For some reason, I felt like my IQ dropped points after spending all those days and nights in studio. The dean's statement that students should be working nights and weekends should have been the red flag. My interests were in history and physics when I entered college. I just fell into the major and it never felt right. I was a talented artist but not as creative as the other students. There were many times where I just wanted to leave the major but I just didn't believe in quitting once I started. But everyone was so sociable and loved to talk and the teachers loved talking about star architects. I guess it was kind of entertaining.
I didn't listen to my gut and leave in year 2. So here are reasons to leave this major before you waste too much time in it. Because it just gets worse and worse. It never gets better.
The 5 year program and long road to licensure becomes a prison sentence.
In many other fields, young, smart, and educated graduates are given opportunities. As a young architect, older architects look at you like you are too young. Lets face it. The old are intimidated by young people and keep them in place by telling them they are too young and unqualified. A quicker licensure path will allow young graduates to compete fairly with the older architects that want to intimidate the competition.
Don't fall for the you can be Frank Gehry too nonsense. Leave that to the wanna be actors and musicians.
Pay is unbelievably low. Without a license, opportunities are few. You will work long and hard.
This skill set is so unique and the education is so focused your skills will not be transferable. No hr recruiter will look at your experience for any business, administrative, sales, accounting, finance, etc position. You will be pigeon holed. You will have to go back to school and study something else.
Unless you are ready for the long haul, don't venture down this path if you are going to quit at year 10.
The camaraderie amongst students is a positive. But it will disappear after college. You will face the workplace alone and there won't be many opportunities.
If you decide to drop out, there is a whole world outside of the major. Other studies that will pay more and are just as creative: programming, web design, product design, product developer, animation, computer game designer.
If you aren't smart enough to be an engineer, this isn't a good alternative. Again, find another path.
Women don't do well in this profession.
If you are creative and a true passionate designer, this if for you. However, you will have to try to survive with the low pay and lack of benefits many firms offer.
Consider these things seriously before you move forward.
Sorry to say you have been misguided. But there is still hope for you. Architectural designers get on magazine covers because they want it. They got their through hard work and progress. If you want an easy life and an easy pay check get into business and live the easy life. But if you really want to be recognized by the architectural community than work for it. Many architects have both the money and the prestige, I don't see why you can't achieve the same.
Man I know how you feel, but I had an interview at a rather larger firm and things are different than with smaller ones. They offered a 401k, health benefits and stuff I was told they would think about it because I'm still a student. They had an entire two story building to themselves, anyways once you are in a big enough firm the pay and benefits will get better.
When did you leave? Or are you still in it? It isn't clear where you are in your career/life stage.
Many of the things you cite above are problems that are not unique to architecture. Unfortunately, the way life in general works is that you make many if not most of the big decisions when you are young and lacking in life experience to really know what you are getting into. That will never change. The biggest advantage for a young person today is the internet. You are able to come on a website like this in the convenience of your own home and "talk" to a wide variety of people in the profession you are contemplating. That just wasn't possible a generation ago. The biggest disadvantage for young people today is the horrendous employment market and the absolutely hideous cost of higher education. The wrong major can saddle you with a ruinous level of debt.
Lets face it... All the problems associated with this profession is second to pay. If we were paid well, things would be much better (but we could still be complaining because humans are never content you know ;)
If you got out after 2 years, pat yourself on the back and thanks for warning others. Most stick with it for decades or their entire lives only to realize they hated it all along.
You make some decent if obviously naive points (inexperienced may better describe it, I mean no offense).
Re: #8 in your post, you are way, way off. There's still money to be made in programming but it's not the goldmine it was even 5 years ago. And in sheer numbers, my experience tells me that the job opportunities in architecture outnumber those other positions 100:1 comined, and probably more like 1000:1 if you include the related careers in construction, project management, estimating, developing, architectural product sales, etc. There's simply no comparison.
This ain't the life for everybody, but then again, what is?
Transfer to an institution offering a Building Management major, or a Civil Engineering program if your school doesn't have these programs. No sense in throwing ways two years of work; I am sure a lot of the credits will be transferable.
Do what you love, while paying the bills. Its been done, even in this economy.If you don't, you have no one to blame but yourself. I say this from experience because I've made the same mistake. I've majored in business, got a degree, but I was miserable. Trust me, doing anything else other than what you love, deep down, will be a big waste of time.
good one Chris Moody... In the end, we're all headed towards the same destination. We're all going back to the ground someday. Do what you love and are passionate about, whether it means sitting by the beachside or working your butt off like a slave in architecture.
The old are intimidated by young people and keep them in place by telling them they are too young and unqualified.
Yes in some ways I'm intimidated by young people, because they are far more tech savvy than I am. But the reason I think young people are unqualified in architecture practice is because THEY ARE. It takes years to learn the practice of this profession. In a good firm that actually takes intern training seriously - and there are many out there, they tend to be the larger, more "corporate" firms that young design-focused graduates think are not cool enough - an intern will have support to learn how the practice works while also aiding the firm with what skills they learned in school - it's a give and take.
I sincerely hope this new NCARB change brings about some schools that focus on practical knowledge and even specialization tracks like hospital or mass transit design, resulting in graduates with usable knowledge for a firm.
And while I agree that architects are underpaid, *most* other professions are facing the same problem right now, even the ones who have more traditionally been highly paid, like lawyers. This is not only an architecture problem, it's a society-wide economic problem. We're not special snowflakes in this regard.
I hope the OP is aware that you can follow your interests first as an undergraduate and major in history and physics BEFORE deciding on whether to pursue architecture later as a graduate MArch student. It's always wiser to give oneself enough time to really think about what they want to do in their life before being committed to something. There's less risk for burnout. Despite all of the flaws including those listed in the OP, I consider it a real privilege to practice architecture.
yeah - you risk burn-out if you feel like you're the one being pushed instead of you pushing yourself and managing other people's expectations. Arch school is really tough on people who didn't show up with this skill - and if you don't learn it after you start working, you'll just end up bitter and frustrated.
