A number of discussion threads lately have suggested the need for the education, training and development of architects to be reconsidered. Criticisms have included the disconnect between academia and professional practice and the lack of professional practice courses, the low barriers to entry that has resulted in an overabundance of young architects (in comparison to available jobs) and the insularity of architectural education from other academic areas (i.e. lack of balanced education). Additionally there is debate about what role NCARB/AIA should have in all of this or if they have already overstepped their jurisdiction enough.
There are of course a number of other criticisms and complaints that can be made, and many of the other discussion threads (if not directly) have gone into these in length, however I feel like at best these have been little more than avenues for complaints and personal vendettas, without offering solid plans for improvement.
Let's use this thread to offer real, pragmatic solutions to the education and training of architectural professionals.
** Save the economy talk, recession woes, and the "this school sucks" for some other thread please! **
I think that professional internship should be a requirement in school during the 3rd or 4th year (assuming a 4 year program) and should replace design studio during said semester. So many other degree programs require the students to complete a minimum of a semester of internship as part of the degree program. Additionally a professional practice course should be taught concurrent with the internship semester. It should be required before the last semester (more on that later).
This would be helpful in many ways:
1: Students would see the professional spectrum of architecture earlier in their careers, instead of waiting until after graduation when it might be too late to alter their degree program.
2: Local offices would build a better relationship with the university, which will help foster a more cohesive architectural community. Students would be more familiar with the offices in their community as well as the diversity of offices (structure, size, style) that is available. Offices would be more vested in the education of architects.
3: Experience in an office on a project could translate into 4th year studio projects that with more balance of design and pragmatics, even to the degree of inviting engineering consultants (namely structural) as guest instructors that provide periodic consultation/reviews. (I saw this done once in a studio that unfortunately I was not in and the results were really amazing).
I just had a conversation with a Senior project manager in my office about management. I have been in the office only about a year and have already managed several smaller interior renovation projects due to the nature of staffing in our office (which has been amazing by the way). He said it is great for me the experience I am getting.
He said that the design process is about 15% of the total effort it takes to get a project completed. Management, though, takes about 85% to ensure that a piece of Architecture is built correctly.
Luckily, I have an undergraduate degree in Business Management that happened to focus on process management. A lot of the tools I learned in that degree program are the same processes many of the General Contractors use in project delivery. I have learned a lot already by the GC about management. However, when I went to graduate school and got a Master of Architecture, I didn't touch any of these concepts. I am pretty sure BArch students didn't either-at least at my school).
I'd put forth my two cents and suggest that the reality of management as an Architect is paramount to the education process. I know some schools have business built into their Architecture programs, but it doesn't seem as though many do. Instead of just being an "option," I'd contend that their are advantages of making it requisite.
A lot of the management process can be learned on the job. I get that. I am learning it now; however, that logic can only go so far. The same could be said of the Architect-that it is something that is either intuitive or something that can be learned "on the job." I would say many people here believe there exists benefit to formal training-part of that training, I think, should involve more in depth education on management process.
This is a topic I'm pretty ambivalent about. I got a degree in construction management at the same time as architecture. It was an eye-opening, often painful experience. Working in the contacting world has been interesting and you definitely learn a lot about the business of building, detailing, etc.
That being said, I'm more convinced than ever about the importance of having architects involved in the building process. Often, they're the only stakeholders that care about more than just the economic output of the project.
Turning every architecture school into a technical college would be a sad loss. Being able to produce critical, visionary work takes time and thought and, to me, takes precedence over learning too much technical detailing in an academic environment.
I feel like learning detailing, management, scheduling, etc. in an actual office is much better; Cherith, I think your idea of having students spend their 3rd year working for an office is a good one, if we believe that turning out competent builders is the purpose of architecture school. And just to clarify, your intention is that this four-year degree would qualify as a professional degree?
One contention is that not all architecture schools exist as a place to turn out technical detailers for firms. Anyways, people out in the field will (almost) always know more about detailing than even the best architectural detailers, if only because they're coordinating and watching actual construction every single day.
Architectural "thinking" is a strange animal that exists parallel to the concerns of builders, but I feel is something more. School provides room for people to cultivate this type of thinking without worrying about budgets, time, & other restrictions. I’m not saying that there’s not a place for studios that would address these issues, I just think it should depend on the type of curriculum and social role the school feels is important.
I think one point we're missing is there's a lot of talk about expanding the role of the architect in schools. It would be better if school's were more forthcoming in what they envision their students doing after they finish studies.
Some schools already do a good job of letting you know what you're getting into. If you want to build high-rises for SOM, a good route is to go to Urbana-Champaign, if you want to design unique computer interfaces or do lots of programming, non-linear design, you can go to Columbia. I don't think there's anything wrong with expanding what it means to be an architect. Perhaps the big issue is with what students are expecting when they go vs. what they're actually learning.
If we have 50% too many architects graduating from school, one solution is to close down these extra schools, another is to expand and aggressively push graduates from certain schools to go into different fields.
internships should have positions available in the trades, hands on experience understanding connections/details/tolerances and methods of construction......
jmang, that's what I was trying to get at with my verbose post above.
I agree w/ you uprock. However, and again, actually building in the field vs. learning about the thought that goes behind it is related but different. How many hammers did Corb swing?
A world without architects means even more stripmalls and tract homes, interesting in theory, but terrorizing in reality.
I thought I saw a statistic somewhere (on archinect?) that said only around 10-20% of new buildings in the US are designed by an architect, or something of that nature. I think there is room for more architects if we expand our market share. If that's our goal, then learning about the business angle and how to communicate w/ the city & developers becomes even more important. I think they'd let us have more of a say if we could justify ourselves to them.
A lot of if also comes down to laws about what can and can't be built by an architect. I'm on the fence about whether changing the law is the right way to go about extending the reach of architects. It seems like communicating and marketing what we bring to the table is the better option (and an option that's actually feasible).
To get back to what jmang was saying, would it be helpful to define "architect" in this discussion in traditional terms (licensed and someone who's primarily interested in creating physical buildings) while at the same time acknowledging that other paths are viable?
in the loop- my suggestion was in no means an intent to turn every school into a technical college but rather a means to allow one semester to be an opportunity to experience first-hand the other side of the profession. I fully agree that the academic environment allows students to grapple with the nebulous that is architecture and should be given the opportunity to define that, free of (most) limitations for a few semesters. Spending one semester, 3rd year, with a focus on professional practice, in m mind, would allow students to start forging relationships between their own ideas of design and architecture with some backing in real-world constraints.
With that in mind, I also believe that there is latitude for that internship semester to allow explore, in a professional setting, what they are interested in pursuing with an architecture degree. For many, that will likely involve the standard practice of architecture, however, as you mentioned, a students academic program/school may dictate to some degree their professional interests.
Ultimately I feel like the role of academic institutions is to provide their students the most exposure to what is possible in architecture and, at least in my experience, most schools wholly ignore professional practice.
Wholly agree w/ you Cherith. I was more in rant mode and wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Injecting 3rd year students into more practices might also help firms see the value of hiring new talent, getting into new technologies, etc. while at the same time providing students w/ technical & business knowledge.
I think uprock's idea of having students get involved with subs could even be useful. Maybe this has happened and I'm unaware, but you'd think someone from say, sci-arc, could go work for a misc. metal sub and push their fabrication technology to another level, market this ability to firms, and you'd be the only large or mid-sized sub in town that could fabricate certain shapes. Charge a premium that was low-enough to justify the cost and then you get to pick up the contract for the rest of the metal work as well, since you're already working on the job... Things like this don't seem to happen much because you've got these different cultural mindsets between all the building professions.
Another idea. I'm not sure how this would work, but it seems more schools could switch to the internship method and let students know their approach, while other schools could stay more theoretical or move even further into research. Establishing a clear dichotomy between school methodologies, or even just communicating and being more upfront about the intentions of architectural institutions seems like it would be a good for everyone.
1. i question the entire premise of professional practice classes in school in the sense that you don't stay indoors to experience the weather. i've never found them to be helpful.
2. put more weight on internships, and maybe even require a % of IDP credits before graduation, but don't hand students the internship. hustling is part of the education. however, what counts as 'competent' internship experience should be more lax, at least on the supervisor side. reforming IDP to integrate with school curriculum is i think a good start.
