Just my thought.

What I think is worng with our school system is what is wrong with Blockbusters rental policy or paid cable (HBO etc.) programing policy.

It used to be that you would rent a specific movie. You would rent the specific movie and pay the fee associated to it. Depending on the release date and/or how good the movie was, told you how much you were going to pay to rent that movie and the length of time that fixed price would be for that movie for the duration it could keep getting that price. That rental fee was logged into the computer and went to that movie company/director/producer though.

Then they came out with this monthly payment program. $20 per month, all the movies you wanted, right? The rental place then would allocate portions of that rental fee to all of its movie rentals, whether or not you wanted or did see a movie. So lets say Farhenheit 911 was a movie you didn't want to see. But you paid the monthly fee. You paid Michael Moore money for his movie if you had the monthly subsrciption even though you didn't see the movie.

What has this got to do with college?

Well, the college will take in all the students it can handle. It then allows the student to pick whatever discipline they want or can get accepted into and the fees may go up a little but not really and the general cost of tuition will be the same. It's fairly fixed to a per student basis by year per each school. So the student going to accounting or pre-med or nursing or basketweaving or architecture pretty much pay the same amount to attend the school. The school doesn't care, they spread the tuition around regardless. And it does not matter if the intern architect makes $35k starting versus the accountant who makes $50k. The student loan you both incurred may be very similar but the payscale you will be at may vary greatly.

You need to fix this concept first. One degree is not the same as another even though you spent the same amount of time and money for it.

I actually just went and looked this up.

At the school I went to it costs, at the base level, $4050 per semester. Unless you fell into certain disciplines. If you wanted to get an engineering degree you had to pay $800 more per semester. If you wanted to go into architecture you had to pay $550 more per semester. If you wanted to go into the college of pharmacy, you paid NO more money than the $4050.

Anybody know the starting salary for the guy who fills prescriptions at the drug store?

So, on the fence, in your blockbuster analogy, is Netflix the eveil, double-dipping, recession monster that killed our poor tragi-comedy we called an architectural career?

Also, take it easy on "the guy who fills prescriptions". It's an important position that carries more legal recourse than architectural stamp does these days. It also help that dying and being sick is recession proof.

Another observation about architectural education. Blame the kids. Discussion forum on archinect can be split into two halves these days.

1. Poor unemployed saps disillusioned with years of hard work and a kick in the nuts as part of a compensation package. Throw in there the vastly underemployed, and those waiting for the axe to fall at their office. Architectural education shortcomings are a ripe topic to pick apart these days.

2. Bunch of kids posting topics about which grad school is the best, which laptop to buy, which blob making software is the best, portfolio review advice, etc...

There's little overlap between two groups...

Group 2 sees group 1 as disgusting zombie people form 19th century. Reminds me of a young rock band opening up for a band of old geezers. They have shiny new equipment, the look, great hair and clothes, unlimited ambition, and lots and lots of arrogance. They look at the old band with disgust that has ducktaped instruments, blown amps, receding hairlines and beer guts, sadness in the eyes, and careers that didn't exactly pan out as planned. Not to worry though, the young ones will surely make it where others fell. It's written in the stars...

There is nothing that will stop a young superstar from achieving their goals. Not bad venues, not poor education institutions.

Original poster is asking for schools to be more accountable with their results. But who's asking? Group 2 isn't qualified to ask the right questions, and noone listens to group 1's advice anymore.

As a personal advice to anyone going through architectural education right now: Don't sweat the small stuff in architecture, you'll have no control over it anyways. Learn to love architecture. And I mean try develop an unhealthy obsession with architecture that would otherwise get you thrown in jail if such obsession was focused on living things. It's the only way to ease the inevitable, pointless, jolts of daily pain that will define the rest of your professional career.

Well said steelstuds! I presume you're in group uno along with me then?

Give me a tin star and a bad of money and I'll do it!

I always wonder why schools are so expensive here - and why hardly anyone just learns some European language and gets their degree there for almost nothing.

I don't think, though, that it should be the responsability of the schools to decide how many architects will be necessary in 5, or 10, or even 20 years...

