If that were the case, it would be fine. The problem is that most electives, and most of the core curriculum, don't pertain to anything that can transferred over into practice.
And so you don't get, as you put it, graduates who are competent upon entering the workforce. That competency isn't developed while in school.
So we keep repeating the question: what is the point of architecture schools if they can't prepare their students to deal with the practice.
"I think the licensure ratio of the faculty it as a way of measuring respect for practice, and the profession. And commitment."
that can go back to the question of how much is a license actually valued at today, in that it seems to have less value than in the past
I dont know, it all depends on what the professor is teaching. I would rather have someone who was a G.C. for 20 years teach me a construction methods class, or someone who worked for a long time as a developer teach me about the business side of things
Having a license does show those things you mention, but it is not the only way for a faculty to do so.
I think the faculty should have actual credentials in the field, not necessarily just an architectural license. Because not for nothing, if i went to a school and over half the faculty was in their late 20's but all had their license, I feel there could be something missing in what they were able to teach me.
"I would be ashamed to put myself forward to teach a subject I had not demonstrated minimal competence to perform unsupervised. I'd be embarrassed, and I wouldn't want anyone to know. It would make me feel like a poseur and a fraud every time I cashed my paycheck."
I would as well, which is why it is amazing to me to see some of my colleagues, in their 20's, teaching. I have been working for 7+ years now and i barely feel like i would be comfortable enough to teach. I have always felt that my best teachers were able to work in real work experience into what they were teaching me, not just something they happened to be able to recite from a book.
The average age of a newly-licensed architect is much closer to 40 than 30. So don't fret about having a passel of 20-something licensees running amok in the studio at schools just yet.
I found that studying under experienced practitioners was enlightening, challenging, and -- essentially -- educational.
as to why i went into architecture, quiz, it was definitely not to plug myself into the industry serving the mass market for buildings. both my parents were structural engineers who did well for themselves, so if i'd wanted to solve the world's technical problems, i would have followed in their footsteps. i went into architecture for the reasons people study clothing design or product design...sure, all those things already exist in the world, but they can always be improved upon, rethought, etc.
in my opinion, academia does a really good job of teaching these skills. it's practice that is broken. most work out there is repetitive and rote, and most offices treat their staff like factory drones and pay them miserably for the privilege.
i agree with matt regarding idp and accountability for mentors. i would do away with idp and the licensing process altogether, and fold some of those requirements into education (alongside, not instead of, design training)
what i see out there is a professional culture of low pay and little respect which is repeatedly justified by its perpetrators by claiming that graduates are ill-informed and unprepared. it's ridiculous. we're not idiots. they should learn to train their employees like everyone else on the planet.
but my question is: why do we continue to buy it/internalize it/blame ourselves for it?
no offense intended, but I think acadamia does a piss-poor job of teaching skills and ways of approaching problem solving that have any relevance to actually implementing positive change to the built environment. A graduate today has to be un-educated before they can get educated in a way that will have an effect on the outcome of their work.
As evidence I offer the wages currently offered to graduates of architecture programs, and the lengthy process of internship that it takes to complete their "education".
2/3 of the tuition spent is wasted, and the other third is effective despite the best efforts of the faculty to abuse, alienate, intimidate and cow their students, distracting them from their goal with tangential and immaterial nonsense.
Technical expertise is scorned in the schools, but treasured in the marketplace. High design is put on the tallest alter in every academic program I have seen: Why is our built environment such a wasteland? Have you seen America lately? Where is all the benefit of these academic pursuits being buried -- under a mountain in the Nevada desert?
If that were the case, it would be fine. The problem is that most electives, and most of the core curriculum, don't pertain to anything that can transferred over into practice.
I'm not in academia, but based on my understanding of how it works (someone can tell me if I'm wildly off):
NAAB sets the core competencies that graduates are required to meet - how a school goes about teaching these competencies is their own business (as it should be), but when NAAB shows up for accreditation they are looking to see if the skills students demonstrate in their work are meeting this criteria.
Elinor, most kids do come out of school ill-prepared. It's the reason they are undervalued.
If we had a system in place where it's closer to what Marmkid was refering to, where you learn from practitioners, developers, GCs, and architects, these grads would be worth much more. Instead, they go to school to learn how to be fed theory and anything practical is pushed to the backdoor.
Matt A, I will have to call you later about that ice cream shop ;)
St. Georges wrote:
"
So, the question comes back to this point: how many licensed practicing architects that are also professors live within 20 miles of two NAAB-accredited universities (one at which they teach, the other where they maintain licensure?) "
Continuing education does not necessarily occur in accredited academic institutions, it occurs with state and AIA-approved providers. So it is not necessary to live and work within reasonable distance of two such universities in order to fulfill the CE requirements.
I believe licensure is an inexact proxy to indicate practitioner, but it's close enough for the purposes of analysis.
no offense taken, matt. i know i'm in the minority on these boards and don't begrudge anyone the right/pleasure of disagreeing. i have to say that i'm disturbed by the anti-intellectual bent of these discussions (the view that only practical skills are valuable as opposed to ideas, etc.) and i'd like to represent the other side.
Becoming the next Koolhaus is what is taught at these institutions; 99.999% of them that comes out won't ever come remotely close to that fantasy.
Toasteroven, I think you are correct. But things on paper looks a lot better when there is no accountability or transparency about what happens to grads after they are given their degree...
