what is the overall concensus about the current state of affairs of the profession? Do the professors and administration talk about how you will be entering a professional market with very few jobs?? Do they talk about how robust the profession is?? Are students and faculty trying to think outside the box as to how to find job placement??
i'd like to know as well...especially considering how little help ANY school's career services really gives you in architecture.
for b school, med school, law school, etc....placement is VERY important to the schools. those numbers are PART of the ranking metric. but most of the architecture schools' hiring data is shrouded in mystery (because a lot of it is bad i guess...). why is that data not part of the ranking system? or at least public? students should know what they are diving into BEFORE it is too late (which is when they normally find out). job prospects for trades are MUCH better now and into the forseeable future, the ABI dropped into contraction AGAIN for october...
the schools are in the business of churning out architects, therefore they will paint as optimistic (even though it may be an unrealistic) picture of the profession as possible....should schools be more forthcomming as to the realities of life after school?
i think so...when they are a NON-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS, they should not really be acting like a business...likewise the money is guaranteed by the federal governement who acts as a collector - so the schools have ZERO liability. if they wish to continue to maintain tax exempt status (which also means free mailing, other benefits related to real etstate and their endownments) then they should ACT like non-profits and not businesses. or else, we as CITIZENS should remove that benefit from them. is America this jaded that we assume NOTHING should exist for betterment? must everything be driven by profit/money? if so, then my origial request would stand anyway. because i should know my OWN ROI if they get to run like a business too.
i know from my time as a teacher in an art school, all private post-secondary schools run for Profit. they are not for profit in name only. most public schools are similar. i could get pretty deep into this, but i'll leave it at that.
Class of 2008-9 is 70% unemployed or underemployed. Cross section of projects in architecture schools' irrelevant teaching practices leaving only presentation type rendering skills to the job seeker and advocate being famous or working free for sub famous professor who poses as a starchitect. 99% of the current hot profs will be completely forgotten in 5-10 years and be jaded. You can't teach something you don't know no matter how much you pretend. Utopian and well rendered eye candy is dime a dozen starting from second year undergraduate. Real skill is rare. Ivies have the teaching monopoly. Private architecture schools are profit oriented and serve the affording culture who values fame and padded senses of individuality to lure the rich students. Theory without political component is useless. Students world over, wake up confront and eradicate the corruption!! Down with false promises. You are being robbed with astronomical tuition fees to pay undeserved salaries to the people who are not preparing you for the job market and real practice!
yes. i have "done time" teaching myself. (incidentally, i personally think state schools are worse since so much of that profit goes back into sports which are SUPPOSEDLY self-sustaining but are nowhere close in reality). i saw the RIDICULOUS salaries some of the ADMIN took and the lavish parties etc....what i DON'T understand is how this has not been investigated? how do univesities get away with NOT PAYING taxes on their BILLIONS of dollars?
what further infuriates me is that they don't WANT to help their students. if they want to run like GOOD businesses, they should only turn out who can pay those loans back (which reflects well upon the school) and also allows the alumni/alumna to DONATE back to the school. federal loans have screwed all of that up. but the question about federal investigation remains. if they want federal money in the form of grants and tax breaks, shouldn't they have to play fair?
The problem with schools may not necessarily be purely their problem. The problem is a more or less a multi-party problem.
And it's heavily rooted in generational planning.
The general issue is having to plan for peak capacity in not-so-benign setting-- it's easier and far cheaper when you're having to plan for 100 extra cars on the road, a few dozen people on the sidewalk or how many people can feasibly fit into a 2000 square foot store.
Generation Y was the second peak generation after the Baby Boomers. The generations preceding or following these generations more or less followed a relatively rational growth path-- meaning population was more in line with a simple formulaic expression rather than one that seems based exponentially.
In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a small migration of people around the US-- manufacturing was dead, farming had more or less become industrialized, disco died, crack was invented, crime was skyrocketing. These actions persuaded a lot of people to move for jobs.
These people moved. And babies literally started springing forth from their loins. Because of the incredible increase of babies... we built new schools, new hospitals, new parks and so forth.
The problem is mostly that none of these things were really that good. You can even say they weren't even good. They are often in bad locations, they use unproven experimental models and they are often substandard in quality and or construction.
Well, universities starting around 1996-1998 realized that in the coming decade tens of millions of people were going to seek a college education. So, many of them started building and tried creating enticing projects to bolster their image and prestige. Not only to get the best students but also to get the most students.
This is where their exists a tremendous problem-- instead of doing things they could reasonably pay for or creating concepts that could generate their own revenue, many universities resorted to financing. Meaning that these projects require a current projected growth pattern in order to pay them off over 10, 20, 30 years.
A big issue to this is people like "us." Us being architects and planners. But mostly their own stupidity. "Us" told them that stadia, new buildings, gyms, fancy dorms and so forth really do make a difference in college. "Us" told them that these objects do increase popularity and bring recognition to the school.
They don't.
Combine this "image problem" to the overall problem of poor business success in the US (which is predominately tied to the mess of suburban-urban development we call cities) and the trend of disappearing jobs... well, the education boom didn't help out much at all. At least not as planned. Are there people succeeding? Yes.
The number of young people (those under the age of 30) on welfare is increasing in the double-digit rates in Europe and in the US. And we're not just talking about housing assistance or a temporary government program, we're talking full-blown welfare.
The education boom should have helped ailing seniors and soon-to-retire adults but unfortunately too many students are defaulting on their loans and the money generated from those investments has already dried up.
So, there's some blame on Generation Y for various reasons. But there's a bigger structural unemployment problem. By-the-book structural unemployment in that there's plenty of capable workers with not enough or mismatched skills. And there's also structural unemployment seen as unemployment caused by infrastructural concerns-- places that have real and artificial limits on growth, single-use zoning, lack of adequate or dependable transportation and a large monetary wall towards relocation.
I agree. There are WAY too many architecture school students. The combination of student enrollement glut was staggering to me, even 3 years ago. Glad I had the forsight to ditch my M.Arch 1st semester. LOL. Even then I had a sense of how exhausted the profession was... Also I didn't respect my teachers at all. Actually, I found some of them horrifyingly awful and ridiculously deluded.
