So, I'm 29 and have a BS Arch. I have 2.5 years of working experience (one place did cool stuff that was never built, and the other did all kinds of stuff, most of it crappy, but I got experience in many different kinds of architecture) and 1 year working as an architectural renderer. And basically for the past 1.5 years I've been doing odd jobs to pay the bills. I'm getting older and the thought of going to grad school is a constant nuisance in my head. While I still have my whole life ahead of me, well, grad school would be a 2-3 year commitment (and perhaps going back to being overly saturated and sleepless). Also, considering the current state of affairs, architecture isn't the hottest profession to be in now. I realize the economy will change, but the thought of assuming a massive debt right now is rather daunting. Perhaps it might be a good idea to delve into something else, either I'll enjoy it, or perhaps it'll give me that extra push to go to grad school. I was accepted a few years back, but declined because of a job that promised interesting projects in various foreign markets. F%$ing crisis ended taht job. who could have predicted?
So, with that intro aside, I'm rather curious about perhaps fulfilling non architecture professions that others might have branched off into. I realize that the sky's the limit (graphic design, photography, industrial design, etc), but the job market is tight and employers can be much more selective and find an individual with skills completely honed to his needs and desires. I doubt the type of person this question is addressed to would be looking at archinect. But it's worth a shot, and perhaps some of you readers have stories of friends. I'm having trouble looking for other possibilities or figuring out how to find other opportunities in which to apply myself. Any input is warmly welcomed.
thanks
ps. while it's great to look at both sides to an argument, these are negative times and this is a positive discussion, please refrain from overtly negative comments
About 10% of the profession will be smart when it bails and it will purposefully decide to go into anything like what the contemporary-minded artist/ architect decides to get into instead of architecture.
The 90% of contemporary-minded artist/ architect types, (97.5% of those who visit this forum are of this mindset) will flood themselves into equally as fruitless fields/ profession. E.g. graphic designer, website designer, illustrator, writer, set designer, ad nauseum.
The phenomenon is driven by the fact that the idiocy which has implanted itself in the bosom of the profession has allowed themselves to believe that the title of architect in the contemporary sense is that of master "designer" as opposed to the more classical, fruitbearing sense of "master problem solver within the physical context of the built environment, i.e. master builder"
The engineers have done a great job in seeing to it that they've retained that role. Interestingly enough, the 10% of the contemporary profession which goes into something verifiably more fruitful (as opposed to more of the same profitless nonsense) could sensibly choose to go into/ morph into the engineering fields.
Science and math are profitable whereas "art" has never been because:
#1 Most people either are not capable of mathematics and/or do not like doing it (90% of the contemporary profession, by the way)
#2 Most business owners, clients, and those with the $$$ like planning and thinking and with the DIY mentality combined with the ubiquitiousness of the computer and software packages that make anyone think they are expert at drawing, do contemporary architects really think that clients are going to pay them equitably for something those clients LOVE to do themselves in the first place? LOL. Lunacy.
There are a couple of points that I would like to make that sort of [surprise] feed into what IHM rabbits on about, but what I have already talked about alot anyway.
1. Bruce Mau's Manifesto #24 "Avoid Software: the problem with software is that everyone has it", and
2. The Good Enough Revolution from Wired which demonstrates that for most purposes, you dont need perfection, but rather something that does the job.
So, my rough hypothesis on a new practice runs like this:
1. Architecture, like alot of other industries is becoming more accessible and knowable, particularly through the media
2. For most peoples needs, they dont need Architecture, they need a building [small 'a' architecture]
3. If something can be programmed or captured as a process that software can produce, it will be. Witness Ponoko, Google Earth and sketch-up, Youtube, Etsy etc.
4. The largest impediment therefore to anyone producing architecture themselves will be the legal responsibility and risk
Therefore,
You will get organisations that will faclilitate architecture on behalf of clients. Risk will be allocated between the client and the architect.
The architect will be the party to make the building documentation legitimate.
This new practice will also develop PM systems to act as a step by step process for abyone to manage a construction job.
There will also be tie-ins with manufacturers, so there will be a prefab element. Its possible that the architect will make all fees from mark-ups of materials and services charges for preparing the clients documents.
So the architect relinquishes all control. The contrast to this, and in comparison equally valid, will be where the architect has full control and full risk.
