Long time lurker, infrequent poster. Ever since following archinect more closely, especially after the 2010 grad school threads since I am beginning grad school in the fall...I was accepted to a "top-10" school without funding so I ended up taking a near-full ride to a 2nd-tier school. I've been curious is there really a stigma associated with going to mid-tier schools when you're away from the ivory tower and getting to the point of licensure in your career.
From reading post after post on here, you would think the only way to get out of the cubical and into an office with a door and maybe a window is to have an Ivy league degree and the +100k of debt that normally accompanies it. I am in no way trying to be-little the accomplishments of those who have earned their way into Ivy league schools...they may very well be more talented than I because I was not granted admission to their institution but I hold no ill will against them for that. Also, I'm not here to ruffle feathers or debate the merits of the DI rankings vs Dr.Garry's opinions...just looking for some insight and friendly discourse.
So I pose the question to those professionals, fortunate enough to be employed currently and established in practice...does it really matter?
What is a 2nd, 3rd or 4th tier school? Architecture schools are ranked that way like Law schools. There's the top 20 or so by Design Intelligence, assuming DI is the authority.
Situation: 2 friends just graduated GSAAP and GSD. On DI they are listed as top 5 programs. GSAAP just got a job (she's female by the way...which further ads fuel to that previous post about whose getting jobs these days...but anyway...). When I mean just got a job, i mean like yesterday. However, the job isn't secure, its non salary, and could be cut at any moment. The GSD friend, well, he is still looking. The firm where she is going to work at does work that couldn't be farther than what you learn at Columbia.
So there you go as far as reputation.
I do think that it opens a lot of doors, or in theory it should. Maybe lay people might think of you as a better architect for coming out of those schools.
However, I'm sure going to school for free is a godsend too. And you make the best out the situation you are in. Being the best at a small or "2nd tier" school, has some value to it.
How does that saying go:
When God gives you lemons...you find a new god.
No real "stigma" at all. IMO, you are smart to take the free-ride. Work like hell in school, learn everything you can, do good work and you'll do just fine in this profession. 6-8 years out of school, it makes little difference where you obtained your degree. What matters is what you can do, and what you're willing to do.
As has been stated innumerable times here, and elsewhere, only a relatively small proportion of what we do involves design. If you're smart, if you work hard, if you're willing to listen to others and take direction, if you're not obsessed with just one narrow aspect of the profession, then you're likely to find work, progress at a rapid rate and have a successful and satisfying career.
Plus, you won't endure the added stress of having to pay off a huge student loan. You might actually be able to have a life.
George W. Bush has connections. He earned poor grades, and had he been a "normal" student at those schools, he would not have graduated.
Having gone to Ivies, I can say with honesty, it helped. It does not make as much difference as it once did, because the markets have been FLOODED with schools. There are now 130 architecture schools (all accredited mind you). As of 1970's there were about 50. But, people who go to those schools tend to help others who went to those schools. They also happen to be VERY hard workers and (arguably) have more talent. Of course there are exceptions- AHEM GW - who would NOT have been admitted had they shared a last name with the guy who donated a dining hall. But in general, the "big name architects" went to top schools. Get over it. People who work hard get into those schools. It follows that they continue to work hard afterwards. The debt is bad for architects everywhere. But most of it is federal at Ivies it seems. The BAD places are private, non need-blind schools. If you come out with PRIVATE debt, heaven help you.
That being said, it is bad for everyone right now. It does not matter where you went to school. It may matter again if things recover. But I think there are more important questions we need to be asking. Like "HOW do we fix this?" Not "did I go to the right school?" America is a different place than it once was. We need to organize, and use our brains to fix it. "Waiting it out" will only get you more in debt and more bored from not working.
I don't think there's a stigma to go to any licensed program at any real school. Sure, the GSD guys think that they're living gods, but they have that attitude toward MIT as much as they do toward RPI. That's their problem and nobody else's.
By real school, I do question the accreditations given to a few for-profit trade schools around the country, and I wish to goodness that NCAAB would be a little careful about giving out accreditions to institutions like those. I do believe that scholarship is an essential part of architectural education, and a for profit trade school, pretty much by definition, doesn't do that.
I also know from experience, both on the hiring and the job-seeking side, that some employers are starting to make a distinction between B.Archs and M.Archs, even though, as the purest here keep on telling anyone, it should not matter according to the industry.
only if you think you're shit doesn't stink... whether you get a job or not mainly depends on the head on your shoulders, grade, and portfolio. DO NOT invest heavily in the pursuit of an architectural education (unless $ isn't a concern).
The arch school tiering system according to GSDers:
Tier 1: GSD
Tier 2: -0- (doesn't exist)
Tier 3: -0- (doesn't exist)
.....
Tier 8: MIT only when they offer an interesting studio open to GSDers under the reciprocal enrollment arrangement, otherwise Tier 9
Tier 9: All other accredited M.Arch programs
Drafters: All accredited B.Arch programs
It's all about your particular needs and interests and playing them smart against your risks and costs. Ivies may or may not be in the cards for you. Think of it this way, Pocket Aces are a great hand (like an Ivy degree), until someone gets a flush on the river card ("2nd tier" diploma holder) and beats you anyways (but I had pocket aces!!!!). Sorry for the Hold 'Em analogy, but I thought it was cute.
for most people:
($150,000 in debt + Ivy Degree) < ($40,000 in debt + public land grant college degree)
for princelings:
($150,000 trust fund withdrawal + value of Prada wardrobe + cost of summers in the Hamptons + Ivy degree) > (public land grant college degree)
Thanks for your feedback so far and somewhat putting my mind at ease. I had a minor freak out this morning...ok more like a major panic attack...
Like I said before I'm going to grad school in the fall, so I've been working this summer as an intern/bim guy in a firm that I really like and hoped to come back to and grow with after school. I had my exit interview with one of the principals whom I had no-communication with the entire time that I was there minus sparse friendly conversation in the kitchen. Everything was going well and he said that he'd love to have me back next summer. Then we moved onto grad school and he was interested in my process for selecting my school. I talked about how I got a great offer from X-university, and I got into my top choice as well(...VaTech, still stings that they couldn't give me any funding as this was my dream school) and I couldn't justify the cost.
He fires back "that's unfortunate because we really like our project managers to have attended ivy league or top schools like VaTech because our clients are less likely to question their abilities"
I tried to hide my angst as best I could but he had to see that his comment pretty much devastated me and set in motion the questioning of my education and entire career path up to this point. I thought for sure I had a future here and I know how tough it is out there for jobs so I don't want to ruin what I have...I'm having dinner with my direct supervisor tonight so I might bring up the comment from my exit interview to see if he's full of it or that's really how his corporate structure works.
archiwhat- I recently got into a heap of architecture programs (highly regarded, less regarded etc.) and I too turned down a number of 'top'/ivy leagues for a program that DI considers the tier below the highest, and Dr. G has in the top 10 (but not gsd/gsapp-level). I have an undergrad in arch, have been in the profession for 3 years, and I just didnt have the same intense desire fellow applicants had in going to a 'prestigious' institution (not enough of one to burn a 200k hole in my pocket). a desire for name brand seems like something people not plugged into the professional world of architecture are interested in (people with fine/liberal arts backgrounds moving into m.arch programs). from what I've seen it doesn't matter where you went, and my current coworkers who've worked for the likes of zumthor, oma, and ando, sans an ivy league degree, can attest to that. perhaps CMNDCTRL is right and it can get you into certain circles, or have 'important' people on your side.. but I whole-heartedly disagree that ivy-leaguers work harder. plus I wouldnt really care to run with people who are only concerned with the name on my degree. if you're into that, then yes where you went might be an issue.