That was a "bag" of money. ;-)

schools are businesses. its in their interest to not mention the average earning potential of their students. why would they "crush someone's dream of success"

So many of us stay ambitious, do good in school etc. what's a couple of thousand dollars to go to a dream school? we can pay it back right? when we become rich and famous. But unfortunately, going to a good school and doing as your told doesn't always guarantee success.

A teacher even once said it to. "sorry, i dont wanna be the one to kill your dreams, why would anyone want to do that?"

markets are so crazy, how could any school guarantee you a steady job for life. what about people that change careers?

My thoughts, in random order:

set whatever curriculum they deem appropriate

The argument I received in school (3 years ago undergrad) was that the curriculum proposed was in effort to meet accreditation. Obviously I wasn't going to spend the time look into what the accreditation requirements were, and how the school was meeting them - I was an architecture student, working part-time, newly married.

Anyone know how broad or focused the requirements are for accreditation?

There is NO accountability for the future of their students and therefor no aligning of our schools with current market conditions.

While I understand where you are trying to go with this, I would like to believe that through my "testimony" I am holding my school accountable in part. I will say til the day I die the 4 years was utterly worthless, I could have easily skipped it and started working with no real loss of knowledge - certainly not 4 years, or 3, or two. MAYBE 1, and that's being generous.

If I badmouth my school enough, some prospective student is bound to hear it, and thus will be informed. Enough people badmouth their alma mater, and true accountability takes hold...

A coworker 8 years out just confessed he didn't learn a damn thing at Notre Dame.

This narrow judgment of educational value of course gets clouded: College for many (not me, too old) was all about the total experience, not just their education- the parties, the drinking, the sex, the first time of freedom. So if the rest of that was great for them, it tends to soften the blow.

If they prepare you well, and you secure a decent job...If they fail to prepare you for the current demands of the industry

Here was my experience:

They didn't attempt AT ALL to prepare you for your first job out, but rather for when you were principal, 10-20 years down the road. They taught us to schematically design. Tell me, who schematically designs in your firm? Is it the freshfaced college grad, or the guy who has fought and scrapped for 10-20 years to finally get into that position?

As each day drew nearer to graduation, I kept asking myself, what job skills have I actually learned, to get a job? I spoke with the Department Head (MIT trained). He had a basic pat answer of "if you want to learn how to draft, go to ITT Technical Institute."

There seems to be in the academic circles this idea that they are molding the minds of the future architects. Yes, but who's giving them the skills to actually perform the work? I never understood how my pretty pictures in my portfolio were supposed to get me a job out of college. I actually chose not to show them, but instead to focus on my CAD work/ abilities. I just didn't understand why your teaching me something now that I can learn in the 10-20 years before I actually use those skills. OR the opposite, that you're not teaching me the skills required the first day out of college.

to bring it home, there was a guy here on archinect that said the following (forgive the proper attribution):

When I was 25 I was sure I knew it all. When I turned 30 I realized that I was looking at design too much as an additive, linear process: concept, concept develops, figure out how to incorporate structure/systems, etc.

It is only after a couple of decades of practice that feel like I am thinking about design as a synthetic process, where systems, structure, etc. are an organic part of how I think about Architecture, and more importantly, I am comfortable enough with these systems to push on them to the benefit of an Architectural idea. The conversations I have with consultants now have an entirely different tone than the ones I had with them when I was 30.

Based on the above, the approach of architecture schools trying to teach us/help us find our design process at such an early age is utterly fruitless, a whimsical dream, that in accordance with the op should have no place in the training of the next professionals.

As we've all heard before, and as the quote above alludes to, this is an old man's profession. During school, I also had a similar realization as he did: if I don't have all the pieces in the beginning ( or the majority, certainly alot more than what fresh graduates have!), then that means that every concept I conceive will be bastardized by the time it gets through to construction. As he mentioned, we designed in imaginary land (don't worry about budget, or structure, or space for mechanical ducting), and when you then go and try to implement reality on your design...something has to give: your idea, or its ability to stand up/be compliant.

I just felt there was sooo much we could have learned in school, that school is GREAT for -rote knowledge: codes, drafting standards, mechanical systems, detailing, etc - that they refused to give us, because we it simply wasn't flashy enough. Instead we spend countless hours on our own in the studio cutting wood. So I'm paying you thousands of dollars to teach myself? Really?? For you to guide my intuition???