First off, your usename is rather telling in regards to your objectivity on this topic. Look, you can find these kinds of doom and gloom posts on any number of online forums---law, medicine, aviation, physics, etc., where the "uniquely informed" contributor is desperate to warn his or her fellow "---"s that they have effectively fallen for a scam. In reality, most occupations are plagued (in some degree) with the issues that you have highlighted above. But as others have already noted, if you have a genuine passion/capacity for the field, then you can generally makes things work. In short, anyone who would leave this discipline to become a computer game designer/programmer probably wasn't meant to be an architect in the first place. If you want to become a lawyer, you should love jurisprudence; if you want to become a pilot, you should love aviation.
Finally--- "I didn't listen to my gut and leave in year 2." This sentence is rather confusing: are you just leaving the major now after two years of undergraduate study? And if so, then how do you have any personal experience with the issues outlined in your post?
A wise prof one told our class that you should study in a field you like, that you can do, and one that someone will pay you to do. I would add a fourth: don't let your total student debt exceed the expected first year's salary. Easy to say, I know, but very difficult to implement.
The starchitect fantasy is plaguing the profession. Its the cult of personality made by people like Bjark Engles that turns architecture into a joke. Fight against this, stand up for yourself. Because architecture is relevant and necessary.
Volunteer, that's definitely a wise thing your prof told you. The sad thing is that was easy to follow if one graduated from architecture school 15 years ago, but it's pretty much impossible today given the sky-high tuition costs. That rule consigns one to go to a local state school nowadays, and even those are becoming less affordable.
Tuition costs are going up faster than medical costs; it is simply not sustainable. The architectural graduates will be lucky to find any job with a 401k. The profs and bloated staff are almost assuredly on a Defined Benefit Plan, deferred compensation, and gold-plated medical plans and numerous other bennies all paid for for by the excessive tuition. Today, I would try European or South American schools; don't feed the beast.
Maureen, those are my exact thoughts...looks like he doesn't have what it takes...I'm tired of reading these negative posts....if you're not happy with the career just study Medicine and move on with your life instead of ruining young people's dreams...
Grass is always greener on the other side. But I understand. Unfortunately the world has gone from a college education that was designed to round people out, make them more worldly, and teach them how to think to what is quickly becoming a 'trades school'. Problem is that young people are not ready to jump into a trade and have no idea what they are getting into. Not limited to Architecture. Just look around....teaching, medicine, nursing, and many others.
I meant to say: leave you feeling accomplished and happy! If you are not ready to roll up your sleeves and fight for something your are passionate about then do not come crying or else find something you are truly fond of and move it!
1). Architecture school does not prepare graduates for the profession; upon graduation, the avg. graduate really only knows 15% of what you really need to know to be productive in a firm.
2). Most firms do not want to pay (time /money/ peace of mind) for the graduates to gain work experience.
3). Most Graduates have been disillusioned by the architecture schools that they have learned it all in school just because you built & rendered a few models in revit & rhino
4). The old mentoring / apprentice relationship is dead; & graduates dont want to see themselves as apprentice, which they are, & seasoned designers, pm's , & architects are to busy (due to the tech. advancements in the construction & a/e industry) till they would rather just do the work themselves than loose time, money, and peace of mind explaining it to an inexperienced employee who will take 3-4 attempts & 26hrs to get it correct, when they could have easily done it in 3hrs.
5). Interns & Graduates are not what they use to be 20-40 years ago when you started your career typically out of high school or tech school at 19 or 22years old as a draftsperson and worked your way up to an productive pm, designer, or architect. Now a days you have to have a 5yr degree to become lic. so many people start college not knowing anything then graduate 5-6 yrs later still not knowing much, and need to spend the next 5-6 yrs becoming an asset to an employer, which by that time you are well into your early 30's & lets not include your domestic life that may alter all of this. and thats if they understand the process of modern architect career path.
Imagine what would happen if more than a tiny percentage were successful in completing education and licensing. Too much competition for too little work, declining wages, efforts to reduce the number of productive graduates (while still taking their money), the effects of shitty education on both job seekers and firms, as well as the quality of work produced, etc.
I personally don't put a lot of stock in the very skewed stats. one article says more than 50% of the field will be retiring in the next 15 -20yrs so there will be a shortage of architects,, thats why NCARB is now allowing individuals to start IDP upon graduating high school, and considering adding the A.R.E. as part of your college curriculum so when you finally leave the university you are licensed. Another article says architecture is on the upswing due to the last 100yrs of construction was poor and the time is come to rebuild all the crap thats falling down. another article says architecture is the worst field to be in!!! take your pick
Aside from dreams being ruined and comments about the OP's post being typical doom and gloom found in other professions my question is, are the things listed by the OP fairly accurate or not? Speaking as a student I'm interested in the answer.
I doubt the doom and gloom in forums for doctors, lawyers, engineers etc, include low pay and living pay check to pay check. They're likely more along the lines of job satisfaction, long hours, tediousness, etc....than survival. Considering Architects pay as much as those other professions to obtain the degree to become one, work just as much, is liable for just as much, but receive 1/4 of the pay (or less), and have extremely low stability with layoffs always potentially looming than other professionals, has me kind of worried, especially with loans to pay.
So brutal, and i do mean brutal honesty from those who have lived it, is welcome and greatly appreciated.
1. this is kind of hyperbole. it's not literally a prison.
2. the old are not intimidated by the young. on the other hand, i don't think there is a sense of mentorship, or a desire to pass wisdom to the next generation, or however you want to say that. older people are involved in their own stuff, and younger people are involved in theirs. the lack of communication and the antipathy towards lifting younger people up is harmful to the longevity of the profession imho.
3. true.
4. mostly true. i'm not sure how big a difference a license makes. opportunities might be few either way.
5. honestly, i don't think this is true, but i haven't tested it. many of us have too much invested to stray from the narrow path, so i think we get it in our heads that other people aren't interested in hiring us. however, lots of people get architecture educations and do other things.