Anyways, you'll be fine and you made the right choice.
i can definitely see how that's a major mind-f*ck from your boss. However, you chose your M.Arch for it's network I presume, so if the school you are attending has some high-standing alums and a solid regional reputation, don't sweat it.
PS. your boss is a huge bag of douche, and is not in the majority with that kind of name-brand tier 1 bullshittery.
I just landed an amazing architecture position with an education from a not-first-tier school.
My portfolio includes a variety of work not limited to architecture and I can honestly say its strength is a result of hard work and putting forth effort outside of school. I got commissions because of my reputation, not my institution's. I think what matters more than a diploma stamp is personality, community involvement and demeanor. Those attributes made me the best candidate for this position.
I'm sure I would be a similar person had I gone to my first choice school, but If my portfolio didn't express who I am and what I have done as an individual (rather than institutional slave) I wouldn't have landed this amazing opportunity!
it's only money, architwhat. if attending vtech will make you happier and more fulfilled (and potentially create more opportunities) then simply go for it, money or not. especially if you have a job lined up and in your back pocket.
why freak out about having student loans to deal with when you graduate? your quality of life won't change over paying a 150 bucks a month. (if you're working).
I was under similar circumstances when I made my decision, and in the end was more or less forced by my finances to go for the one offering me the free ride. Very honestly, I dont regret it. Stigma is definitely the wrong word, If your work is ill nobody cares where you did it. if anything, Ive found people have been impressed good people are able get so much out an un-regarded school. It shows you actually know how to think and do things on your own.
I will admit though, there is a downside. A lot of my friends and I really, really had to fight for our lives against the administration for resources and creative freedom. Instead of being in a climate of constant competition and drive to break new ground and an administration bending over backwards to help us grow, we had institutional barriers to taking risks. Absolutely, there were ways around it, we still had great students, genius professors, and a few black sheep in the administration who were willing to block for us and shepherd us through. But, in a fucked up way, it was all kind of good practice for the real world where clients are skittish and resources are razor thin. Youve really got to be good and sell yourself and convince people that things will work, and not just look cool on a board. I'll also concede its probably easier for people coming from good school to find jobs, if only because you have more access to better connections. But who knows, maybe that who-you-know thing is hard no matter where you are.
At any rate you can always work your way up and pick a nice Ivy for grad school ;)
Above all though, its pretty goddamn nice not to walk out of school staring down the barrel of 100 grand in student debt. Looking around at some of the people I know who paid more, I really appreciate not being SallieMae's indentured servant for the next 20 years.
Half the people I know are paying between 400 and 800 a month. I know Obama has put through some good things, but I cant imagine the current situation is much better. Shit like that will definitely cramp your style.
hey oe - i graduated from undergrad a few months ago - but from the few people i explicitly asked about grad school debt said they made consolidated payments of 150-250 a month. i'm assuming this will vary pretty widely, and for argument's sake i'll concede that you may end up paying much more than 150 per month
i puzzled over this question in the last year as much, and i'm pretty sure there isn't really a 'right' or a 'better' way to do things. it's about your own personal priorities. do you value your money more, or do you value your identity as a professional more. it's okay to choose either.
Well like I said, the administration at my school was not the most helpful, so lots of people I graduated with (5 years ago ish) got killed. Interest rates are insanely low now too, so who knows, you might be closer to the average. Is there a poll for that on this board?
That boss of yours is an Idiot. Who's Tier ranking system is he talking about?They are all pretty useless, go to the college that you want to go to.
I think most of us with any kind of experience will tell you that Architecture college rankings are not accurate. Only based on name and how much money they have pretty much. I went to what I consider the best college in my state and some have said the country, but as far as news week is concerned it is in tier 2.
Having worked in the profession i will tell you that what matters most is your knowledge of how to and i hate using this word (design), and how to put a building together. You cant get all of this knowledge from College.
College is just a stepping stone. college is what 5 years or maybe 7? and how long are you going to be alive after that? you have the rest of your life to learn more man stop sweating what your boss said.
PS. most of my so called bosses don't like the fact that i know my shit more than they do, and they see me as a threat,so there can also be a bad side to knowing too much.
as long as you produce at a high level, you should be fine ---
part of grad school is about the network you are buying into, you should know what you're getting wherever you're going and also know that if there are other connections you need/want not available through your school, then figure out how to get them ---
in my case, my wife went to an ivy and i tagged along and worked while she was in school, but i did not go to an ivy -- so my perspective is that it can and does open some doors more easily than for someone without the pedigree because some people are a bit star-struck by the pedigree --- but once those doors are open, they still have to produce or they are gone --- and plenty of them end up gone b/c there are b/s artists at all levels --- you can have the same opportunities but you might have to do a little more leg work to get them --- and bear in mind that someone coming from an elite school, if that school does not have the connections the person needs, they are in the same boat as you, building the network on their own
the whole "hard work" or "who works harder or is smarter" stuff I find to be a bit of a joke --- for two reasons
the first is that, while there seems to be a higher likelihood that those very rare, truly brilliant people will end up at an elite school at some point, most people at such schools (in my experience) are no smarter than anyone else competing at a level, bearing in mind that most people who are competitive at even the top 25 or 50 schools are probably already in the top 10-20% of the populace by IQ & academic achievement
the second is that, as I've worked everything from busboy, laying tile, laying pavers, steel shop worker and detailer, etc, as well as in firms and now at a university, i find that smart people and people who work hard are littered throughout the populace at every level of educational attainment --- there are brilliant people who just didn't want to jump through all of the hoops we jump through to get a formal education, or who had family commitments that kept them tied to a place, but they are in effect intellectually engaged at a very high level, all or mostly self-taught, but because there is no piece of paper from a formal institution that validates there capacity, they don't get the recognition
so in summary, do the work, build your network, don't worry about the mystique and you will be fine --- but you've got to deliver and if you're lacking a resource or connection, figure out how to acquire it for yourself
If anything one can draw from the creation of several primary education 'gifted' curriculum... is that your truly batshit insane B-A-N-A-N-A-S smart intellectuals often work just enough to stay outside of the radar.
Primarily, gifted programs are created to challenge such individuals on deeper and more creative levels to keep them constantly engaged otherwise they tend to flat out ignore, fake or half ass general education.
Mind you, the top 3% of the IQ bracket are indeed potentially valuable and wonderful people... many of those people purposely fall into obscurity or have been sentenced to a life of depression, suicidal tendencies or a life of crime.
However, for those who have been through the gifted system... they find that often being gifted isn't the joy it is thought to be. Many gifted students never go into big schools, any variety of scholar program (Rhodes et cetera) or really anything other than mediocrity because by about the age of 7 or 8... they've already realized that being smart is both a danger and a hassle.
What tends to fill up the halls of prestigious universities is your above average intelligence crowd-- not-quite-gifted-but-in-no-means-stupid-crowd.
So... don't think being 'intelligent' can really get you anywhere. Being trainable like a poodle gets you much farther-- perform on command, fill out those scantrons and turn your assignments in on time!