The profession is broken, true, it's because of current market conditions. Students, however, have always been ill prepared to enter the workforce regardless of market conditions.
Ideas that can't be transferred into reality or are too subjective to be tested to any degree are useless, and in uselessness, you get paid what you are worth.
burningman - the issue is not HOW schools are teaching and how students are learning, but WHATskills students are supposed to be leaving with. THIS is what we should be debating.
we cannot talk about pedagogy without understanding what it is we're supposed to be teaching.
There is no duality between ideas and practical skills in my view, they are part of one thing, expertise. Intellectual pursuits are worthy of succeeding at, and my main point in this discussion is to say that we are not succeeding. It is not anti-intellectual to ask to measure costs and benefits. It is anti-intellectual to say that the results should be disregarded, or that ignorance is preferable.
some of my comments were in response to Elinor. With you, I'm in agreement. See Marmkid's post a while back about learning practical subjects from professionals from different fields :RE, GCs/ Developers/ Planners/ Architects, etc.
That would make a well rounded architect.
The things they teach you to design in school, most of it is concerned about using a useless theory to extract someone's signature than to actually teach anything about the actual profession as mentioned above. Otherwise, why the hell pay $250K to learn artsy ideas and things you can get out of a few books you can read on your spare time. I don't think anyone here is trying to measure the value of an architecture education simply by the passing rates of the AREs.
What Matt A is asking for is transparency. It's a start to know if only 25% of your graduates go on to become licensed of if only 25% of them go on to be "architects."
I'm just saying, maybe we can all use some "ice cream" :) to lighten up a little.
elinor -- I think you misinterpret some of the posts above. those who argue that the schools are not meeting the needs of the profession are not saying "only practical skills are valuable, as opposed to ideas" -- I think it's more a matter of emphasis and balance.
in our firm, we value design skills tremendously, but "design" is not just form-making -- we actually have to deliver constructable, efficient, cost-effective buildings on a tight schedule and within a low fee. that takes skills and knowledge not readily obtainable from most of the folks coming out of school today. this places a costly training burden on firms in circumstances where the economics of professional practice already suck.
some here argue that academia is broken / others that professional practice is broken -- neither view is entirely right, or wrong.
as I see one aspect of the issue, too many graduates enter professional practice with a) woefully inadequate understanding of what practicing architects really do; b) woefully unrealistic expectations of how they will be spending their time for the next 5-10 years; and c) woefully inappropriate expectations of their economic value to the firm.
IMHO, the roots of those particular conditions rest with the schools, where academia leaves so many graduates with the belief that you get your degree and, bang, your design skills quickly make you the next Robert Stern or REM or whoever strikes your fancy. when that doesn't happen, a terrible disillusionment occurs.
professional practice can be grinding, difficult, and soul sapping. it's simplistic to simply say that firms could change that if they only had the will to do so. so much of what we deal with in firms is imposed on us by external circumstances. most of what you seem to hate about professional practices is a natural response to the environment in which we practice. in my view, the schools don't know how - and don't care - to find solutions to those problems.
I do not think my materials and methods professor was a licensed architect. He did work in construction for years and had an M.Arch.
I wish people hadn't slammed Elinor, not that she needs me to stick up for her. She has many thought provoking posts, even if you disagree with her viewpoint.
I'm getting tired of the "our graduates are ill prepared" and these lame attempts at redefining curricula (by people who obviously do not understand education) when I've yet to see any actual dissection of the IDP sections and NAAB accreditation requirements. and especially any reassessment of what skills are actually necessary for both entry into practice and licensure. Everyone is whining about how recent grads know nothing, but what don't they know? what do they need to know? No one has been able to explain to me just what things recent grads SHOULD know beyond what's already in IDP - and if someone is able to tell me something different it's usually all over the map and it leans towards what "they shouldn't be teaching" - which is completely unproductive.
it's one thing to say there's something wrong, of course we know something is wrong, but without any kind of concerted effort to develop a set of recommendations we're going to get the same old dog and pony show from NCARB, NAAB, and the schools.
for some reason I get the feeling that we actually don't know what skills graduates should have - and if we were to conduct some kind of industry-wide survey (and based on how wildly different most practices operate) we're going to discover just how little we actually agree upon.
Here, take a look at the "student work." This is what is being encouraged, which would be fine if one or two students were proposing these ideas. But in an effort to "push the envelope," they all become the same, one year after another. Is this really the way to prepare for entering the workforce, by telling them as quizzical puts it, to be the next REM or Michael Jordan or architecture.
I think that the boldest, most "innovative" student to come out of Penn is someone who designed with gravity in mind or to design a building that was or recognizable form. I could probably share some ice cream with that person.
Toasteroven, I thought you would have figured out that answer by now?
I don't know the answer to your question. I remember back in the day I couldn't wait 30 seconds past the required time to get my license. These days maybe it's just more trouble than it's worth for most folks. Do you have any theories?
* Competence in a range of intellectual, spatial, technical, and interpersonal skills
* Understanding the historical, socio-cultural, and environmental context of architecture
* Problem solving for architectural design problems
* Integration of technical systems, health and safety requirements
* Comprehend architects' roles and responsibilities in society
Tell me, base on your experience, how is the NAAB doing based on its own standards.
i think there is no clear cut direct benefit to getting your license for a 20-30 something year old right now. They have no real motivation or pressure coming from the higher ups at firms, who dont really need more licenses.