6. probably true.
7. might be true, but it sort of sounds like you won't be able to have friends when you grow up. it's not that bad. you can still have friends, and even work/life balance.
8. i don't know what those people get paid. there is no way a web designer gets paid more than an architect on average?
9. this is true. if you're trying to be an architect because you can't cut it as an engineer, you might want to rethink your path. be a plumber. they make more than architects.
10. that's fucked up. fix it.
11. there are things that architects do other than just being passionate about their designs. for example, almost everything an architect does. it's a process to get the design built (or at least buildable), and it's often someone else's design anyway. if you're passionate about studio projects, i would advise not becoming an architect, and rather find a profession closer to studio. graphic design maybe, or marketing, or animation. if you like buildings, you might end up spending all day thinking about buildings as an architect, so that isn't so bad.
Lets face it, architecture is hard. It takes one who is extremely devoted in order to succeed in such a career. However, I strongly disagree with most of the things that were stated. The 5 year education plus the minimum 3 year process in order to get licensed is not a "prison sentence." That is an extremely negative way of looking at things, in any profession. Those years are meant for one to continuously learn and better themselves as a designer. Architecture is a very serious practice, one designs buildings which are meant to withstand just about anything and those 5+3 short years are meant to train one in the art of designing amazing yet sturdy and well built structures that won't collapse on occupants at the first gust of wind, and obtaining a "license" proves that one is capable of designing such safe structures and shouldn't just be handed out in order to make the duration of the training process more comfortable for those who lack drive. Pay and benefits depend completely on ones firm, however, most jobs at any starter position don't offer the greatest pay and this goes for all fields of study. Yes, the skill set is unique but it is also broad enough where one with an architecture degree does not necessarily have to practice architecture. There are many things one can do with an architecture degree such as make furniture, do web design, graphic design and so on. So it is unfair to say that this field is limiting in any sense. It is also unfair to say that if one is not "smart" enough to be an engineer then they should just choose another career path. What many fail to realize is that architects are the ones who articulate all forms of engineering from mechanical to structural to electrical to civil etc. in order to create the most efficient buildings while respecting the clients wish and the demands of other consultants. So, to say if you are not smart enough to be an engineer is a bit harsh and premature. Lastly, woman don't necessarily fail in this profession. Yes, architecture is much more competitive and has a higher volume of males due to its close tie with construction, however, I strongly agree that architecture is constantly evolving and regardless of the gender of the architect, a good designer with a great portfolio always has others respect in this professional field and I have yet to see differently.
OP: #10 is very troubling. I am at a loss what such a vague observation could mean.
It certainly doesn't come off well. We must be vigilant about the ways we perpetuate such a significant problem in the profession, so I would advise you to reconsider, or at least clarify, your ideas.
Dec 1, 14 12:36 am ·
·
Who the hell re-bumped this?
I'll respond to point #8:
I agree with bowling_ball. Of course 5 years ago, it isn't remotely the gold mind it was in the 1980s. Sure, you may more money today but the money doesn't have the buying power it had in the 1980s but also what it takes to produce software in terms of work man-hours or worker labor hours total. It takes larger teams to develop modern computer software especially video games you play on modern PCs. A team of 5 in the 1980s can spend 9 months to put together a computer program on a single 5.25" floppy disk or game cartridges or cassette (yes data on audio cassette tapes) could make $1 Million within a good Christmas season. This was the basic deal that got companies like Activision, Mastertronics, Sierra, Electronic Arts, and many others into major corporations within years. Some of them merged over the years.
Remember, in those days with these by the bootstrap, group of tech nerds working in their garages and in a couple years be millionaires was largely due to a growing untapped market with low competition. It was a rapidly growing emerging market.
Lets pay attention, new emerging market. This means, there isn't any or few established companies and everything is new so it is a pioneering market. You don't have a saturated market. Today, making money in the computer field is something where you have to be smarter and look at niche markets. You can't just open up shop in a mainstream traditional market. You can't compete with Electronic Arts or Microsoft head on. You can make video games but modern video games that people pay $20-70 for a modern PC takes a professional production studio equivalent to a major feature film production to produce). The reason is, it takes a lot of work to create 3d models and 3d worlds. You also got to produce alot of cinematics and you almost always need to have actors/voice actors because that is a standard feature EXPECTED in 99% of games where you pay money on the software.
However, producing on other platforms including retro or classic platforms will be graded on different standards. It is possible to develop and produce a game for Super Nintendo or Sega Genesis today and get paid provide you got an active niche market of people willing to pay and only need a modest SNES game cartridge on the typical 2-8 Megabit or 16 Megabit cart. No problem. Although, you need to sell enough and getting it across the marketplace around the web.
However, you wouldn't want to rely on on platform. On the other hand, there is cutting edge niche markets like Oculus Rift, castAR and getting a place in such a market like that can be an innovative niche to get your foot in the door and a name for yourself and build a market value of your worth.
If you look at a modern software company - in this day and age, they are either "development company/studios' or they are 'publishing companies' or they are a combination of both. Rogue / independent programmers are hobbyist/non-paid types because money is in the development and publishing. That's the business end and money end of the field. In a modern software development company, the "programmers" are basically the equivalent of the CAD monkey in an architecture firm but an architecture firm alone is a poor comparison. The best comparison to a software development company is one that is a combination of "developer, architecture, engineering and construction" because programmers are sort of the construction laborers. This means you kind of have to understand the software development, production and "software construction" (programming). This is because all these aspects are integrated in a vertical business model because in this business, you typically have all this under "one roof" (well.... not literally but in the past that was more true than today but metaphorically... I'm referring to.).