It's midnight - too late to edit out the raw emotion. But I hope you can see through to the point. If required I can hopefully elucidate more in the morning :)

sorry that post is just way too big to read. so I will just agree with you.

Lol - so if I have just enough text, people will automatically agree with me? :)

You make an excellent valid point however. I'll break it up from now on, if for only that reason.

The topic touched a nerve, obviously.

Steelstuds wrote

"So, on the fence, in your blockbuster analogy, is Netflix the eveil, double-dipping, recession monster that killed our poor tragi-comedy we called an architectural career?"

If you say so. My point was analagous not a direct connection to Netflix.

"Also, take it easy on "the guy who fills prescriptions". It's an important position that carries more legal recourse than architectural stamp does these days. It also help that dying and being sick is recession proof."

Did I blame the pill counters for their salary because the colleges ask the same tuition for two separate degrees which in turn produce two separate payscales? I don't remember doing that.

i thought americans were famous for their can-do and suck it up attitudes.

yall sound like my european friends here in japan complaining that tokyo government isn't providing proper access to free daycares for their kids and otherwise expecting the govt to take all the responsibility out of being an adult (no offence to europeans here ;-) ).

i tell ya, my illusions are shattered. just shattered.


my school was great. the economy, however, sucks - lets put the blame where it belongs.

jump:

I think people are rightfully pissed off because school is getting ridiculously expensive, and we've reached a point where that investment isn't paying off anymore. I don't think we'd care if our classes weren't 100% practical if school was more affordable.

Right, if the cost of tuition outweighs the average salary for the career/discipline chosen, then adjustments have to be made somewhere. We can not be paying large sums of money to people or schools for a product that isn't worth that sum. Schools are in no hurry to tell students which disciplines don't pan out though. If people are willing to pay for the degree, they are willing to accept your money. So it is on you, the student and/or parent, to figure this out and stop believing the general rule of thumb that a college degree absolutely nets bigger salaries. Sometimes they just do not.

To on the fence:

Your analogy is patently wrong.

Sorry, but it is! I also like how you used it as an opportunity to put in some rabid politicization into your point.

The royalty fee structure for premium cable (or even broadcast networks) and rental stores is completely different.

A rental store (like Netflix) typically buys royalty free, "rental" media.

They pay anywhere from $40-$200 dollars to the specific media in question for two main reasons: they do not have to pay royalties on rentals and they typically get the rental media 2-3 weeks before release.

What makes netflix different is that people can "rent" ahead of time-- meaning that they know if a movie is coming out soon, people can reserve said movie and netflix knows how many discs they actually need to buy.

The primary difference between the two is that when you rent from a video store-- your video rental fee pays for the shelf space of other movies you may or may not want to rent.

Netflix on the other hand has no movie clerks, very limited staff and no expensive complex retail locations. Since they have less expenses, they can offer more movies.


Anyone know how broad or focused the requirements are for accreditation?

There's some pretty broad requirements.

Typically the school prepares a "self-evaluation." That self evaluation is given to other "peer schools" for approval. But after the application/self-study, a team comes out and visits your school for one or two days... and then compiles a report.

Later, a bunch of people (from places like NCARB and the AIA) sit in a room and vote on whether or not your program is worthy of accreditation.

But if you actually look on the 2010 accreditation report:

http://www.naab.org/accreditation/2010_Procedures.aspx

There's not actual checklist or rating system or anything like that.

They seem to review student work and make sure facilities are capable.

Well, I never worked for blockbuster, netflix or cable programming so I will defer to your input.

Now maybe back to the point.

You pay x amount for your degree. The other guy pays the same x amount for his degree. His degree nets him a job making $75k and your degree nets you $35k.

The question is, should the schools be offering these two degrees at the same price or should they be letting you know that the career path you have chosen will net you a huge difference in payscale? Is the onous on them or you the uneducated and naive recently accepted freshmen?

There's an underlying issue here that's getting tiptoed around, and I'd like to bring front and center.

why would they "crush someone's dream of success...A teacher even once said it too. "sorry, i dont wanna be the one to kill your dreams, why would anyone want to do that?"

