UG - yes, "understanding", that's the point you seem to be missing. People can make choices, based on "understanding", which comes with education, which is missing (at least with everyone I know) at an early age.
You can choose a dream, pursue it without compromise, whatever it may be, but you can also hedge your bet and learn how to balance things and get the best of both worlds.
Chugging along on one narrow path leaves little options down the road. In today's world, that can be a killer.
CMNDCTRL what are you venturing into? (I am curious too - and best of luck in your pursuit, I am sure many will follow soon if things don't dramatically change out there)
Yes... but your telling people to essentially only follow what's profitable or "valuable" using profit as the basis of a complex value system.
I'm making the point that valuable is only referential in a linear time line aspect that's only comprehensible at a present point looking retrospectively. As if assuming most parents or even high schools have the academic resources necessary to convey such complexities is patently absurd.
At the rate consumer electronics are going, what is considered a relatively "safe" degree in computer engineering maybe a futile pursuit within the decade as microcircuitry and power sources are nearing their theoretical limits.
Can I truthfully substantiate that claim? Unlikely even at a guess. However, a statement like that could really only be proven at a future point, again, looking retrospectively.
The only way people can determine and "understand" the intrinsic value of a given subject or anthology of knowledge is to study it themselves. And that's a bit counter intuitive to your understanding point.
"If you're sure you want to get a degree in that, you should "understand" all you want to learn, determine its intrinsic value on the global marketplace, leverage your potential economic prospects and then get a degree in said subject." LOL, WUT?
Urbanist, i am sorry to hear that. perhaps your parents had too much money? and there was potential for them to pay? mine are dirt poor or absent from my life since i was 13 years old, respectively. so i got some pretty generous grants. i paid virtually no tuition. when i applied again last year (because i briefly, MISTAKENLY thought more degrees might make me more equipped for the recession) i got similar aid (although somewhat worse because i have been working for many years now). nevertheless, i would only have had to borrow living expenses. the GSD offered me full tuition again. so i suppose the school is made up of exceptions? my classmates had WILDLY varying fin aid packages. but that is the point. for some people, the school makes sense, and to bash it in general is rather naive. to single one school out is silly. is it the system in general that is broken. i have never heard of a school giving a student tuition AND living expenses for a professional degree. that is the killer, you do have to pay for rent and food for at least a year or two and in my case 3.5. i still have BIG loans (mostly from undergrad). but living in cambridge for three years, even as an ascetic, is EXPENSIVE. now i basically owe the shirt on my back. that is the point i guess, that an architecture degree is just not worth the price tag at ANY school if you want to look strictly at ROI. it is simply MORE worth it at harvard if harvard happens to be cheaper? i am basically done thinking about it. it has driven me crazy for years. for me personally, i could not have changed anything: going to the state schools would have put me MORE in debt (because i got scholarships but they did not cover living AND the GSD at least gave me more work-study). so it is moot for me to give myself any more anxiety over it. i have been doing that for years now, and i feel old(er) than i am because of it.
to answer the other question: ironically, i am getting another degree. it is NOT an architecture degree. i have done a lot of soul-searching, and although i LOVE being an architect, i cannot put myself or my family through these ups and downs any longer. i was out of work for a while in the early 2000's recession, and i have been lucky so far....but waiting for the axe to fall is pretty awful too. especially since, even in the good times i do not make enough to support my family the way i want to. family is becoming more important as i get older, and architecture is becoming less so. that being said, i am starting an accelerated MD this fall. it will be rough for a couple years. but after that, i will at LEAST have some financial stability. i am too young to hold onto architecture for 30 more years (maybe until i die?) and too old for the spark of love for architecture to be enough any more (love doesn't pay rent or your child's doctor bills, and all that jazz).
i am very sad about it. but it was time to make a sacrifice for my family INSTEAD of for my career. i had to stop being selfish. so i will still be around the boards, and still have that architecture license gathering dust on the wall! Hawkin, let us know how it goes....and good luck to all! it seems we all need it these days. that is another thread, but i think fewer people will be able to afford the dream as time progresses if something drastic does not happen. enough complaining, sorry!