Wake up middle class architecture students! Quit school or at least, quit (i.e., take a long sabbatical from 'architecture' proper) . Research other areas that are booming (I won't go into detail what areas, but put your architecting skills to use in other senses (technology, hint hint). Don't listen to your professors either; 9 / 10 your heart can offer you better guidance.
You have no idea what opportunities you are missing. WAKE UP!!!
ok, let's all back up 3 posts and refocus on the message that schools are sending about the viability of the profession and not turn this into a "hey look at this shitty work being done by this school" thread.
i received many warnings while i was in school about the low pay, long hours, lawsuits, stupid clients, stupid consultants, etc...most of which came from a white haired disillusioned former dean of the school who had also had a thriving practice for many of those years. at the time i thought it was just him a broken down old man who had given up. i look in the mirror now and am starting to resemble this cassandraish character. except for the thriving practice part...
Here is an idea - how about that in order to be an architecture professor you have to hold a license to practice architecture (in any jurisdiction, state, foreign country, etc...). Basically EVERY other department in a university requires a PhD as the price of admission, shouldn't we have some appropriate floor line accomplishment?
Looking back on my time in school, it was the "theoretical" d-bags who did the least to prepare me to be a competent professional. Of that group, maybe 10% were licensed, or had even spent significant time working in the profession. They did however seem to dominate the agenda in the architecture department. While perhaps creatively interesting and entertaining to pass judgment on in crits, it was all at its heart, masturbatory.
Maybe if those in control had some perception of the reality of practice, things would be better. Is it really so blasphemous to think that we would all be better off if they taught us how to design a solid, pleasant elementary school.... rather than some levitating, amoebic, digital culture symposium complex (or other equal b.s.)
One more thing - those students that were panned as being lame or banal.... even if all they have ever designed is 1000 variations of a strip mall or gas station, its still more legitimate than your conte crayon sketches and paper mache' models
""""""""^ it is amazing how much worthless shit is comming out of SciArch these days...WTF???""""""""
These days? From what I saw when I visited the school in 2006, it was worthless shit then. How about prepare students to design something really blobby and cool that can actually stand....or how about teach them to design some fucking architecture?
Wow, so much for this not turning into the "hey look at this shitty work being done by this school" thread. Where is the moderator when you need one?
First of all, no one asked any of you to go to SCI-Arc, or Columbia or any other of the "progressive design" schools. That is why we have more than one architecture school. What they have to offer is no less valid than any of the other more traditional schools, just different. They exist to cater to the student who is interested in exploring less traditional avenues in architecture. Perhaps this is what our friend Bin Lu, who has become the unintended whipping boy of this discussion, was interested in.
Let's think back to a different architecture student who has doing work, which at the time seemed strange, unbuildable and totally useless to anyone outside of academia. Some 30+ years later, she is one of the most celebrated (and still controversial) designers today. Yeah, Zaha. Now, I am not saying that this particular thesis is Zaha worthy, nor do I think that Zaha should be the penultimate in terms of worthiness. What I am getting at is that the profession is diverse, and from diverse inputs emerge new ideas.
Now before you all continue on with the "wow my school's professors were morons, we should have spent 4 years designing projects that rigidly adhere to every know building code" rants, lets remember that the original intent of this thread actually had nothing to do with curriculum, or student work or the ineptitude of the faculty, but rather was just about the level of awareness current students have about the economy, if they are receiving that information from the school or on their own, and how (if at all) the school is taking that into consideration.
The key word in all of this is CURRENT. Take your mumbles and grumbles about your wasted college years somewhere else.
"Less traditional" and "progressive" translate into the war is peace and slavery is freedom and ignorance is strength dialectic strategy of the marxist cabal which has destroyed society and the profession.
Let me translate for the uninitiated (free of charge) "Less traditional" and "progressive" in post 1984 Orwellian speech really means SUBVERSIVE (as in subversive to the quality of life of society as well as the viable interests of the profession itself).
...and most who are in architecture wonder why the profession is in arrears.
But go ahead, indulge yourselves, I for one, no longer really care except from a distance. Like watching from a safe distance as moths are sucked into searing flames.
Nice post re: Zaha, Cherith. Look at her now woohoo!
I sadly scare the crap out of my ProPractice students week after week with my brutally honest lectures about the current state of the profession. I think I'm giving them a bit of optimism, too, but with the caveat that it will be hard won on their part.
Technically, most classical and medieval structures don't adhere to building codes.
Go to a code enforcement office and tell them you want to stack an 800-ton stone-and-wood roof on 48 columns 1' thick with 11' spans. With no fireproofing, mortar, bolts or reinforcements.
zaha's first los angeles appearance. guess where? sci arc, introduced by shelly kappe in 1985. worth watching. i was there in the audience. there were overtures to put her down for being a woman and being an arab working with arab engineers. she would not yield to any of it. she was brilliant.
I went to a portfolio bulding seminar last week and the prof asked us why we were here...haven't we heard about the economy and that we should be across the street in nursing school. finally a straight shooter!
"I went to a portfolio bulding seminar last week and the prof asked us why we were here...haven't we heard about the economy and that we should be across the street in nursing school. finally a straight shooter!"
Straight shooter my arse. Yet again, another disjointed, deconstructed insane straw man running the asylum. Wrong again!
Most of the people in any architecture program should be "across the street" enrolled in a contemporary writing, philosophy, movie making, graphic design, art, etc program---> anything esoteric, completely subjective, totally ephemeral and ultimately meaningless for time and all eternity will suffice.
Nursing is far too practical. Though aspiring architects are good at taking orders. Most would be far too lazy physically though, to be good nurses honestly.
Let us leaven this discussion with a digression on data.
I like this one: [link=http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/23/biz-school-grads-overeducated-and-under-funded/]88%[/link] of Harvard Business School graduates will repay their student loans. That leaves the default rate at 12% total. The average annual default rate this year climbed to 7%. That's 7% a year per cohort -- so compound that across the average 18.5 years it takes to discharge student loan debt. I'm told that schools are considered in the 'green zone' if more than 45% of their graduates repay their loans.