I don't think we'd care if our classes weren't 100% practical if school was more affordable.

I would care. Can anyone explain to me why classes can't be 100% practical? Can anyone explain to me the benefits of having impractical classes?

What exactly are they shielding us from? Reality? Why do they not think we can handle it? We certainly have to handle it 4 years later when we get out and enter the workforce.

It just makes no sense.

There's not actual checklist or rating system or anything like that.

They seem to review student work and make sure facilities are capable.

I appreciate the answer UG. And I know you're giving a summation, but can the process sound/be any more vague? "Capable" of what exactly? Here was my take on crits: they weren't worth a damn, because they also know we did not have all of the pieces to design with. They couldn't necessarily discuss structure, because we weren't really taught it. They couldn't comment on code compliance, because we weren't versed in that either. So it came down to touchy feely, how'd it make you feel, how's it look. And 9 out of 10 the student with the best presentation (read: MARKETING) skills, the smoke and mirrors, got the most attention.

No hard knowledge is given, or if so, at a minimum. Soft vagueness, subjective opinions is the main focus.

Yes and No.

Point above, adequate facilities--

Architecturing is exensive.

I mean, if you do it by hand and cut models by hand... then all you need is a big room with at least two different types of tables (drafting, work).

But if you want to add in a laser cutter, a 3d printer or something else... you also have to add in the machine cost, the maintenance cost and then a babysitter (shop manager) for that machine.

Add in a computer lab to generate the files necessary to use those devices... and then you have 3 or 4 dozen more pricey pieces of equipment and then another babysitter on top of that.

This is primarily a point raised in another thread-- the Open Source Architecture thread-- and a concept that many architects (and other design professionals have taken up) is a "Ghetto-ization of practice."

That is to say... using the cheapest means necessary to convey an idea or concept with an impact similar to a more expensive method.



If I present to someone a model made out of toothpicks and playdoh, they're going to be pissed that I don't take them seriously.

If I present to that same person a model made out of painstakingly cut lucite, they'll be more than likely impressed and wowed.

But... the idea is to convey information. And I'm sure that person's opinion will change drastically when they see the price difference between a playdoh model and a lucite model.

Even if you're rich, $3,000 isn't chump change.


So, yes, architecture... like any art endeavor... is expensive. And studio classes are often leaps and bounds more expensive that other classes in different formats. It is typically one reason why art, music and the sciences are being cut left and right is "hands on" learning is not cheap.

The primary difference between a pill pusher and an architect is that people take a licensed pharmacist seriously no matter what their age is.

A fresh-out-of-school architect seems to be laughed at by everyone. It's one of the few industries where 35 is considered young!

Ageism in society perpetuates this constant idea that maturity and age somehow confers some natural innate ability. Like turning 30 somehow magically transfers the complete knowledge necessary to lay out kitchen cabinets.

@pickfirst, nope!

I remember reading 100 or so pages of the procedures of accreditation and the first 80 pages was primarily about how the site visit works.

There's a subsection in there that requires the site team to have a locking room (with no spare keys) and a paper shredder. HINT HINT!

They seem to throw around the word objective a lot. But I'm assuming the word "objective" is suppose to mean impartial because there's three pages about how site evaluators cannot have done business with, be related to, have basically copulated with or attended the institution that is being reviewed.

The voting board-- on the other hand-- is this:

4 members from NAAB
4 members from NCARB
4 members from the AIA
2 members from the AIAS

So, the business and student side makes up less than a majority vote given power to testing and accreditation-- read: inbreeding.

But yes, there is no objectivity in it. Objectivity in this sense meaning a quantitative methodology.

And there's no real transparency here because there's no demonstration of how an actual review process works and how they specifically grade a program to "meet basic criteria."

But yes... you're allowed to practice architecture because your architecture school "met basic criteria."

Makes you feel valuable?

Yes, just like Jesus loves me! does.

My mother went to graduate school for anthropology. When asked what kind of a job she would get in anthropology, my grandfather used to inform people with proud indignation, "She's going to University - not to trade school."

pickfirst, I'm sorry that you did not get the education you were looking for in school, but I have to agree with your dean and defend the status quo just a bit.