As a ludricously broad profession, "architecture" at once corresponds both to the 'value is what is known' [for example, how much a particular property in a particular location with particular amenities and finishes 'ought' to cost] and simultaneously to the "it is impossible to define the value of a theoretical construct, and it is also unwise" modes of thought.
If you go and ask an architect who works primarily to provide ends meet, an architect who works primarily for professional advancement, and an architect who works primarily for research the same question: "What is valuable?" all three would offer widely differing answers.
Therefore, as we all come from extremely different backgrounds, and we all have extremely different motives, the question 'Is it more valuable to pay exorbitant sums for education or it it more valuable to work 'in the real world' and save oneself debt?' Will always be an unanswerable moot point.
at some point (and i think we are moving in that direction) education will be so costly that the average person cannot afford to attain en education AND pay to eat. then, there is a VERY real answer to the dilemma. many people (who admittedly, are the outliers as of now) have already reached the saturation point: their debt service exceeds their income. this is simple economics. we can be high-brow all we want until we become destitute. then desperation sinks in. i think the most recent generation is getting a good solid dose of desperation, and it is very sad to see. but like i said earlier, most of the complaining does not do much. i guess IBR was a step in the right direction. but what about the kids with private debt? did their fin aid counselors even stop to differentiate between the two? their counselors most likely did not know the difference themselves....mine didn't....
They offered me some (unsubsidized loans). The other end of the street gave me all grants, no loans. I think the big difference for the GSD was that I owned my home (when I was in school, I was a bit older than the average and had an earlier career in the broader building industry). Their view (confirmed by a talk I had with the financial person theree) was that I should take the equity in that home and borrow against it to finance a Harvard education (back when you can still do such irresponsible stuff). Thank goodness the other place had took a different view. I am so very happy that they did.
Whilst you might 'command control' a lot of your fellows have no idea what the hell that actually is meant to mean.
Likewise, I totally agree with your post, but I do think it's rather indicative of the education system in the United States at large and not pertaining to the education of an architect in general.
This is in no way personal.
I don't know if perhaps you've read Thomas Friedman's op-ed in the NYTimes? Anyways, the jist of it is that China should not be able to achieve more than the US because of autocracy rather than democracy.
The subtext being that, the US politicians are more concerned with maintaining power within the country than developing the country itself, whether on a national or international stage.
So how do these ridiculous references relate to the mundane question of education? Your post states it beautifully. If education and the cost of higher education, isn't a priority in the US because no one can make money off of it in the short term, then the US as a nation will inevitably cede it's oh-so-proud-of 'Global Hegemony' status to an autocratic nation that will.
Good observation but it may be a little more complicated than that. The US isn't as democratic as it used to be, and China isn't quite as autocratic. One party versus two party state, true, but for the average person, living from day to day, I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference. The Chinese dictatorship is not responsible for their surge in patents and new startups. That's coming from the ground up. Meanwhile, all levels of government continuous push further down into people's lives int he US, even to the extent of dictating moral conduct and decisions in places like TX and other staets (something not even the Chinese really do anymore).
I don't know where this is heading, but as a practical matter, I'm not too sure our two systems will be that different in another 20 or 30 years.
Well the difference, in theory, as I understand it, is thus: China is run like a company. Autocratic and self serving. Hence, it disregards things like human rights because those issues get in the way of profit.
Likewise, the US is SUPPOSED to form a coherent interest. However, it doesn't, because it's politicians are more interested in maintaining position [and so fighting each other] than advancing the nation.
The theory goes that one can have one's cake and eat it too. One can have innovation and economic surplus and progressive social and ethical policies and also have production and advanced infrastructure, and hence progressive economic standings. Rather than relying on the 'Monuments of Passaic.' To paraphrase Friedman: 'What happened to the 'can-do-it-tive' attitude?