An intern looks at the beginning of their career, and sees that in the next 5-10 years, a license wont necessarily do a whole heck of a lot for them if they are planning the traditional route of working in a firm. They arent getting a big pay raise, if one at all, for getting their license. They may not even get any more responsibility.
The unfortunate thing is that this most likely will come back to haunt them in 10-20 years into their career where they will see what a license can do for them and they will be scrambling to get one at a much harder time in their personal life.
wait, marmkid, you would rather pay good money to take courses taught by a GC--someone with maybe a high-school education--than an unlicensed architect??? THAT would be worth your tuition money? absurd.
it would be a great scam for that GC though, not to mention an ego boost...he'd go home and brag about the racket he's got going TEACHING the college kids...
when i see comments like that, a little bit of steam comes out of my ears.
you know, you can go ahead and work on a construction site, or start a contracting company...no master's degree required.
how about we get over our complexes about building and keep the vocational training out of the UNIVERSITIES?
matt, where i think your point falls apart a bit is that nobody says you HAVE to be an architect once you get that arch degree...if you go on to law school or become a graphic designer, that's not indicative of the failure of your program. this is why i think your study should focus on the nature and duration of the mentoring process rather than the relationship between degrees awarded and licenses. schools can't be held responsible for what their graduates decide to do or not to once they're out the door. if fewer people decide to get licensed, that does point to a flaw in the LICENSING system, but it's a stretch to directly translate that into a failure of the educational system.
ps. thanks for the support, jbushkey. trying to keep things balanced! ;)
ps on another thread i suggested that if technical expertise was so in demand, we should set aside some positions for technical experts--2-yr degree holders who are not overeducated and overburdened w/debt and may actually be happy with the duties and salary of a lifetime architectural tech job. the overwhelming response to that was that employers are happier with tech staff who THINK ARCHITECTURALLY and have DESIGN TRAINING. interesting, no?
oh, and a brief other thing before i walk out the door--there are reasons why construction wages and profits stayed up when others went down, and some aren't pretty...they have nothing to do with the inherently greater value of the goods and services but with informal rackets and corruption. just watch a few sopranos episodes...
so let's stop romanticizing contractors and start valuing our own services/contributions.
if the construction industry was suddenly flooded with architects, they'd probably start giving it away for free in no time...
It really boggles my mind that someone would take a driver ed course, go to arch school, go to law school, go to med school, etc. and say that you went there for the sake of learning and not for the sake of getting a license. Funny world we live in.
Contractors aren't romanticized, they're part of the profession. A good GC can teach more about architecture than a book writer who never practiced. Funny you randomly pick on GCs out of the list of other professionals mentioned. You ever heard of an architect historically being called the master builder? No they just have a useless master degree from a fancy school.
Romanticism? That's humanities - what arch school is becoming. Really, I think Hawthorne or Thoreau has more business teaching arch than most arch professors these days.
@elinor
"wait, marmkid, you would rather pay good money to take courses taught by a GC--someone with maybe a high-school education--than an unlicensed architect??? THAT would be worth your tuition money? absurd."
that was completely taken out of context ignoring the rest of what i wrote, clearly just so you can make a point
I would rather pay good money to take courses by someone WITH ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in the subject rather than someone who just happens to be able to pass an exam
I am not sure why you assume i was refering to a GC who only has a high school education. I also am not sure why you then are also making a blanket statement that all GC's are unqualified to teach at all. That seems a bit absurd, and in my short experience as an architect, I have amazingly enough met some GCs who actually have more than a high school education. Though of course, I suppose I met the only ones who have ever gone to college though, right?
THE POINT, which you ignored, is that the professors should have actual experience in the subject they are teaching while also being qualified to teach as a professor.
But if we want to continue that ONLY architects, licensed or unlicensed, should be teaching architecture programs, then you are ignoring the wealth experience that is out there that can be a huge benefit to students and help better prepare them
I think a University should be able to teach anything they want.
Architecture programs are accredited for only one reason, so that they may function as a required component of the licensure of architects. Accredited programs that do not achieve a minimal outcome should lose their accreditation. Then people like you can advocate all you like for the value of the 'experience', be my guest.
* Competence in a range of intellectual, spatial, technical, and interpersonal skills
* Understanding the historical, socio-cultural, and environmental context of architecture
* Problem solving for architectural design problems
* Integration of technical systems, health and safety requirements
* Comprehend architects' roles and responsibilities in society
Tell me, base on your experience, how is the NAAB doing based on its own standards.
I don't think many architects who've been working for a long time are capable of fully complying with these criteria. these seem more like things we all struggle with on a daily basis in practice.
I do think students leave schools with a very under-developed understanding of #4 - which seems like what most people tend to complain about.
does architecture equal construction to you? since when did construction become 'the subject'? you and marmkid seem to think they're one and the same.
yes, GCs know a lot about construction. my daddy is one. with a master's degree in structural engineering. can he 'teach more about architecture' than an architect? hell, no. and neither could his many excellent contractor friends with high-school educations.
in many discussions w/him and others, where we often start out head-to-head, we often come to very interesting conclusions, where it becomes clear that our approaches are completely different. and this is a more productive relationship between architect and builder than somehow trying to meld them into one. and do i think contractors should teach architects? nope. and architects shouldn't teach contractors either.
dear architects: you've fucked up most opportunities to turn a profit in your own field, and now you're looking to glom on to other fields, liek real estate and constrution, where practitioners haven't made a total mess of things.
you know what the most important lesson my engineer/GC father taught me? if you work for peanuts, you're an idiot.