The "programmers" are tech staff to implement the software design which encompasses "software architecture" and "software engineering" which differs terminology largely to focus scope be it component and overall integration. Whether the title is "software architect" or "software engineer" or what not is dependent on the company. However, in the video game industry, the titles for these positions are usually under different naming conventions because video games development tends to use titles that are derived from movie, television and music industry which is kind of how many video game companies originally modeled their companies off of because video games were "entertainment" so they looked to the "entertainment industry" (Hollywood). So terms like Technical director and producer and such is common. Creative Lead is another. But Video game industry also has a few of ther own terminologies like Game Mechanics Designer (basically a Senior Software engineer) but video games is somewhat a special category of software development and has its own unique aspects to it. Programmers are usually lower level staff and in turn paid meagerly. You are looking at pay levels of an IDP intern being around the ball park. Of course, as one goes up the "corporate ladder" and their titles ofte changes but so does their roles and responsibilities, too.
In corporate environment, each person role and responsibility is narrow as there is often many positions and people will shift through roles often. This gets quite elaborate in large businesses. In smaller and startup software companies, you wear most if not all the "hats" because you have to. You don't got 1000s of employees to delegate responsibilities to. So in essence, I've done all these roles.
Dec 1, 14 2:25 am ·
·
If I were to get employed by a corporate scale video game developer, I would likely be employed as a technical director, or someone on the production directors level vs programming because these are often employed to young fresh out of college because they are often most equipped to be trained in the current programming languages of vogue but needs our experience and wisdom and understanding of the larger vision, mechanics at the logic level and so forth and understanding of "video game design" vs programming and putitng the composition together. We also get higher salaries commensurate of experience.
As you can see, it isn't always easy cash. There is a lot of romanticizing things because it often is a lot uglier in reality and harder too. Some of these guys like Mark Zuckerberg only became big name because he got a venture capitalist to invest but to get large cash infushion which is necessary for marketing, advertisements and all that because it isn't free. You don't get ads on TV, magazines or anywhere else for free. It comes with a price. You need to get "cool people" (the current fad stars) to get people interested because alot of people just follows fads and what others. This "awareness" factor. To get people aware, you need to spend money. You need money to make money. You need to put money forward to make more money than you put in. Basic laws of business.
Mark Zuckerberg got his big "kickstart" by Peter Thiel. This is why to get any motion and latitude you need investors to get a product on the market. You got to have someone willing to risk money to publish or software or invest in you because they believe in the product as something that can make a return on investment - of course unless you are rich because you have some trust fund from a rich father or grandfather. Otherwise, you get nowhere fast. In this day and age, we got Kickstarter campaign funding and similar platforms where ou can get backers which is a great way to lead credibility to your project goal. If you can raise capital to fund a video game development project from hundreds or thousands of backers, you got something to convince a publisher or other investment opportunities.
Crowdsource funding is a good opportunity to build some base financing to get an idea to move forward. In the past, you needed to convince a venture capitalist or a few of them to put a large chunk of change into investing in your project but you are signing off ownership share (stock).... because before you get a single dime, you are going to have to incorporate the business or contractually agree to do so and that's what it is going to be and they are in charge and calling the shots of the business end and they get a healthy chunk of the profits.
It isn't all a big rosy picture.
It is the way it is. There is no doubt that you can make significantly more money than an typical architect which is typically a "consultant" type business model because architects are consultants to the client.
Software is a commodity/product producer / mass production business model and leadership is in the product development end.... (software product development) much like a land or property developer. A land developer's product is a building or group of buildings and in turn for development is to make the return on investment. Be it by selling, leasing, renting, etc. Software can be rented, leased, etc. as well. It is usually just sold. Just the market dynamics difference but it is about generating wealth from the "development of the product".
Land development is typically a much lower volume "product development" if you were to think of it as a sort of "product development". So in software, you need to have a market of consumers (people in need or wanting your software). Video games are an interesting beast and operates on its own criterion of need, desires, wants. It comes right out of a basic "form follows function" principle. If you have taken industrial design or product design, you'll get some idea of what I am referring to. I'm just covering some aspects of this and not all and I understand that.
I wouldn't say it is a guarantee easy but one thing is, this is a tough economy and it has effected broadly even though housing was ground zero in the recent recession. Other occupations were effected by the domino effect.
Dec 1, 14 2:27 am ·
·
The tech industry isn't immune whatsoever from boom/bust cycles (bubbles) just like housing sector because technology such as software development is just as speculative as housing development. Those that takes the greatest risks in doing something and takes control charge will often reap the greatest reward (lion's share of profits) because they are the ones taking the greatest risk. Employees tends to be paid low because they don't have the risk. Basically, who has most skin at risk, takes the charge and also takes the lion share.
The less risk you take, the less you expect to get and in general, you also have the least control. Venture capitalists/investors takes great financial risk so they often demand controlling interest and direction as condition for their investment. The more the investment, the more controlling interest. It is called, the person with most at stake takes the most control. Basic rule of venture capitalism.
This is mostly about money. The person with most finance or other assets at stake in a project takes the most control. Of course isn't always just cash.
One's time can be equated to cash investment value but it can be a challenging. That's another story.
When you think about a major, you need to think about career at the end because going to college without having a good idea about your career direction is going to be like or likely to be like. 100 years ago, high school wasn't required and high school was a lot like going to community college. It wasn't unheard of youth working after graduating from primary school K-8. (finishing 8th grade). This meant they had 4 years of working quite often. High school was the time to prepare for college and finding ones career direction. Youth were by far more disciplined than 90% of the youth today. Today's youth at age 18 are more like 6th graders back 100 years ago in terms of maturity. Sad is the case. If people either waited until they are 21 before going to college or start understanding the different career fields they are interested in and understand how the employment is like.
To do so is to understand some fundamental business economy. The principle of supply & demand. Understanding the demand. Is architectural demand increasing or decreasing? What is the supply level? What is the rate in which the supply is growing. The perfect condition in any market is when there is about the equal demand to supply. For it to be sustainable, the condition of supply and demand rate of change (increase of decrease) should be small and also the change from either increase or decrease of supply should not be far from perfect. In other words, it also needs to stay in lock step to be sustainable. In other words, hyper-inflated boom and busts are bad.
