If you just want to teach History & Theory, you should find programs that specialize in that. Places like UVA and MIT are a good start. UVA has a master's program in that, but their bachelor's program may or not may have courses that will overlap with it.

I would go the architecture to history / theory route, rather than art history to architecture route. I appreciated my history professor that much more b/c at one point in her career she was a licensed architect and could easily talk to you about curtain wall systems as she could about the CIAM movement. Art History won't give you that type of expertise.

My course of action would be the following:
Undergrad:
Major: Architecture
Minor: Philosophy or Urban Studies or History

Gradschool:
Architectural History and Theory/Criticism

My advice would be to wait until at least the second semester of undergrad before planning on which prestigious PhD program to apply to.

Just kidding, but i think you are putting too much pressure on yourself to plan your entire path through academia before you've even begun.

Try not to get caught up planning what you want to BE instead of exploring what you want to DO. Until you have spent more time working within the history/theory/criticism world you should allow yourself to remain open to new possibilities.

One of my favorite professors gave some great advice, that who ever messes up the most, earliest wins. I've found it to be true in both studio and in life.

My recommendation would be to do a b.arch as an undergrad, and see were it takes you.

good luck

The professional degree is almost irrelevant for getting a history/theory job. you want to go the art history route -- undergrad in a liberal arts school with a strong teaching museum, straight to phd as fast as possible.

Study all of your languages as an undergrad -- you need French, German, and at least one other. Italian and Spanish are common, Greek and Latin are absolutely necessary if you want to do pre-renaissance work. Sanskrit, and modern non-western languages are a big plus, but match it to your area of speciality. You want to be good enough to be TAing language classes your first year in grad school and teaching into sections before you are ABD. Majoring in a romance language would work for a Renaissance or Baroque scholar.

You want to write an Honors paper as an UG, then give yourself a gap year to polish applications. If you have fluency in a really obscure language go after a student Fullbright or a Watson or Luce fellowship for your gap year. If not, find a museum internship, or find some excuse to travel.

Who is recommending you and what they say matters the most for both your PHD applications and your first job, but having a clear focus is very important too. You'll want to know who the big names in your area are, and try to work with them however you can.

Most people won't believe this, but statistically your chances of getting into one of the top ten history and theory programs drops dramatically after you turn 24, and your chances of getting a tenure track offer drops considerably if you enter the job market over 30. Most students take 9 to 12 years to finish their PhD in the humanities. The top ten programs had an average acceptance rate of 3.5% three years ago; this year it was below 1%. About a third of their graduates will get tenure track jobs, and less than 10% will get a job teaching in one of those top ten programs.

If you are a white male, reverse discrimination will reduce your odds of landing a tenure track line by about 50%, but if you aren't your odds of making full professor are almost none.If you insist on being an architectural historian, rather than an art historian who specializes in architecture, your odds in each part above get worse by about 4 to 1.

don't listen to mespellrong - this dude is jaded and giving you bizarre advice.

Johnsenl, disregard jk3hl's lack of input and his moronic comment, he does not know what he's talking about.

You clearly have had a hand at the studio environment, do not like it, and therefore will not succeed in it in university, I am telling you frankly and I see it that you understand my point of view because of your experience with revit and in a studio.

In my school, professors have majored in religious studies and currently teach architecture history courses. Also, my school offers a program called the history and theory of architecture, tailored specifically to individuals interested in that aspect of architecture. You can major in art history, do your masters in art history, and do your Ph.D in architecture. I suggest you do not attend a B. Arch program, because it is intensive and highly studio driven.

Do not get yourself into a program where you won't be motivated and lack a passion in, that's the first big mistake anyone can do when starting post-graduate studies.

She is currently in China, but school blogger Lian would be a good person to talk to. Her undergrad wasn't in architecture, but she did a masters in history & theory at McGill before completing her PhD at the same institution. Although currently doing a professional masters at Harvard, she might be able to offer some advice on the non-practicing side of architectural studies.

My advice:
Don't plan your whole life out from the get-go. You'll be surprised how things change as your grow older. When I was in high-school I was 100% sure I'd be doing a double-honours in mathematics and physics right now... Stuff happens, you realize you don't like what you thought you would as much as you hoped. Give yourself some wiggle-room in whatever you decide and understand that it is a-ok to change your mind.

Well, I'll agree with Meredith about life course strategy -- don't act as if a plan for your life from the get-go will get you what you want. Things will change, and you will be happier if you take them in stride.

You can, if you like, take jk3hl's opinion of my thoughts seriously, or you could consider that my comments are detailed and specific enough to suggest that I might have some idea of what building a life in academia is like. If you really want to work in the trenches of comparative history, you ought to learn to compare multiple points of view anyway, so check out the facts I offer and see if they add up.

I offered advise based on what I've seen succeed in the specific pursuit this person is considering. It is a very demanding path which requires a deeply different attitude from the archinect consensus about practice. If you want jaded read a few ten-year-long job search stories in the editorial pages of the chronicle of higher ed, or talk to a PhD candidate who is past 20 years in their graduate program.