But I don't pretend to be an economist. I'm really just a craftsman, and we all are. And we should be.
i've had the thought that perhaps the real test of whether the US pulls together or deteriorates further is dependent upon the people now in high school. they are the first generation since the depression to emphatically know as they approach decisions about what to do with their adult lives that work is very scarce, that they have a low likelihood of achieving the same socioeconomic status as their parents, that this is not just a temporary condition and that they have a high likelihood of just subsisting, no matter how hard they work. it will be interesting to see how they respond. Do they work hard? Do they strive even if there is not the carrot of the big payoff that we had (and by we, i mean people as young as 21 or 22, who made decisions entering college based upon living in a society of plenty and opportunity)? Or do they say WTFE and decide killing themselves is not worth it, that debt is not worth it, that perhaps they are just content to be with friends and family, even if it does not bode well for our national standing and productivity in the world? Or something else?
No matter, i don't think any meaningful direction will come from baby boomers. And I think those of us in the mid to late twenties to early fifties, who came up under different circumstances, are caught square in the middle of the change, just as younger baby boomers are, so in some ways, i think we lack the perspective that comes with a little bit of distance that the youth have.
I agree with you.. or would like to. It may be too late.
Now the real problem: that generation will, according to today's statistics, going to be least educated, the least literate, the least prepared in the US since, well, the 1960s. We have - or rather, for most of us, our parents (the Boomers) have already betrayed that generation. They may find that they are ill-equipped to save the wreck of a nation we will have left them.
High school kids are also capable of working jobs that can be used to pay for higher education. You can save up several grand before entering school. Working summers too can be enough to get a state school education without much debt, if any.
Pay as you go doesn't have to mean a delayed timeline. My husband paid cash for his masters, and I will likely pay cash (at least a good portion of it) when and if I get mine.
I can't afford the dream
GSD does not provide better financial aid, CMNDCTRL. There's a reason I went to the place at the other end of Mass Ave.
UG - yes, "understanding", that's the point you seem to be missing. People can make choices, based on "understanding", which comes with education, which is missing (at least with everyone I know) at an early age.
You can choose a dream, pursue it without compromise, whatever it may be, but you can also hedge your bet and learn how to balance things and get the best of both worlds.
Chugging along on one narrow path leaves little options down the road. In today's world, that can be a killer.
CMNDCTRL what are you venturing into? (I am curious too - and best of luck in your pursuit, I am sure many will follow soon if things don't dramatically change out there)
Yes... but your telling people to essentially only follow what's profitable or "valuable" using profit as the basis of a complex value system.
I'm making the point that valuable is only referential in a linear time line aspect that's only comprehensible at a present point looking retrospectively. As if assuming most parents or even high schools have the academic resources necessary to convey such complexities is patently absurd.
At the rate consumer electronics are going, what is considered a relatively "safe" degree in computer engineering maybe a futile pursuit within the decade as microcircuitry and power sources are nearing their theoretical limits.
Can I truthfully substantiate that claim? Unlikely even at a guess. However, a statement like that could really only be proven at a future point, again, looking retrospectively.
The only way people can determine and "understand" the intrinsic value of a given subject or anthology of knowledge is to study it themselves. And that's a bit counter intuitive to your understanding point.
"If you're sure you want to get a degree in that, you should "understand" all you want to learn, determine its intrinsic value on the global marketplace, leverage your potential economic prospects and then get a degree in said subject." LOL, WUT?