Richard's sincere, book-length post alongside Miles's observation that the OP did a drive-by reminds me why I don't write so much in responses anymore.
Reasons to not pursue this career path and major.
For some reason, I felt like my IQ dropped points after spending all those days and nights in studio. The dean's statement that students should be working nights and weekends should have been the red flag. My interests were in history and physics when I entered college. I just fell into the major and it never felt right. I was a talented artist but not as creative as the other students. There were many times where I just wanted to leave the major but I just didn't believe in quitting once I started. But everyone was so sociable and loved to talk and the teachers loved talking about star architects. I guess it was kind of entertaining.
I didn't listen to my gut and leave in year 2. So here are reasons to leave this major before you waste too much time in it. Because it just gets worse and worse. It never gets better.
Consider these things seriously before you move forward.
Yay -- the message is starting to get through !
It took you 2 years to figure that out? Better late than never, I guess.
Man I know how you feel, but I had an interview at a rather larger firm and things are different than with smaller ones. They offered a 401k, health benefits and stuff I was told they would think about it because I'm still a student. They had an entire two story building to themselves, anyways once you are in a big enough firm the pay and benefits will get better.
I didn't listen to my gut and leave in year 2.
When did you leave? Or are you still in it? It isn't clear where you are in your career/life stage.
Many of the things you cite above are problems that are not unique to architecture. Unfortunately, the way life in general works is that you make many if not most of the big decisions when you are young and lacking in life experience to really know what you are getting into. That will never change. The biggest advantage for a young person today is the internet. You are able to come on a website like this in the convenience of your own home and "talk" to a wide variety of people in the profession you are contemplating. That just wasn't possible a generation ago. The biggest disadvantage for young people today is the horrendous employment market and the absolutely hideous cost of higher education. The wrong major can saddle you with a ruinous level of debt.
Lets face it... All the problems associated with this profession is second to pay. If we were paid well, things would be much better (but we could still be complaining because humans are never content you know ;)
If you got out after 2 years, pat yourself on the back and thanks for warning others. Most stick with it for decades or their entire lives only to realize they hated it all along.
You make some decent if obviously naive points (inexperienced may better describe it, I mean no offense).
Re: #8 in your post, you are way, way off. There's still money to be made in programming but it's not the goldmine it was even 5 years ago. And in sheer numbers, my experience tells me that the job opportunities in architecture outnumber those other positions 100:1 comined, and probably more like 1000:1 if you include the related careers in construction, project management, estimating, developing, architectural product sales, etc. There's simply no comparison.
This ain't the life for everybody, but then again, what is?
Transfer to an institution offering a Building Management major, or a Civil Engineering program if your school doesn't have these programs. No sense in throwing ways two years of work; I am sure a lot of the credits will be transferable.
Do what you love, while paying the bills. Its been done, even in this economy.If you don't, you have no one to blame but yourself. I say this from experience because I've made the same mistake. I've majored in business, got a degree, but I was miserable. Trust me, doing anything else other than what you love, deep down, will be a big waste of time.
seriously sepressing
cool! @geezertect
good one Chris Moody... In the end, we're all headed towards the same destination. We're all going back to the ground someday. Do what you love and are passionate about, whether it means sitting by the beachside or working your butt off like a slave in architecture.
It took me almost 8 years of practice after school to realize architecture is my hobby, not my occupation. It takes guts to leave, so congrats.
The old are intimidated by young people and keep them in place by telling them they are too young and unqualified.
Yes in some ways I'm intimidated by young people, because they are far more tech savvy than I am. But the reason I think young people are unqualified in architecture practice is because THEY ARE. It takes years to learn the practice of this profession. In a good firm that actually takes intern training seriously - and there are many out there, they tend to be the larger, more "corporate" firms that young design-focused graduates think are not cool enough - an intern will have support to learn how the practice works while also aiding the firm with what skills they learned in school - it's a give and take.
I sincerely hope this new NCARB change brings about some schools that focus on practical knowledge and even specialization tracks like hospital or mass transit design, resulting in graduates with usable knowledge for a firm.
And while I agree that architects are underpaid, *most* other professions are facing the same problem right now, even the ones who have more traditionally been highly paid, like lawyers. This is not only an architecture problem, it's a society-wide economic problem. We're not special snowflakes in this regard.
I think tech savvy is an oxymoron.
i'm tech savvy.
To the OP:
"wah-wah-waaaaaahhhhh"
More work available for me then. Good.
I hope the OP is aware that you can follow your interests first as an undergraduate and major in history and physics BEFORE deciding on whether to pursue architecture later as a graduate MArch student. It's always wiser to give oneself enough time to really think about what they want to do in their life before being committed to something. There's less risk for burnout. Despite all of the flaws including those listed in the OP, I consider it a real privilege to practice architecture.
yeah - you risk burn-out if you feel like you're the one being pushed instead of you pushing yourself and managing other people's expectations. Arch school is really tough on people who didn't show up with this skill - and if you don't learn it after you start working, you'll just end up bitter and frustrated.
First off, your usename is rather telling in regards to your objectivity on this topic. Look, you can find these kinds of doom and gloom posts on any number of online forums---law, medicine, aviation, physics, etc., where the "uniquely informed" contributor is desperate to warn his or her fellow "---"s that they have effectively fallen for a scam. In reality, most occupations are plagued (in some degree) with the issues that you have highlighted above. But as others have already noted, if you have a genuine passion/capacity for the field, then you can generally makes things work. In short, anyone who would leave this discipline to become a computer game designer/programmer probably wasn't meant to be an architect in the first place. If you want to become a lawyer, you should love jurisprudence; if you want to become a pilot, you should love aviation.
Finally--- "I didn't listen to my gut and leave in year 2." This sentence is rather confusing: are you just leaving the major now after two years of undergraduate study? And if so, then how do you have any personal experience with the issues outlined in your post?