3. i don't think office experience is a substitute for a design studio. real client involvement in a studio is however.
a lot can be accomplished toward creating an understanding of professional practice issues by integrating it into the studio experience
that i've seen, most studio experience is almost entirely disconnected from the structures, materials and methods, pro-practice, sustainable design or HTC courses
yet in the studio project seems the ideal place to integrate knowledge
all the people that worked while during college, for an arch office, or gc, turned into terrible students, their work went from barely good to really terrible, and all they wanted was to graduate doing bare minimum.
We should remember that college is just one small step, its just an introduction to the profession thats all.
i actually buy into and am an advocate of the esoteric, conceptual nature of school projects --- but i don't want to see innovative design advanced only on the screen --- i want to see it rendered real
i want to see as much of that substance as possible in real projects where it can benefit real lives --- but business is brutal and hence very risk averse, and if one wants to advance non-standard notions one needs to bring the implementation as well ---- schools do not teach this, for the most part --- and in not doing so, it seems what they are really doing is setting people up to fail --- to have ideas that one cannot express or implement, that don't align with skills --- and to have skills that are considered as separate tasks from critical thought and design, to frame practice at the outset as a disjunctive set of services, the most important of which to us and society --- the critical perspective and expression of the design --- is not grounded in implementability --- and the most basic and billable of which --- programming, documentation, visualization, technical detailing, etc are not made beholden to critical perspectives
it sets people up to fail --- to relent --- to make it to practice only to accept their inability to ground their concepts in an adequately robust method --- it is like teaching a quarterback how to read defense in concept, and separately teaching fundamentals, but never guiding him via practices in bringing it all together, but then expecting him to take the field on sundays and play well
Well lets not make this into a discussion of what college programs, set up students to fail, or do not advance non standard notions, by the way thats kind of contradicting almost all college programs because most of the students are presenting theoretical non standard notions.
It is each the responsibility of each individual to self educate himself/herself.
We should remember that college is not the end of your education, it is just an introduction.
1. In Germany at least--just came back--I heard from my German friend that unemployment for the college graduate is still low. Apparently they have a system whereby a college student interns each week during all 4 or 5 years of his or her education; and by the end of one's education, one should have a pretty good idea of his or her standing in the firm and similarly for the employer, the standing of the intern-likely-to-turn employee. I am unsure if this system can be applied to architectural education. But if it has worked for Switzerland and Germany, it is likely to have its merits.
2. Beyond the depressive market conditions now, another plausible reason for why someone cannot find work is because he underestimates his own ability relative to the unknown applications of this ability in the range of possible workplaces out there. I see the Germanic system's merit as socializing a worker very early on so that this worker knows the ins and outs of the industry intimately. If he cannot be an architect, perhaps being a contractor in a niche area may work; or a furniture designer with an architecture background and so forth.
On hindsight, licensing seems like an irrelevant goal in this era of uncertainty. Better yet is multiple capacities--that should be the goal of practice and education.
3. Another merit is of course, this arrangement lowers the transaction costs for both the job-seeker and the employer. The classic problem has been the employer not being able to hire the right person, and the person not being able to find the right job in our laissez-faire way of job-seeking--we take whoever seems to fit the bill at the contingent moment. Imagine what you can devote your time to instead of making countless applications...
4. Someone posted how architectural education is becoming irrelevant, and school should bootstrap towards industry. Well, school will never be able to bootstrap towards industry (there will always be a gap) because these are two separate domains with different missions and workers.
I think more important is for architecture schools to recognize that architecture students do not necessarily end up as architects, and to take the necessary steps to support them. I propose the following:
(i) an entrepreneurial curriculum specifically targeting design students. I don't think this needs any explanation since so many of us want to run our design studios.
(ii) a marketing curriculum for design students. This may sound very coarse, especially for many architecture programs but marketing does not need to be the kind of pushy buying-for-buy-in sake from corporate America. Everyone ought to know how to distinguish and 'advertise' his or her capabilities ethically.
(iii) an ethics course. I see this as a bonding course for the first two curriculums. Lots of businesses try to market themselves as sustainable--well this is where marketing ethics come in.
(iv) a collaborative, cross-cultural/disciplinary curriculum. A person gets a B.Arch/M.Arch only after demonstrating considerable collaboration with another international contact/network. Aside from cultural benefits, this expands the student's network globally and across disciplinary lines.
The bigger and unknowable question is however, if reform is ever going to be effective if it's success must presuppose the greater economic environment. What we are doing now is waiting for the sick economy to recover so we can go on on our business-as-usual profligate ways--the perennial narrative of consumption. If that is the case, no amount of reform can ever work because the larger environment presupposed by any hope in the reform is inherently 'sick'--it will happen again, perhaps even in more destructive ways. If architecture must persistently rely on a booming property market and more frivolous design to market itself, then no reform can ever be effective.
displaced, i did not say college was the end of the education, or that students should not self educate -- rather, that a method for effectively realizing intention should be part of education more than it currently is --- and you are correct, this calls into question much of the way the process is handled broadly speaking
stationary, "...this arrangement lowers the transaction costs for both the job-seeker and the employer..." great point ---
I have completed a BS Architecture degree (5 years) and am an architect from overseas (Asia) and currently attending a postprofessional degree here in the U.S.
I have noticed that the programs here in the US( 85% design 15% other aspects) are meant to cultivate and optimize the architectural creative process of the students; and the logic being that after graduation, hopefully the student will pick it up from there and learn to adapt himself to the working environment. Later on, he will decide as to what kind of field he'd like to specialize in.
Back in Asia, the logic is reversed (85% technical, 15% theory), we are trained and educated to survive and simulate the real-world scenario of the design-develop-construct nature of the industry. And after graduation, it will be up to us to pursue what we feel we lack.
No pun intended for this statement: With that kind of mindset on a cross cultural architectural firm, youd often encounter a more production/technical-oriented architect from the orient and a design- driven architect from the US as a stereotype. I have worked for a big firm and that is how staff are separated most of the time. The thoughts of being on a design team back in Asia is to most people, a big deal cos most are trained on the technical and production aspects.
Conclusion: if we aspire to become well-rounded architects, we should fend for ourselves and take extra courses/degrees and experience. Doesnt matter which kind of institution we come from. my 2 cents.
Displaced, I think you are assuming that the second a student goes to work, they are going to return to studio and produce nothing but strip-malls. I've seen people work during school that followed the path you mentioned... but I also saw people who were able to take the relevant parts of professional experience and merge it with their academic work, which often made their projects stronger than the other students. You could tell from the final studio projects who was going to succeed in the profession and who was probably just going to remain an intern for life.
I'm not saying that academic design studios need to have their students making door schedules and looking up obscure building codes and certainly a professional practice course isn't going to teach everything someone needs to know. My contention is that (at least in my experience... maybe I just went to weird schools) is that academia totally ignores the profession side of architecture, to the point of eliminating any and all "real-world" constraints- program, client, structure, function, sustainability, necessity, etc etc. I don't think it needs to be so extreme academic vs. professional and I think there is room for different institutions to approach that middle-ground in their own unique way, as intheloop discussed.
I personally feel that at some point in the degree program, the design studios alone don't offer that much in terms of educational advancement. After a few semesters, most students projects plateau in concept and form making, becoming masturbatory amalgamations of their (and their instructors) previous works. Making it bigger doesn't always make it better.
Like many, I had very little exposure to pro practice and what architects did before graduation. I did, however, work in the summers for an engineer and contractor as an apprentice/intern. In this setting it was clear that I was there was to develop into a professional, and was treated as such - they knew I was clueless but didn't hold it against me and worked to help me close those gaps so I could one day fill their shoes. Most of my time was non-billable and was spent learning the nuances that one can only get by experience. I was explicitly and directly taught some very useful things, and while they probably lost money doing that, they weren't an arch firm and were profitable and could clearly afford it. They even told me they felt responsibility for my development, and were going to treat me as such, which was a good environment that enabled me to grow and understand the very complicated industry I was looking to enter while not having to worry about being profitable. For example, the engineer would drive me around town, we would get out of the car and we would look at a deteriorating building or cracked retaining wall or buckling avement and he would ask me what could have been done better? He pointed out a world of stupid architect tricks that resulted in cracked walls, poor air quality, and soggy lawns among other things. (Many of those were the designs of the arch firm I would later work for and reuse the same stupid architect tricks, knowing better, but powerless.) We not only talked about best practices and building science, he went out of his way to introduce me as a young professional with lots of potential to everyone he knew that would help my career: the mayor, the city engineer, the local business people.