We're not even talking about the humanities here. Doctors and engineers fit into these numbers, and there are vastly more of those than humanists. The number of lawyers who can't afford to pay their loans is rising as dramatically as the number of people taking the LSAT. Still, I think that the average architecture student would happily take the risk/return law school students are [link=http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/11/04/law-school-investment-law-graduates/]getting[/link].
The architecture industry is organized around unrealistic expectations right now. One of those unrealistic assumptions is that if you are one of the 50% of applicants admitted to an architecture program you will graduate. Less than half do (for masters candidates, the numbers are closer to 25% and 40% respectively). My latest IDP magazine tells me that almost half of those with accredited degrees will finish their requirements in four years, but the large majority of that same group will take another five years to pass their exams. [link=http://www.archinect.com/features/article.php?id=81262_0_23_0_M]This guy[/link] has some pretty data that suggests that something like 20 years from enrollment to license might be closer to the truth, and you don't even have even odds to make it there after graduating.
The reality though is that there is no good data. In fact, I've been using this topic (with some salary data for good measure) to teach design students data analysis since 2006 (see:salt mine). If you attend to the fine print in the most optimistic (AIA, NCARB) sources, you have something like a 20% chance of being an architect after 14 years. If you consider prudent sources,
perhaps 10% in 20 years (i've never met one who claims less than 20 years of experience by the way).
Of course, if you read archinect, it will take you forever, especially if you went to SciArc.
If one goes to SciArc they are never going to a bonafide architect. Contemporary artist architect posing under the previously exalted title of architect as well as self-deluded "designer", yes, absolutely.
Bonafide, dyed in the wool architect of the Master Builder strain: Not if you are a SciArcer.
SciArc is the epitomy of why the contemporary model for the profession has failed and, if left unmitigated will continue to decrease in societal value.
All the Ivy Leagues, with perhaps one outstanding exception, are part and parcel of the fundamental problems.
IN fact, perhaps virtually every single NAAB school is, unfortunately, at this point (with one or two shining exceptions).
The model for failure for the profession is propogated and reinforced by the NAAB "accreditation" standards themselves.
"Here is an idea - how about that in order to be an architecture professor you have to hold a license to practice architecture (in any jurisdiction, state, foreign country, etc...). "
Hands down, this alone would produce the quickest/ most drastic turn around for the profession.
Hint: The average MD makes 10X what the average architect does (before the depression II when 50% of architects lost their "jobs") and based on my research and personal experience, I do not know a single accredited Med School which allows non licensed folks to teach the next generation the skills they will need. Perhaps this is the reason why you can hit the ground running and get your license to practice medicine immediately post graduation?
I haven't done the analysis but bassed on a quick reflection on my part tells me only about 1/2 or so of my professors were licensed in the jurisdiction in which I was being taught.
One of the reasons, I am 100% sure, is that contemporary market forces dictate that in the name of globalism and consumerism, the architect is merely seen as an interchangable part, er drafting machine of sorts. So, this is why the architect as the drafter and vice versa model has been sold to the public and the schools (wrapped in the appealing package of faux equality of course)
Apparently I missed more 'hating,' while composing something thoughtful, so let me say something back directly. Engineering schools admit twice as many students as architecture programs (on average) and graduate twice as many students (again, on average). It takes a 18 month masters and 18 months of professional service to become a PE. For those of you too 'practical' to have studied maths, that makes you four times as likely to be an engineer after seven years than an architect after 20. Yes, you could be a nurse after two, and you would probably generate about the same income as a recent graduate of the seven year architecture track. On the other hand, you'd probably have to literally clean someone's excrement from the ceiling, rather than figuratively.
According to our hater (who sounds a lot like Stanley Tigerman), architects are too subjective and too lazy to do that. And right there he has put his finger on the issue -- subjective work is HARD. Writing a novel is difficult -- the english speaking world produces only a couple dozen good novels a year. Most weeks there are only one or two new movies released. What is the last breakthrough philosophy you remember? How about the last new font you bought?
Look lets not waste any time beating around the bush, so to speak.
This is about the timeless battle of polar opposites, such as,
philospher/ writer Karl Marx vs. philospher/ writer Thomas Jefferson.
Based on empirical evidence, I say one of these was truly an intelligent, wise philospher/ writer with benevolent intentions whose toil while on this earth resulted in the increased prosperity for countless numbers of people who were alive at his time and who have been after he had gone. This one promoted the idea of the prosperity of the middle class and that everyone was created with the right to start from the same starting point and progress and finish the race of life under their own god given power and rate.
Based on the empirical evidence, I say that the other was truly an clever philospher/ writer as well who used his talents for writing and philosphy to scheme his way to dividing the people into two classes, the extremely exceptional and rare ultra weatlhy with all the power, and the ultra poor perpetually ignorant and afraid massive underclass. Of course, the best way to do this for this individual was to use the oldest trick in the book, i.e. wrap the whole stinking package of destructive social engineering up and label it "good intentions". And the people still eat it up to this day even though all the evidence indicates that, in time, its poisonous to the individual and society.
I am sure you are an intelligent person. You likely know which one I put where.
You take your pick, I'll take mine. Then, after the great wheel of time rolls on and our lives are up, we'll let the facts speak for themselves.
hmmm Stanley Tigerman...I'll have to familiarize myself with him in more detail before I know which side of the fence to put him on.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average Architect only made 6% less than the average Physician over the last two decades. For the record however, I taught at a top five medical school while earning my first Masters degree (and so did my brother), where 43% of the faculty did not have an MD.
I didn't go to SciArc, although I was admitted, and admittedly, I have sometimes wondered if not going was a mistake. I don't think you can blame all of your problems on them and the other ivy league schools however. What exactly have they done to you that you hate them so much?
"I didn't go to SciArc, although I was admitted, and admittedly, I have sometimes wondered if not going was a mistake. I don't think you can blame all of your problems on them and the other ivy league schools however. What exactly have they done to you that you hate them so much?"