"1. Architecture, like a lot of other industries is becoming more accessible and knowable, particularly through the media"
to expand on diabase's point, Architects up until a close to 35 years ago, did have secrets left to hold their social status, and some respect, but this is one of the reasons that Architects are being undermined by other professions, for expample, Interior Designers, Engineers, commissioners, etc..but I do think that our ability to see the big picture, and know a little about everything is the one characteristic that is allowing us to even survive as a profession to day.
some good points above. i think the key is for architects to look closely at their skills and try to understand what of them is actually a commodity that clients are willing to pay for. it generally ain't form-making or decorating (which is where 90% of the profession is right now). clients can and want to do this themselves. detailing and code review can be done by an engineer. so it ain't really that either. i think ihm's point about "problem-solving" is a good place to start, though i'm not sure it necessarily leads down the path to engineering. there are already engineers who are far more specialized than we architects are. why hire an architect when an engineer can do it better?
lately i've been asking the question, "what can i provide to a developer to help him make his vision a reality?" or "is there something that i can do better than he can that he needs in his process?" the trick here is not to delude yourself with the answer.
you're going to have a hard time getting meaningful advice about life choices on this forum. you'll usually get snark, crazy nonsense, inside joke (academic or forum-related), and/or someone using your post as an opportunity to advance some kind of semi-tangential idea instead of posting it in a new thread.
welcome to the forums!
anyway - I think if you gave some information about stuff you're actually interested in you might have gotten better responses - at least then we might be able to help you focus. right now it only seems like you're interested in finding better paying work.. which of course will bring out what is essentially the "GO INTO ORGAN TRAFFICKING" chorus.
"lately i've been asking the question, "what can i provide to a developer to help him make his vision a reality?" or "is there something that i can do better than he can that he needs in his process?" the trick here is not to delude yourself with the answer."
I agree - there is alot of delusion when it comes to architects ideas of development.
It also seems to me that there is also alot of 'role-playing', in the sense that in every project I am involved in, the architect plays a certain role [the design guy], the quantity surveyor plays the bastard [ok, the numbers guy], the construction manager [i'm just the dumb builder] etc. etc.
I had a meeting with a young architect late last week. He has a fantastic client with tonnes of money, and some amazing projects. The scale and type of the projects in Europe would probably be awarded by competition with major architects participating. Very, very impressive.
He is a sole practitioner and collaborates with others to get things done when he needs to. One of the main reasons he has got the job is because he genuinely understands the client and where they are coming from, and he has managed to solve the design problems by actually using design - by really focusing on design that is purely specific to the building and the site.
In fact, one of the commissions was given to him after another practice did 'once over lightly' design. It was genuinely refreshing to see an architects work that was dedicated, sincere and exciting.
tr - not sure that you read the posts, but there is some thought put into these, whether you agree or not is irrelevant (more or less). This is with, perhaps, the exception of IHM who seems quite pleased with talking everything down.
I do think that you need to evaluate what you can offer, objectively. There is a need for quality design in every industry. It isn't as large a need as there is supply, just like in architecture, but quality design in other professions is valuable and commands more $$ (unlike architecture). But you have to really evaluate your abilities and talents. Too many architects think that because they are "architects" then the can immediately transition into graphics or web and be successful.
Personally, I enjoy the combination of design with business. This keeps me interested and I enjoy it, but I also understand the practicalities of creating solutions that bring value to our clients. Best of both worlds, I think.
Tough world right now, but thinking bigger anything is possible. You can create a path that balances ideals with realities.
Environmental Science or Studies. Pursue an MBA and use it in your developer scheme or something similar. Thats what I would do. Whatever you choose, do something will actual meaning.
trace, what kind of combination of design and business do you speak? I always get the impression that taking a business position in another field requires hanging up your design credentials, or at least the practice of it anyway, to become more or less strictly a number puncher towards the bottom line.
(sorry, not sure how to insert a link. just copy/paste into browser)
this is not exclusive to BC....it is the same story for most law grads not at top tier schools. google "toilet law" and follow one of the many blogs if you are interested.
oh, and those big salaries are MEAN not median. the median is somewhere around architect starting salaries. the mean gets dragged up by the few in the top tier schools that start with big salaries and by those who have not found jobs and are not reporting to career services. likewise, schools have been in a lot of hot water about fudging their numbers as of late by employing students at the school, or counting those who work in non-law jobs.
there seems to be very few "get out of jail free" professions right now.
the economy for architecture may, in fact, not change for the better. an economic recovery is assumed because it has happened before. it may not happen this time. therefore, as a profession the critical mass of those needed to produce both the Big A architecture and the every fewer, thank god, spec development appears to have been satisfied for the forseable future. Given that, the idea of spending tens of thousands of dollars to go into debt for an advanced degree in a shrinking market doesn't seem like a good idea. now i understand that we all like to be optimistic and grad school, although expensive and exhausting is also more fun than being in the humdrum world of bathroom details. I would only pursue this career if you're are completely obsessed with architecture, can finance the endeavor without incurring debt and are, frankly, incredibly talented. and i mean talented at a high genius level. ie christopher wren or robert hooke or james watt kind of genius. if you cannot satisfy those requirements i would advise another career choice.