The gifted kids will be in the sciene lab trying to figure out how to use an evaporation condenser, a Bunsen burner and a couple of feet of tubing to seperate the ethanol from the isopropyl in hand sanitizer... you know, so they can inhale their way to a nice 5th period buzz.
as a funny anecdote of unicorn ghost's point, when i worked at the steel shop, we used a guy to design mechatronic assemblies, hydraulics, etc who was an affable, often inebriated dude (in the big lebowski sense) who had at one time helped to design a particle accelerator but was now hanging out in the middle of nowhere, picking up odd jobs and just doing his thing, hanging around the university --- coolest guy you could ever meet, probably the smartest, too, but just had his priorities ---
also, the most gifted engineer i've worked with only had a bachelors from a tier 2 school, but had a photographic memory, was very creative and was an excellent manager of his own time and that of others
malcolm gladwell talks about the research program where gifted children were supported and followed through adulthood with expectation they would all be geniuses and leaders of the world...they weren't. they were mid level bureacrats and decent scientists but not amazing...
not sure if the question about those schools is IQ really.
the hard work aspect is important though. i LIKED going to school with over-achievers who thought working hard and playing hard and doing cool stuff just for the fuck of it was worth it... and the professors are the same (well, some of them anyway). if you can get that at a non-ivy then you are set. if you can't then you will probably be bored shitless. i know i would be.
i went world class school for phd. free ride. for grad school i went to reglar solid canadian school and enjoyed it a lot. the difference? better network at the famous school. more opportunities for certain, and EVERYONE is a hard worker.
but as one poster mentions above there were lots of motivated students at the reglar school too. harvard and yale dont have a corner on that market. so as long as you work hard there is no reason that going to ANY school will do anything to affect your career.
i am curious your boss said that stuff though. i guess i can kind of get the point, though it seems superficially important to business, at best. at my office we sometimes mention the school we went to and where i am teaching and it does settle peoples minds a bit. but the truth of the matter is no on comes to us because we went to a super-school. clients come to us because we seek them out, because we meet them at parties, and because my partner has years of experience with Tokyo real estate and THAT is something our clients trust. need help negotiating your loan? no problem! what's that you say, you didn't know architects could do that? well truth be told they can't! aren't you glad to be working with us.... sort of thing. you wouldn't believe how much of a game changer that is.
anyway, don't worry about. work hard you 'll be fine.
and as far as iq goes, as jump points out, it is not the factor you might think
in particular there is a well-cited survey paper that covers this issue of how to perform well at a high level ---
Expert Performance: Its Structure and Acquisition, by K. Anders Ericsson and Neil Charness
and in particular, they reference Gardner's, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences
in which children who are musical prodigies are tracked (and their progress compared to) non-prodigy child musicians who are taught to play musical instruments with the Suzuki method over several years
The results?
Children who practice rigorously each day with exposure to masterful instruction and using a solid method end up performing at 'prodigy' level and gaining acceptance to elite opportunities in future years.
There is a large literature on expert performance and deliberate practice and it generally suggests that innate talent only comes to be significant when opportunity, exposure, level of effort, and above all time dedicated to deliberate practice are equal between those being compared. These latter components are by far the better predictors of and better vehicles to expert performance.
there is also a significant body of literature dealing with the plasticity of the brain that is quite different than what we grew up hearing --- since the 1990's, there is much literature showing that you can in fact grow new neurons, create new synapses and even enlarge the extent and volume of blood flow to the brain through exercising it --- you can extend or tune up your intelligence through practice and activity ---
lastly, there is what is called the 10000 hour rule --- i think this is covered in the survey article i mention on expert performance, if not then look it up --- in general, at a minimum, about 10000 hours of practice is required to become expert at some skill, though for something as complex as architectural design, creative writing, etc, it can take longer
so ultimately, when looking at current literature from cognitive psychology, the trend is to say performance and capacity are about deliberate practice (not work or play, b/c often we are not optimizing learning when doing either, though there is some implicit in each activity) -- b/c you are specifically targeting weaknesses and correcting them and b/c you are integrating knowledge
I have been working steadily for over 4 years since graduating and have never been asked where i went to school beyond casual conversation. I dont think there is any stigma attached to it at all.
Perhaps lurking on archinect and other forums, it may seem that the only schools anyone ever bothers applying to are the 4 or 5 top "name" schools and nothing else is ever considered by anyone at all. Thats really not the case by any means.
And if anyone really has that much of a problem with where you went to school, they most likely are not worth working for or with, or even generally being associated with
the point of all of that is, even to the small extent that there may be a stigma for some people, not only is it fair to say it doesn't really matter --- but in reality, it doesn't really matter --- at all
practice, practice, practice --- and latch on to the best instructor you can wherever you are
I agree with Marm that it doesn't come up in conversation.. almost ever.
Where it does come up, though, you may not be fully aware - which is in resumes given to clients and in publishing your firm's capabilities. Chances are, when you walk into the meeting, the client already knows (even if your own fellow team members don't and don't care) where you went to school and asked questions on it/discussed it with your PM... in my experience. He may even have made specific requests for staffing on the basis of where you went to school (I've had clients do that to me a frustratingly large amount of the time... "I want your Harvard guy on this..."
I am not involved in proposals here, but i know the qualifications list we send almost always includes the schools the team members attended.
I would think most clients dont look too closely at the schools beyond giving it a quick once over. But i agree, there are definitely those clients out there who would think its better to have a X grad on the team, and even make it a requirement if they knew you had one on staff.
I'd say its most likely 2 types of people. One could be a fellow alum who is looking to throw work to other alums (which could happen at any school with strong alumni relations and connections, doesnt need to be Ivy league necessarily). The other could be someone who feels that just having a degree from a specific school makes your work superior.
Then again though, I think that is the one distinct advantage you do have if you go to a big name Ivy league school. That name alone can sometimes help you out without you even having to do anything. Be it alumni connections, or just school name recognition.
I think I may have come off too harshly (or some people put words in my mouth). I do NOT think that the GSD is alone in the top tier. There are MANY schools that are great. I think there are many that put students in debt with no justification. It used to be that an Ivy degree was WORTH paying that extra money because earning potential was higher. Now, the market has been saturated. The newer schools simply charge more money to have more money in their endowments to try and catch up with schools that have been operating (properly) for many decades (or centuries).
People at top schools DO work harder in general. I am sorry, but if you did not attend one, then you are NOT in a position to judge. I HAVE had exposure to both types (attending top schools and teaching at lower level ones). Do you think it is EASY to get the highest scores, highest grades, win competitions, etc? It takes hard work. Is it simply coincidence that many top names/grads went to top schools? Probably not.
My point was lost. If you work hard, you SHOULD do well. But being from a top school WILL give you an edge. It is a fact: people with top degrees earn more money (isn't that ULTIMATELY the only way to truly judge success in thie SUPER capitalistic society?) They also tend to start with better positions (also a fact). But those who go to top schools are not better people (or even better architects). You should look at your debt, see HOW MUCH more you'd earn, and judge if the difference is worth it. Every financial aid package is different. My TRUE point is this: higher education in America is broken. It costs too much, we give too much of it away to people from other countries at discount prices, then wonder why American students are in so much debt. The government backs the tuition, and we wonder why tuition skyrockets. But because this has happened, it has devalued a good degree. A degree from a land-grant school was and still is great! But now since there are so many newer schools, all the schools that have been around (including the top) SEEM less valuable. It is simple supply and demand. There are more M.Archs and B.Archs now compared to the population.
My advice to any new student is this: Go to ONLY the VERY top school if you will be taking on debt. They tend to give you BETTER (federal) debt, and a degree that still differentiates you. Otherwise, go to the CHEAPEST school you can go to that is accredited. You can still become an architect, but won't owe your soul to a debtor. Sadly, the schools in the middle, which CHARGE what the GSD charges, are not worth the cash any more. That is my true point. Incidentally, my loan payment is about 250 a month with fairly big debt. I make more than the people in my office with lesser degrees, and I am in a position of authority but with the same debt.
I think we should not be squabbling over these things. We SHOULD be trying to change the system. For that, we need power of numbers. Archinect is fairly petty (I include myself- I know I get wrapped up in arguments too). But we, as architects should do something about the way our salaries have had downward pressure (from AIA, NCARB fees, etc, and from lowered fees from low-balling). We should also examine how much debt we go in as a practice for what is a LOWER average salary than our peers with similar debt. These are the things I wish to draw attention to, and perhaps that is for another thread. If so, I apologize. But, each student who makes the decision to take on more debt, for a degree that is NOT worth the debt hurts our cause. So perhaps you would not mind telling us the name of the school you chose?