I often compare that experience with my first architectural internship, where I mostly learned by trial and error, a costly, time-consuming and frustrating way to learn, especially when the feedback can come months or even years later. There was a clear heirarchy where I was at the bottom and was to be treated as such, not as a developing professional, but as it goes in cinderella: to make the princesses feel like more like princesses. The princesses, sorry architects, were too "busy" reinventing the wheel, fixing boo-boos and avoiding reality to mentor. Communication was reduced to forwarded e-mails and redlines and I learned to accept a new level of rudeness, like it was suddenly ok to walk away from someone while they were asking a question, or to forget to tell someone a key design criteria and then have that person work Saturday to redesign everything to account for it. I sat at a cad station and got opportunities outside of that cad station just a few times a year as the emphasis for interns was not on professional growth, but on billable hours, in spite of the fact that those hours were largely unproductive and misinformed anyways. I also got to jump from project to project and task to task for years in the name of putting out fires and profitability, much like a temp worker would. Meanwhile I missed key steps and nuances from never having an opportunity to see a single project through, gaps that it took years to fill, some of which are still gaps 7 years in. Yes I was learning, but at a painfully slow pace and in a swiss cheese kinda way. It was apparent that I was the sole interested party in developing myself professionally. And I thought to myself, no wonder it takes 10-20 years or more to make an architect. Sorry, that was totally a rant: moral of the story is the internship and the mentoring wasn't there. Does this kind of exerience help you understand why it takes years o finish IDP and tae the exams, and many lost interest in the meantime? I have several theories why we do this: the main one is that it is in our interest to NOT develop leaders, but to keep 2/3 of the arch graduates in a position where they can be little more than paraprofessionals. With the numbers of grads we turn out and the need for production workers makes the business model work only if most of us never develop to our potential. We don't want more competition at the top when we need workers at the bottom! If only 1 out of 3 stands a chance to become a principal, suddenly the fact that you are a woman and will likely get prego someday is a good enough reason to not help develop that person professionally. If you manage to break through, mostly by having an "in", you win. But in order to grow and progress as an industry, in the big picture, we can't be leaving it up to chance and cirumstance, cronyism and nepotism as to who gets to develop into an Architect and who doesn't. In other words, while the good ol' boys club can serve individuals very nicely and they will succeed, it does so at the expense of the greater good. Low wages? Lack of respect? Loss of market share? Poorly designed environments? We deserve it.
PS. The engineer I used to work for now wants to retire and is looking for someone to buy him out. He always forgot I was an architect, not an engineer, but he asked me if I wanted to buy his firm last summer. If I had taken his advice and become an engineer, I might have looked into it, but instead I can mayyybe score a job as a production worker in an architecture firm!
daniel friedman - the dean at u. wash - has already done a lot of research and speculation about this problem. i can't find a copy of his slide show online, but in a nutshell, he proposes a 7 or 8 year path to a doctor in architecture degree. no other steps along the way. early part is more classroom intensive. co-op starts in the third or fourth year. the last two years are one semester in the class, one in a firm. i can't remember if he advocates for 'teaching' firms (the same way you have teaching hospitals) or not. it would seem like you'd have to have one to make any standardized co-op program work. at the very least, the firms participating would have to agree to work around some kind of curricula, just to keep everyone even.
to me, the biggest 'reconciliation' that needs to happen in academia (well, at least in the u.s.) is to decide whether architecture, as a course of intellectual study, is more humanities based (the shift it made in the 60's and 70's as the rise of 'theory' took hold) or a more technical discipline focus (say engineering or medicine). personally, i think a more technical grounding is what's needed overall - however, i don't see some kind of mutual exclusion between the two approaches. you can ground the 'making' of architecture in whatever you choose.
the one issue with mandatory internships, as i alluded to above, is how to make sure there is a similar qualitative level of experience everyone is getting. firms are so wildly different in terms of office culture, etc., i don't see much benefit doing an co-op if you're only cleaning out the office library. the other problem is: who pays for the co-op students? i, for one, am not going to involuntarily take on a student each semester, have to pay them a salary, and have no say in who we get. so, if firms can opt-in (maybe they get a tax break for doing it) and there's some attempt to match up people, then sure. but i also think, long term, a practicum type teaching firm (doing real work but subsidized by the school) is the only viable way to make sure everyone is getting a similar level of experience needed.
i should note - in friedman's model, at the end of school, you are prepared to sit for the exam immediately, ala lawyers or most european schools. his rationale was this: if you add up the time in school + idp, you get the following:
5yrs BArch +
3yrs IDP =
8 yrs of training to licensure. only degree is a Bachelors
4yrs BA +
2yrs MArch (fastest way it can be done) +
3yrs IDP =
9yrs total. master's as the terminal
of course, if you do a 4+3.5+3, you're at 10.5 years to licensure.
so, his must have been 8 or 9 years - no way it was less than the BArch path. the main advantage was that, for the same time amount of time to get a masters, you'd get a doctorate, have the technical grounding to take the exam, and start to rebalance the profession on a level with medicine.
outed, sounds good, and had my 3 years of DIP, er I mean IDP, been more like those summer internships, it would have followed that model pretty well.
The firms could participate voluntarily. For instance, I got that internship at the engineering firm not because they were hiring or I sent him a snazzy portfolio he couldn't resist, but because I walked into his office one day and introduced myself as an architecture student that needed to learn and was looking for a job. So he smiled and said OK, let's see what you can do, had me work on a set of plans and by the end of the day I had myself a job. In the two summers (6 months total) I was there, I did one project myself, and helped out with many other bits and pieces along the way, so maybe I even earned my keep. That was still enough time to go out, take a field trip with one of the contractors or engineers almost every day and learn something. I got paid $13 an hour. Maybe they lost money on me, but yes, a tax break could offset that.
As for our largely theory-based education, I support it, but not to the expent I had it. Like many, I "got it" right away and were independent in that aspect, ready to move beyond design studio after the 2nd year of my B Arch and develop other savvy needed to be an architect. But the pressure of the 6 credit hour design theory studio made sure that little time was spent on other coursework. I speculate the theory heavy education is rooted in days when the personalities of people that became architects were more technical by nature, and the curriculum was to evoke culturally nurturing design out of nerds and techies. But in the computer age, the techies and nerds are hardly the ones going into architecture now, it is largely the humanitarians and artists, no?
Very interesting story Strawbeary. Thankfully I did my IDP at a firm where "some" of the staff took a very proactive approach to mentorship. Still, with other employers and personal experiences in this field I can relate:
There was a clear heirarchy where I was at the bottom and was to be treated as such, not as a developing professional
I think this happens because many firms encourage a mentality that everyone has to prove themselves individually. Who hasn't heard the line from a boss, "you need to prove to me you're ready..." Well, how do you prove that if you receive little or no mentoring/feedback/training.
Communication was reduced to forwarded e-mails and redlines
Happens all the time in larger firms. I HATE email. It reduces communication, not increases. Now, I hear management saying everything needs to be "backed up" in emails in case there are legal issues down the road. Huge time waster IMO.
It was apparent that I was the sole interested party in developing myself professionally. And I thought to myself, no wonder it takes 10-20 years or more to make an architect.
Yeah, goes back to that "you have to prove yourself" attitude. Overall I think mentoring is a complete failure in this business. Management wants grads that can hit the ground running, which I agree with to a degree, but IDP and the idea that interns are "apprentices" is a joke.
it is in our interest to NOT develop leaders, but to keep 2/3 of the arch graduates in a position where they can be little more than paraprofessionals.
Economically speaking no company can make everyone a manager with matching pay/benefits or else they'd go broke. Just seems that in corporate America the opportunities are more available and the path to get there is more clear. Case in point, passing the ARE's typically does not earn one a raise or promotion. Get an MBA and you're instantly management in a corporate job.
suddenly the fact that you are a woman and will likely get prego someday is a good enough reason to not help develop that person professionally.
My experience has been opposite. Seen only women promoted to principal level recently. From my perspective larger firms have fallen into the PC trap and actively recruit women and minorities to make their marketing look like they are a diverse company, etc. Small firms are probably different. Just my observation.
we can't be leaving it up to chance and cirumstance, cronyism and nepotism as to who gets to develop into an Architect and who doesn't.