Sure, it's perfectly normal and no indication of a deficient culture when the youth aspire to be professors and financiers.

I'm going to toot my own horn here. Take a look at:

http://archsoc.com/kcas/brilliantacademic.html

What's wrong with someone aspiring to be a professor? I mean really, if he said he wants to dedicate his life to teaching high school math would everyone be this hard on him.

Teachers and professor's have an amazing opportunity to build relationships with their students. It is a little ridiculous to try and plan your whole future now. One summer studio isn't enough to know for sure if the studio learning environment is for you. Give yourself some time to try architecture or an art history program, and decide for yourself. And don't listen to Dr. Garry his books are bitter and unhelpful.

We all know the world of architecture isn't perfect, but every job has flaws with small minded people that steal ideas. Study history, theory, materials and the built environment. Read everything with a skeptical mind, and stay grounded. Good Luck.

what's up with "don't listen to so-and-so"? there isn't one "correct" answer, and there's nothing wrong with opposing points of view. personally, the op sounds like a perfect candidate for a liberal arts degree, a chance to explore many different areas of study, but focus on architectural history/theory if that's where his or her priorities are. i received a ba in english, thinking i wanted to go into academics, took three years off, and decided to go back to school for my m.arch. it worked out fine. frankly, i'm just impressed that a high school senior is taking the initiative to explore his or her options so early. it makes me think that this person wherever he or she goes will figure things out just fine.

Larchinect, your comment is as opaque as it it grammatically incorrect.

Phld21, there is nothing wrong with aspiring to be a professor. Dr. Garry is (or was and, i'll warrant, will be) one, and the OP has every chance to become one if she wants to. We are discussing a specific area of teaching however.

Dr. Garry's comments in this case are apropos if you want to take the path he selected -- although I personally prefer Phil Agre's version of how to be an applied scientist. It has that ingenue quality you expect of a benchman. Humanities work, by comparison, is ruthless. You have to be all that, sweet and charming, and statistically correct.

Being a teacher means you work at a junior high school, and a professor who 'builds relationships' with her students ends up in front of a disciplinary review board -- or ought to. That might fly in your ag and tech, but there are people these days who make a living setting up faculty who've screwed with the wrong person's child.

The OP didn't ask for a pat on the back for their aspiration to become a professor, they asked in an anonymous forum what it takes to get that job. If they have the sense or intuition to select an appropriate program, they will have four years of people who actually know the answer to their question who will avoid answering it like the plague for fear of litigation. THe point of our anonymity here is that we can answer frankly.

at my Alma mater they are hiring just about every Tom, Dick,and Jane to teach. With all these archinectors going back to college to be students it makes sense that the OP wants to be a professor. It's definitely more secure than being an architect in the trenches.

I don't want to appear like an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll just throw my two cents (or less) in here.
I did my undergrad at a decent state school and am now at the GSD, both for architecture. Some of the best professors in the History/ Theory track I've had have professional degrees in architecture... I guess its not necessary, but it adds credence to what they say alot of times and allows them to frame their lectures in a way that not only seems interesting, but also seems pertinent. I mean, I guess I may be wrong or selfish in assuming this, but I like to think of Professors more as teachers, dedicated to the education of their students, rather than simply researchers dedicated to studying the intricacies of a particular doodle on the bottom corner of a Palladio drawing.... I mean, I guess thats important, but as I doubt many students that are required to take whatever history class is taught have an equal share of interest and would much rather know how a certain area of history would be relevant to their future as architects or whatever....
So I guess it depends on what type of architecture history you want to teach? Like, if you want to teach at a "prestigious" institution, then maybe they have more grant money for particular research and more specific history classes (ie the MDes Program at Harvard or PhD programs all over the place or something).
I would say, get an undergrad in something other than architecture that would teach you really good researching skills and relevant critical thinking abilities... maybe like Philosophy or Art History or English or something? Minors in foreign languages are good too, though I'm not sure if mespellrong's advice about being fluent in every major dead language and sanskrit and stuff would be entirely necessary unless you were super interested in learning about the historical importance of the ruins at Ur or something... Then get a professional degree in Architecture at some good theoretical and/or historically leaning school... I have alot of classmates at the GSD who don't plan on practicing at all when they get out of the m.arch program but have plans on teaching.
Sorry this is all stream of conciousness....

one or two languages are required for a lot of phds...

teaching is cool. the incorrect speller and the one who is out of place both sound intelligent but angry. perhaps for them the world does work that way, but i don't think there is anything wrong with aspiring to teach, and no it is not such an amazingly difficult procedure as described.

i teach PT but run an office full time. not really sure if i will ever be FT teacher but even though i am over 30 i don't think i face any issues with getting a job, nor am i worried about reverse discrimination (hell i can count the number of Caucasian people i see in a normal day on 2 fingers, and i am one of them and i am STILL not worried about it).

anyway, i know a number of professors who went through the process and they are doing just fine and on their way to tenure track or in tenured positions already. It is just a matter of time and effort, so don't let that stop you.

most of my friends teach archtiecture though, not theory or history. if you want to specialise in that side of things i would listen to whatever philip crosby has to say, and otherwise ask for advise from universities. i imagine you could track down a history prof or two who will really have all the information you need, and then you can ignore the bile on this page and not worry that some of it might be justified...