In the first place, what positive things have SciArc and the Ivy League schools and their deathgrip on NAAB accreditation status done FOR THE PROFESSION, in order that I should NOT despise them so much?
Please be specific and use backup stats and/or data please or else I doubt I'll care to waste my time responding to your next volley.
My theses are based on all the empirical data for the last 30 years which indicate that SciArc, the Ivy Leagues (again with perhaps one major shining exception), and their deathgrip on NAAB accreditation has been thoroughly POISONOUS to the profession (and society too), and particulary for the average, everyday individual practicioner who aspires to an upwardly mobile socioeconomic trajectory. So of course I hate them. Any reasonable, intelligent, honest professional who wishes success for his profession and his average, everyday colleague will necessarily despise these miscreants.
And by the way mespellwrong, our statement, "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average Architect only made 6% less than the average Physician over the last two decades"
Is TOTAL BULLSHIT and you know it! Anyone with a shred of common sense will know it as well.
Fortunately, I've done the research and have the sources to back this up as well.
So on second thought, even if you do start using your data in your arguments, I'd better be able to verify the veracity of it.
...and in retrospect I am very, very glad I listened to my inner voice which whispered to NOT GO to Sci Arc. God that would have really set me back in so many ways I don't think I would have ever recovered mentally and/or emotionally. I now realize that most never do. Of course, those who go to these schools are already past the point of no return.
Everyone PLEASE ignore the marxist guy's trolling.
Excellent post, mespellwrong.
whyARCH, my own ProPractice professor told all of us students to MARRY a nurse, so our spouse would always have a job even though we wouldn't. And this was 25 years ago!
actually, please let IHATEMARXISTS continue, because i get a huge kick out of reading his batshit crazy rants.
i also think it's interesting that this thread was directed at current students, and not a single one has replied. regardless, this thread has become a good cathartic exercise for disgruntled professionals!
IHATEMARXISTS- if you are filled with so much vitriol towards the profession, why even bother to visit a discussion forum about it? You seem wholly convinced that anyone still involved in architecture - student, professional, or otherwise - is totally inept and not worth your time, so why bother waste your cheap words on all of us when you should be using "your finite time and energy on this green earth" to do something meaningful and productive. Clearly we are all stupid to do anything else because we have all been mind-warped by the educational system and the NAAB (oh and let's not forget the AIA and NCARB) to be lazy, mindless artists - unless of course we went to this one magical Ivy League school you seem unable to name.
Typically people who bully are just using it as a mask and attack people who represent what they wish they were. I'm sorry architecture didn't work out for you, I really am, and I am sorry you feel the need to attack everyone on this forum through self-promotion, ego-inflation and grandstanding. But as someone pointed out, you have taken everything you dislike about the profession and demonstrated that you are no better. I'm not sure what your aim is - are you intentionally trying to piss everyone off and burn as many bridges (if they even still exist) as possible, or are you genuinely interested in sharing your viewpoint in the hopes of motivating others to consider making a change as well? So far, your comments have indicated the former and are on the verge (if not already) as being written off as mindless trolling. I really want to believe that you have something worthwhile to offer but I have yet to see any indication.
Finally, can I just ask whatever happened to people shaping their own lives? You seem to think that once someone enters an architecture school, esp. a design school, they have instantly become a cog in the machine and have no control over their futures. There are plenty if SCI-Arc alumni that have gone on to get licensed and open viable practices that produce actual buildings (not that actual buildings is the measure of what is architecture...another discussion). They are no different than any other school that graduates hundreds of people that choose not to progress much further in their careers. They are no different than any other degree program that likely sees a similar rate of apathetic post-graduates who also don't advance much past entry-level. Schools don't make the architect. Schools don't make the person. They may be a piece in the puzzle, but that's about it.
\"Finally, can I just ask whatever happened to people shaping their own lives?\"
The government and the corporations merged into the contemporary fascist society we have now. MonopoLIES. Plan and simple...rigidly enforced by the IRS from the to down. The populace has become so generally mentally apathetic that they take care of enforcing the fascist state of affairs in the USSA from the bottom up.
\"...You seem to think that once someone enters an architecture school, esp. a design school, they have instantly become a cog in the machine and have no control over their futures....\"
Once again, a mindless comment from an unanalytical mind produced by a culture which is completely upside down and preached the myth that the exception is the general rule (and vice versa).
Get real.
For the general population this is absolutely true. At this point, there is perhaps a mere 1/2 of 1% who are not going to become mere cogs in the profession. Most of those not forced into indentured slavery will inherit their wealth or will marry up, socioeconomically speaking. Perhaps 1/1000 of 1% will make it into what motivated them to get into the profession in the first place via LUCK.
The 99.95% or whatever who remain are cogs to be sure. Even most of the ones who put FAIA after their deep down Know they are mere sycophants and cogs. What was that quote by Philip Johnson regarding the architect as whore again?
\"...if you are filled with so much vitriol towards the profession, why even bother to visit a discussion forum about it?...\"
Because unlike most of you all, I depise lies and liars (including the ones which are \"mere ommissions of the facts\").
Honesty is the best policy.
This profession has raped me and left me for dead, socioeconomically speaking.
I want the world to be a better place ultimately.
Therefore, I will do whatever I can to say what I have to say so I can sleep in peace each and every night and when I die, I will be laid down to rest 6 feet underneath JUST dirt, less the heavy, guilty conscience.
for those in architecture school right now...
what is the overall concensus about the current state of affairs of the profession? Do the professors and administration talk about how you will be entering a professional market with very few jobs?? Do they talk about how robust the profession is?? Are students and faculty trying to think outside the box as to how to find job placement??
