding business and how to design a viable downtown and understanding what has worked or failed, as opposed to arguing over whether the subjective pedagogy of some inexperienced bloke is better than that of another.
are you trying to get a job and not succeeding? if so, i do understand some of your frustration. but there are people out there who have years of experience building and all those technical skills you would have liked to be taught, and they still can't get work........
Total tuition for my 5 year was around $25k. Still too much. Arch degree at McGill (Montreal) would set you back around $15k. But that was back in the 90's. I'm not even gonna mention what Europeans (don't) pay.
Goooooooo free market economy!
I think the issue here is that most of you are far too emotionally attached to the situation which makes you both partial and unable to detach to observe the situation from a third-party stand point. There are many facets to the costs associated with higher education with some problems specific to architecture itself.
It's been discussed numerous times that many costs associated with education are hidden costs that burden the student rather than the university or community that surrounds the university-- disproportionately high rents, single-room occupancy living arrangements, cost of transportation, cost of healthcare and inability to properly forecast materials that support education.
While graduate and undergraduate school does cost more for architecture students, school in general costs more than the price listed by the university for all students. Some universities lack these issues due to environment of the school or that their expected operations involve these costs as a foundation of how their school is run.
Architecture is an expensive major-- those computer labs, various shops, studio spaces unique to architecture have significant capital costs. Architecture students simply require more space, more machines and more computers than almost any other student on a university.
A simply breakdown is that at any given time a single student at a university may require say 35 square feet. Those feet are flexible however-- a psychology student could be given a lecture anywhere, in any room with or without equipment.
An architecture student, however, may require 3 or more specialized areas set aside specifically for different intended uses. That means at any specific time, an architecture student really needs upwards of 80 or 90 square feet of space.
At $250 a square foot, a typical student occupies $8750 of capital. An architecture student occupies $20000 of capital.
And we're not even throwing in 3d printers, lasers or even sliderules.
glitter, you can stick an arch student in a warehouse, and they'll make the most of it. There is more to a proper lecture hall that seats 400.
One of the projects I worked on was a law school. It came complete with mock courtrooms. In fact, all of the education facilities I worked on in the last decade were over the top. Both in price and design. The thinking at the time was that these schools needed elaborate facilities to attract the best students. The price of all this construction was reflected in the tuition fees.
I see post-crash colleges returning back to use of more utilitarian type spaces.
thanks for the krugman article, won...the framing of the issue makes sense
BUT, his conclusion feels stuck on there, whatever its merits may be.
and even if it is a well-fitted conclusion, the lack of articulation of how the conclusion relates to the analysis of the 'education-makes-good' "mistruth" offers no guidance for how to remedy the situation.
should we devalue education? should we change it? is there any literature or are there case studies on ways to address the problem?
it definitely suggests that the issues we face in architecture are just vestiges of a larger structural problem in the economy that have been in development for a few decades; for which there is as yet no solution
which suggests, frustration, tension, anger and feelings of disillusionment and hopelessness will continue to escalate until a path forward becomes clear
Glitter,
less than 30 years ago, you could work summers and pay the tuition and room and board to attend the best architecture schools, and come out with no student loans. And they aren't producing anything better with the astronomical costs these days. Enough said.
jman, i actually thought krugman's conclusion, something about empowering labor's collective bargaining ability to build a better society, was more ideologically motivated and less compelling than his framing of the argument that higher education does not necessarily lead to a higher quality of life. the problem is there is no clear answer to the question right now. personally i believe higher education should provide graduates with the critical thinking skills to adapt to change and not necessarily provide training for a prescribed career. most professions are changing so rapidly with new technologies that the ability to adapt to change is far more important than learning a defined skillset that may become archaic shortly after entering the workforce.
bottom line for me is that schools are only partially responsible; students also need to be more active in both selecting the appropriate school to match their interests and then working with faculty to determine a course of study that will achieve long-term benefit appropriate to individual interests and career-goals. there really is no one right school or one right curriculum. to pretend there is one is being overly simplistic.