i agree with the getting a real estate / cm degree. You cant do shit with an architecture degree
Urbanist, i am sorry to hear that. perhaps your parents had too much money? and there was potential for them to pay? mine are dirt poor or absent from my life since i was 13 years old, respectively. so i got some pretty generous grants. i paid virtually no tuition. when i applied again last year (because i briefly, MISTAKENLY thought more degrees might make me more equipped for the recession) i got similar aid (although somewhat worse because i have been working for many years now). nevertheless, i would only have had to borrow living expenses. the GSD offered me full tuition again. so i suppose the school is made up of exceptions? my classmates had WILDLY varying fin aid packages. but that is the point. for some people, the school makes sense, and to bash it in general is rather naive. to single one school out is silly. is it the system in general that is broken. i have never heard of a school giving a student tuition AND living expenses for a professional degree. that is the killer, you do have to pay for rent and food for at least a year or two and in my case 3.5. i still have BIG loans (mostly from undergrad). but living in cambridge for three years, even as an ascetic, is EXPENSIVE. now i basically owe the shirt on my back. that is the point i guess, that an architecture degree is just not worth the price tag at ANY school if you want to look strictly at ROI. it is simply MORE worth it at harvard if harvard happens to be cheaper? i am basically done thinking about it. it has driven me crazy for years. for me personally, i could not have changed anything: going to the state schools would have put me MORE in debt (because i got scholarships but they did not cover living AND the GSD at least gave me more work-study). so it is moot for me to give myself any more anxiety over it. i have been doing that for years now, and i feel old(er) than i am because of it.
to answer the other question: ironically, i am getting another degree. it is NOT an architecture degree. i have done a lot of soul-searching, and although i LOVE being an architect, i cannot put myself or my family through these ups and downs any longer. i was out of work for a while in the early 2000's recession, and i have been lucky so far....but waiting for the axe to fall is pretty awful too. especially since, even in the good times i do not make enough to support my family the way i want to. family is becoming more important as i get older, and architecture is becoming less so. that being said, i am starting an accelerated MD this fall. it will be rough for a couple years. but after that, i will at LEAST have some financial stability. i am too young to hold onto architecture for 30 more years (maybe until i die?) and too old for the spark of love for architecture to be enough any more (love doesn't pay rent or your child's doctor bills, and all that jazz).
i am very sad about it. but it was time to make a sacrifice for my family INSTEAD of for my career. i had to stop being selfish. so i will still be around the boards, and still have that architecture license gathering dust on the wall! Hawkin, let us know how it goes....and good luck to all! it seems we all need it these days. that is another thread, but i think fewer people will be able to afford the dream as time progresses if something drastic does not happen. enough complaining, sorry!
As a ludricously broad profession, "architecture" at once corresponds both to the 'value is what is known' [for example, how much a particular property in a particular location with particular amenities and finishes 'ought' to cost] and simultaneously to the "it is impossible to define the value of a theoretical construct, and it is also unwise" modes of thought.
If you go and ask an architect who works primarily to provide ends meet, an architect who works primarily for professional advancement, and an architect who works primarily for research the same question: "What is valuable?" all three would offer widely differing answers.
Therefore, as we all come from extremely different backgrounds, and we all have extremely different motives, the question 'Is it more valuable to pay exorbitant sums for education or it it more valuable to work 'in the real world' and save oneself debt?' Will always be an unanswerable moot point.
And it should be.
i respectfully disagree.
at some point (and i think we are moving in that direction) education will be so costly that the average person cannot afford to attain en education AND pay to eat. then, there is a VERY real answer to the dilemma. many people (who admittedly, are the outliers as of now) have already reached the saturation point: their debt service exceeds their income. this is simple economics. we can be high-brow all we want until we become destitute. then desperation sinks in. i think the most recent generation is getting a good solid dose of desperation, and it is very sad to see. but like i said earlier, most of the complaining does not do much. i guess IBR was a step in the right direction. but what about the kids with private debt? did their fin aid counselors even stop to differentiate between the two? their counselors most likely did not know the difference themselves....mine didn't....
CMNDCTRL,
They offered me some (unsubsidized loans). The other end of the street gave me all grants, no loans. I think the big difference for the GSD was that I owned my home (when I was in school, I was a bit older than the average and had an earlier career in the broader building industry). Their view (confirmed by a talk I had with the financial person theree) was that I should take the equity in that home and borrow against it to finance a Harvard education (back when you can still do such irresponsible stuff). Thank goodness the other place had took a different view. I am so very happy that they did.
CMNDCTRL,
Whilst you might 'command control' a lot of your fellows have no idea what the hell that actually is meant to mean.