Just curious
i'd like to know as well...especially considering how little help ANY school's career services really gives you in architecture.
for b school, med school, law school, etc....placement is VERY important to the schools. those numbers are PART of the ranking metric. but most of the architecture schools' hiring data is shrouded in mystery (because a lot of it is bad i guess...). why is that data not part of the ranking system? or at least public? students should know what they are diving into BEFORE it is too late (which is when they normally find out). job prospects for trades are MUCH better now and into the forseeable future, the ABI dropped into contraction AGAIN for october...
for an answer see: is 27k too low thread.
the schools are in the business of churning out architects, therefore they will paint as optimistic (even though it may be an unrealistic) picture of the profession as possible....should schools be more forthcomming as to the realities of life after school?
i think so...when they are a NON-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS, they should not really be acting like a business...likewise the money is guaranteed by the federal governement who acts as a collector - so the schools have ZERO liability. if they wish to continue to maintain tax exempt status (which also means free mailing, other benefits related to real etstate and their endownments) then they should ACT like non-profits and not businesses. or else, we as CITIZENS should remove that benefit from them. is America this jaded that we assume NOTHING should exist for betterment? must everything be driven by profit/money? if so, then my origial request would stand anyway. because i should know my OWN ROI if they get to run like a business too.
i know from my time as a teacher in an art school, all private post-secondary schools run for Profit. they are not for profit in name only. most public schools are similar. i could get pretty deep into this, but i'll leave it at that.
Class of 2008-9 is 70% unemployed or underemployed. Cross section of projects in architecture schools' irrelevant teaching practices leaving only presentation type rendering skills to the job seeker and advocate being famous or working free for sub famous professor who poses as a starchitect. 99% of the current hot profs will be completely forgotten in 5-10 years and be jaded. You can't teach something you don't know no matter how much you pretend. Utopian and well rendered eye candy is dime a dozen starting from second year undergraduate. Real skill is rare. Ivies have the teaching monopoly. Private architecture schools are profit oriented and serve the affording culture who values fame and padded senses of individuality to lure the rich students. Theory without political component is useless. Students world over, wake up confront and eradicate the corruption!! Down with false promises. You are being robbed with astronomical tuition fees to pay undeserved salaries to the people who are not preparing you for the job market and real practice!
yes. i have "done time" teaching myself. (incidentally, i personally think state schools are worse since so much of that profit goes back into sports which are SUPPOSEDLY self-sustaining but are nowhere close in reality). i saw the RIDICULOUS salaries some of the ADMIN took and the lavish parties etc....what i DON'T understand is how this has not been investigated? how do univesities get away with NOT PAYING taxes on their BILLIONS of dollars?
what further infuriates me is that they don't WANT to help their students. if they want to run like GOOD businesses, they should only turn out who can pay those loans back (which reflects well upon the school) and also allows the alumni/alumna to DONATE back to the school. federal loans have screwed all of that up. but the question about federal investigation remains. if they want federal money in the form of grants and tax breaks, shouldn't they have to play fair?
The problem with schools may not necessarily be purely their problem. The problem is a more or less a multi-party problem.
And it's heavily rooted in generational planning.
The general issue is having to plan for peak capacity in not-so-benign setting-- it's easier and far cheaper when you're having to plan for 100 extra cars on the road, a few dozen people on the sidewalk or how many people can feasibly fit into a 2000 square foot store.
Generation Y was the second peak generation after the Baby Boomers. The generations preceding or following these generations more or less followed a relatively rational growth path-- meaning population was more in line with a simple formulaic expression rather than one that seems based exponentially.
In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a small migration of people around the US-- manufacturing was dead, farming had more or less become industrialized, disco died, crack was invented, crime was skyrocketing. These actions persuaded a lot of people to move for jobs.
These people moved. And babies literally started springing forth from their loins. Because of the incredible increase of babies... we built new schools, new hospitals, new parks and so forth.
The problem is mostly that none of these things were really that good. You can even say they weren't even good. They are often in bad locations, they use unproven experimental models and they are often substandard in quality and or construction.
Well, universities starting around 1996-1998 realized that in the coming decade tens of millions of people were going to seek a college education. So, many of them started building and tried creating enticing projects to bolster their image and prestige. Not only to get the best students but also to get the most students.
This is where their exists a tremendous problem-- instead of doing things they could reasonably pay for or creating concepts that could generate their own revenue, many universities resorted to financing. Meaning that these projects require a current projected growth pattern in order to pay them off over 10, 20, 30 years.
A big issue to this is people like "us." Us being architects and planners. But mostly their own stupidity. "Us" told them that stadia, new buildings, gyms, fancy dorms and so forth really do make a difference in college. "Us" told them that these objects do increase popularity and bring recognition to the school.
They don't.
Combine this "image problem" to the overall problem of poor business success in the US (which is predominately tied to the mess of suburban-urban development we call cities) and the trend of disappearing jobs... well, the education boom didn't help out much at all. At least not as planned. Are there people succeeding? Yes.
The number of young people (those under the age of 30) on welfare is increasing in the double-digit rates in Europe and in the US. And we're not just talking about housing assistance or a temporary government program, we're talking full-blown welfare.
The education boom should have helped ailing seniors and soon-to-retire adults but unfortunately too many students are defaulting on their loans and the money generated from those investments has already dried up.
So, there's some blame on Generation Y for various reasons. But there's a bigger structural unemployment problem. By-the-book structural unemployment in that there's plenty of capable workers with not enough or mismatched skills. And there's also structural unemployment seen as unemployment caused by infrastructural concerns-- places that have real and artificial limits on growth, single-use zoning, lack of adequate or dependable transportation and a large monetary wall towards relocation.
I agree. There are WAY too many architecture school students. The combination of student enrollement glut was staggering to me, even 3 years ago. Glad I had the forsight to ditch my M.Arch 1st semester. LOL. Even then I had a sense of how exhausted the profession was... Also I didn't respect my teachers at all. Actually, I found some of them horrifyingly awful and ridiculously deluded.
Wake up middle class architecture students! Quit school or at least, quit (i.e., take a long sabbatical from 'architecture' proper) . Research other areas that are booming (I won't go into detail what areas, but put your architecting skills to use in other senses (technology, hint hint). Don't listen to your professors either; 9 / 10 your heart can offer you better guidance.
You have no idea what opportunities you are missing. WAKE UP!!!
Seriously.
Quit selling yourself short!!!