With your background in architecture and your degree, I'd guess that you have a pretty good amount of experience to go on already. Whatever the argument about 'big-A architecture versus little-a architecture', we have training as building experts; there are a whole lot of directions that you could go into using that angle, especially if you add some graduate school to your belt.
Looking through my list of people I went to undergrad with and who did not go on to get a professional degree (or who did, but got some other degree afterward), I seem to have a lot of friends who (successfully) went into the following industries:
- construction management
- like, one planner (who, interestingly, is back in school for architecture)
- other technical, possibly architecture-related specialty (me: second grad degree, also some of the people who I go to school with who were once architects)
- an artist or two
- entrepreneur (various businesses)
- a couple of people are some kind of barista or something, but might moonlight on the side as a designer of some kind or other
In most instances, people who didn't go into architecture for a second degree (among my limited sample set) seem to have skewed in a technical direction instead of a "design-y" direction. Also, they (mostly) got a second degree. As long as we're drawing a distinction between "big A" and "little a," this seems to suggest that our training is probably more valuable in the "building expert" department rather than the "design expert" department. (I'm not really all that convinced that it's a hard line between the two, for the record - someone somewhere mentioned that great engineers are architects at heart, but I think the reverse is true too.)
By and large, most people who got the professional degrees seemed to stick with architecture (in architecture firms), or maybe moonlight as some kind of design professor. It may have taken them a little while to find jobs, but a lot of them were successful at doing so eventually. (It's been a couple of years since the professional degree, so things have sort of shaken out; it was rough back in '08-'09, I tell you that!)
As far as age, you're probably not that old in terms of your fellow students; in "real" graduate school, you might be on the lower end of the age bell curve in some fields (in "professional school", you might be in the middle or slightly above). Plus, people tend not to peak as architects until late middle age; if you were going to pick a profession to go to school for, I'd probably choose this one, since you're bound to be in it for the long haul anyways. And once you have the license, I'd imagine it can only be an asset if you do anything in the building industry. (If you've been keeping up with IDP, you're already partway there! If not, experience can only help land future work.)
I wouldn't make a decision on a career based on this particular moment in time right now (if we all did that, the world would be flooded with nurses or something in five years), but instead what sort of experience you have and how you can move forward with it.
xalip - i'm not sure i personally would recommend grad school for a degree in architecture to anyone at the moment, unless money is either of no consequence, scholarships are involved, or it's with a state institution and the total debt at the end is manageable (ie, 30k or less). but that's a really general rule - obviously even with the info you've laid out, it's hard to get specific due to a lack of knowledge about all the subtleties that make up your whole story.
from my own perspective, as a middling ager who's owned their own company for a little more than half a decade (and we've managed along ok - no layoffs, great clients, just not great money yet), what really has gotten me out of bed each day the past couple of years is realizing what kinds of truly amazing entrepreneurial opportunities there are out there, that lay outside the norms of a more 'traditional' practice. sure, there's risk and less of a safety net, but the past 10+ years have taught me that there are so many needs in the construction industry that a whole army of creative talent could be unleashed on it.
flip side of that stance is looking out and seeing just how much technology is changing our social fabric (yeah, facetwit's one aspect - i'm talking much more about where/when/how/etc. we interact). i think 'the' profession of the next 20 years is going to be user interface (UI) design - it's one of the things which has really vaulted apple to the top. everyone else 'gets it', but there just aren't a ton of great ui designers out there.
finally - read this this morning. inspiration, really, for anyone who's feeling stuck in a rut and wondering how to make the next move:
"a state institution and the total debt at the end is manageable (ie, 30k or less). " : +1. You can get a pretty good education at a state school, and I get the impression that people care less about your credentials after the first few jobs anyways (particularly if you become a construction manager or a product rep, both of which I've known architects to do). You seem to have at least some experience under your belt, so in a sense the education is more a formality at this point if you're going for licensure (of course, you can make your education about more, which I highly recommend - if you're going to be in school for two years, you might as well learn something).