Architecture is taught in the US primarily as an academic discipline, and not as a trade. While accreditation requires some attention to professional practice and building tech courses, for the most part it is believed that students will absorb this information better in a real professional environment. Thus, IDP. If an accredited degree were the only requirement for licensure as it is in some countries (e.g. Spain), it would be much more important for schools to cover systems coordination and other technical aspects of the profession. As it stands now, the dominant paradigm within US architecture schools is only likely to change if either the requirements for accreditation are drastically altered or if employers demonstrate a strong hiring preference for graduates of skills-based technical or trade schools, like ITT Tech. If you honestly believe architecture should be taught as a set of job skills ("Here's how to draw dimensions in paperspace." "Here's how to write a spec sheet."), as a student, you should go to a trade/technical school, and as an employer, you should hire graduates of the same.

I do not think schools are responsible for ensuring the future employment of their students. Your diploma is never automatically redeemable for a job, no matter what your field of study. I think prospective students do have a responsibility to learn more about their chosen field, as it is practiced as well as how it is taught, and that schools should help them obtain that information by arranging informational interviews, office open houses, etc.

Of course, I am young so I most assuredly know nothing. I drank the kool-aid. I took on some debt and went to a graduate school widely known as a "theory school." I would have graduated without knowing how to use CAD if I hadn't learned it on my own during thesis. With three years of office experience (with tons of time spent on schematic design, btw), I have to say that I would not change a thing about the way I was taught in school.

I'm going to presume that the difference is that the pharmacist is actually taught hard knowledge in college.

Maybe if we were taught how to layout kitchen cabinets in college, instead of doing arts and crafts (studio) all week with playdoh and toothpicks, we might get our respect a little earlier, and wouldn't be waiting til 30 to learn on the job ...

Architecture is not the only profession where this happens. Then again, with age does come experience. Problem is that the 35 year old Architect has probably spent the past 10 years with a lot of time behind a computer and much less time "in the field" actually learning. What in-the-field means is debatable, but pumping CAD doesn't really teach you to be a good Architect.

Meanwhile the pharmicist at 35 has been spending the past 10 years doing what he/she will do the next 30 years - being a pharmicist.

There are reasons that fresh grads don't jump right in at a PA/PM level doing "everything" in this profession, but then again, that pushes the learning curve for many parts of the job farther out to older age.

And not to beat a dead horse, but IDP and Firm involvement in "mentoring" aka apprenticeship is all over the place and for the most part woefully inadequate. Hey, it costs money.

otf - I don't think a sliding scale for degree path is a good idea - I think there has to be a way to drop the cost of tuition for everyone so someone going for a business degree can take that 18th century french poetry class without the guilt that it isn't particularly useful for their chosen profession.

I don't want to see a whole generation of really boring technical people taking over the profession. many of my fellow graduates had an interest in things like literature and philosophy - now you're hard pressed to find a recent grad who knows anything outside of the stuff in recent arch mags and the latest 3D software. there needs to be a healthy balance of thinkers and doers in this profession - not just a bunch of doers.

anyway - over the past 30 years, tuition cost has outpaced inflation 4 to 1. maybe because these days we are expecting some kind of f-ing luxury suite with room service when we got to college. before it was a bare cinder-block dorm room with crappy furniture, and lousy campus food... and none of us really cared because we were there to learn... and the past decade or so it's been all about changing students' diapers and powdering their asses on gilded changing tables. that's where tuition is going - facilities and perks. and it isn't going to change because now the schools have to pay for this shit.

It's ironic that architecture school has become more expensive because we built too many buildings...

My point with that is if by miracle... you've found a 22 year old who can recite UBC from memory, can actually detail everything from door hinges to flashing, knows how to keep books and has enough graphic design skills/marketing skills to put together a decent presentation.

Mind you, let's say this 22 year old has never actually built anything but has a massively impressive portfolio that demonstrates that all of this knowledge has been applied and used-- even in a theoretical sense.

And to make this hypothetical argument slightly more interesting... let's say this 22 year old managed a retail store since they were 19.

Because this person is 22 and has limited (but impressive) real world experience...