There is another way to look at the OP's question: one does not *become* a professor; rather, one becomes interested in a certain subject, and then one is *offered* to be a professor, if and when that opportunity arrives. Because of this, I think mespellrong and a few others are all correct in what they say. No one becomes a professor just to teach; or at least not in architectural history.

Now if the original poster is sufficiently precocious to note the current demise of architecture by aspiring to teach, my personal advice is: don't. The chances of being offered a teaching job versus a design job (employee) are extremely slim. A few practical considerations or challenges before one is offered a teaching job are I think, the following: quality and contribution of your dissertation; your advisor; who you know or your effective network within academia; how many good papers you have published while trying to make ends meet and getting your phd on time; a university that is actually expanding by new hires, etc.

Plus, if you look around the world today, most of all the developed countries are slashing their budgets. Increasingly there will be a great surplus of people who are qualified to teach that unequally commensurate with a diminishing pool of jobs. FYI, architecture departments hardly expand, and historians stay for a long time, no pun intended.

Personally, HTC was my original interest. However I have come to view the work coming from HTC becoming less relevant for today's pressing concerns and needs, in architecture and beyond. We may not all trace the roots of HTC to Tafuri but I wonder--if we do--how valid is his critique of the normalization of architecture? And responding to that, to retain our criticality by engaging in theory and criticism?

I think HTC is going to be around for a while. But new areas to be defined--certainly not by HTC--are going to play a larger role in informing and defining the intellectual consciousness and practical epistemology of architects/designers in the 21st century.

ironically all the universities round here are expanding like mad. not sure if the jobs will still be here in 5 years, but...


I find it is easier to be offered a teaching job by applying for a teaching job rather than wait for said job to be offered. After that one might apply for tenure, then apply for further promotions and eventually get to be proper professor. although to be fair i think the chap who started this off probably doesn't know the difference between associate professor, assistant professor and Professor, with the capital P. Which is fair enough. Apart from benefits and pay those titles are not all that significant (well, except for the bit about the benefits and the pay)


mind you, you are correct. i was given my current job without applying, just a phone call out of blue, and was offered a full-time position because I knew a guy. But heck, if I can get anywhere in this business it means anyone can, cuz I'm just a shmuck. Anyone really trying would do soooo much better.


you teaching stationerymad?

there is a wave of baby boomer prof's retiring over the next 5-10 years. The problem is that most state U's are slashing their budgets. So the trend is that many of those vacancies are going to adjuncts who are paid a fraction of what a full time faculty member gets.

In my case, I was offered the post after a few years of hanging out on juries. Guess that having a chapter published and a few other factors, made the difference between getting a part time gig as an adjunct and becoming a full time lecturer.

Another observation, maturity help. Most of the adjuncts in my program are not 20-something whippersnappers fresh from the U. Many of them have gray hair from another career or a long time in the trenches as a practitioner.

I am not teaching at the moment but I am looking for a teaching position. It hasn't been easy, which prompted me to sit down and think through the vicissitudes of this search and made me realized some of the things that I raised in this post (and others).

You must be in Asia then! I am also in Asia, and the universities around me are also expanding, with new ones coming along. Another place where there are rapid hires is in the middle-east. Even so, with the budget in the UK and the situation in the US, competition is, and will be intense.

As a matter of fact, lots of baby-boomer era faculty, and even their younger counterparts, have been offered early retirement--only to be replaced by younger adjunct or simply more teaching assistants. It is not a happy situation by and far for most core faculty in the US now as far as I know. Architecture as it happens is somewhat unique within the university because the tradition of hiring phds has never really taken off on a scale that approximates other disciplines. There is therefore always a small core of phds researchers with a larger body of adjunct professional faculty.

We will not know exactly what the outcome of this mass liquidation of higher ed amounts to until it is fully played out. As a newly minted researcher, this is possibly the worst time ever to be out and looking for a research/teaching post. On the lighter side of things, very few generations of graduates get to say something like that--something to boast if and when things become better.

i'm in tokyo

i have noticed increase in adjunct professors, here too, but certainly in north america. not certain is bad or good thing.

for my friends who are working as teachers it was not an easy road. it takes what 10 years or so to start being paid fairly ok...?

but for most of my friends and family in other jobs the situation was not really different. it takes a bit of time to become skilled enough experienced enough to be paid well, so i don't see that as some kind of harsh penalty on our profession. like anything it is matter of time and effort, and as barry said you need to publish in proper books and journals and otherwise accomplish stuff.

i dunno, i have no expectations from this world other than some chance to make a place in it for myself and my family and i can't say with a straight face that any place in the developed world is particularly hard to do that. so i am not inclined to bitch or complain. i might work harder though. that seems to be the only thing guaranteed to pay off...