Also,
"what really has gotten me out of bed each day the past couple of years is realizing what kinds of truly amazing entrepreneurial opportunities there are out there, that lay outside the norms of a more 'traditional' practice. sure, there's risk and less of a safety net, but the past 10+ years have taught me that there are so many needs in the construction industry that a whole army of creative talent could be unleashed on it."
+ (however many I can add, 1 seems to be too little)
Speaking from experience, there are a *lot* of things that architects can do that don't fall within the traditional (or all-encompassing) practice of architecture. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but people need experts who know
- how buildings are put together
- how to analyze space requirements and other design inputs
- how to work with requirements and design data
- how to manage things
- how to make and present concise solutions to problems (note: they may or may not be built solutions)
- how to make things visually appealing.
Architects can generally do all these things and more, and any one of these skills (or combination thereof) can be helpful to someone. Your own individual experience will hopefully tell you what combination of these things appeals most to you, and how you can find problems in the construction (or other) industry to which you can provide solutions.
The experience you listed leads me to believe that you've focused a lot on the 'design' aspect (being a renderer, working for a design firm that did more designing than building), so you might feel pulled in that particular direction. I'm working from conjecture here and this is my own personal opinion, but exploring a bit more on the technical side (which you probably have from your 'crappy' firm) may add a bit of 'oomph' to your design skills and make you more marketable, in whatever field you are.
Granted, it's not a list of "alternate jobs", but it might be something to chew on for a bit; if you decide to go to school for something, you can analyze what you think your strengths and weaknesses are (relative to what kind of job you want to do) and figure out how to accentuate/compensate for them through education. There's always that anecdote about the engineer for IBM(?) who mentioned that when he was in high school, none of the job categories at his company even existed - things can change fast.
xalip, I struggled with the same thing. Unfortunately, I had to leave the profession (hopefully not for too long) for lack of work in our area. Fortunately, what I ended up stumbling into is greatly rewarding and ridiculously lucrative. I am an environmental inspector for pipeline work. My B.S. architecture eduction and experience in residential construction (working with crews) got me in the door and the environmental portion of my work is teachable. I am very grateful for the experience and it will allow me to further my education in architecture / business down the road.
If movies have taught us anything, the apocalypse will draw soon and only the strongest will survive. That said, get in shape, you never know who you’ll have to eliminate when a cult of night dwelling mutants are infected with a plague. Boost your immune system in the event that you are the only last man on earth. And learn how to fly a jet. I can’t stress that one enough. And know how to make a fire by rubbing two sticks.
Dec 18, 10 5:11 pm ·
·
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.
suggestions on other fields/professions aside from architecture
So, I'm 29 and have a BS Arch. I have 2.5 years of working experience (one place did cool stuff that was never built, and the other did all kinds of stuff, most of it crappy, but I got experience in many different kinds of architecture) and 1 year working as an architectural renderer. And basically for the past 1.5 years I've been doing odd jobs to pay the bills. I'm getting older and the thought of going to grad school is a constant nuisance in my head. While I still have my whole life ahead of me, well, grad school would be a 2-3 year commitment (and perhaps going back to being overly saturated and sleepless). Also, considering the current state of affairs, architecture isn't the hottest profession to be in now. I realize the economy will change, but the thought of assuming a massive debt right now is rather daunting. Perhaps it might be a good idea to delve into something else, either I'll enjoy it, or perhaps it'll give me that extra push to go to grad school. I was accepted a few years back, but declined because of a job that promised interesting projects in various foreign markets. F%$ing crisis ended taht job. who could have predicted?
So, with that intro aside, I'm rather curious about perhaps fulfilling non architecture professions that others might have branched off into. I realize that the sky's the limit (graphic design, photography, industrial design, etc), but the job market is tight and employers can be much more selective and find an individual with skills completely honed to his needs and desires. I doubt the type of person this question is addressed to would be looking at archinect. But it's worth a shot, and perhaps some of you readers have stories of friends. I'm having trouble looking for other possibilities or figuring out how to find other opportunities in which to apply myself. Any input is warmly welcomed.
thanks
ps. while it's great to look at both sides to an argument, these are negative times and this is a positive discussion, please refrain from overtly negative comments
This seems like a set-up for a IHEARTMARXIST diatribe about becoming a doctor.
sorry, I meant IHATEMARXIST.
To avoid the (usual) diatribe, I'll say this:
About 10% of the profession will be smart when it bails and it will purposefully decide to go into anything like what the contemporary-minded artist/ architect decides to get into instead of architecture.