But... the thing that troubles me is that hard work isn't what it is cracked up to be.
You could 'work really hard' on an insanely stupid project.
I know plenty of people who 'worked hard' on such projects. They were often rewarded for effort but were not necessarily punished for a lack of depth, complexity or even novelty in their approaches.
Now, I will admit almost anything that's been done currently has probably been done before... and originality in the university system is a true rarity.
But, collegiate level academics is about exploring that boundary.
In my opinion, college is about two things...
1) Process-- the hard work so to speak, the formal path from cultivating a product from start to finish-- synonymous with the word "innovation"
2) Product-- the transformed end result of the process so to speak-- synonymous with the word "invention"
Rewarding people for just hard work and effort corrupts this concept. Sorry, I will say it!
And that's more or less the point I made with the "gifted crowd" is that process is far more focused on that product. And jmang illustrated how through continual effort, someone can be that good.
However, we have a ton of people who are looked over simply because they don't do the "hard work," have sloppy processes or completely ambiguous ones.
And these bad processes people can and do put out superior products while 'not working hard.'
Sorry, it is a mega thorn in my ass from a bygone protestant reformation era that 'hard work' is an ultimate salvation.
Hahaha. Yes. Hard work that is dumb is NOT the same as hard work that is smart. Frankly, I think I am leaving the field. That is what I think working hard/SMART is right now.
The PROCESS is almost meaningless in the real world because there is very little work. But frankly reducing architecture to JUST the art involved is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
I mean hard work as in SMART work, not just pulling all-nighters. I hate that part of our culture - being in the office 18 hours makes you better ? If I work 9, and get 8.5 SOLID, GREAT hours of work done, that is GREATER than 18 hours with only 4 hours of GREAT work done. I agree. But it is easier to say "hard work" than to go through all the nuances of this.
CMNDCTRL
I kind of see what you are saying, but overall really dont necessarily agree.
Earning the most money isnt the only way or best way to judge success at all.
And if you take on a lot of debt from your "top" school, will you be making that much more than others who went to lesser schools to make up for the debt+interest you will be paying back for years? If so, then i completely agree, it is worth it.
I dont think that necessarily rings true for the architecture profession though.
I just think that if what you were saying was completely true, then there would be no Harvard or Yale grads who are unemployed. And i somehow doubt that is true.
I do agree about the smart and hard work though. I got so sick of all the whiners during school who complained about how they were there for 40+ straight hours yet didnt finish their projects. These idiots who would sleep on the floor so they wouldnt "waste" time going home, yet then took 3 hour lunch breaks. It's all so obvious
So... don't think being 'intelligent' can really get you anywhere. Being trainable like a poodle gets you much farther-- perform on command, fill out those scantrons and turn your assignments in on time!
The idea of a top tier/lesser tier school only really concerns architects (and really only architecture students, for that matter). Once you are in the profession a few years and start working more directly with clients, you realize that your ability, work ethic and general personality are the real qualifiers.
Most of your clients are going to be ex-frat-boys who care about only a few things (mostly making money on the project so they can get a better raise), albeit they do have a general interest in their profession. When you make small talk with you client, they don't want to talk about post-modernism (most have no idea what this even means), they are more likely to want to talk box-scores or who will win the SEC this fall. It's better to go a pretty-good school where you come out knowledgeable and passionate about architecture with a couple football anecdotes up your sleeve (whether you could give a toss about the game or not) than saddled in huge debt and spewing notes about how you stalked your favorite starchinect at grad school.
first tier second tier third tier. there are too many tiers because there are too many schools. look around peeps. universities recruit students in many fields to get the caish. fields that are over saturated and under paid in the real world. does the world need more architects? more english majors? more philosophy students? not really. sure education for its own sake is important, however, to spend six figures to become an architect really doesn't make sense. although if you aren't paying, are already wealthy, or are the greatest thing since sliced zaha then i say, go for it!
To clarify, I don't think that anyone has won or loss a job based on the school on a key team member's resume.. but it is something a certain type of client likes to ask about, as if that might buy some extra pizzaz for their masterplan or building: iceing on the cake, if you will. It's more irritating than something that actually matters.
good point UG, no one is rewarded just for working hard or just putting in the hours. it needs to be directed at least a wee bit.
still....in my first proper full time archi-job, which was in japan, i regularly worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, half days on sunday and NO HOLIDAYS (!). ...the reward was that in a few years i had put in a serious amount of serious work, doing all of the things not taught in school and also a lot of things that in other countries architects never do. BUT, that is normal in japan. those are without any exageration nothing more than regular office hours here.
Mostly what it meant was that i became very competent very fast and i took a big step to that 10,000 hours thing that is important to becoming an expert in the field. Which made it a lot easier to get into grad school when i quit, and after that to get a job I had a portfolio of fairly nice buildings that I had designed and done CD'S for, not just worked on.
[warning, self-serving personal anecdote from this point on, warning...]
I didn't really learn to design in all that. which is why i went to grad school. and really worked hard. which led to a few significant awards which led to a job and when i needed it led to an interview with the people who would give me the money i needed to do phd for free at japanese elite school...which led to meeting people studying architecture with starchitects but intending to go into real estate who ALSO work hard because they like this stuff, which lead to a partnership with one of those same people and starting an office in Tokyo, which led to a few nice projects and now here i am...
DEFINITELY ahead of where i should be. There is no way a kid, just one step away from a life on the farm in Canada can end up running an office (even a humble one like mine) in Tokyo, without working very hard.
which brings me back to the topic...
going to school and working hard in good canadian school got me good grades and some prizes for my thesis, which was nice.
going to school and working hard at elite school got me good grades and a lot of contacts that are still shaping my life.
Those contacts are what are most important to me now. Not so much that I know the starchitects, but that I know the other students who are very intent at succeeding. that is what ivies are important for...
if you have the right kind of personality you can make those contacts anywhere. i didn't/don't...so having the crutch of an elite education in tokyo has made a lot more possible than normal. and so far i am pretty glad for all those opportunities. i certainly wouldn't knock them. nor would i knock the ivy education for those who are able to swing it.
Thank you everyone for your comments, you have certainly put my mind at ease.
Had dinner with my supervisor after my last day and he set the record straight. The principal whom I had my exit interview with is part of the good ole boys club and not only is he in the minority of the firm's leadership, he's also on his way out in the next 5 years. He also reinforced the idea that it doesn't matter where you went to school because they've hired plenty of people from "great" schools who couldn't cut it in practice.
I feel much better about my prospects of returning next year and hopefully sticking here for many years to come.
my office is ranked 28 internationally in terms of revenue. we have no one that went to an ivy league school at my office. that doesn't necessarily mean that we are successful without them, but the professionals at my office are full of regional Master and BArch students from state schools. We work hard and do what it takes to satisfy our client base.
amazing how long some of the comments are on this thread.
honestly, good work is good work. it really doesn't matter, just go where you want. i've met people from new mexico and mississippi state and montana state and ball state i was very impressed with, and i've met people from yale and michigan and sciarc i was surprised even graduated. most employers could care less where you went to school.
Stigma of going to a 2nd/3rd-tier school in professional practice?
Long time lurker, infrequent poster. Ever since following archinect more closely, especially after the 2010 grad school threads since I am beginning grad school in the fall...I was accepted to a "top-10" school without funding so I ended up taking a near-full ride to a 2nd-tier school. I've been curious is there really a stigma associated with going to mid-tier schools when you're away from the ivory tower and getting to the point of licensure in your career.