I think a lot of playing favorites happens. Had a coversation with a prinicpal Architect once where he admitted that one needed to be on his "good side" regardless of their skills/abilities. Define "good side" how you wish. Unfortunately I think a lot of good leaders never make it in the profession because they are seen as a threat. Probably happens in all businesses. Unfortunately, bosses favorites are probably going to get more opportunity, mentoring and training. Thus they'll get farther. Any principal will say those are the "better" employees, but I'm not naieve enough to know that's not always the case.
Thanks for that impassioned post & sharing your experience, Strawberry.
I think Friedman's idea sounds solid as well. If a process like that became common, then laypeople would also have a better understanding of what makes someone an "architect." The term is so ambigious to most people at this point that they get confused.
I agree w/ Strawberry on the redudancy of architecture studios. I love delving into more theoretical type of work but I'm very hesitent to pay all this money to go back to grad school just so I can do the same thing for another two years.
The only reason I'd consider going back is for the credential (so I could teach), for the facilities, or to work w/ some amazing people on a topic that I felt really impassioned about. Even then, it would be hard in my mind to rationalize taking on that debt.
I like Friedman's idea because it seems to align student expectations w/ reality and the whole process of becoming an architect is made clear. I think w/ that plan, you could still focus on the humanities side of architecture for your last two years of study, while the first five gave you some better technical skills. His plan seems similar to the 4+3+2 route, where 2-year M.Archs are generally pretty heavy on the theory, since it's assumed that you have a some grounding in the technical side of design.
I now work as an instructor and manager in an office that provides education services. We talk about educational psychology all the time, and it has really opened my eyes as to what effective educating is and why it is important. When you see an otherwise intelligent and happy 10 year old who is not dyslexic nor disadvantaged in any way but that reads at a kindergarten level because she had never been taught, you can really understand the missed opportunities of a broken educational system.
are you all forgetting that architects with a PHD. get about as much respect as an a Barch right out of college? you have all been institutionalized and don't even know it.
College or school as some of you like to say, is not the answer to the professions problems.
Become collectors of degrees, and you know what you get, just that a person with a collection of degrees, no employer will respect you for having a PHD.
We want to solve problems in our profession right? well lets start by fixing the person we see in the mirror each morning, not by declaring that college should do this or should do that.
You people ever hear of Frank L. Wright? well read up on what he had to say about college, after little more than a century in a half College has not produced anyone that could fill his shoes.
If you want to be an architect get licensed, then no one hires you, so we must find a way to open our own office.
The idea that there are too many people in architecture is just plain wrong. just wait until the census numbers come back. We will have over 350 Million people here, think about it. We have to stop relying on college reform, or waiting on employers to hire us. Be your own boss. I once said out loud in the office " After going to college for almost a decade, after all that money spent on education, why would any of you want to work for someone else the rest of your life?" think about it.
i also think that smaller projects should be done in school.... IIRC most of the projects i had in undergrad were large design projects (train station/embassy/theatre/etc...)... i think that if a studio or 2 semesters dealt with smaller projects, such as an interior design, but you had to do all the cd's and details to make it work and maybe have a few full scale details that might make life a bit more interesting.
in the 5 year undergrad i went through, i didn't learn anything about construction (maybe a few things in construction class) but most of what i learned was in the field. hence why i think students should work in carpentry/etc just to see how it's really done. from being a epdm roof inspector, electricians labor pulling wire and wiring outlets/plugs, to mill work and designing/building small projects, it's a big learning experience.
hopefully schools will think more about the connection of materials and not the overall concept/design of a large scale building.
Regarding the IDP method of professional development: to be immersed in an environment is not an acceptable substitution for an education in it. The 10 year old who can't read is a great example of that and is why I brought her up. Her educators immersed her in reading instead of teaching her to read. Not a big difference to some, big difference to others, all of us are on a spectrum.
Who let IDP morph into cheap cad production when it was intended to be something more like my engineer boss who made it his job to teach and my job to learn, all the while working on real projects to practice those skills? Unless we work to enable people to be their best, we aren't going anywhere.
University of Hawaii already has a D.Arch--a 7 years program including practicum leading to the degree of Doctor of Architecture. Note however, this is different from the perception of Doctor of Design (GSD) or a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy).
Personally I don't think the length or the degree matters as much as the content and the direction of the curriculum. If the content and the direction is to keep student in there for the sake of doing so (yes, it is possible...), then we are just going to see the same thing down the road: few jobs and huge personal debts; leading to risk averse decisions in one's life, etc etc. But if the direction of the curriculum takes a turn and aims to envision architecture as the 'chief' of all arts and design, and tries to do so, then I think architecture graduates have a good stab in being a design coordinator down the road.
Sure, every design expertise has their own knowledge structure that is not easily learned in the context of classes and schools. That said, the current syllabus of a B.Arch or M.Arch 1 demands a good review because some of the required classes (hand-drawing, HVAC, lighting, structures, etc) have become specialties that the architecture is no longer involved or downright irrelevant within practice. The architect has to be aware of it, but aware is very different from spending an entire semester and then not using this knowledge when he or she works. If that's the case, why not use these resources and class-time for things that are actually relevant to the demands of the practice in this era of uncertainty?
I think we can summarize by saying that no one here expects to learn professional practice in school -- that it has to be learned on the job. I'll point out that no other profession has this problem anymore -- the Doctors, Lawyers, and accountants have all figured it out. So why can't we? Why is it that business people can learn how to conduct business in school but architects can't learn how to conduct business?
The problem I don't think anyone is raising, which is probably the real one, is that many people can't find practical experience today -- and this was a problem pre recession as well. That means that the source of the problem is too many people graduating from too many degree programs, which keep getting bigger and bigger.
If you haven't looked at the requirements for an accredited degree lately, they are loaded down with these asinine "professional practice" teaching requirements -- they are almost half of the criteria. So the average professor has to cram some professional practice tidbit into her or his courses, and lets face it -- most of them have no interest in practice. Or worse -- the school has to cycle through an endless list of practitioners to teach those courses, and since those people have no idea how to teach, probably aren't interested in teaching, and perhaps just doing it to shore up their failing firm. That is certainly who I want to have teaching me professional practice.
Ok, if schools can't teach practice, and practice is harder to come by than education, and one actually needs both, then the solution is simple: require the completion of IDP before enrolling in school.
mespellrong: IMHO, academic programs that require extensive co-op work experience as an integrated part of the curriculum (such as the University of Cincinnati) produce the most balanced -- and most employable -- graduates, year-in and year-out. The co-op students from UC that we've had in our office tend to be extraordinary contributors and the graduates that we've hired from UC tend to be the most well-rounded and capable hires that we make. I have a lot of faith in this education model and think more schools should make a real (not phantom) effort to integrate significant practical experience with the more academic aspects of education.
Now, having said that, I am the first to recognize that in an economy like this one it is almost impossible -- even for UC -- to place all students who need jobs for their co-op terms.
i'll point out that dan friedman is one of the smartest guys i've ever met in academia. not just intellectually smart, but street smarts as well. i'm just trying to communicate what i can remember from a 3 year old lecture and dinner discussion. most likely, it's a poor rendering of the subtleties of it.
academia alone, most of us would agree, is not going to solve some of the questions of marketability and/or professional readiness. however, at least in the u.s., one of the weaknesses of the current model is that one is not prepared enough, by graduation, to practice directly as a true professional. true, medicine and engineering aren't much different, but what i like about dan's model is the fact that a practicum is built into the very core. schools have the ability to interpret within this and can still built up particular niches of expertise (and competitive advantage), but at least the student, at the end, has a greater degree of autonomy in the marketplace (assuming they can pass the exam). that 'end goal' of being exam worthy would also put enough pressure on the schools to make sure the requisite technical component is covered.
finally, if schools want to specialize in history/theory, that's great. gsd has diploma programs accordingly. however, i would argue that true 'innovation' in the marketplace is being less defined by the polemical articulation of your position than the ability to translate it into built work. just my opinion...
I want to take a step back and thank each and every one of you for your input. It's a tremendous amount of information and angles to digest, and I'm sure I'll be re-reading and chewing on it for awhile.
Though I've been in practice for three years, and had internships during college, I'm still trying to figure out my place in architecture, and what next steps I should take to get me where I want to go.
It's been great to hear many of the thoughts listed above, and now I can more easily illucidate my own.
Hopefully I can post something as equally coherent as above next time...
Jul 23, 10 2:12 pm ·
·
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.
Education/Industry Reform?