I was refering completely to construction methods type courses elinor as i stated
Unless there are no construction classes you feel are necessary in architecture school and they should only teach "architecture"? I am not sure what that would actually mean then
Unless you think that architecture students today would gain no value at all from a construction or real estate course because they are in "other fields"?
i'm sure there are innovative builders out there somewhere. but i'm also pretty certain most builders would not innovate of their own accord, because it's always simpler and cheaper to do what you know, over and over again, every time. construction is a business, rarely some kind of creative endeavor, so it's in most contractors' interest to eliminate too many uncertainties from the process.
i think what differentiates architects from builders is the ability to select from a variety of construction processes based on factors beyond immediate ease and expediency. also, architects should be ready and willing to innovate or propose new construction methods as needed. THIS is what should be taught in construction methods type courses. if you want to bring in a GC as a guest for a day, fine. but you should also cover what's going on in europe, in japan, in new materials research, in facade technology, etc. believe me, a GC isn't going to do that for you. ever.
@elinor
I think we are just talking about 2 different things
I am talking about building construction 101 for an 18 or 19 year old who is just out of high school and most likely has never done anything in the field at all
What good is only learning about the most creative and innovative learning methods if you dont even know how a simple block or stud wall goes up?
I'd rather have someone who has actually done something like that before rather than some young architect who has never worked in construction, but has passed his exams and can recite what he saw in a detailing book
the 'you have to know the rules before you break them' argument is outdated, and conservative. you don't need to learn the entire history of construction to understand how things work.
next thing you know, an architect's skills will only be considered valuable if he's built actual buildings, himself, with his own hands. come on.
maybe we should move the schoolyard fight elsewhere and let matt go ahead with his reforming-licensure work? :)
no one is talking about learning the entire history of construction
but if you dont see the value in learning the basics, or see how that relates to basic architectural education, then yes there really is nothing left to discuss
I would imagine though that it would probably be benefitial to have more than one required construction methods class for an architecture ciriculum. I bet you could learn the basics AND new innovative construction methods that was as well?
But you are probably right, we should completely get rid of any sort of basic building construction methods since that is so outdated and conservative
Unless these basic construction methods are really that outdated that they are never used in the real world anymore?
This is all very related to the original discussion though, as has been discussed
"paying $1100 per credit hour to learn how to build a simple stud or block wall=waste of money AND time."
It would be fantastic to have students and interns learn it on their own then and be ready to do simple tasks when they are first hired...unfortunately that hasnt been the case in my opinion and experience
If we want our grads to be more ready to work in the real world, there are some mundane things they need to learn while in school. I think part of what is being discussed is that they are not currently learning that
I think I should open up a medical school since it seems to be okay to teach a profession without knowing the basics.
That's what arch schooling has become. Oh, you put together nice drawings; you put together a good book last year; that was a nice thesis project you did; why don't you come teach at our school next year? Meanwhile the tech professor who had been practice architecture for 40 years can't get tenure because he never published a book.
There's nothing wrong with ideas, that's what humanities is. But when you apply it to a profession, it would be nice to know that the spaceship ideas that were being generated were done by people who have practiced instead of people who never understood the basics.
Tell us Elinor, just five things: 5 theories you learned in arch school since you did get a BArch and a MArch, 5 theories that makes you think that those degrees makes you that much more prepared to tackle the profession than someone with less schooling. Try us, please. You seem to be defending it so hard, you mentioned you've or your colleagues taught before? What 5 things did you or your colleagues taught or learned that makes it worth 40-60k a year?
OK, as much as i enjoy this, i'm going to have to walk away and get some work done.
but--if all the points you guys are making are true regarding the ill-preparedness of graduates, then shouldn't interns, after a period of low-paid training time at a firm, get a massive raise? i mean ok, if you know nothing when you graduate and have to take a pay cut for it, then after a year or so at a firm, you should have all these skills. therefore, you shouldn't take the pay cut anymore, right? so your salary should go waaay up. i'm not talking about a 3k raise either, but a real jump in pay grade.
where does this happen? nowhere. why? because it's a swindle from the get-go.
Best of luck with your project. I think that this is an important piece of the puzzle for potential architecture students and those grappling with some of the absurdities of the IDP process.
@Everyone else:
It really just sounds like you are clinging to your education and whatever ideals your schools were pushing. I'm no therapist, but in most cases it comes across as trying to rationalize whatever decision-making process led you to your choice of school and then to your current state of
(un-?)employment, for better or worse.
whoa, that sounded weird...i didn't mean 'that' kind of abuse. having gone to catholic schools all my life, i noticed that there's quite the inculcation of guilt and self-hatred.
Concerning Licensure
Toasteroven,
If that were the case, it would be fine. The problem is that most electives, and most of the core curriculum, don't pertain to anything that can transferred over into practice.
And so you don't get, as you put it, graduates who are competent upon entering the workforce. That competency isn't developed while in school.
So we keep repeating the question: what is the point of architecture schools if they can't prepare their students to deal with the practice.
"I think the licensure ratio of the faculty it as a way of measuring respect for practice, and the profession. And commitment."
that can go back to the question of how much is a license actually valued at today, in that it seems to have less value than in the past
I dont know, it all depends on what the professor is teaching. I would rather have someone who was a G.C. for 20 years teach me a construction methods class, or someone who worked for a long time as a developer teach me about the business side of things
Having a license does show those things you mention, but it is not the only way for a faculty to do so.