From reading post after post on here, you would think the only way to get out of the cubical and into an office with a door and maybe a window is to have an Ivy league degree and the +100k of debt that normally accompanies it. I am in no way trying to be-little the accomplishments of those who have earned their way into Ivy league schools...they may very well be more talented than I because I was not granted admission to their institution but I hold no ill will against them for that. Also, I'm not here to ruffle feathers or debate the merits of the DI rankings vs Dr.Garry's opinions...just looking for some insight and friendly discourse.
So I pose the question to those professionals, fortunate enough to be employed currently and established in practice...does it really matter?
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated
And what 2nd tier school would that be?
What is a 2nd, 3rd or 4th tier school? Architecture schools are ranked that way like Law schools. There's the top 20 or so by Design Intelligence, assuming DI is the authority.
Situation: 2 friends just graduated GSAAP and GSD. On DI they are listed as top 5 programs. GSAAP just got a job (she's female by the way...which further ads fuel to that previous post about whose getting jobs these days...but anyway...). When I mean just got a job, i mean like yesterday. However, the job isn't secure, its non salary, and could be cut at any moment. The GSD friend, well, he is still looking. The firm where she is going to work at does work that couldn't be farther than what you learn at Columbia.
So there you go as far as reputation.
I do think that it opens a lot of doors, or in theory it should. Maybe lay people might think of you as a better architect for coming out of those schools.
However, I'm sure going to school for free is a godsend too. And you make the best out the situation you are in. Being the best at a small or "2nd tier" school, has some value to it.
How does that saying go:
When God gives you lemons...you find a new god.
No real "stigma" at all. IMO, you are smart to take the free-ride. Work like hell in school, learn everything you can, do good work and you'll do just fine in this profession. 6-8 years out of school, it makes little difference where you obtained your degree. What matters is what you can do, and what you're willing to do.
As has been stated innumerable times here, and elsewhere, only a relatively small proportion of what we do involves design. If you're smart, if you work hard, if you're willing to listen to others and take direction, if you're not obsessed with just one narrow aspect of the profession, then you're likely to find work, progress at a rapid rate and have a successful and satisfying career.
Plus, you won't endure the added stress of having to pay off a huge student loan. You might actually be able to have a life.
George W Bush went to Yale and Harvard.
well put THom
I'm dying to find out what Archiwhat considers a 2nd tier or a 3rd tier. And who told him/her such a thing.
George W. Bush has connections. He earned poor grades, and had he been a "normal" student at those schools, he would not have graduated.
Having gone to Ivies, I can say with honesty, it helped. It does not make as much difference as it once did, because the markets have been FLOODED with schools. There are now 130 architecture schools (all accredited mind you). As of 1970's there were about 50. But, people who go to those schools tend to help others who went to those schools. They also happen to be VERY hard workers and (arguably) have more talent. Of course there are exceptions- AHEM GW - who would NOT have been admitted had they shared a last name with the guy who donated a dining hall. But in general, the "big name architects" went to top schools. Get over it. People who work hard get into those schools. It follows that they continue to work hard afterwards. The debt is bad for architects everywhere. But most of it is federal at Ivies it seems. The BAD places are private, non need-blind schools. If you come out with PRIVATE debt, heaven help you.
That being said, it is bad for everyone right now. It does not matter where you went to school. It may matter again if things recover. But I think there are more important questions we need to be asking. Like "HOW do we fix this?" Not "did I go to the right school?" America is a different place than it once was. We need to organize, and use our brains to fix it. "Waiting it out" will only get you more in debt and more bored from not working.
8th tier school, represent!
I don't think there's a stigma to go to any licensed program at any real school. Sure, the GSD guys think that they're living gods, but they have that attitude toward MIT as much as they do toward RPI. That's their problem and nobody else's.
By real school, I do question the accreditations given to a few for-profit trade schools around the country, and I wish to goodness that NCAAB would be a little careful about giving out accreditions to institutions like those. I do believe that scholarship is an essential part of architectural education, and a for profit trade school, pretty much by definition, doesn't do that.
I also know from experience, both on the hiring and the job-seeking side, that some employers are starting to make a distinction between B.Archs and M.Archs, even though, as the purest here keep on telling anyone, it should not matter according to the industry.
"...does it really matter"
only if you think you're shit doesn't stink... whether you get a job or not mainly depends on the head on your shoulders, grade, and portfolio. DO NOT invest heavily in the pursuit of an architectural education (unless $ isn't a concern).
The arch school tiering system according to GSDers:
Tier 1: GSD
Tier 2: -0- (doesn't exist)
Tier 3: -0- (doesn't exist)
.....
Tier 8: MIT only when they offer an interesting studio open to GSDers under the reciprocal enrollment arrangement, otherwise Tier 9
Tier 9: All other accredited M.Arch programs
Drafters: All accredited B.Arch programs
It's all about your particular needs and interests and playing them smart against your risks and costs. Ivies may or may not be in the cards for you. Think of it this way, Pocket Aces are a great hand (like an Ivy degree), until someone gets a flush on the river card ("2nd tier" diploma holder) and beats you anyways (but I had pocket aces!!!!). Sorry for the Hold 'Em analogy, but I thought it was cute.
Shit Urbanist... I guess according to GSD... I went to high school like three times in a row.
How's this for a tiering system:
for most people:
($150,000 in debt + Ivy Degree) < ($40,000 in debt + public land grant college degree)
for princelings:
($150,000 trust fund withdrawal + value of Prada wardrobe + cost of summers in the Hamptons + Ivy degree) > (public land grant college degree)
Thanks for your feedback so far and somewhat putting my mind at ease. I had a minor freak out this morning...ok more like a major panic attack...
Like I said before I'm going to grad school in the fall, so I've been working this summer as an intern/bim guy in a firm that I really like and hoped to come back to and grow with after school. I had my exit interview with one of the principals whom I had no-communication with the entire time that I was there minus sparse friendly conversation in the kitchen. Everything was going well and he said that he'd love to have me back next summer. Then we moved onto grad school and he was interested in my process for selecting my school. I talked about how I got a great offer from X-university, and I got into my top choice as well(...VaTech, still stings that they couldn't give me any funding as this was my dream school) and I couldn't justify the cost.
He fires back "that's unfortunate because we really like our project managers to have attended ivy league or top schools like VaTech because our clients are less likely to question their abilities"
I tried to hide my angst as best I could but he had to see that his comment pretty much devastated me and set in motion the questioning of my education and entire career path up to this point. I thought for sure I had a future here and I know how tough it is out there for jobs so I don't want to ruin what I have...I'm having dinner with my direct supervisor tonight so I might bring up the comment from my exit interview to see if he's full of it or that's really how his corporate structure works.
archiwhat- I recently got into a heap of architecture programs (highly regarded, less regarded etc.) and I too turned down a number of 'top'/ivy leagues for a program that DI considers the tier below the highest, and Dr. G has in the top 10 (but not gsd/gsapp-level). I have an undergrad in arch, have been in the profession for 3 years, and I just didnt have the same intense desire fellow applicants had in going to a 'prestigious' institution (not enough of one to burn a 200k hole in my pocket). a desire for name brand seems like something people not plugged into the professional world of architecture are interested in (people with fine/liberal arts backgrounds moving into m.arch programs). from what I've seen it doesn't matter where you went, and my current coworkers who've worked for the likes of zumthor, oma, and ando, sans an ivy league degree, can attest to that. perhaps CMNDCTRL is right and it can get you into certain circles, or have 'important' people on your side.. but I whole-heartedly disagree that ivy-leaguers work harder. plus I wouldnt really care to run with people who are only concerned with the name on my degree. if you're into that, then yes where you went might be an issue.
Anyways, you'll be fine and you made the right choice.
vt is not an expensive school and does have a pretty good reputation ;)
good ole cowgill hall
Architwhat,
i can definitely see how that's a major mind-f*ck from your boss. However, you chose your M.Arch for it's network I presume, so if the school you are attending has some high-standing alums and a solid regional reputation, don't sweat it.