Will they ever be hired to be anything more than an intern out of school?
Will their input ever be valued in any meaningful capacity?

Mind you, this scenario would be relatively rare if not exceptional. However, anyone with the kind of intellect and analytical skills to learn that much on their own will likely avoid an industry where competence and skill isn't as valued as much as "experience and age."

That's a natural blockade that will prevent gifted/talented individuals from pursuing that particular course if they see no direct entrance into that particular path. Those are people who want to skip ahead and want to rise to the top quickly.




One experiment I've wanted to try is to take two nearly identical well-done plans and send them out to different firms.

Tell them that one plan was done by a 19 year old and the other plan was done by a 44 year old. Then see which plan they believe to be the more technically competent plan.

Thanks Snarki for the counter point, it is appreciated. Some of your defense is precisely what doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps we can meet a common ground.

My mother went to graduate school for anthropology. When asked what kind of a job she would get in anthropology, my grandfather used to inform people with proud indignation, "She's going to University - not to trade school."

So would it be too populist of me to ask what she did for a living? The basic premise of this thread was, frankly, about money: how to realign the costs of education with the results gained from that education.

Architecture is taught in the US primarily as an academic discipline, and not as a trade.

Am I the only one that finds this counter-intuitive? I am currently on my lunch, at my place of trade - an architecture office. Tell me, where in academia do you go to practice your taught discipline? Like or not, Architecture is a business, and I work for that business. So why isn't college teaching me about the business?

You've discussed what shouldn't be taught in school and learned on the job. Not to single you out, but are you able to quanitify and relate exactly what you learned in ug and g, and how that is helping you now? What did I miss? You do make an extremely valid point on who firms are hiring. I really want to equate it with trying to surround oneself with people of like backgrounds, but I know that's untrue. The principal is running a business, and if my inference is correct that ug and g has little value, then his business would be defunct. So enlighten me if you can...

I still believe it's putting the cart before the horse. The things you need to know first thing on the job should be the things taught in college. As you mentioned, you have the rest of your life to learn the other stuff. I think both are important, I just don't agree with the timing they are taught. The same argument used about the knowledge I sought (learning it otj) is the same one I can use about the knowledge you received in school (could have been learned otj).

I understand you trying to counterpoint my point about the principal doing the design. But let me clarify: in school all you did was schematic design. ANYONE can do schematic design. Schematic design has the least limitations imposed on it. It's the fleshing out of that design to actually be built where the shit hits the fan.

Hate to throw wrench in your ideas of offices valuing "experienced age", but from personal experience I know that big corporations do outright promote inexperienced people who are only like 25 years old, solely because they want to groom them to be their future designers even if they are not the best or the brightest, I've see this done. Can you picture a 50 or 60 year old professional kissing a 25 year olds ass? I've witnessed that and it looks pathetic, and sad at the same time.

Thinkers and Doers - thanks Toaster, your post clarifies a lot for me. There is a whole other side to life besides the living (doing)side, that I've largely ignored in this conversation, for better or for worse. I still think I can pursue the intellectual side of life more so when my finances are taken care of...hence, give the doing knowledge first...

i am critical of some aspects of academia but i also think that architecture school is, in a way, trying to cover all of the bases. in the reality there are two types of architects in the profession and two types of architecture students in school.

10 percent of students will be true designers, principals and firm owners in the professional realm. these students are being educated to think and that's what architecture school has the luxury and time of teaching you before you get hit with learning how to put a permit set together. for these types of students, the profession can be a huge disappointment when the way you operated in school never comes to fruition in the real world. here's where these people either get out, go back to academia or just resign themselves to being in a project manager role.

the other 90 percent are the students that will probably be the 'doers' (as stated above), NEED an accredited degree, and will probably be an a licensed 'draftsperson' the rest of their lives. and i sort of agree that this type of person IS probably overpaying for an education that could have been obtained at a two year institution.

the reality is: we need a lot more of the 90 group and really only a need a few of 10 group.

i'm not saying that schools are perfect or not subject to hyper-inflating tuition costs, but they ARE trying to satisfy all of these students to some degree. i've been in school with both. the ones who could barely tolerate a structures class taking away from studio time and the ones who can't understand how they can get an A in structures and a C in 'bullshit' studio.