^ it is amazing how much worthless shit is comming out of SciArch these days...WTF???
ok, let's all back up 3 posts and refocus on the message that schools are sending about the viability of the profession and not turn this into a "hey look at this shitty work being done by this school" thread.
i received many warnings while i was in school about the low pay, long hours, lawsuits, stupid clients, stupid consultants, etc...most of which came from a white haired disillusioned former dean of the school who had also had a thriving practice for many of those years. at the time i thought it was just him a broken down old man who had given up. i look in the mirror now and am starting to resemble this cassandraish character. except for the thriving practice part...
those projects pretty much reinforce the idea that architecture school is an exercise in narcissism.
thank god for other options like rural studio.
Ah, who is the master and who is the slave?
Here is an idea - how about that in order to be an architecture professor you have to hold a license to practice architecture (in any jurisdiction, state, foreign country, etc...). Basically EVERY other department in a university requires a PhD as the price of admission, shouldn't we have some appropriate floor line accomplishment?
Looking back on my time in school, it was the "theoretical" d-bags who did the least to prepare me to be a competent professional. Of that group, maybe 10% were licensed, or had even spent significant time working in the profession. They did however seem to dominate the agenda in the architecture department. While perhaps creatively interesting and entertaining to pass judgment on in crits, it was all at its heart, masturbatory.
Maybe if those in control had some perception of the reality of practice, things would be better. Is it really so blasphemous to think that we would all be better off if they taught us how to design a solid, pleasant elementary school.... rather than some levitating, amoebic, digital culture symposium complex (or other equal b.s.)
One more thing - those students that were panned as being lame or banal.... even if all they have ever designed is 1000 variations of a strip mall or gas station, its still more legitimate than your conte crayon sketches and paper mache' models
""""""""^ it is amazing how much worthless shit is comming out of SciArch these days...WTF???""""""""
this is someones thesis?
These days? From what I saw when I visited the school in 2006, it was worthless shit then. How about prepare students to design something really blobby and cool that can actually stand....or how about teach them to design some fucking architecture?
"REALLY?"
Wow, so much for this not turning into the "hey look at this shitty work being done by this school" thread. Where is the moderator when you need one?
First of all, no one asked any of you to go to SCI-Arc, or Columbia or any other of the "progressive design" schools. That is why we have more than one architecture school. What they have to offer is no less valid than any of the other more traditional schools, just different. They exist to cater to the student who is interested in exploring less traditional avenues in architecture. Perhaps this is what our friend Bin Lu, who has become the unintended whipping boy of this discussion, was interested in.
Let's think back to a different architecture student who has doing work, which at the time seemed strange, unbuildable and totally useless to anyone outside of academia. Some 30+ years later, she is one of the most celebrated (and still controversial) designers today. Yeah, Zaha. Now, I am not saying that this particular thesis is Zaha worthy, nor do I think that Zaha should be the penultimate in terms of worthiness. What I am getting at is that the profession is diverse, and from diverse inputs emerge new ideas.
Now before you all continue on with the "wow my school's professors were morons, we should have spent 4 years designing projects that rigidly adhere to every know building code" rants, lets remember that the original intent of this thread actually had nothing to do with curriculum, or student work or the ineptitude of the faculty, but rather was just about the level of awareness current students have about the economy, if they are receiving that information from the school or on their own, and how (if at all) the school is taking that into consideration.
The key word in all of this is CURRENT. Take your mumbles and grumbles about your wasted college years somewhere else.
"Less traditional" and "progressive" translate into the war is peace and slavery is freedom and ignorance is strength dialectic strategy of the marxist cabal which has destroyed society and the profession.
Let me translate for the uninitiated (free of charge) "Less traditional" and "progressive" in post 1984 Orwellian speech really means SUBVERSIVE (as in subversive to the quality of life of society as well as the viable interests of the profession itself).
...and most who are in architecture wonder why the profession is in arrears.
But go ahead, indulge yourselves, I for one, no longer really care except from a distance. Like watching from a safe distance as moths are sucked into searing flames.
Nice post re: Zaha, Cherith. Look at her now woohoo!
I sadly scare the crap out of my ProPractice students week after week with my brutally honest lectures about the current state of the profession. I think I'm giving them a bit of optimism, too, but with the caveat that it will be hard won on their part.
Technically, most classical and medieval structures don't adhere to building codes.
Go to a code enforcement office and tell them you want to stack an 800-ton stone-and-wood roof on 48 columns 1' thick with 11' spans. With no fireproofing, mortar, bolts or reinforcements.
Oh and you want to do it on the side of a clay and polazzo foothill perched next to an active volcano and a fault line with a shallow foundation.
zaha's first los angeles appearance. guess where? sci arc, introduced by shelly kappe in 1985. worth watching. i was there in the audience. there were overtures to put her down for being a woman and being an arab working with arab engineers. she would not yield to any of it. she was brilliant.
http://www.sciarc.edu/sciarc_player.html?vid=http://www.sciarclive.com/Lectures/1985_02_21_Hadid.flv&title=Zaha%20Hadid
"i was there in the audience. there were overtures to put her down for being a woman and being an arab working with arab engineers..."
I wonder why?
THANK YOU CHERITH
I went to a portfolio bulding seminar last week and the prof asked us why we were here...haven't we heard about the economy and that we should be across the street in nursing school. finally a straight shooter!
"I went to a portfolio bulding seminar last week and the prof asked us why we were here...haven't we heard about the economy and that we should be across the street in nursing school. finally a straight shooter!"
Straight shooter my arse. Yet again, another disjointed, deconstructed insane straw man running the asylum. Wrong again!
Most of the people in any architecture program should be "across the street" enrolled in a contemporary writing, philosophy, movie making, graphic design, art, etc program---> anything esoteric, completely subjective, totally ephemeral and ultimately meaningless for time and all eternity will suffice.
Nursing is far too practical. Though aspiring architects are good at taking orders. Most would be far too lazy physically though, to be good nurses honestly.
add chef school to the list (forgot that one). Very applicable to the average contemporary aspiring architect, I mean, "designer".
mdler is a burger flipper
burger flipper = "personal chef to the hungry citizen" in marxist speak.
Let us leaven this discussion with a digression on data.