This is difficult unless you are pursuing an MArch II or PhD... at many programs the curriculum for MArch I and especially BArch is very prescribed. you may have choices for electives and if you're lucky, non-core studios, but unless you do independent study or a thesis project your options are pretty limited.
besides, I know at least a couple programs that believe the students really don't know anything, and since they seem to see themselves as the primary means towards licensure, and often the only game in town - especially if they are a second or third tier program and most likely the student's "safety," they often take the attitude, "well if you don't like how we do things, then you should leave." It's a lot more of a fight for this particular student to get what they need than it would be at a top program.
and it's not like everyone can get into or afford the top programs anyway... basically if you are able to spend the money, you get to have more of a say in your own education.
I don't mean to bolster the OP's opinions about arch-school curricula (which I mostly disagree with), but unless students collectively rise up nothing is going to change.
A PhD in architecture?
Now that is a really practical degree. lol.
And what is the point of going to get an MArch II, if you already have a BArch? Aside from becoming an architecture professor, what does either one of these degrees have to do with architecture?
I knew a guy with a PhD who came to our office. He looked great on paper, they were saying there was no need to interview this guy. I mean his credentials were through the roof... The gave him a managerial position just like that. He didn't have a clue how to work inside an office and lasted about 2 1/2 months.
First off you don't go to UPENN to learn architecture, you go to UPENN to hang out at parties where Wharton grads can be found...but most aspiring architects are to naïve to realize this.
A very successful firm and a very successful partner at the firm on my elevator ride down to the lobby said "oh you applied to UPENN? If you get in don't waste your time in the architecture building.". Common sense to me.
Philip johnson ruined it for all of us, turning it into a rich kid hobby.
But also expecting 250k for going to college is a bit naïve and ridiculous on your part burningman. First off no one deserves 250k for completing a degree and passing some exams, including doctors and lawyers. 250k is surely in the top percentile of US population anyway. 250k you earn through busting your ass and having big enough balls to take risks, this goes for all jobs.
The easiest way to make 250k in architecture out of school is start your own firm (licensed or not). You can't actually teach anyone how to wing it on a dime and negotiate themselves into serious work. Technical knowledge not needed.
Critical thinking - there are easier ways to arrive at this without staring at chipboard for hours, take a philosophy class and some LSD or beer beer beer
Technical thinking - take more engineering classes and work at shitty we do the work firm in the summer. Even construction (some countires require a 6 month construction internship to graduate as architect)
I thought most my professors were worthless from freshman year on based on a simple premiise "so what have you built on your own?". (I don't give a shit if Zaha brought the job in and Ove Arup figured it all out for you, are you Zaha or are you Ove Arup)
Jman - design ninja learn detailing on own and does construction sometimes.
I agree with you Olaf but you for the most part but you COMPLETELY missquoted or misread my 250K comments. Going to get a BArch these days at most schools is 5 years x 50K. Hence, 250K, or more at some schools. I'm not sure what you were reading.
PhD in Architecture is not a professional degree, so you shouldn't expect it to count for much in the typical office setting. PhD = Doctor of Philosophy (in Architecture), and so it is a degree in contemplating, researching in the field of architecture, furthering the theoretical aspect of the profession - and for those purposes it is fully practical. It won't teach you to put a building together, but that is not its purpose.
Likewise, why should there not be some MArch programs with a stronger theoretical and forward-looking component? Just because the "product" of these schools is not compatible with the market-wide demand, does not mean that it is useless. I think that this sort of usefulness is a niche profession, or perhaps a niche-finding profession. For such graduates, architecture cannot be taken head-on like a law or business or medical profession, but requires craftiness, of which arch grad schools teach plenty.
That is all in theory. I'm still about to go into grad school, but that is how I envision it at this time. However, I don't have illusions of a high-paying, high-ranking job at an office the minute I step out of grad school, or even years after that. I plan to be crafty.
Sorry sped read, must of mis intepreted that.
ya2 - I think some M.Arch programs are more theoretically tilted, and we all know SCI-arc is "a 3rd rate film school masquerading as an architecture school"
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.