I think the faculty should have actual credentials in the field, not necessarily just an architectural license. Because not for nothing, if i went to a school and over half the faculty was in their late 20's but all had their license, I feel there could be something missing in what they were able to teach me.
"I would be ashamed to put myself forward to teach a subject I had not demonstrated minimal competence to perform unsupervised. I'd be embarrassed, and I wouldn't want anyone to know. It would make me feel like a poseur and a fraud every time I cashed my paycheck."
I would as well, which is why it is amazing to me to see some of my colleagues, in their 20's, teaching. I have been working for 7+ years now and i barely feel like i would be comfortable enough to teach. I have always felt that my best teachers were able to work in real work experience into what they were teaching me, not just something they happened to be able to recite from a book.
The average age of a newly-licensed architect is much closer to 40 than 30. So don't fret about having a passel of 20-something licensees running amok in the studio at schools just yet.
I found that studying under experienced practitioners was enlightening, challenging, and -- essentially -- educational.
totally agree w/toaster
as to why i went into architecture, quiz, it was definitely not to plug myself into the industry serving the mass market for buildings. both my parents were structural engineers who did well for themselves, so if i'd wanted to solve the world's technical problems, i would have followed in their footsteps. i went into architecture for the reasons people study clothing design or product design...sure, all those things already exist in the world, but they can always be improved upon, rethought, etc.
in my opinion, academia does a really good job of teaching these skills. it's practice that is broken. most work out there is repetitive and rote, and most offices treat their staff like factory drones and pay them miserably for the privilege.
i agree with matt regarding idp and accountability for mentors. i would do away with idp and the licensing process altogether, and fold some of those requirements into education (alongside, not instead of, design training)
what i see out there is a professional culture of low pay and little respect which is repeatedly justified by its perpetrators by claiming that graduates are ill-informed and unprepared. it's ridiculous. we're not idiots. they should learn to train their employees like everyone else on the planet.
but my question is: why do we continue to buy it/internalize it/blame ourselves for it?
@elinor --
no offense intended, but I think acadamia does a piss-poor job of teaching skills and ways of approaching problem solving that have any relevance to actually implementing positive change to the built environment. A graduate today has to be un-educated before they can get educated in a way that will have an effect on the outcome of their work.
As evidence I offer the wages currently offered to graduates of architecture programs, and the lengthy process of internship that it takes to complete their "education".
2/3 of the tuition spent is wasted, and the other third is effective despite the best efforts of the faculty to abuse, alienate, intimidate and cow their students, distracting them from their goal with tangential and immaterial nonsense.
Technical expertise is scorned in the schools, but treasured in the marketplace. High design is put on the tallest alter in every academic program I have seen: Why is our built environment such a wasteland? Have you seen America lately? Where is all the benefit of these academic pursuits being buried -- under a mountain in the Nevada desert?
I'm not in academia, but based on my understanding of how it works (someone can tell me if I'm wildly off):
NAAB sets the core competencies that graduates are required to meet - how a school goes about teaching these competencies is their own business (as it should be), but when NAAB shows up for accreditation they are looking to see if the skills students demonstrate in their work are meeting this criteria.
perhaps these competencies need to be reassessed.
Elinor, most kids do come out of school ill-prepared. It's the reason they are undervalued.
If we had a system in place where it's closer to what Marmkid was refering to, where you learn from practitioners, developers, GCs, and architects, these grads would be worth much more. Instead, they go to school to learn how to be fed theory and anything practical is pushed to the backdoor.
Matt A, I will have to call you later about that ice cream shop ;)
... we're looking at some tremendous franchise opportunities just now...
like i said --complicit in our own enslavement.
sorry I missed this one:
St. Georges wrote:
"
So, the question comes back to this point: how many licensed practicing architects that are also professors live within 20 miles of two NAAB-accredited universities (one at which they teach, the other where they maintain licensure?) "
Continuing education does not necessarily occur in accredited academic institutions, it occurs with state and AIA-approved providers. So it is not necessary to live and work within reasonable distance of two such universities in order to fulfill the CE requirements.
I believe licensure is an inexact proxy to indicate practitioner, but it's close enough for the purposes of analysis.
no offense taken, matt. i know i'm in the minority on these boards and don't begrudge anyone the right/pleasure of disagreeing. i have to say that i'm disturbed by the anti-intellectual bent of these discussions (the view that only practical skills are valuable as opposed to ideas, etc.) and i'd like to represent the other side.
Becoming the next Koolhaus is what is taught at these institutions; 99.999% of them that comes out won't ever come remotely close to that fantasy.
Toasteroven, I think you are correct. But things on paper looks a lot better when there is no accountability or transparency about what happens to grads after they are given their degree...
The profession is broken, true, it's because of current market conditions. Students, however, have always been ill prepared to enter the workforce regardless of market conditions.
Ideas that can't be transferred into reality or are too subjective to be tested to any degree are useless, and in uselessness, you get paid what you are worth.
burningman - the issue is not HOW schools are teaching and how students are learning, but WHAT skills students are supposed to be leaving with. THIS is what we should be debating.
we cannot talk about pedagogy without understanding what it is we're supposed to be teaching.