I like this one: [link=http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/23/biz-school-grads-overeducated-and-under-funded/]88%[/link] of Harvard Business School graduates will repay their student loans. That leaves the default rate at 12% total. The average annual default rate this year climbed to 7%. That's 7% a year per cohort -- so compound that across the average 18.5 years it takes to discharge student loan debt. I'm told that schools are considered in the 'green zone' if more than 45% of their graduates repay their loans.
We're not even talking about the humanities here. Doctors and engineers fit into these numbers, and there are vastly more of those than humanists. The number of lawyers who can't afford to pay their loans is rising as dramatically as the number of people taking the LSAT. Still, I think that the average architecture student would happily take the risk/return law school students are [link=http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/11/04/law-school-investment-law-graduates/]getting[/link].
The architecture industry is organized around unrealistic expectations right now. One of those unrealistic assumptions is that if you are one of the 50% of applicants admitted to an architecture program you will graduate. Less than half do (for masters candidates, the numbers are closer to 25% and 40% respectively). My latest IDP magazine tells me that almost half of those with accredited degrees will finish their requirements in four years, but the large majority of that same group will take another five years to pass their exams. [link=http://www.archinect.com/features/article.php?id=81262_0_23_0_M]This guy[/link] has some pretty data that suggests that something like 20 years from enrollment to license might be closer to the truth, and you don't even have even odds to make it there after graduating.
The reality though is that there is no good data. In fact, I've been using this topic (with some salary data for good measure) to teach design students data analysis since 2006 (see:salt mine). If you attend to the fine print in the most optimistic (AIA, NCARB) sources, you have something like a 20% chance of being an architect after 14 years. If you consider prudent sources,
perhaps 10% in 20 years (i've never met one who claims less than 20 years of experience by the way).
Of course, if you read archinect, it will take you forever, especially if you went to SciArc.
Love the data and analysis mespellrong
One thought,
If one goes to SciArc they are never going to a bonafide architect. Contemporary artist architect posing under the previously exalted title of architect as well as self-deluded "designer", yes, absolutely.
Bonafide, dyed in the wool architect of the Master Builder strain: Not if you are a SciArcer.
SciArc is the epitomy of why the contemporary model for the profession has failed and, if left unmitigated will continue to decrease in societal value.
All the Ivy Leagues, with perhaps one outstanding exception, are part and parcel of the fundamental problems.
IN fact, perhaps virtually every single NAAB school is, unfortunately, at this point (with one or two shining exceptions).
The model for failure for the profession is propogated and reinforced by the NAAB "accreditation" standards themselves.
some poster above said,
"Here is an idea - how about that in order to be an architecture professor you have to hold a license to practice architecture (in any jurisdiction, state, foreign country, etc...). "
Hands down, this alone would produce the quickest/ most drastic turn around for the profession.
Hint: The average MD makes 10X what the average architect does (before the depression II when 50% of architects lost their "jobs") and based on my research and personal experience, I do not know a single accredited Med School which allows non licensed folks to teach the next generation the skills they will need. Perhaps this is the reason why you can hit the ground running and get your license to practice medicine immediately post graduation?
I haven't done the analysis but bassed on a quick reflection on my part tells me only about 1/2 or so of my professors were licensed in the jurisdiction in which I was being taught.
One of the reasons, I am 100% sure, is that contemporary market forces dictate that in the name of globalism and consumerism, the architect is merely seen as an interchangable part, er drafting machine of sorts. So, this is why the architect as the drafter and vice versa model has been sold to the public and the schools (wrapped in the appealing package of faux equality of course)
That last line was meant to be a joke.
Apparently I missed more 'hating,' while composing something thoughtful, so let me say something back directly. Engineering schools admit twice as many students as architecture programs (on average) and graduate twice as many students (again, on average). It takes a 18 month masters and 18 months of professional service to become a PE. For those of you too 'practical' to have studied maths, that makes you four times as likely to be an engineer after seven years than an architect after 20. Yes, you could be a nurse after two, and you would probably generate about the same income as a recent graduate of the seven year architecture track. On the other hand, you'd probably have to literally clean someone's excrement from the ceiling, rather than figuratively.
According to our hater (who sounds a lot like Stanley Tigerman), architects are too subjective and too lazy to do that. And right there he has put his finger on the issue -- subjective work is HARD. Writing a novel is difficult -- the english speaking world produces only a couple dozen good novels a year. Most weeks there are only one or two new movies released. What is the last breakthrough philosophy you remember? How about the last new font you bought?
Look lets not waste any time beating around the bush, so to speak.
This is about the timeless battle of polar opposites, such as,
philospher/ writer Karl Marx vs. philospher/ writer Thomas Jefferson.
Based on empirical evidence, I say one of these was truly an intelligent, wise philospher/ writer with benevolent intentions whose toil while on this earth resulted in the increased prosperity for countless numbers of people who were alive at his time and who have been after he had gone. This one promoted the idea of the prosperity of the middle class and that everyone was created with the right to start from the same starting point and progress and finish the race of life under their own god given power and rate.
Based on the empirical evidence, I say that the other was truly an clever philospher/ writer as well who used his talents for writing and philosphy to scheme his way to dividing the people into two classes, the extremely exceptional and rare ultra weatlhy with all the power, and the ultra poor perpetually ignorant and afraid massive underclass. Of course, the best way to do this for this individual was to use the oldest trick in the book, i.e. wrap the whole stinking package of destructive social engineering up and label it "good intentions". And the people still eat it up to this day even though all the evidence indicates that, in time, its poisonous to the individual and society.
I am sure you are an intelligent person. You likely know which one I put where.
You take your pick, I'll take mine. Then, after the great wheel of time rolls on and our lives are up, we'll let the facts speak for themselves.
hmmm Stanley Tigerman...I'll have to familiarize myself with him in more detail before I know which side of the fence to put him on.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average Architect only made 6% less than the average Physician over the last two decades. For the record however, I taught at a top five medical school while earning my first Masters degree (and so did my brother), where 43% of the faculty did not have an MD.