A wise prof one told our class that you should study in a field you like, that you can do, and one that someone will pay you to do. I would add a fourth: don't let your total student debt exceed the expected first year's salary. Easy to say, I know, but very difficult to implement.
The starchitect fantasy is plaguing the profession. Its the cult of personality made by people like Bjark Engles that turns architecture into a joke. Fight against this, stand up for yourself. Because architecture is relevant and necessary.
Volunteer, that's definitely a wise thing your prof told you. The sad thing is that was easy to follow if one graduated from architecture school 15 years ago, but it's pretty much impossible today given the sky-high tuition costs. That rule consigns one to go to a local state school nowadays, and even those are becoming less affordable.
Tuition costs are going up faster than medical costs; it is simply not sustainable. The architectural graduates will be lucky to find any job with a 401k. The profs and bloated staff are almost assuredly on a Defined Benefit Plan, deferred compensation, and gold-plated medical plans and numerous other bennies all paid for for by the excessive tuition. Today, I would try European or South American schools; don't feed the beast.
Every person like this that drops out is one less "idiot" to compete against for a job. Thanks, buddy.
Maureen, those are my exact thoughts...looks like he doesn't have what it takes...I'm tired of reading these negative posts....if you're not happy with the career just study Medicine and move on with your life instead of ruining young people's dreams...
Grass is always greener on the other side. But I understand. Unfortunately the world has gone from a college education that was designed to round people out, make them more worldly, and teach them how to think to what is quickly becoming a 'trades school'. Problem is that young people are not ready to jump into a trade and have no idea what they are getting into. Not limited to Architecture. Just look around....teaching, medicine, nursing, and many others.
Gary H
Pacific Land Design
IMHO,
The problem is,
1). Architecture school does not prepare graduates for the profession; upon graduation, the avg. graduate really only knows 15% of what you really need to know to be productive in a firm.
2). Most firms do not want to pay (time /money/ peace of mind) for the graduates to gain work experience.
3). Most Graduates have been disillusioned by the architecture schools that they have learned it all in school just because you built & rendered a few models in revit & rhino
4). The old mentoring / apprentice relationship is dead; & graduates dont want to see themselves as apprentice, which they are, & seasoned designers, pm's , & architects are to busy (due to the tech. advancements in the construction & a/e industry) till they would rather just do the work themselves than loose time, money, and peace of mind explaining it to an inexperienced employee who will take 3-4 attempts & 26hrs to get it correct, when they could have easily done it in 3hrs.
5). Interns & Graduates are not what they use to be 20-40 years ago when you started your career typically out of high school or tech school at 19 or 22years old as a draftsperson and worked your way up to an productive pm, designer, or architect. Now a days you have to have a 5yr degree to become lic. so many people start college not knowing anything then graduate 5-6 yrs later still not knowing much, and need to spend the next 5-6 yrs becoming an asset to an employer, which by that time you are well into your early 30's & lets not include your domestic life that may alter all of this. and thats if they understand the process of modern architect career path.
just my 2cents
There are 100,000 architects in the US.
There are 25,000 architecture students in the US.
Imagine what would happen if more than a tiny percentage were successful in completing education and licensing. Too much competition for too little work, declining wages, efforts to reduce the number of productive graduates (while still taking their money), the effects of shitty education on both job seekers and firms, as well as the quality of work produced, etc.
@Miles Jaffe,
I personally don't put a lot of stock in the very skewed stats.
one article says more than 50% of the field will be retiring in the next 15 -20yrs
so there will be a shortage of architects,, thats why NCARB is now allowing individuals to
start IDP upon graduating high school, and considering adding the A.R.E. as part of your
college curriculum so when you finally leave the university you are licensed.
Another article says architecture is on the upswing due to the last 100yrs of construction was
poor and the time is come to rebuild all the crap thats falling down.
another article says architecture is the worst field to be in!!! take your pick
right. by 2014 there will be a shortage of architects!!!
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/09/120925-Survey-Predicts-Architecture-Shortage-by-2014.asp
did this happen?
The survey of 1,007 U.S. designers found that nearly one-quarter of respondents anticipated a shortage of architects
As for the other three-quarters ...
LOL
Aside from dreams being ruined and comments about the OP's post being typical doom and gloom found in other professions my question is, are the things listed by the OP fairly accurate or not? Speaking as a student I'm interested in the answer.
I doubt the doom and gloom in forums for doctors, lawyers, engineers etc, include low pay and living pay check to pay check. They're likely more along the lines of job satisfaction, long hours, tediousness, etc....than survival. Considering Architects pay as much as those other professions to obtain the degree to become one, work just as much, is liable for just as much, but receive 1/4 of the pay (or less), and have extremely low stability with layoffs always potentially looming than other professionals, has me kind of worried, especially with loans to pay.
So brutal, and i do mean brutal honesty from those who have lived it, is welcome and greatly appreciated.
^ you better learn how to dumpster dive.
Kidding. It's horrible if you work for others from my experience but if you get out there and do your own thing it's still tough but rewarding.
here's my thought on his list choresi:
1. this is kind of hyperbole. it's not literally a prison.
2. the old are not intimidated by the young. on the other hand, i don't think there is a sense of mentorship, or a desire to pass wisdom to the next generation, or however you want to say that. older people are involved in their own stuff, and younger people are involved in theirs. the lack of communication and the antipathy towards lifting younger people up is harmful to the longevity of the profession imho.
3. true.
4. mostly true. i'm not sure how big a difference a license makes. opportunities might be few either way.
5. honestly, i don't think this is true, but i haven't tested it. many of us have too much invested to stray from the narrow path, so i think we get it in our heads that other people aren't interested in hiring us. however, lots of people get architecture educations and do other things.
6. probably true.
7. might be true, but it sort of sounds like you won't be able to have friends when you grow up. it's not that bad. you can still have friends, and even work/life balance.
8. i don't know what those people get paid. there is no way a web designer gets paid more than an architect on average?