@elinor --
There is no duality between ideas and practical skills in my view, they are part of one thing, expertise. Intellectual pursuits are worthy of succeeding at, and my main point in this discussion is to say that we are not succeeding. It is not anti-intellectual to ask to measure costs and benefits. It is anti-intellectual to say that the results should be disregarded, or that ignorance is preferable.
Toasteroven,
some of my comments were in response to Elinor. With you, I'm in agreement. See Marmkid's post a while back about learning practical subjects from professionals from different fields :RE, GCs/ Developers/ Planners/ Architects, etc.
That would make a well rounded architect.
The things they teach you to design in school, most of it is concerned about using a useless theory to extract someone's signature than to actually teach anything about the actual profession as mentioned above. Otherwise, why the hell pay $250K to learn artsy ideas and things you can get out of a few books you can read on your spare time. I don't think anyone here is trying to measure the value of an architecture education simply by the passing rates of the AREs.
What Matt A is asking for is transparency. It's a start to know if only 25% of your graduates go on to become licensed of if only 25% of them go on to be "architects."
I'm just saying, maybe we can all use some "ice cream" :) to lighten up a little.
elinor -- I think you misinterpret some of the posts above. those who argue that the schools are not meeting the needs of the profession are not saying "only practical skills are valuable, as opposed to ideas" -- I think it's more a matter of emphasis and balance.
in our firm, we value design skills tremendously, but "design" is not just form-making -- we actually have to deliver constructable, efficient, cost-effective buildings on a tight schedule and within a low fee. that takes skills and knowledge not readily obtainable from most of the folks coming out of school today. this places a costly training burden on firms in circumstances where the economics of professional practice already suck.
some here argue that academia is broken / others that professional practice is broken -- neither view is entirely right, or wrong.
as I see one aspect of the issue, too many graduates enter professional practice with a) woefully inadequate understanding of what practicing architects really do; b) woefully unrealistic expectations of how they will be spending their time for the next 5-10 years; and c) woefully inappropriate expectations of their economic value to the firm.
IMHO, the roots of those particular conditions rest with the schools, where academia leaves so many graduates with the belief that you get your degree and, bang, your design skills quickly make you the next Robert Stern or REM or whoever strikes your fancy. when that doesn't happen, a terrible disillusionment occurs.
professional practice can be grinding, difficult, and soul sapping. it's simplistic to simply say that firms could change that if they only had the will to do so. so much of what we deal with in firms is imposed on us by external circumstances. most of what you seem to hate about professional practices is a natural response to the environment in which we practice. in my view, the schools don't know how - and don't care - to find solutions to those problems.
@quizzical --
thank you for clarity with a reasonable tone, an accomplishment I often find elusive.
I do not think my materials and methods professor was a licensed architect. He did work in construction for years and had an M.Arch.
I wish people hadn't slammed Elinor, not that she needs me to stick up for her. She has many thought provoking posts, even if you disagree with her viewpoint.
Many people have posted between when I started writing post above and when I finished it. I am being daddy and reading archinect tonight.
ok -
I'm getting tired of the "our graduates are ill prepared" and these lame attempts at redefining curricula (by people who obviously do not understand education) when I've yet to see any actual dissection of the IDP sections and NAAB accreditation requirements. and especially any reassessment of what skills are actually necessary for both entry into practice and licensure. Everyone is whining about how recent grads know nothing, but what don't they know? what do they need to know? No one has been able to explain to me just what things recent grads SHOULD know beyond what's already in IDP - and if someone is able to tell me something different it's usually all over the map and it leans towards what "they shouldn't be teaching" - which is completely unproductive.
it's one thing to say there's something wrong, of course we know something is wrong, but without any kind of concerted effort to develop a set of recommendations we're going to get the same old dog and pony show from NCARB, NAAB, and the schools.
for some reason I get the feeling that we actually don't know what skills graduates should have - and if we were to conduct some kind of industry-wide survey (and based on how wildly different most practices operate) we're going to discover just how little we actually agree upon.
and the question I have for Matt is:
why aren't people getting licensed?
although - i agree with quiz - realistic expectations.
Here, take a look at the "student work." This is what is being encouraged, which would be fine if one or two students were proposing these ideas. But in an effort to "push the envelope," they all become the same, one year after another. Is this really the way to prepare for entering the workforce, by telling them as quizzical puts it, to be the next REM or Michael Jordan or architecture.
I think that the boldest, most "innovative" student to come out of Penn is someone who designed with gravity in mind or to design a building that was or recognizable form. I could probably share some ice cream with that person.
Toasteroven, I thought you would have figured out that answer by now?
@toasteroven --
I don't know the answer to your question. I remember back in the day I couldn't wait 30 seconds past the required time to get my license. These days maybe it's just more trouble than it's worth for most folks. Do you have any theories?
Toasteroven,
The NAAB accredits schools based on:
* Competence in a range of intellectual, spatial, technical, and interpersonal skills
* Understanding the historical, socio-cultural, and environmental context of architecture
* Problem solving for architectural design problems
* Integration of technical systems, health and safety requirements
* Comprehend architects' roles and responsibilities in society
Tell me, base on your experience, how is the NAAB doing based on its own standards.
i think there is no clear cut direct benefit to getting your license for a 20-30 something year old right now. They have no real motivation or pressure coming from the higher ups at firms, who dont really need more licenses.
An intern looks at the beginning of their career, and sees that in the next 5-10 years, a license wont necessarily do a whole heck of a lot for them if they are planning the traditional route of working in a firm. They arent getting a big pay raise, if one at all, for getting their license. They may not even get any more responsibility.