A number of discussion threads lately have suggested the need for the education, training and development of architects to be reconsidered. Criticisms have included the disconnect between academia and professional practice and the lack of professional practice courses, the low barriers to entry that has resulted in an overabundance of young architects (in comparison to available jobs) and the insularity of architectural education from other academic areas (i.e. lack of balanced education). Additionally there is debate about what role NCARB/AIA should have in all of this or if they have already overstepped their jurisdiction enough.
There are of course a number of other criticisms and complaints that can be made, and many of the other discussion threads (if not directly) have gone into these in length, however I feel like at best these have been little more than avenues for complaints and personal vendettas, without offering solid plans for improvement.
Let's use this thread to offer real, pragmatic solutions to the education and training of architectural professionals.
** Save the economy talk, recession woes, and the "this school sucks" for some other thread please! **
I'll start:
I think that professional internship should be a requirement in school during the 3rd or 4th year (assuming a 4 year program) and should replace design studio during said semester. So many other degree programs require the students to complete a minimum of a semester of internship as part of the degree program. Additionally a professional practice course should be taught concurrent with the internship semester. It should be required before the last semester (more on that later).
This would be helpful in many ways:
1: Students would see the professional spectrum of architecture earlier in their careers, instead of waiting until after graduation when it might be too late to alter their degree program.
2: Local offices would build a better relationship with the university, which will help foster a more cohesive architectural community. Students would be more familiar with the offices in their community as well as the diversity of offices (structure, size, style) that is available. Offices would be more vested in the education of architects.
3: Experience in an office on a project could translate into 4th year studio projects that with more balance of design and pragmatics, even to the degree of inviting engineering consultants (namely structural) as guest instructors that provide periodic consultation/reviews. (I saw this done once in a studio that unfortunately I was not in and the results were really amazing).
Regarding Professional Practice:
I just had a conversation with a Senior project manager in my office about management. I have been in the office only about a year and have already managed several smaller interior renovation projects due to the nature of staffing in our office (which has been amazing by the way). He said it is great for me the experience I am getting.
He said that the design process is about 15% of the total effort it takes to get a project completed. Management, though, takes about 85% to ensure that a piece of Architecture is built correctly.
Luckily, I have an undergraduate degree in Business Management that happened to focus on process management. A lot of the tools I learned in that degree program are the same processes many of the General Contractors use in project delivery. I have learned a lot already by the GC about management. However, when I went to graduate school and got a Master of Architecture, I didn't touch any of these concepts. I am pretty sure BArch students didn't either-at least at my school).
I'd put forth my two cents and suggest that the reality of management as an Architect is paramount to the education process. I know some schools have business built into their Architecture programs, but it doesn't seem as though many do. Instead of just being an "option," I'd contend that their are advantages of making it requisite.
A lot of the management process can be learned on the job. I get that. I am learning it now; however, that logic can only go so far. The same could be said of the Architect-that it is something that is either intuitive or something that can be learned "on the job." I would say many people here believe there exists benefit to formal training-part of that training, I think, should involve more in depth education on management process.
This is a topic I'm pretty ambivalent about. I got a degree in construction management at the same time as architecture. It was an eye-opening, often painful experience. Working in the contacting world has been interesting and you definitely learn a lot about the business of building, detailing, etc.
That being said, I'm more convinced than ever about the importance of having architects involved in the building process. Often, they're the only stakeholders that care about more than just the economic output of the project.
Turning every architecture school into a technical college would be a sad loss. Being able to produce critical, visionary work takes time and thought and, to me, takes precedence over learning too much technical detailing in an academic environment.
I feel like learning detailing, management, scheduling, etc. in an actual office is much better; Cherith, I think your idea of having students spend their 3rd year working for an office is a good one, if we believe that turning out competent builders is the purpose of architecture school. And just to clarify, your intention is that this four-year degree would qualify as a professional degree?
One contention is that not all architecture schools exist as a place to turn out technical detailers for firms. Anyways, people out in the field will (almost) always know more about detailing than even the best architectural detailers, if only because they're coordinating and watching actual construction every single day.
Architectural "thinking" is a strange animal that exists parallel to the concerns of builders, but I feel is something more. School provides room for people to cultivate this type of thinking without worrying about budgets, time, & other restrictions. I’m not saying that there’s not a place for studios that would address these issues, I just think it should depend on the type of curriculum and social role the school feels is important.
I think one point we're missing is there's a lot of talk about expanding the role of the architect in schools. It would be better if school's were more forthcoming in what they envision their students doing after they finish studies.
Some schools already do a good job of letting you know what you're getting into. If you want to build high-rises for SOM, a good route is to go to Urbana-Champaign, if you want to design unique computer interfaces or do lots of programming, non-linear design, you can go to Columbia. I don't think there's anything wrong with expanding what it means to be an architect. Perhaps the big issue is with what students are expecting when they go vs. what they're actually learning.
If we have 50% too many architects graduating from school, one solution is to close down these extra schools, another is to expand and aggressively push graduates from certain schools to go into different fields.
Sorry if I veered a bit off topic.
internships should have positions available in the trades, hands on experience understanding connections/details/tolerances and methods of construction......
to talk about what education should be, it seems a definition of what practice will be, at least a part of it, is required
jmang, that's what I was trying to get at with my verbose post above.
I agree w/ you uprock. However, and again, actually building in the field vs. learning about the thought that goes behind it is related but different. How many hammers did Corb swing?
A world without architects means even more stripmalls and tract homes, interesting in theory, but terrorizing in reality.
I thought I saw a statistic somewhere (on archinect?) that said only around 10-20% of new buildings in the US are designed by an architect, or something of that nature. I think there is room for more architects if we expand our market share. If that's our goal, then learning about the business angle and how to communicate w/ the city & developers becomes even more important. I think they'd let us have more of a say if we could justify ourselves to them.
A lot of if also comes down to laws about what can and can't be built by an architect. I'm on the fence about whether changing the law is the right way to go about extending the reach of architects. It seems like communicating and marketing what we bring to the table is the better option (and an option that's actually feasible).
To get back to what jmang was saying, would it be helpful to define "architect" in this discussion in traditional terms (licensed and someone who's primarily interested in creating physical buildings) while at the same time acknowledging that other paths are viable?
in the loop- my suggestion was in no means an intent to turn every school into a technical college but rather a means to allow one semester to be an opportunity to experience first-hand the other side of the profession. I fully agree that the academic environment allows students to grapple with the nebulous that is architecture and should be given the opportunity to define that, free of (most) limitations for a few semesters. Spending one semester, 3rd year, with a focus on professional practice, in m mind, would allow students to start forging relationships between their own ideas of design and architecture with some backing in real-world constraints.
With that in mind, I also believe that there is latitude for that internship semester to allow explore, in a professional setting, what they are interested in pursuing with an architecture degree. For many, that will likely involve the standard practice of architecture, however, as you mentioned, a students academic program/school may dictate to some degree their professional interests.
Ultimately I feel like the role of academic institutions is to provide their students the most exposure to what is possible in architecture and, at least in my experience, most schools wholly ignore professional practice.
Wholly agree w/ you Cherith. I was more in rant mode and wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Injecting 3rd year students into more practices might also help firms see the value of hiring new talent, getting into new technologies, etc. while at the same time providing students w/ technical & business knowledge.
I think uprock's idea of having students get involved with subs could even be useful. Maybe this has happened and I'm unaware, but you'd think someone from say, sci-arc, could go work for a misc. metal sub and push their fabrication technology to another level, market this ability to firms, and you'd be the only large or mid-sized sub in town that could fabricate certain shapes. Charge a premium that was low-enough to justify the cost and then you get to pick up the contract for the rest of the metal work as well, since you're already working on the job... Things like this don't seem to happen much because you've got these different cultural mindsets between all the building professions.
Another idea. I'm not sure how this would work, but it seems more schools could switch to the internship method and let students know their approach, while other schools could stay more theoretical or move even further into research. Establishing a clear dichotomy between school methodologies, or even just communicating and being more upfront about the intentions of architectural institutions seems like it would be a good for everyone.
1. i question the entire premise of professional practice classes in school in the sense that you don't stay indoors to experience the weather. i've never found them to be helpful.
2. put more weight on internships, and maybe even require a % of IDP credits before graduation, but don't hand students the internship. hustling is part of the education. however, what counts as 'competent' internship experience should be more lax, at least on the supervisor side. reforming IDP to integrate with school curriculum is i think a good start.