PS. your boss is a huge bag of douche, and is not in the majority with that kind of name-brand tier 1 bullshittery.
$57,465 in tuition (out-of-state), then add fees. I agree it's not as absurd as other schools and with some help it would have been very affordable.
true, that 'aint cheap but you could claim residency for your 2nd year.
I just landed an amazing architecture position with an education from a not-first-tier school.
My portfolio includes a variety of work not limited to architecture and I can honestly say its strength is a result of hard work and putting forth effort outside of school. I got commissions because of my reputation, not my institution's. I think what matters more than a diploma stamp is personality, community involvement and demeanor. Those attributes made me the best candidate for this position.
I'm sure I would be a similar person had I gone to my first choice school, but If my portfolio didn't express who I am and what I have done as an individual (rather than institutional slave) I wouldn't have landed this amazing opportunity!
it's only money, architwhat. if attending vtech will make you happier and more fulfilled (and potentially create more opportunities) then simply go for it, money or not. especially if you have a job lined up and in your back pocket.
why freak out about having student loans to deal with when you graduate? your quality of life won't change over paying a 150 bucks a month. (if you're working).
live with no regrets!
I was under similar circumstances when I made my decision, and in the end was more or less forced by my finances to go for the one offering me the free ride. Very honestly, I dont regret it. Stigma is definitely the wrong word, If your work is ill nobody cares where you did it. if anything, Ive found people have been impressed good people are able get so much out an un-regarded school. It shows you actually know how to think and do things on your own.
I will admit though, there is a downside. A lot of my friends and I really, really had to fight for our lives against the administration for resources and creative freedom. Instead of being in a climate of constant competition and drive to break new ground and an administration bending over backwards to help us grow, we had institutional barriers to taking risks. Absolutely, there were ways around it, we still had great students, genius professors, and a few black sheep in the administration who were willing to block for us and shepherd us through. But, in a fucked up way, it was all kind of good practice for the real world where clients are skittish and resources are razor thin. Youve really got to be good and sell yourself and convince people that things will work, and not just look cool on a board. I'll also concede its probably easier for people coming from good school to find jobs, if only because you have more access to better connections. But who knows, maybe that who-you-know thing is hard no matter where you are.
At any rate you can always work your way up and pick a nice Ivy for grad school ;)
Above all though, its pretty goddamn nice not to walk out of school staring down the barrel of 100 grand in student debt. Looking around at some of the people I know who paid more, I really appreciate not being SallieMae's indentured servant for the next 20 years.
jk3hl, how long ago did you graduate?
Half the people I know are paying between 400 and 800 a month. I know Obama has put through some good things, but I cant imagine the current situation is much better. Shit like that will definitely cramp your style.
hey oe - i graduated from undergrad a few months ago - but from the few people i explicitly asked about grad school debt said they made consolidated payments of 150-250 a month. i'm assuming this will vary pretty widely, and for argument's sake i'll concede that you may end up paying much more than 150 per month
i puzzled over this question in the last year as much, and i'm pretty sure there isn't really a 'right' or a 'better' way to do things. it's about your own personal priorities. do you value your money more, or do you value your identity as a professional more. it's okay to choose either.
Well like I said, the administration at my school was not the most helpful, so lots of people I graduated with (5 years ago ish) got killed. Interest rates are insanely low now too, so who knows, you might be closer to the average. Is there a poll for that on this board?
Architwhat,
That boss of yours is an Idiot. Who's Tier ranking system is he talking about?They are all pretty useless, go to the college that you want to go to.
I think most of us with any kind of experience will tell you that Architecture college rankings are not accurate. Only based on name and how much money they have pretty much. I went to what I consider the best college in my state and some have said the country, but as far as news week is concerned it is in tier 2.
Having worked in the profession i will tell you that what matters most is your knowledge of how to and i hate using this word (design), and how to put a building together. You cant get all of this knowledge from College.
College is just a stepping stone. college is what 5 years or maybe 7? and how long are you going to be alive after that? you have the rest of your life to learn more man stop sweating what your boss said.
PS. most of my so called bosses don't like the fact that i know my shit more than they do, and they see me as a threat,so there can also be a bad side to knowing too much.
as long as you produce at a high level, you should be fine ---
part of grad school is about the network you are buying into, you should know what you're getting wherever you're going and also know that if there are other connections you need/want not available through your school, then figure out how to get them ---
in my case, my wife went to an ivy and i tagged along and worked while she was in school, but i did not go to an ivy -- so my perspective is that it can and does open some doors more easily than for someone without the pedigree because some people are a bit star-struck by the pedigree --- but once those doors are open, they still have to produce or they are gone --- and plenty of them end up gone b/c there are b/s artists at all levels --- you can have the same opportunities but you might have to do a little more leg work to get them --- and bear in mind that someone coming from an elite school, if that school does not have the connections the person needs, they are in the same boat as you, building the network on their own
the whole "hard work" or "who works harder or is smarter" stuff I find to be a bit of a joke --- for two reasons
the first is that, while there seems to be a higher likelihood that those very rare, truly brilliant people will end up at an elite school at some point, most people at such schools (in my experience) are no smarter than anyone else competing at a level, bearing in mind that most people who are competitive at even the top 25 or 50 schools are probably already in the top 10-20% of the populace by IQ & academic achievement
the second is that, as I've worked everything from busboy, laying tile, laying pavers, steel shop worker and detailer, etc, as well as in firms and now at a university, i find that smart people and people who work hard are littered throughout the populace at every level of educational attainment --- there are brilliant people who just didn't want to jump through all of the hoops we jump through to get a formal education, or who had family commitments that kept them tied to a place, but they are in effect intellectually engaged at a very high level, all or mostly self-taught, but because there is no piece of paper from a formal institution that validates there capacity, they don't get the recognition
so in summary, do the work, build your network, don't worry about the mystique and you will be fine --- but you've got to deliver and if you're lacking a resource or connection, figure out how to acquire it for yourself
If anything one can draw from the creation of several primary education 'gifted' curriculum... is that your truly batshit insane B-A-N-A-N-A-S smart intellectuals often work just enough to stay outside of the radar.
Primarily, gifted programs are created to challenge such individuals on deeper and more creative levels to keep them constantly engaged otherwise they tend to flat out ignore, fake or half ass general education.
Mind you, the top 3% of the IQ bracket are indeed potentially valuable and wonderful people... many of those people purposely fall into obscurity or have been sentenced to a life of depression, suicidal tendencies or a life of crime.
However, for those who have been through the gifted system... they find that often being gifted isn't the joy it is thought to be. Many gifted students never go into big schools, any variety of scholar program (Rhodes et cetera) or really anything other than mediocrity because by about the age of 7 or 8... they've already realized that being smart is both a danger and a hassle.
What tends to fill up the halls of prestigious universities is your above average intelligence crowd-- not-quite-gifted-but-in-no-means-stupid-crowd.
So... don't think being 'intelligent' can really get you anywhere. Being trainable like a poodle gets you much farther-- perform on command, fill out those scantrons and turn your assignments in on time!