The unfortunate thing is that this most likely will come back to haunt them in 10-20 years into their career where they will see what a license can do for them and they will be scrambling to get one at a much harder time in their personal life.
wait, marmkid, you would rather pay good money to take courses taught by a GC--someone with maybe a high-school education--than an unlicensed architect??? THAT would be worth your tuition money? absurd.
it would be a great scam for that GC though, not to mention an ego boost...he'd go home and brag about the racket he's got going TEACHING the college kids...
when i see comments like that, a little bit of steam comes out of my ears.
you know, you can go ahead and work on a construction site, or start a contracting company...no master's degree required.
how about we get over our complexes about building and keep the vocational training out of the UNIVERSITIES?
matt, where i think your point falls apart a bit is that nobody says you HAVE to be an architect once you get that arch degree...if you go on to law school or become a graphic designer, that's not indicative of the failure of your program. this is why i think your study should focus on the nature and duration of the mentoring process rather than the relationship between degrees awarded and licenses. schools can't be held responsible for what their graduates decide to do or not to once they're out the door. if fewer people decide to get licensed, that does point to a flaw in the LICENSING system, but it's a stretch to directly translate that into a failure of the educational system.
ps. thanks for the support, jbushkey. trying to keep things balanced! ;)
ps on another thread i suggested that if technical expertise was so in demand, we should set aside some positions for technical experts--2-yr degree holders who are not overeducated and overburdened w/debt and may actually be happy with the duties and salary of a lifetime architectural tech job. the overwhelming response to that was that employers are happier with tech staff who THINK ARCHITECTURALLY and have DESIGN TRAINING. interesting, no?
oh, and a brief other thing before i walk out the door--there are reasons why construction wages and profits stayed up when others went down, and some aren't pretty...they have nothing to do with the inherently greater value of the goods and services but with informal rackets and corruption. just watch a few sopranos episodes...
so let's stop romanticizing contractors and start valuing our own services/contributions.
if the construction industry was suddenly flooded with architects, they'd probably start giving it away for free in no time...
It really boggles my mind that someone would take a driver ed course, go to arch school, go to law school, go to med school, etc. and say that you went there for the sake of learning and not for the sake of getting a license. Funny world we live in.
Contractors aren't romanticized, they're part of the profession. A good GC can teach more about architecture than a book writer who never practiced. Funny you randomly pick on GCs out of the list of other professionals mentioned. You ever heard of an architect historically being called the master builder? No they just have a useless master degree from a fancy school.
Romanticism? That's humanities - what arch school is becoming. Really, I think Hawthorne or Thoreau has more business teaching arch than most arch professors these days.
@elinor
"wait, marmkid, you would rather pay good money to take courses taught by a GC--someone with maybe a high-school education--than an unlicensed architect??? THAT would be worth your tuition money? absurd."
that was completely taken out of context ignoring the rest of what i wrote, clearly just so you can make a point
I would rather pay good money to take courses by someone WITH ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in the subject rather than someone who just happens to be able to pass an exam
I am not sure why you assume i was refering to a GC who only has a high school education. I also am not sure why you then are also making a blanket statement that all GC's are unqualified to teach at all. That seems a bit absurd, and in my short experience as an architect, I have amazingly enough met some GCs who actually have more than a high school education. Though of course, I suppose I met the only ones who have ever gone to college though, right?
THE POINT, which you ignored, is that the professors should have actual experience in the subject they are teaching while also being qualified to teach as a professor.
But if we want to continue that ONLY architects, licensed or unlicensed, should be teaching architecture programs, then you are ignoring the wealth experience that is out there that can be a huge benefit to students and help better prepare them
@elinor --
I think a University should be able to teach anything they want.
Architecture programs are accredited for only one reason, so that they may function as a required component of the licensure of architects. Accredited programs that do not achieve a minimal outcome should lose their accreditation. Then people like you can advocate all you like for the value of the 'experience', be my guest.
* Understanding the historical, socio-cultural, and environmental context of architecture
* Problem solving for architectural design problems
* Integration of technical systems, health and safety requirements
* Comprehend architects' roles and responsibilities in society
Tell me, base on your experience, how is the NAAB doing based on its own standards.
I don't think many architects who've been working for a long time are capable of fully complying with these criteria. these seem more like things we all struggle with on a daily basis in practice.
I do think students leave schools with a very under-developed understanding of #4 - which seems like what most people tend to complain about.
'ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in the subject--'
does architecture equal construction to you? since when did construction become 'the subject'? you and marmkid seem to think they're one and the same.
yes, GCs know a lot about construction. my daddy is one. with a master's degree in structural engineering. can he 'teach more about architecture' than an architect? hell, no. and neither could his many excellent contractor friends with high-school educations.
in many discussions w/him and others, where we often start out head-to-head, we often come to very interesting conclusions, where it becomes clear that our approaches are completely different. and this is a more productive relationship between architect and builder than somehow trying to meld them into one. and do i think contractors should teach architects? nope. and architects shouldn't teach contractors either.
dear architects: you've fucked up most opportunities to turn a profit in your own field, and now you're looking to glom on to other fields, liek real estate and constrution, where practitioners haven't made a total mess of things.
you know what the most important lesson my engineer/GC father taught me? if you work for peanuts, you're an idiot.
oops--rushed typing...