9. this is true. if you're trying to be an architect because you can't cut it as an engineer, you might want to rethink your path. be a plumber. they make more than architects.
10. that's fucked up. fix it.
11. there are things that architects do other than just being passionate about their designs. for example, almost everything an architect does. it's a process to get the design built (or at least buildable), and it's often someone else's design anyway. if you're passionate about studio projects, i would advise not becoming an architect, and rather find a profession closer to studio. graphic design maybe, or marketing, or animation. if you like buildings, you might end up spending all day thinking about buildings as an architect, so that isn't so bad.
Lets face it, architecture is hard. It takes one who is extremely devoted in order to succeed in such a career. However, I strongly disagree with most of the things that were stated. The 5 year education plus the minimum 3 year process in order to get licensed is not a "prison sentence." That is an extremely negative way of looking at things, in any profession. Those years are meant for one to continuously learn and better themselves as a designer. Architecture is a very serious practice, one designs buildings which are meant to withstand just about anything and those 5+3 short years are meant to train one in the art of designing amazing yet sturdy and well built structures that won't collapse on occupants at the first gust of wind, and obtaining a "license" proves that one is capable of designing such safe structures and shouldn't just be handed out in order to make the duration of the training process more comfortable for those who lack drive. Pay and benefits depend completely on ones firm, however, most jobs at any starter position don't offer the greatest pay and this goes for all fields of study. Yes, the skill set is unique but it is also broad enough where one with an architecture degree does not necessarily have to practice architecture. There are many things one can do with an architecture degree such as make furniture, do web design, graphic design and so on. So it is unfair to say that this field is limiting in any sense. It is also unfair to say that if one is not "smart" enough to be an engineer then they should just choose another career path. What many fail to realize is that architects are the ones who articulate all forms of engineering from mechanical to structural to electrical to civil etc. in order to create the most efficient buildings while respecting the clients wish and the demands of other consultants. So, to say if you are not smart enough to be an engineer is a bit harsh and premature. Lastly, woman don't necessarily fail in this profession. Yes, architecture is much more competitive and has a higher volume of males due to its close tie with construction, however, I strongly agree that architecture is constantly evolving and regardless of the gender of the architect, a good designer with a great portfolio always has others respect in this professional field and I have yet to see differently.
GO INTO REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT <PERIOD>
OP: #10 is very troubling. I am at a loss what such a vague observation could mean.
It certainly doesn't come off well. We must be vigilant about the ways we perpetuate such a significant problem in the profession, so I would advise you to reconsider, or at least clarify, your ideas.
Who the hell re-bumped this?
I'll respond to point #8:
I agree with bowling_ball. Of course 5 years ago, it isn't remotely the gold mind it was in the 1980s. Sure, you may more money today but the money doesn't have the buying power it had in the 1980s but also what it takes to produce software in terms of work man-hours or worker labor hours total. It takes larger teams to develop modern computer software especially video games you play on modern PCs. A team of 5 in the 1980s can spend 9 months to put together a computer program on a single 5.25" floppy disk or game cartridges or cassette (yes data on audio cassette tapes) could make $1 Million within a good Christmas season. This was the basic deal that got companies like Activision, Mastertronics, Sierra, Electronic Arts, and many others into major corporations within years. Some of them merged over the years.
Remember, in those days with these by the bootstrap, group of tech nerds working in their garages and in a couple years be millionaires was largely due to a growing untapped market with low competition. It was a rapidly growing emerging market.
Lets pay attention, new emerging market. This means, there isn't any or few established companies and everything is new so it is a pioneering market. You don't have a saturated market. Today, making money in the computer field is something where you have to be smarter and look at niche markets. You can't just open up shop in a mainstream traditional market. You can't compete with Electronic Arts or Microsoft head on. You can make video games but modern video games that people pay $20-70 for a modern PC takes a professional production studio equivalent to a major feature film production to produce). The reason is, it takes a lot of work to create 3d models and 3d worlds. You also got to produce alot of cinematics and you almost always need to have actors/voice actors because that is a standard feature EXPECTED in 99% of games where you pay money on the software.
However, producing on other platforms including retro or classic platforms will be graded on different standards. It is possible to develop and produce a game for Super Nintendo or Sega Genesis today and get paid provide you got an active niche market of people willing to pay and only need a modest SNES game cartridge on the typical 2-8 Megabit or 16 Megabit cart. No problem. Although, you need to sell enough and getting it across the marketplace around the web.
However, you wouldn't want to rely on on platform. On the other hand, there is cutting edge niche markets like Oculus Rift, castAR and getting a place in such a market like that can be an innovative niche to get your foot in the door and a name for yourself and build a market value of your worth.
If you look at a modern software company - in this day and age, they are either "development company/studios' or they are 'publishing companies' or they are a combination of both. Rogue / independent programmers are hobbyist/non-paid types because money is in the development and publishing. That's the business end and money end of the field. In a modern software development company, the "programmers" are basically the equivalent of the CAD monkey in an architecture firm but an architecture firm alone is a poor comparison. The best comparison to a software development company is one that is a combination of "developer, architecture, engineering and construction" because programmers are sort of the construction laborers. This means you kind of have to understand the software development, production and "software construction" (programming). This is because all these aspects are integrated in a vertical business model because in this business, you typically have all this under "one roof" (well.... not literally but in the past that was more true than today but metaphorically... I'm referring to.).
The "programmers" are tech staff to implement the software design which encompasses "software architecture" and "software engineering" which differs terminology largely to focus scope be it component and overall integration. Whether the title is "software architect" or "software engineer" or what not is dependent on the company. However, in the video game industry, the titles for these positions are usually under different naming conventions because video games development tends to use titles that are derived from movie, television and music industry which is kind of how many video game companies originally modeled their companies off of because video games were "entertainment" so they looked to the "entertainment industry" (Hollywood). So terms like Technical director and producer and such is common. Creative Lead is another. But Video game industry also has a few of ther own terminologies like Game Mechanics Designer (basically a Senior Software engineer) but video games is somewhat a special category of software development and has its own unique aspects to it. Programmers are usually lower level staff and in turn paid meagerly. You are looking at pay levels of an IDP intern being around the ball park. Of course, as one goes up the "corporate ladder" and their titles ofte changes but so does their roles and responsibilities, too.