I didn't go to SciArc, although I was admitted, and admittedly, I have sometimes wondered if not going was a mistake. I don't think you can blame all of your problems on them and the other ivy league schools however. What exactly have they done to you that you hate them so much?
mespellrong said,
"I didn't go to SciArc, although I was admitted, and admittedly, I have sometimes wondered if not going was a mistake. I don't think you can blame all of your problems on them and the other ivy league schools however. What exactly have they done to you that you hate them so much?"
In the first place, what positive things have SciArc and the Ivy League schools and their deathgrip on NAAB accreditation status done FOR THE PROFESSION, in order that I should NOT despise them so much?
Please be specific and use backup stats and/or data please or else I doubt I'll care to waste my time responding to your next volley.
My theses are based on all the empirical data for the last 30 years which indicate that SciArc, the Ivy Leagues (again with perhaps one major shining exception), and their deathgrip on NAAB accreditation has been thoroughly POISONOUS to the profession (and society too), and particulary for the average, everyday individual practicioner who aspires to an upwardly mobile socioeconomic trajectory. So of course I hate them. Any reasonable, intelligent, honest professional who wishes success for his profession and his average, everyday colleague will necessarily despise these miscreants.
And by the way mespellwrong, our statement, "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average Architect only made 6% less than the average Physician over the last two decades"
Is TOTAL BULLSHIT and you know it! Anyone with a shred of common sense will know it as well.
Fortunately, I've done the research and have the sources to back this up as well.
So on second thought, even if you do start using your data in your arguments, I'd better be able to verify the veracity of it.
And I was admitted to Sci Arc as well (just realized that would be germane to this particular junction in the thread).
...and in retrospect I am very, very glad I listened to my inner voice which whispered to NOT GO to Sci Arc. God that would have really set me back in so many ways I don't think I would have ever recovered mentally and/or emotionally. I now realize that most never do. Of course, those who go to these schools are already past the point of no return.
Everyone PLEASE ignore the marxist guy's trolling.
Excellent post, mespellwrong.
whyARCH, my own ProPractice professor told all of us students to MARRY a nurse, so our spouse would always have a job even though we wouldn't. And this was 25 years ago!
actually, please let IHATEMARXISTS continue, because i get a huge kick out of reading his batshit crazy rants.
i also think it's interesting that this thread was directed at current students, and not a single one has replied. regardless, this thread has become a good cathartic exercise for disgruntled professionals!
IHATEMARXISTS- if you are filled with so much vitriol towards the profession, why even bother to visit a discussion forum about it? You seem wholly convinced that anyone still involved in architecture - student, professional, or otherwise - is totally inept and not worth your time, so why bother waste your cheap words on all of us when you should be using "your finite time and energy on this green earth" to do something meaningful and productive. Clearly we are all stupid to do anything else because we have all been mind-warped by the educational system and the NAAB (oh and let's not forget the AIA and NCARB) to be lazy, mindless artists - unless of course we went to this one magical Ivy League school you seem unable to name.
Typically people who bully are just using it as a mask and attack people who represent what they wish they were. I'm sorry architecture didn't work out for you, I really am, and I am sorry you feel the need to attack everyone on this forum through self-promotion, ego-inflation and grandstanding. But as someone pointed out, you have taken everything you dislike about the profession and demonstrated that you are no better. I'm not sure what your aim is - are you intentionally trying to piss everyone off and burn as many bridges (if they even still exist) as possible, or are you genuinely interested in sharing your viewpoint in the hopes of motivating others to consider making a change as well? So far, your comments have indicated the former and are on the verge (if not already) as being written off as mindless trolling. I really want to believe that you have something worthwhile to offer but I have yet to see any indication.
Finally, can I just ask whatever happened to people shaping their own lives? You seem to think that once someone enters an architecture school, esp. a design school, they have instantly become a cog in the machine and have no control over their futures. There are plenty if SCI-Arc alumni that have gone on to get licensed and open viable practices that produce actual buildings (not that actual buildings is the measure of what is architecture...another discussion). They are no different than any other school that graduates hundreds of people that choose not to progress much further in their careers. They are no different than any other degree program that likely sees a similar rate of apathetic post-graduates who also don't advance much past entry-level. Schools don't make the architect. Schools don't make the person. They may be a piece in the puzzle, but that's about it.
He's not going to med school.
He's still working at his firm. He's even been promoted to partner/principal.
Or maybe he is doing both! With my luck, he would end up being my boss and my physician.
\"Finally, can I just ask whatever happened to people shaping their own lives?\"
The government and the corporations merged into the contemporary fascist society we have now. MonopoLIES. Plan and simple...rigidly enforced by the IRS from the to down. The populace has become so generally mentally apathetic that they take care of enforcing the fascist state of affairs in the USSA from the bottom up.
\"...You seem to think that once someone enters an architecture school, esp. a design school, they have instantly become a cog in the machine and have no control over their futures....\"
Once again, a mindless comment from an unanalytical mind produced by a culture which is completely upside down and preached the myth that the exception is the general rule (and vice versa).
Get real.
For the general population this is absolutely true. At this point, there is perhaps a mere 1/2 of 1% who are not going to become mere cogs in the profession. Most of those not forced into indentured slavery will inherit their wealth or will marry up, socioeconomically speaking. Perhaps 1/1000 of 1% will make it into what motivated them to get into the profession in the first place via LUCK.
The 99.95% or whatever who remain are cogs to be sure. Even most of the ones who put FAIA after their deep down Know they are mere sycophants and cogs. What was that quote by Philip Johnson regarding the architect as whore again?
\"...if you are filled with so much vitriol towards the profession, why even bother to visit a discussion forum about it?...\"
Because unlike most of you all, I depise lies and liars (including the ones which are \"mere ommissions of the facts\").
Honesty is the best policy.
This profession has raped me and left me for dead, socioeconomically speaking.
I want the world to be a better place ultimately.
Therefore, I will do whatever I can to say what I have to say so I can sleep in peace each and every night and when I die, I will be laid down to rest 6 feet underneath JUST dirt, less the heavy, guilty conscience.
\"He\'s not going to med school.
He\'s still working at his firm. He\'s even been promoted to partner/principal.\"
Who is trolling, now?
Idiot.
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.