In my undergrad, I felt that there was no basis taught to the fancy designs we made. I wanted to know more, because I thought that I needed the technical stuff, to know how the structure comes together - "form follows function". So I enrolled in the structural engineering program parallel to my architecture studies.

The result was that I at first didn't do anything creative for a while. Then, when I started again, I felt that I had lost my creative drive. The technical thinking, all those details that you have to take care of, the precision of the engineering killed the free flow of ideas I had before...

Gradually, it's coming back, but I think it might be good to not overheat the poor students' heads with to much wordly stuff. I understand that it's necessary to a certain degree, but the sentence "the engineer will make it hold up, don't worry" (which I heard a couple of times when we mentioned the laws of physics in the studios) can be a big relief for a designer...

i don't like the dichotomy between thinker and doer -- it is less fun to me than doing both -- why would anyone give up either facet? but beyond this selfish reason, and bearing in mind that it is the de facto m.o. of the industry, i find it problematic.

the question is, are your design propositions necessarily valid or indeed valid? it is possible for a thinker to come up with a good concept that at a high level seems workable or a doer to come up with a practical design that seems to have aesthetic potential. Each develops an internally consistent approach that is necessarily valid if other conditions outside their scope align properly. But is it indeed valid when judged against the total project scope? often no.

the industry is solving this problem through more early design phase collaboration so the owners and occupants get good buildings with respect to design or performance. IPD - thinkers and doers working together in harmony. this safe guards the owners' and occupants' interests, but what of the experience of the designers? the thinker in this scenario is just as impoverished professionally as the doer, both are just cogs whose sliver of the design process denies them a full perspective.

a tragedy really --- architects who value the humanistic as part of the value of good design and relish their sensitivity to humanistic issues as part of the mantle they carry have allowed their own positions, whether thinker or doer, to be stratified to the point where they are stripped of humanity -- with only a partial perspective on the endeavor, both are just cogs, just workers.

So why not have balance in schools. Why assume it is one or the other and why assume a heirarchy? Doesn't it seem that to focus on one at the expense of the other is actually the criterion for producing myopic thinkers/doers more likely to fail or capitulate than succeed in realizing true, valid (ie, not just hype) innovation?

And given the low pay and quality of life (relative to other professions) of architects, I don't know about you, but about my only perk is the prospect of enjoying the entire process. Why would I ever give that up? Why would I ever think it okay for a school to educate me in only one side of the equation? Why would I ever accept those boundaries in practice?

and i'll add, i also find the thinker/doer dichotomy spurious b/c i've bounced around the east coast to four different firms of different sizes and doing different kinds of work (b/c of my wife's job) --- and what I can say is that in my experience, the one constant is that every one does more or less the same stuff, everyone has a different way of doing it and everyone thinks that if you stray too far from how they do it, it will be wrong --- this is clearly not true since everyone does do things differently

and as i've bounced around, at one office i was known as the guy who can coordinate, schedule, synthesize and handle pre-design services and studies -- in another i was known as the guy who knows the code well -- in another I'm the CAD guy and in the other, the visualization/concept development guy who knows the design software

so which is it? what is my place in the caste? it is all quite arbitrary based upon what each firm needed at the time. should i let that limit my role or potential at all? should i let that limit my enjoyment of the full process? i find it all a bit absurd.

@hansdamp: I iunderstand your message above - it's the architect's standard.

But if you push that perspective, I feel it can also be reinterpreted as follows:

I don't know what I'm doing, I'm guessing, I think this might work, but we'll have to wait and see until the real guy with knowledge reviews it. If I'm unlucky, I have a bunch of rework and reconceptualizing to be done.

By the way, Mr. Owner, I expect to be paid for my time of exploration, plus the rework and engineering consultations involved. You are paying me to explore and learn, and hopefully you'll get a product that won't leak (unfortunately my engineer won't review that).


It is no wonder then that we are less paid and repected - we're just guessing, waiting for someone else to solve our problems.

pickfirst, that's exactly how I felt after 2 years of nice painting and craftswork and that's why I extended my studies to the more tangible area of engineering...