3. i don't think office experience is a substitute for a design studio. real client involvement in a studio is however.
a lot can be accomplished toward creating an understanding of professional practice issues by integrating it into the studio experience
that i've seen, most studio experience is almost entirely disconnected from the structures, materials and methods, pro-practice, sustainable design or HTC courses
yet in the studio project seems the ideal place to integrate knowledge
all the people that worked while during college, for an arch office, or gc, turned into terrible students, their work went from barely good to really terrible, and all they wanted was to graduate doing bare minimum.
We should remember that college is just one small step, its just an introduction to the profession thats all.
i actually buy into and am an advocate of the esoteric, conceptual nature of school projects --- but i don't want to see innovative design advanced only on the screen --- i want to see it rendered real
i want to see as much of that substance as possible in real projects where it can benefit real lives --- but business is brutal and hence very risk averse, and if one wants to advance non-standard notions one needs to bring the implementation as well ---- schools do not teach this, for the most part --- and in not doing so, it seems what they are really doing is setting people up to fail --- to have ideas that one cannot express or implement, that don't align with skills --- and to have skills that are considered as separate tasks from critical thought and design, to frame practice at the outset as a disjunctive set of services, the most important of which to us and society --- the critical perspective and expression of the design --- is not grounded in implementability --- and the most basic and billable of which --- programming, documentation, visualization, technical detailing, etc are not made beholden to critical perspectives
it sets people up to fail --- to relent --- to make it to practice only to accept their inability to ground their concepts in an adequately robust method --- it is like teaching a quarterback how to read defense in concept, and separately teaching fundamentals, but never guiding him via practices in bringing it all together, but then expecting him to take the field on sundays and play well
Well lets not make this into a discussion of what college programs, set up students to fail, or do not advance non standard notions, by the way thats kind of contradicting almost all college programs because most of the students are presenting theoretical non standard notions.
It is each the responsibility of each individual to self educate himself/herself.
We should remember that college is not the end of your education, it is just an introduction.
Good thread. Here are my inputs:
1. In Germany at least--just came back--I heard from my German friend that unemployment for the college graduate is still low. Apparently they have a system whereby a college student interns each week during all 4 or 5 years of his or her education; and by the end of one's education, one should have a pretty good idea of his or her standing in the firm and similarly for the employer, the standing of the intern-likely-to-turn employee. I am unsure if this system can be applied to architectural education. But if it has worked for Switzerland and Germany, it is likely to have its merits.
2. Beyond the depressive market conditions now, another plausible reason for why someone cannot find work is because he underestimates his own ability relative to the unknown applications of this ability in the range of possible workplaces out there. I see the Germanic system's merit as socializing a worker very early on so that this worker knows the ins and outs of the industry intimately. If he cannot be an architect, perhaps being a contractor in a niche area may work; or a furniture designer with an architecture background and so forth.
On hindsight, licensing seems like an irrelevant goal in this era of uncertainty. Better yet is multiple capacities--that should be the goal of practice and education.
3. Another merit is of course, this arrangement lowers the transaction costs for both the job-seeker and the employer. The classic problem has been the employer not being able to hire the right person, and the person not being able to find the right job in our laissez-faire way of job-seeking--we take whoever seems to fit the bill at the contingent moment. Imagine what you can devote your time to instead of making countless applications...
4. Someone posted how architectural education is becoming irrelevant, and school should bootstrap towards industry. Well, school will never be able to bootstrap towards industry (there will always be a gap) because these are two separate domains with different missions and workers.
I think more important is for architecture schools to recognize that architecture students do not necessarily end up as architects, and to take the necessary steps to support them. I propose the following:
(i) an entrepreneurial curriculum specifically targeting design students. I don't think this needs any explanation since so many of us want to run our design studios.
(ii) a marketing curriculum for design students. This may sound very coarse, especially for many architecture programs but marketing does not need to be the kind of pushy buying-for-buy-in sake from corporate America. Everyone ought to know how to distinguish and 'advertise' his or her capabilities ethically.
(iii) an ethics course. I see this as a bonding course for the first two curriculums. Lots of businesses try to market themselves as sustainable--well this is where marketing ethics come in.
(iv) a collaborative, cross-cultural/disciplinary curriculum. A person gets a B.Arch/M.Arch only after demonstrating considerable collaboration with another international contact/network. Aside from cultural benefits, this expands the student's network globally and across disciplinary lines.
The bigger and unknowable question is however, if reform is ever going to be effective if it's success must presuppose the greater economic environment. What we are doing now is waiting for the sick economy to recover so we can go on on our business-as-usual profligate ways--the perennial narrative of consumption. If that is the case, no amount of reform can ever work because the larger environment presupposed by any hope in the reform is inherently 'sick'--it will happen again, perhaps even in more destructive ways. If architecture must persistently rely on a booming property market and more frivolous design to market itself, then no reform can ever be effective.
displaced, i did not say college was the end of the education, or that students should not self educate -- rather, that a method for effectively realizing intention should be part of education more than it currently is --- and you are correct, this calls into question much of the way the process is handled broadly speaking
stationary, "...this arrangement lowers the transaction costs for both the job-seeker and the employer..." great point ---
I have completed a BS Architecture degree (5 years) and am an architect from overseas (Asia) and currently attending a postprofessional degree here in the U.S.
I have noticed that the programs here in the US( 85% design 15% other aspects) are meant to cultivate and optimize the architectural creative process of the students; and the logic being that after graduation, hopefully the student will pick it up from there and learn to adapt himself to the working environment. Later on, he will decide as to what kind of field he'd like to specialize in.
Back in Asia, the logic is reversed (85% technical, 15% theory), we are trained and educated to survive and simulate the real-world scenario of the design-develop-construct nature of the industry. And after graduation, it will be up to us to pursue what we feel we lack.
No pun intended for this statement: With that kind of mindset on a cross cultural architectural firm, youd often encounter a more production/technical-oriented architect from the orient and a design- driven architect from the US as a stereotype. I have worked for a big firm and that is how staff are separated most of the time. The thoughts of being on a design team back in Asia is to most people, a big deal cos most are trained on the technical and production aspects.
Conclusion: if we aspire to become well-rounded architects, we should fend for ourselves and take extra courses/degrees and experience. Doesnt matter which kind of institution we come from. my 2 cents.
Displaced, I think you are assuming that the second a student goes to work, they are going to return to studio and produce nothing but strip-malls. I've seen people work during school that followed the path you mentioned... but I also saw people who were able to take the relevant parts of professional experience and merge it with their academic work, which often made their projects stronger than the other students. You could tell from the final studio projects who was going to succeed in the profession and who was probably just going to remain an intern for life.
I'm not saying that academic design studios need to have their students making door schedules and looking up obscure building codes and certainly a professional practice course isn't going to teach everything someone needs to know. My contention is that (at least in my experience... maybe I just went to weird schools) is that academia totally ignores the profession side of architecture, to the point of eliminating any and all "real-world" constraints- program, client, structure, function, sustainability, necessity, etc etc. I don't think it needs to be so extreme academic vs. professional and I think there is room for different institutions to approach that middle-ground in their own unique way, as intheloop discussed.
I personally feel that at some point in the degree program, the design studios alone don't offer that much in terms of educational advancement. After a few semesters, most students projects plateau in concept and form making, becoming masturbatory amalgamations of their (and their instructors) previous works. Making it bigger doesn't always make it better.
Like many, I had very little exposure to pro practice and what architects did before graduation. I did, however, work in the summers for an engineer and contractor as an apprentice/intern. In this setting it was clear that I was there was to develop into a professional, and was treated as such - they knew I was clueless but didn't hold it against me and worked to help me close those gaps so I could one day fill their shoes. Most of my time was non-billable and was spent learning the nuances that one can only get by experience. I was explicitly and directly taught some very useful things, and while they probably lost money doing that, they weren't an arch firm and were profitable and could clearly afford it. They even told me they felt responsibility for my development, and were going to treat me as such, which was a good environment that enabled me to grow and understand the very complicated industry I was looking to enter while not having to worry about being profitable. For example, the engineer would drive me around town, we would get out of the car and we would look at a deteriorating building or cracked retaining wall or buckling avement and he would ask me what could have been done better? He pointed out a world of stupid architect tricks that resulted in cracked walls, poor air quality, and soggy lawns among other things. (Many of those were the designs of the arch firm I would later work for and reuse the same stupid architect tricks, knowing better, but powerless.) We not only talked about best practices and building science, he went out of his way to introduce me as a young professional with lots of potential to everyone he knew that would help my career: the mayor, the city engineer, the local business people.