The gifted kids will be in the sciene lab trying to figure out how to use an evaporation condenser, a Bunsen burner and a couple of feet of tubing to seperate the ethanol from the isopropyl in hand sanitizer... you know, so they can inhale their way to a nice 5th period buzz.
as a funny anecdote of unicorn ghost's point, when i worked at the steel shop, we used a guy to design mechatronic assemblies, hydraulics, etc who was an affable, often inebriated dude (in the big lebowski sense) who had at one time helped to design a particle accelerator but was now hanging out in the middle of nowhere, picking up odd jobs and just doing his thing, hanging around the university --- coolest guy you could ever meet, probably the smartest, too, but just had his priorities ---
also, the most gifted engineer i've worked with only had a bachelors from a tier 2 school, but had a photographic memory, was very creative and was an excellent manager of his own time and that of others
malcolm gladwell talks about the research program where gifted children were supported and followed through adulthood with expectation they would all be geniuses and leaders of the world...they weren't. they were mid level bureacrats and decent scientists but not amazing...
not sure if the question about those schools is IQ really.
the hard work aspect is important though. i LIKED going to school with over-achievers who thought working hard and playing hard and doing cool stuff just for the fuck of it was worth it... and the professors are the same (well, some of them anyway). if you can get that at a non-ivy then you are set. if you can't then you will probably be bored shitless. i know i would be.
i went world class school for phd. free ride. for grad school i went to reglar solid canadian school and enjoyed it a lot. the difference? better network at the famous school. more opportunities for certain, and EVERYONE is a hard worker.
but as one poster mentions above there were lots of motivated students at the reglar school too. harvard and yale dont have a corner on that market. so as long as you work hard there is no reason that going to ANY school will do anything to affect your career.
i am curious your boss said that stuff though. i guess i can kind of get the point, though it seems superficially important to business, at best. at my office we sometimes mention the school we went to and where i am teaching and it does settle peoples minds a bit. but the truth of the matter is no on comes to us because we went to a super-school. clients come to us because we seek them out, because we meet them at parties, and because my partner has years of experience with Tokyo real estate and THAT is something our clients trust. need help negotiating your loan? no problem! what's that you say, you didn't know architects could do that? well truth be told they can't! aren't you glad to be working with us.... sort of thing. you wouldn't believe how much of a game changer that is.
anyway, don't worry about. work hard you 'll be fine.
and as far as iq goes, as jump points out, it is not the factor you might think
in particular there is a well-cited survey paper that covers this issue of how to perform well at a high level ---
Expert Performance: Its Structure and Acquisition, by K. Anders Ericsson and Neil Charness
and in particular, they reference Gardner's, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences
in which children who are musical prodigies are tracked (and their progress compared to) non-prodigy child musicians who are taught to play musical instruments with the Suzuki method over several years
The results?
Children who practice rigorously each day with exposure to masterful instruction and using a solid method end up performing at 'prodigy' level and gaining acceptance to elite opportunities in future years.
There is a large literature on expert performance and deliberate practice and it generally suggests that innate talent only comes to be significant when opportunity, exposure, level of effort, and above all time dedicated to deliberate practice are equal between those being compared. These latter components are by far the better predictors of and better vehicles to expert performance.
there is also a significant body of literature dealing with the plasticity of the brain that is quite different than what we grew up hearing --- since the 1990's, there is much literature showing that you can in fact grow new neurons, create new synapses and even enlarge the extent and volume of blood flow to the brain through exercising it --- you can extend or tune up your intelligence through practice and activity ---
lastly, there is what is called the 10000 hour rule --- i think this is covered in the survey article i mention on expert performance, if not then look it up --- in general, at a minimum, about 10000 hours of practice is required to become expert at some skill, though for something as complex as architectural design, creative writing, etc, it can take longer
so ultimately, when looking at current literature from cognitive psychology, the trend is to say performance and capacity are about deliberate practice (not work or play, b/c often we are not optimizing learning when doing either, though there is some implicit in each activity) -- b/c you are specifically targeting weaknesses and correcting them and b/c you are integrating knowledge
I have been working steadily for over 4 years since graduating and have never been asked where i went to school beyond casual conversation. I dont think there is any stigma attached to it at all.
Perhaps lurking on archinect and other forums, it may seem that the only schools anyone ever bothers applying to are the 4 or 5 top "name" schools and nothing else is ever considered by anyone at all. Thats really not the case by any means.
And if anyone really has that much of a problem with where you went to school, they most likely are not worth working for or with, or even generally being associated with
the point of all of that is, even to the small extent that there may be a stigma for some people, not only is it fair to say it doesn't really matter --- but in reality, it doesn't really matter --- at all
practice, practice, practice --- and latch on to the best instructor you can wherever you are
I agree with Marm that it doesn't come up in conversation.. almost ever.
Where it does come up, though, you may not be fully aware - which is in resumes given to clients and in publishing your firm's capabilities. Chances are, when you walk into the meeting, the client already knows (even if your own fellow team members don't and don't care) where you went to school and asked questions on it/discussed it with your PM... in my experience. He may even have made specific requests for staffing on the basis of where you went to school (I've had clients do that to me a frustratingly large amount of the time... "I want your Harvard guy on this..."
thats a good point Urbanist
I am not involved in proposals here, but i know the qualifications list we send almost always includes the schools the team members attended.
I would think most clients dont look too closely at the schools beyond giving it a quick once over. But i agree, there are definitely those clients out there who would think its better to have a X grad on the team, and even make it a requirement if they knew you had one on staff.
I'd say its most likely 2 types of people. One could be a fellow alum who is looking to throw work to other alums (which could happen at any school with strong alumni relations and connections, doesnt need to be Ivy league necessarily). The other could be someone who feels that just having a degree from a specific school makes your work superior.
Then again though, I think that is the one distinct advantage you do have if you go to a big name Ivy league school. That name alone can sometimes help you out without you even having to do anything. Be it alumni connections, or just school name recognition.
I think I may have come off too harshly (or some people put words in my mouth). I do NOT think that the GSD is alone in the top tier. There are MANY schools that are great. I think there are many that put students in debt with no justification. It used to be that an Ivy degree was WORTH paying that extra money because earning potential was higher. Now, the market has been saturated. The newer schools simply charge more money to have more money in their endowments to try and catch up with schools that have been operating (properly) for many decades (or centuries).
People at top schools DO work harder in general. I am sorry, but if you did not attend one, then you are NOT in a position to judge. I HAVE had exposure to both types (attending top schools and teaching at lower level ones). Do you think it is EASY to get the highest scores, highest grades, win competitions, etc? It takes hard work. Is it simply coincidence that many top names/grads went to top schools? Probably not.
My point was lost. If you work hard, you SHOULD do well. But being from a top school WILL give you an edge. It is a fact: people with top degrees earn more money (isn't that ULTIMATELY the only way to truly judge success in thie SUPER capitalistic society?) They also tend to start with better positions (also a fact). But those who go to top schools are not better people (or even better architects). You should look at your debt, see HOW MUCH more you'd earn, and judge if the difference is worth it. Every financial aid package is different. My TRUE point is this: higher education in America is broken. It costs too much, we give too much of it away to people from other countries at discount prices, then wonder why American students are in so much debt. The government backs the tuition, and we wonder why tuition skyrockets. But because this has happened, it has devalued a good degree. A degree from a land-grant school was and still is great! But now since there are so many newer schools, all the schools that have been around (including the top) SEEM less valuable. It is simple supply and demand. There are more M.Archs and B.Archs now compared to the population.
My advice to any new student is this: Go to ONLY the VERY top school if you will be taking on debt. They tend to give you BETTER (federal) debt, and a degree that still differentiates you. Otherwise, go to the CHEAPEST school you can go to that is accredited. You can still become an architect, but won't owe your soul to a debtor. Sadly, the schools in the middle, which CHARGE what the GSD charges, are not worth the cash any more. That is my true point. Incidentally, my loan payment is about 250 a month with fairly big debt. I make more than the people in my office with lesser degrees, and I am in a position of authority but with the same debt.