In corporate environment, each person role and responsibility is narrow as there is often many positions and people will shift through roles often. This gets quite elaborate in large businesses. In smaller and startup software companies, you wear most if not all the "hats" because you have to. You don't got 1000s of employees to delegate responsibilities to. So in essence, I've done all these roles.
If I were to get employed by a corporate scale video game developer, I would likely be employed as a technical director, or someone on the production directors level vs programming because these are often employed to young fresh out of college because they are often most equipped to be trained in the current programming languages of vogue but needs our experience and wisdom and understanding of the larger vision, mechanics at the logic level and so forth and understanding of "video game design" vs programming and putitng the composition together. We also get higher salaries commensurate of experience.
As you can see, it isn't always easy cash. There is a lot of romanticizing things because it often is a lot uglier in reality and harder too. Some of these guys like Mark Zuckerberg only became big name because he got a venture capitalist to invest but to get large cash infushion which is necessary for marketing, advertisements and all that because it isn't free. You don't get ads on TV, magazines or anywhere else for free. It comes with a price. You need to get "cool people" (the current fad stars) to get people interested because alot of people just follows fads and what others. This "awareness" factor. To get people aware, you need to spend money. You need money to make money. You need to put money forward to make more money than you put in. Basic laws of business.
Mark Zuckerberg got his big "kickstart" by Peter Thiel. This is why to get any motion and latitude you need investors to get a product on the market. You got to have someone willing to risk money to publish or software or invest in you because they believe in the product as something that can make a return on investment - of course unless you are rich because you have some trust fund from a rich father or grandfather. Otherwise, you get nowhere fast. In this day and age, we got Kickstarter campaign funding and similar platforms where ou can get backers which is a great way to lead credibility to your project goal. If you can raise capital to fund a video game development project from hundreds or thousands of backers, you got something to convince a publisher or other investment opportunities.
Crowdsource funding is a good opportunity to build some base financing to get an idea to move forward. In the past, you needed to convince a venture capitalist or a few of them to put a large chunk of change into investing in your project but you are signing off ownership share (stock).... because before you get a single dime, you are going to have to incorporate the business or contractually agree to do so and that's what it is going to be and they are in charge and calling the shots of the business end and they get a healthy chunk of the profits.
It isn't all a big rosy picture.
It is the way it is. There is no doubt that you can make significantly more money than an typical architect which is typically a "consultant" type business model because architects are consultants to the client.
Software is a commodity/product producer / mass production business model and leadership is in the product development end.... (software product development) much like a land or property developer. A land developer's product is a building or group of buildings and in turn for development is to make the return on investment. Be it by selling, leasing, renting, etc. Software can be rented, leased, etc. as well. It is usually just sold. Just the market dynamics difference but it is about generating wealth from the "development of the product".
Land development is typically a much lower volume "product development" if you were to think of it as a sort of "product development". So in software, you need to have a market of consumers (people in need or wanting your software). Video games are an interesting beast and operates on its own criterion of need, desires, wants. It comes right out of a basic "form follows function" principle. If you have taken industrial design or product design, you'll get some idea of what I am referring to. I'm just covering some aspects of this and not all and I understand that.
I wouldn't say it is a guarantee easy but one thing is, this is a tough economy and it has effected broadly even though housing was ground zero in the recent recession. Other occupations were effected by the domino effect.
The tech industry isn't immune whatsoever from boom/bust cycles (bubbles) just like housing sector because technology such as software development is just as speculative as housing development. Those that takes the greatest risks in doing something and takes control charge will often reap the greatest reward (lion's share of profits) because they are the ones taking the greatest risk. Employees tends to be paid low because they don't have the risk. Basically, who has most skin at risk, takes the charge and also takes the lion share.
The less risk you take, the less you expect to get and in general, you also have the least control. Venture capitalists/investors takes great financial risk so they often demand controlling interest and direction as condition for their investment. The more the investment, the more controlling interest. It is called, the person with most at stake takes the most control. Basic rule of venture capitalism.
This is mostly about money. The person with most finance or other assets at stake in a project takes the most control. Of course isn't always just cash.
One's time can be equated to cash investment value but it can be a challenging. That's another story.
When you think about a major, you need to think about career at the end because going to college without having a good idea about your career direction is going to be like or likely to be like. 100 years ago, high school wasn't required and high school was a lot like going to community college. It wasn't unheard of youth working after graduating from primary school K-8. (finishing 8th grade). This meant they had 4 years of working quite often. High school was the time to prepare for college and finding ones career direction. Youth were by far more disciplined than 90% of the youth today. Today's youth at age 18 are more like 6th graders back 100 years ago in terms of maturity. Sad is the case. If people either waited until they are 21 before going to college or start understanding the different career fields they are interested in and understand how the employment is like.
To do so is to understand some fundamental business economy. The principle of supply & demand. Understanding the demand. Is architectural demand increasing or decreasing? What is the supply level? What is the rate in which the supply is growing. The perfect condition in any market is when there is about the equal demand to supply. For it to be sustainable, the condition of supply and demand rate of change (increase of decrease) should be small and also the change from either increase or decrease of supply should not be far from perfect. In other words, it also needs to stay in lock step to be sustainable. In other words, hyper-inflated boom and busts are bad.
Done with that 3-part VERY LONG post.
Was one very long scroll. Just broke it up into three chunks.
architectureisforidiots, one post, five months ago. I think she moved on.
I don't think the OP specified their gender.
See #10 in the OP. Maybe not specified but certainly implied.
Richard's sincere, book-length post alongside Miles's observation that the OP did a drive-by reminds me why I don't write so much in responses anymore.
Brevity rules.
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.