I often compare that experience with my first architectural internship, where I mostly learned by trial and error, a costly, time-consuming and frustrating way to learn, especially when the feedback can come months or even years later. There was a clear heirarchy where I was at the bottom and was to be treated as such, not as a developing professional, but as it goes in cinderella: to make the princesses feel like more like princesses. The princesses, sorry architects, were too "busy" reinventing the wheel, fixing boo-boos and avoiding reality to mentor. Communication was reduced to forwarded e-mails and redlines and I learned to accept a new level of rudeness, like it was suddenly ok to walk away from someone while they were asking a question, or to forget to tell someone a key design criteria and then have that person work Saturday to redesign everything to account for it. I sat at a cad station and got opportunities outside of that cad station just a few times a year as the emphasis for interns was not on professional growth, but on billable hours, in spite of the fact that those hours were largely unproductive and misinformed anyways. I also got to jump from project to project and task to task for years in the name of putting out fires and profitability, much like a temp worker would. Meanwhile I missed key steps and nuances from never having an opportunity to see a single project through, gaps that it took years to fill, some of which are still gaps 7 years in. Yes I was learning, but at a painfully slow pace and in a swiss cheese kinda way. It was apparent that I was the sole interested party in developing myself professionally. And I thought to myself, no wonder it takes 10-20 years or more to make an architect. Sorry, that was totally a rant: moral of the story is the internship and the mentoring wasn't there. Does this kind of exerience help you understand why it takes years o finish IDP and tae the exams, and many lost interest in the meantime? I have several theories why we do this: the main one is that it is in our interest to NOT develop leaders, but to keep 2/3 of the arch graduates in a position where they can be little more than paraprofessionals. With the numbers of grads we turn out and the need for production workers makes the business model work only if most of us never develop to our potential. We don't want more competition at the top when we need workers at the bottom! If only 1 out of 3 stands a chance to become a principal, suddenly the fact that you are a woman and will likely get prego someday is a good enough reason to not help develop that person professionally. If you manage to break through, mostly by having an "in", you win. But in order to grow and progress as an industry, in the big picture, we can't be leaving it up to chance and cirumstance, cronyism and nepotism as to who gets to develop into an Architect and who doesn't. In other words, while the good ol' boys club can serve individuals very nicely and they will succeed, it does so at the expense of the greater good. Low wages? Lack of respect? Loss of market share? Poorly designed environments? We deserve it.
PS. The engineer I used to work for now wants to retire and is looking for someone to buy him out. He always forgot I was an architect, not an engineer, but he asked me if I wanted to buy his firm last summer. If I had taken his advice and become an engineer, I might have looked into it, but instead I can mayyybe score a job as a production worker in an architecture firm!
daniel friedman - the dean at u. wash - has already done a lot of research and speculation about this problem. i can't find a copy of his slide show online, but in a nutshell, he proposes a 7 or 8 year path to a doctor in architecture degree. no other steps along the way. early part is more classroom intensive. co-op starts in the third or fourth year. the last two years are one semester in the class, one in a firm. i can't remember if he advocates for 'teaching' firms (the same way you have teaching hospitals) or not. it would seem like you'd have to have one to make any standardized co-op program work. at the very least, the firms participating would have to agree to work around some kind of curricula, just to keep everyone even.
to me, the biggest 'reconciliation' that needs to happen in academia (well, at least in the u.s.) is to decide whether architecture, as a course of intellectual study, is more humanities based (the shift it made in the 60's and 70's as the rise of 'theory' took hold) or a more technical discipline focus (say engineering or medicine). personally, i think a more technical grounding is what's needed overall - however, i don't see some kind of mutual exclusion between the two approaches. you can ground the 'making' of architecture in whatever you choose.
the one issue with mandatory internships, as i alluded to above, is how to make sure there is a similar qualitative level of experience everyone is getting. firms are so wildly different in terms of office culture, etc., i don't see much benefit doing an co-op if you're only cleaning out the office library. the other problem is: who pays for the co-op students? i, for one, am not going to involuntarily take on a student each semester, have to pay them a salary, and have no say in who we get. so, if firms can opt-in (maybe they get a tax break for doing it) and there's some attempt to match up people, then sure. but i also think, long term, a practicum type teaching firm (doing real work but subsidized by the school) is the only viable way to make sure everyone is getting a similar level of experience needed.
i should note - in friedman's model, at the end of school, you are prepared to sit for the exam immediately, ala lawyers or most european schools. his rationale was this: if you add up the time in school + idp, you get the following:
5yrs BArch +
3yrs IDP =
8 yrs of training to licensure. only degree is a Bachelors
4yrs BA +
2yrs MArch (fastest way it can be done) +
3yrs IDP =
9yrs total. master's as the terminal
of course, if you do a 4+3.5+3, you're at 10.5 years to licensure.
so, his must have been 8 or 9 years - no way it was less than the BArch path. the main advantage was that, for the same time amount of time to get a masters, you'd get a doctorate, have the technical grounding to take the exam, and start to rebalance the profession on a level with medicine.
outed, sounds good, and had my 3 years of DIP, er I mean IDP, been more like those summer internships, it would have followed that model pretty well.
The firms could participate voluntarily. For instance, I got that internship at the engineering firm not because they were hiring or I sent him a snazzy portfolio he couldn't resist, but because I walked into his office one day and introduced myself as an architecture student that needed to learn and was looking for a job. So he smiled and said OK, let's see what you can do, had me work on a set of plans and by the end of the day I had myself a job. In the two summers (6 months total) I was there, I did one project myself, and helped out with many other bits and pieces along the way, so maybe I even earned my keep. That was still enough time to go out, take a field trip with one of the contractors or engineers almost every day and learn something. I got paid $13 an hour. Maybe they lost money on me, but yes, a tax break could offset that.
As for our largely theory-based education, I support it, but not to the expent I had it. Like many, I "got it" right away and were independent in that aspect, ready to move beyond design studio after the 2nd year of my B Arch and develop other savvy needed to be an architect. But the pressure of the 6 credit hour design theory studio made sure that little time was spent on other coursework. I speculate the theory heavy education is rooted in days when the personalities of people that became architects were more technical by nature, and the curriculum was to evoke culturally nurturing design out of nerds and techies. But in the computer age, the techies and nerds are hardly the ones going into architecture now, it is largely the humanitarians and artists, no?
outed, these sound like solid ideas
Very interesting story Strawbeary. Thankfully I did my IDP at a firm where "some" of the staff took a very proactive approach to mentorship. Still, with other employers and personal experiences in this field I can relate:
There was a clear heirarchy where I was at the bottom and was to be treated as such, not as a developing professional
I think this happens because many firms encourage a mentality that everyone has to prove themselves individually. Who hasn't heard the line from a boss, "you need to prove to me you're ready..." Well, how do you prove that if you receive little or no mentoring/feedback/training.
Communication was reduced to forwarded e-mails and redlines
Happens all the time in larger firms. I HATE email. It reduces communication, not increases. Now, I hear management saying everything needs to be "backed up" in emails in case there are legal issues down the road. Huge time waster IMO.
It was apparent that I was the sole interested party in developing myself professionally. And I thought to myself, no wonder it takes 10-20 years or more to make an architect.
Yeah, goes back to that "you have to prove yourself" attitude. Overall I think mentoring is a complete failure in this business. Management wants grads that can hit the ground running, which I agree with to a degree, but IDP and the idea that interns are "apprentices" is a joke.
it is in our interest to NOT develop leaders, but to keep 2/3 of the arch graduates in a position where they can be little more than paraprofessionals.
Economically speaking no company can make everyone a manager with matching pay/benefits or else they'd go broke. Just seems that in corporate America the opportunities are more available and the path to get there is more clear. Case in point, passing the ARE's typically does not earn one a raise or promotion. Get an MBA and you're instantly management in a corporate job.
suddenly the fact that you are a woman and will likely get prego someday is a good enough reason to not help develop that person professionally.
My experience has been opposite. Seen only women promoted to principal level recently. From my perspective larger firms have fallen into the PC trap and actively recruit women and minorities to make their marketing look like they are a diverse company, etc. Small firms are probably different. Just my observation.
we can't be leaving it up to chance and cirumstance, cronyism and nepotism as to who gets to develop into an Architect and who doesn't.