Likewise, I totally agree with your post, but I do think it's rather indicative of the education system in the United States at large and not pertaining to the education of an architect in general.
This is in no way personal.
I don't know if perhaps you've read Thomas Friedman's op-ed in the NYTimes? Anyways, the jist of it is that China should not be able to achieve more than the US because of autocracy rather than democracy.
The subtext being that, the US politicians are more concerned with maintaining power within the country than developing the country itself, whether on a national or international stage.
So how do these ridiculous references relate to the mundane question of education? Your post states it beautifully. If education and the cost of higher education, isn't a priority in the US because no one can make money off of it in the short term, then the US as a nation will inevitably cede it's oh-so-proud-of 'Global Hegemony' status to an autocratic nation that will.
Jplourde,
Good observation but it may be a little more complicated than that. The US isn't as democratic as it used to be, and China isn't quite as autocratic. One party versus two party state, true, but for the average person, living from day to day, I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference. The Chinese dictatorship is not responsible for their surge in patents and new startups. That's coming from the ground up. Meanwhile, all levels of government continuous push further down into people's lives int he US, even to the extent of dictating moral conduct and decisions in places like TX and other staets (something not even the Chinese really do anymore).
I don't know where this is heading, but as a practical matter, I'm not too sure our two systems will be that different in another 20 or 30 years.
Well the difference, in theory, as I understand it, is thus: China is run like a company. Autocratic and self serving. Hence, it disregards things like human rights because those issues get in the way of profit.
Likewise, the US is SUPPOSED to form a coherent interest. However, it doesn't, because it's politicians are more interested in maintaining position [and so fighting each other] than advancing the nation.
The theory goes that one can have one's cake and eat it too. One can have innovation and economic surplus and progressive social and ethical policies and also have production and advanced infrastructure, and hence progressive economic standings. Rather than relying on the 'Monuments of Passaic.' To paraphrase Friedman: 'What happened to the 'can-do-it-tive' attitude?
But I don't pretend to be an economist. I'm really just a craftsman, and we all are. And we should be.
i've had the thought that perhaps the real test of whether the US pulls together or deteriorates further is dependent upon the people now in high school. they are the first generation since the depression to emphatically know as they approach decisions about what to do with their adult lives that work is very scarce, that they have a low likelihood of achieving the same socioeconomic status as their parents, that this is not just a temporary condition and that they have a high likelihood of just subsisting, no matter how hard they work. it will be interesting to see how they respond. Do they work hard? Do they strive even if there is not the carrot of the big payoff that we had (and by we, i mean people as young as 21 or 22, who made decisions entering college based upon living in a society of plenty and opportunity)? Or do they say WTFE and decide killing themselves is not worth it, that debt is not worth it, that perhaps they are just content to be with friends and family, even if it does not bode well for our national standing and productivity in the world? Or something else?
No matter, i don't think any meaningful direction will come from baby boomers. And I think those of us in the mid to late twenties to early fifties, who came up under different circumstances, are caught square in the middle of the change, just as younger baby boomers are, so in some ways, i think we lack the perspective that comes with a little bit of distance that the youth have.
so to summarize my point, i guess the question is:
WWJBD?
What will Justin Bieber Do? (or at least his fan girls)
jmanganelli,
I agree with you.. or would like to. It may be too late.
Now the real problem: that generation will, according to today's statistics, going to be least educated, the least literate, the least prepared in the US since, well, the 1960s. We have - or rather, for most of us, our parents (the Boomers) have already betrayed that generation. They may find that they are ill-equipped to save the wreck of a nation we will have left them.
this thread is damn sad
High school kids are also capable of working jobs that can be used to pay for higher education. You can save up several grand before entering school. Working summers too can be enough to get a state school education without much debt, if any.
Pay as you go doesn't have to mean a delayed timeline. My husband paid cash for his masters, and I will likely pay cash (at least a good portion of it) when and if I get mine.
haha nice China/US distinction.
I'm surprised at the number of Asians in architecture school. I would think their parents would try to steer them in a different direction.
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.