I think we should not be squabbling over these things. We SHOULD be trying to change the system. For that, we need power of numbers. Archinect is fairly petty (I include myself- I know I get wrapped up in arguments too). But we, as architects should do something about the way our salaries have had downward pressure (from AIA, NCARB fees, etc, and from lowered fees from low-balling). We should also examine how much debt we go in as a practice for what is a LOWER average salary than our peers with similar debt. These are the things I wish to draw attention to, and perhaps that is for another thread. If so, I apologize. But, each student who makes the decision to take on more debt, for a degree that is NOT worth the debt hurts our cause. So perhaps you would not mind telling us the name of the school you chose?
But... the thing that troubles me is that hard work isn't what it is cracked up to be.
You could 'work really hard' on an insanely stupid project.
I know plenty of people who 'worked hard' on such projects. They were often rewarded for effort but were not necessarily punished for a lack of depth, complexity or even novelty in their approaches.
Now, I will admit almost anything that's been done currently has probably been done before... and originality in the university system is a true rarity.
But, collegiate level academics is about exploring that boundary.
In my opinion, college is about two things...
1) Process-- the hard work so to speak, the formal path from cultivating a product from start to finish-- synonymous with the word "innovation"
2) Product-- the transformed end result of the process so to speak-- synonymous with the word "invention"
Rewarding people for just hard work and effort corrupts this concept. Sorry, I will say it!
And that's more or less the point I made with the "gifted crowd" is that process is far more focused on that product. And jmang illustrated how through continual effort, someone can be that good.
However, we have a ton of people who are looked over simply because they don't do the "hard work," have sloppy processes or completely ambiguous ones.
And these bad processes people can and do put out superior products while 'not working hard.'
Sorry, it is a mega thorn in my ass from a bygone protestant reformation era that 'hard work' is an ultimate salvation.
It's not.
you tell yourself that, CMNDCTRL
Hahaha. Yes. Hard work that is dumb is NOT the same as hard work that is smart. Frankly, I think I am leaving the field. That is what I think working hard/SMART is right now.
The PROCESS is almost meaningless in the real world because there is very little work. But frankly reducing architecture to JUST the art involved is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
I mean hard work as in SMART work, not just pulling all-nighters. I hate that part of our culture - being in the office 18 hours makes you better ? If I work 9, and get 8.5 SOLID, GREAT hours of work done, that is GREATER than 18 hours with only 4 hours of GREAT work done. I agree. But it is easier to say "hard work" than to go through all the nuances of this.
CMNDCTRL
I kind of see what you are saying, but overall really dont necessarily agree.
Earning the most money isnt the only way or best way to judge success at all.
And if you take on a lot of debt from your "top" school, will you be making that much more than others who went to lesser schools to make up for the debt+interest you will be paying back for years? If so, then i completely agree, it is worth it.
I dont think that necessarily rings true for the architecture profession though.
I just think that if what you were saying was completely true, then there would be no Harvard or Yale grads who are unemployed. And i somehow doubt that is true.
I do agree about the smart and hard work though. I got so sick of all the whiners during school who complained about how they were there for 40+ straight hours yet didnt finish their projects. These idiots who would sleep on the floor so they wouldnt "waste" time going home, yet then took 3 hour lunch breaks. It's all so obvious
A degree from a top-tier school might ensure you get an interview, but that's all, IMO.
When I interview prospective hires, I don't really care about the school's reputation. It's all about portfolio, work experience and presentation.
Architwhat, if I where you, I'd ask myself if I really want to work for someone who would lay a mind-trip like that on me.
Good luck!
LOL...Unicorn, this is often true...
The idea of a top tier/lesser tier school only really concerns architects (and really only architecture students, for that matter). Once you are in the profession a few years and start working more directly with clients, you realize that your ability, work ethic and general personality are the real qualifiers.
Most of your clients are going to be ex-frat-boys who care about only a few things (mostly making money on the project so they can get a better raise), albeit they do have a general interest in their profession. When you make small talk with you client, they don't want to talk about post-modernism (most have no idea what this even means), they are more likely to want to talk box-scores or who will win the SEC this fall. It's better to go a pretty-good school where you come out knowledgeable and passionate about architecture with a couple football anecdotes up your sleeve (whether you could give a toss about the game or not) than saddled in huge debt and spewing notes about how you stalked your favorite starchinect at grad school.
first tier second tier third tier. there are too many tiers because there are too many schools. look around peeps. universities recruit students in many fields to get the caish. fields that are over saturated and under paid in the real world. does the world need more architects? more english majors? more philosophy students? not really. sure education for its own sake is important, however, to spend six figures to become an architect really doesn't make sense. although if you aren't paying, are already wealthy, or are the greatest thing since sliced zaha then i say, go for it!
overseas school represent! :P Now...how to try to get into the profession given my less than desirable credentials...hmmm...
To clarify, I don't think that anyone has won or loss a job based on the school on a key team member's resume.. but it is something a certain type of client likes to ask about, as if that might buy some extra pizzaz for their masterplan or building: iceing on the cake, if you will. It's more irritating than something that actually matters.
good point UG, no one is rewarded just for working hard or just putting in the hours. it needs to be directed at least a wee bit.
still....in my first proper full time archi-job, which was in japan, i regularly worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, half days on sunday and NO HOLIDAYS (!). ...the reward was that in a few years i had put in a serious amount of serious work, doing all of the things not taught in school and also a lot of things that in other countries architects never do. BUT, that is normal in japan. those are without any exageration nothing more than regular office hours here.
Mostly what it meant was that i became very competent very fast and i took a big step to that 10,000 hours thing that is important to becoming an expert in the field. Which made it a lot easier to get into grad school when i quit, and after that to get a job I had a portfolio of fairly nice buildings that I had designed and done CD'S for, not just worked on.
[warning, self-serving personal anecdote from this point on, warning...]
I didn't really learn to design in all that. which is why i went to grad school. and really worked hard. which led to a few significant awards which led to a job and when i needed it led to an interview with the people who would give me the money i needed to do phd for free at japanese elite school...which led to meeting people studying architecture with starchitects but intending to go into real estate who ALSO work hard because they like this stuff, which lead to a partnership with one of those same people and starting an office in Tokyo, which led to a few nice projects and now here i am...
DEFINITELY ahead of where i should be. There is no way a kid, just one step away from a life on the farm in Canada can end up running an office (even a humble one like mine) in Tokyo, without working very hard.
which brings me back to the topic...
going to school and working hard in good canadian school got me good grades and some prizes for my thesis, which was nice.
going to school and working hard at elite school got me good grades and a lot of contacts that are still shaping my life.
Those contacts are what are most important to me now. Not so much that I know the starchitects, but that I know the other students who are very intent at succeeding. that is what ivies are important for...
if you have the right kind of personality you can make those contacts anywhere. i didn't/don't...so having the crutch of an elite education in tokyo has made a lot more possible than normal. and so far i am pretty glad for all those opportunities. i certainly wouldn't knock them. nor would i knock the ivy education for those who are able to swing it.
Thank you everyone for your comments, you have certainly put my mind at ease.
Had dinner with my supervisor after my last day and he set the record straight. The principal whom I had my exit interview with is part of the good ole boys club and not only is he in the minority of the firm's leadership, he's also on his way out in the next 5 years. He also reinforced the idea that it doesn't matter where you went to school because they've hired plenty of people from "great" schools who couldn't cut it in practice.
I feel much better about my prospects of returning next year and hopefully sticking here for many years to come.
my office is ranked 28 internationally in terms of revenue. we have no one that went to an ivy league school at my office. that doesn't necessarily mean that we are successful without them, but the professionals at my office are full of regional Master and BArch students from state schools. We work hard and do what it takes to satisfy our client base.
amazing how long some of the comments are on this thread.
honestly, good work is good work. it really doesn't matter, just go where you want. i've met people from new mexico and mississippi state and montana state and ball state i was very impressed with, and i've met people from yale and michigan and sciarc i was surprised even graduated. most employers could care less where you went to school.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.