I think a lot of playing favorites happens. Had a coversation with a prinicpal Architect once where he admitted that one needed to be on his "good side" regardless of their skills/abilities. Define "good side" how you wish. Unfortunately I think a lot of good leaders never make it in the profession because they are seen as a threat. Probably happens in all businesses. Unfortunately, bosses favorites are probably going to get more opportunity, mentoring and training. Thus they'll get farther. Any principal will say those are the "better" employees, but I'm not naieve enough to know that's not always the case.
Thanks for that impassioned post & sharing your experience, Strawberry.
I think Friedman's idea sounds solid as well. If a process like that became common, then laypeople would also have a better understanding of what makes someone an "architect." The term is so ambigious to most people at this point that they get confused.
I agree w/ Strawberry on the redudancy of architecture studios. I love delving into more theoretical type of work but I'm very hesitent to pay all this money to go back to grad school just so I can do the same thing for another two years.
The only reason I'd consider going back is for the credential (so I could teach), for the facilities, or to work w/ some amazing people on a topic that I felt really impassioned about. Even then, it would be hard in my mind to rationalize taking on that debt.
I like Friedman's idea because it seems to align student expectations w/ reality and the whole process of becoming an architect is made clear. I think w/ that plan, you could still focus on the humanities side of architecture for your last two years of study, while the first five gave you some better technical skills. His plan seems similar to the 4+3+2 route, where 2-year M.Archs are generally pretty heavy on the theory, since it's assumed that you have a some grounding in the technical side of design.
I now work as an instructor and manager in an office that provides education services. We talk about educational psychology all the time, and it has really opened my eyes as to what effective educating is and why it is important. When you see an otherwise intelligent and happy 10 year old who is not dyslexic nor disadvantaged in any way but that reads at a kindergarten level because she had never been taught, you can really understand the missed opportunities of a broken educational system.
The same applies is in professional practice. Learning doesn't stop just because you got a degree.
are you all forgetting that architects with a PHD. get about as much respect as an a Barch right out of college? you have all been institutionalized and don't even know it.
College or school as some of you like to say, is not the answer to the professions problems.
Become collectors of degrees, and you know what you get, just that a person with a collection of degrees, no employer will respect you for having a PHD.
We want to solve problems in our profession right? well lets start by fixing the person we see in the mirror each morning, not by declaring that college should do this or should do that.
You people ever hear of Frank L. Wright? well read up on what he had to say about college, after little more than a century in a half College has not produced anyone that could fill his shoes.
If you want to be an architect get licensed, then no one hires you, so we must find a way to open our own office.
The idea that there are too many people in architecture is just plain wrong. just wait until the census numbers come back. We will have over 350 Million people here, think about it. We have to stop relying on college reform, or waiting on employers to hire us. Be your own boss. I once said out loud in the office " After going to college for almost a decade, after all that money spent on education, why would any of you want to work for someone else the rest of your life?" think about it.
just an observation.
i also think that smaller projects should be done in school.... IIRC most of the projects i had in undergrad were large design projects (train station/embassy/theatre/etc...)... i think that if a studio or 2 semesters dealt with smaller projects, such as an interior design, but you had to do all the cd's and details to make it work and maybe have a few full scale details that might make life a bit more interesting.
in the 5 year undergrad i went through, i didn't learn anything about construction (maybe a few things in construction class) but most of what i learned was in the field. hence why i think students should work in carpentry/etc just to see how it's really done. from being a epdm roof inspector, electricians labor pulling wire and wiring outlets/plugs, to mill work and designing/building small projects, it's a big learning experience.
hopefully schools will think more about the connection of materials and not the overall concept/design of a large scale building.
Regarding the IDP method of professional development: to be immersed in an environment is not an acceptable substitution for an education in it. The 10 year old who can't read is a great example of that and is why I brought her up. Her educators immersed her in reading instead of teaching her to read. Not a big difference to some, big difference to others, all of us are on a spectrum.
Who let IDP morph into cheap cad production when it was intended to be something more like my engineer boss who made it his job to teach and my job to learn, all the while working on real projects to practice those skills? Unless we work to enable people to be their best, we aren't going anywhere.
University of Hawaii already has a D.Arch--a 7 years program including practicum leading to the degree of Doctor of Architecture. Note however, this is different from the perception of Doctor of Design (GSD) or a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy).
Personally I don't think the length or the degree matters as much as the content and the direction of the curriculum. If the content and the direction is to keep student in there for the sake of doing so (yes, it is possible...), then we are just going to see the same thing down the road: few jobs and huge personal debts; leading to risk averse decisions in one's life, etc etc. But if the direction of the curriculum takes a turn and aims to envision architecture as the 'chief' of all arts and design, and tries to do so, then I think architecture graduates have a good stab in being a design coordinator down the road.
Sure, every design expertise has their own knowledge structure that is not easily learned in the context of classes and schools. That said, the current syllabus of a B.Arch or M.Arch 1 demands a good review because some of the required classes (hand-drawing, HVAC, lighting, structures, etc) have become specialties that the architecture is no longer involved or downright irrelevant within practice. The architect has to be aware of it, but aware is very different from spending an entire semester and then not using this knowledge when he or she works. If that's the case, why not use these resources and class-time for things that are actually relevant to the demands of the practice in this era of uncertainty?
I think we can summarize by saying that no one here expects to learn professional practice in school -- that it has to be learned on the job. I'll point out that no other profession has this problem anymore -- the Doctors, Lawyers, and accountants have all figured it out. So why can't we? Why is it that business people can learn how to conduct business in school but architects can't learn how to conduct business?
The problem I don't think anyone is raising, which is probably the real one, is that many people can't find practical experience today -- and this was a problem pre recession as well. That means that the source of the problem is too many people graduating from too many degree programs, which keep getting bigger and bigger.
If you haven't looked at the requirements for an accredited degree lately, they are loaded down with these asinine "professional practice" teaching requirements -- they are almost half of the criteria. So the average professor has to cram some professional practice tidbit into her or his courses, and lets face it -- most of them have no interest in practice. Or worse -- the school has to cycle through an endless list of practitioners to teach those courses, and since those people have no idea how to teach, probably aren't interested in teaching, and perhaps just doing it to shore up their failing firm. That is certainly who I want to have teaching me professional practice.
Ok, if schools can't teach practice, and practice is harder to come by than education, and one actually needs both, then the solution is simple: require the completion of IDP before enrolling in school.
mespellrong: IMHO, academic programs that require extensive co-op work experience as an integrated part of the curriculum (such as the University of Cincinnati) produce the most balanced -- and most employable -- graduates, year-in and year-out. The co-op students from UC that we've had in our office tend to be extraordinary contributors and the graduates that we've hired from UC tend to be the most well-rounded and capable hires that we make. I have a lot of faith in this education model and think more schools should make a real (not phantom) effort to integrate significant practical experience with the more academic aspects of education.
Now, having said that, I am the first to recognize that in an economy like this one it is almost impossible -- even for UC -- to place all students who need jobs for their co-op terms.
i'll point out that dan friedman is one of the smartest guys i've ever met in academia. not just intellectually smart, but street smarts as well. i'm just trying to communicate what i can remember from a 3 year old lecture and dinner discussion. most likely, it's a poor rendering of the subtleties of it.
academia alone, most of us would agree, is not going to solve some of the questions of marketability and/or professional readiness. however, at least in the u.s., one of the weaknesses of the current model is that one is not prepared enough, by graduation, to practice directly as a true professional. true, medicine and engineering aren't much different, but what i like about dan's model is the fact that a practicum is built into the very core. schools have the ability to interpret within this and can still built up particular niches of expertise (and competitive advantage), but at least the student, at the end, has a greater degree of autonomy in the marketplace (assuming they can pass the exam). that 'end goal' of being exam worthy would also put enough pressure on the schools to make sure the requisite technical component is covered.
finally, if schools want to specialize in history/theory, that's great. gsd has diploma programs accordingly. however, i would argue that true 'innovation' in the marketplace is being less defined by the polemical articulation of your position than the ability to translate it into built work. just my opinion...
I want to take a step back and thank each and every one of you for your input. It's a tremendous amount of information and angles to digest, and I'm sure I'll be re-reading and chewing on it for awhile.
Though I've been in practice for three years, and had internships during college, I'm still trying to figure out my place in architecture, and what next steps I should take to get me where I want to go.
It's been great to hear many of the thoughts listed above, and now I can more easily illucidate my own.
Hopefully I can post something as equally coherent as above next time...
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.