I was refering completely to construction methods type courses elinor as i stated
Unless there are no construction classes you feel are necessary in architecture school and they should only teach "architecture"? I am not sure what that would actually mean then
Unless you think that architecture students today would gain no value at all from a construction or real estate course because they are in "other fields"?
i'm sure there are innovative builders out there somewhere. but i'm also pretty certain most builders would not innovate of their own accord, because it's always simpler and cheaper to do what you know, over and over again, every time. construction is a business, rarely some kind of creative endeavor, so it's in most contractors' interest to eliminate too many uncertainties from the process.
i think what differentiates architects from builders is the ability to select from a variety of construction processes based on factors beyond immediate ease and expediency. also, architects should be ready and willing to innovate or propose new construction methods as needed. THIS is what should be taught in construction methods type courses. if you want to bring in a GC as a guest for a day, fine. but you should also cover what's going on in europe, in japan, in new materials research, in facade technology, etc. believe me, a GC isn't going to do that for you. ever.
@elinor
I think we are just talking about 2 different things
I am talking about building construction 101 for an 18 or 19 year old who is just out of high school and most likely has never done anything in the field at all
What good is only learning about the most creative and innovative learning methods if you dont even know how a simple block or stud wall goes up?
I'd rather have someone who has actually done something like that before rather than some young architect who has never worked in construction, but has passed his exams and can recite what he saw in a detailing book
well i'm talking about that too.
the 'you have to know the rules before you break them' argument is outdated, and conservative. you don't need to learn the entire history of construction to understand how things work.
next thing you know, an architect's skills will only be considered valuable if he's built actual buildings, himself, with his own hands. come on.
maybe we should move the schoolyard fight elsewhere and let matt go ahead with his reforming-licensure work? :)
paying $1100 per credit hour to learn how to build a simple stud or block wall=waste of money AND time.
no one is talking about learning the entire history of construction
but if you dont see the value in learning the basics, or see how that relates to basic architectural education, then yes there really is nothing left to discuss
I would imagine though that it would probably be benefitial to have more than one required construction methods class for an architecture ciriculum. I bet you could learn the basics AND new innovative construction methods that was as well?
But you are probably right, we should completely get rid of any sort of basic building construction methods since that is so outdated and conservative
Unless these basic construction methods are really that outdated that they are never used in the real world anymore?
This is all very related to the original discussion though, as has been discussed
"paying $1100 per credit hour to learn how to build a simple stud or block wall=waste of money AND time."
It would be fantastic to have students and interns learn it on their own then and be ready to do simple tasks when they are first hired...unfortunately that hasnt been the case in my opinion and experience
If we want our grads to be more ready to work in the real world, there are some mundane things they need to learn while in school. I think part of what is being discussed is that they are not currently learning that
The answer is clear, now.
The problem with architecture is architects.
@ st george
I think that has always been a problem :)
I think I should open up a medical school since it seems to be okay to teach a profession without knowing the basics.
That's what arch schooling has become. Oh, you put together nice drawings; you put together a good book last year; that was a nice thesis project you did; why don't you come teach at our school next year? Meanwhile the tech professor who had been practice architecture for 40 years can't get tenure because he never published a book.
There's nothing wrong with ideas, that's what humanities is. But when you apply it to a profession, it would be nice to know that the spaceship ideas that were being generated were done by people who have practiced instead of people who never understood the basics.
Tell us Elinor, just five things: 5 theories you learned in arch school since you did get a BArch and a MArch, 5 theories that makes you think that those degrees makes you that much more prepared to tackle the profession than someone with less schooling. Try us, please. You seem to be defending it so hard, you mentioned you've or your colleagues taught before? What 5 things did you or your colleagues taught or learned that makes it worth 40-60k a year?
No no, the problem with architecture are the architects who build rectilinear forms :)
OK, as much as i enjoy this, i'm going to have to walk away and get some work done.
but--if all the points you guys are making are true regarding the ill-preparedness of graduates, then shouldn't interns, after a period of low-paid training time at a firm, get a massive raise? i mean ok, if you know nothing when you graduate and have to take a pay cut for it, then after a year or so at a firm, you should have all these skills. therefore, you shouldn't take the pay cut anymore, right? so your salary should go waaay up. i'm not talking about a 3k raise either, but a real jump in pay grade.
where does this happen? nowhere. why? because it's a swindle from the get-go.
Architecture has always been a humanities. Up til WWI. The modernists had to ruin it.
I mean... have you ever seen a Gensler building covered in angels and penises?
@Matt:
Best of luck with your project. I think that this is an important piece of the puzzle for potential architecture students and those grappling with some of the absurdities of the IDP process.
@Everyone else:
It really just sounds like you are clinging to your education and whatever ideals your schools were pushing. I'm no therapist, but in most cases it comes across as trying to rationalize whatever decision-making process led you to your choice of school and then to your current state of
(un-?)employment, for better or worse.
it's amazing to me that in trying to tell fellow architects that their skills ARE worth something, i get nailed to the wall.
seriously, what's wrong with you guys?? do you really hate yourselves this much?
maybe that's what's wrong with architecture school...(much like catholic school), it teaches you that you're fundamentally just worthy of abuse.
whoa, that sounded weird...i didn't mean 'that' kind of abuse. having gone to catholic schools all my life, i noticed that there's quite the inculcation of guilt and self-hatred.
again, not *that* kind of abuse.
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.