The 90% of contemporary-minded artist/ architect types, (97.5% of those who visit this forum are of this mindset) will flood themselves into equally as fruitless fields/ profession. E.g. graphic designer, website designer, illustrator, writer, set designer, ad nauseum.
The phenomenon is driven by the fact that the idiocy which has implanted itself in the bosom of the profession has allowed themselves to believe that the title of architect in the contemporary sense is that of master "designer" as opposed to the more classical, fruitbearing sense of "master problem solver within the physical context of the built environment, i.e. master builder"
The engineers have done a great job in seeing to it that they've retained that role. Interestingly enough, the 10% of the contemporary profession which goes into something verifiably more fruitful (as opposed to more of the same profitless nonsense) could sensibly choose to go into/ morph into the engineering fields.
Science and math are profitable whereas "art" has never been because:
#1 Most people either are not capable of mathematics and/or do not like doing it (90% of the contemporary profession, by the way)
#2 Most business owners, clients, and those with the $$$ like planning and thinking and with the DIY mentality combined with the ubiquitiousness of the computer and software packages that make anyone think they are expert at drawing, do contemporary architects really think that clients are going to pay them equitably for something those clients LOVE to do themselves in the first place? LOL. Lunacy.
~end of diatribe, for now~
There are a couple of points that I would like to make that sort of [surprise] feed into what IHM rabbits on about, but what I have already talked about alot anyway.
1. Bruce Mau's Manifesto #24 "Avoid Software: the problem with software is that everyone has it", and
2. The Good Enough Revolution from Wired which demonstrates that for most purposes, you dont need perfection, but rather something that does the job.
So, my rough hypothesis on a new practice runs like this:
1. Architecture, like alot of other industries is becoming more accessible and knowable, particularly through the media
2. For most peoples needs, they dont need Architecture, they need a building [small 'a' architecture]
3. If something can be programmed or captured as a process that software can produce, it will be. Witness Ponoko, Google Earth and sketch-up, Youtube, Etsy etc.
4. The largest impediment therefore to anyone producing architecture themselves will be the legal responsibility and risk
Therefore,
You will get organisations that will faclilitate architecture on behalf of clients. Risk will be allocated between the client and the architect.
The architect will be the party to make the building documentation legitimate.
This new practice will also develop PM systems to act as a step by step process for abyone to manage a construction job.
There will also be tie-ins with manufacturers, so there will be a prefab element. Its possible that the architect will make all fees from mark-ups of materials and services charges for preparing the clients documents.
So the architect relinquishes all control. The contrast to this, and in comparison equally valid, will be where the architect has full control and full risk.
"1. Architecture, like a lot of other industries is becoming more accessible and knowable, particularly through the media"
to expand on diabase's point, Architects up until a close to 35 years ago, did have secrets left to hold their social status, and some respect, but this is one of the reasons that Architects are being undermined by other professions, for expample, Interior Designers, Engineers, commissioners, etc..but I do think that our ability to see the big picture, and know a little about everything is the one characteristic that is allowing us to even survive as a profession to day.
some good points above. i think the key is for architects to look closely at their skills and try to understand what of them is actually a commodity that clients are willing to pay for. it generally ain't form-making or decorating (which is where 90% of the profession is right now). clients can and want to do this themselves. detailing and code review can be done by an engineer. so it ain't really that either. i think ihm's point about "problem-solving" is a good place to start, though i'm not sure it necessarily leads down the path to engineering. there are already engineers who are far more specialized than we architects are. why hire an architect when an engineer can do it better?
lately i've been asking the question, "what can i provide to a developer to help him make his vision a reality?" or "is there something that i can do better than he can that he needs in his process?" the trick here is not to delude yourself with the answer.
thanks guys, for beginning a conversation irrelevant to the topic presented.
you're going to have a hard time getting meaningful advice about life choices on this forum. you'll usually get snark, crazy nonsense, inside joke (academic or forum-related), and/or someone using your post as an opportunity to advance some kind of semi-tangential idea instead of posting it in a new thread.
welcome to the forums!
anyway - I think if you gave some information about stuff you're actually interested in you might have gotten better responses - at least then we might be able to help you focus. right now it only seems like you're interested in finding better paying work.. which of course will bring out what is essentially the "GO INTO ORGAN TRAFFICKING" chorus.
I agree - there is alot of delusion when it comes to architects ideas of development.
It also seems to me that there is also alot of 'role-playing', in the sense that in every project I am involved in, the architect plays a certain role [the design guy], the quantity surveyor plays the bastard [ok, the numbers guy], the construction manager [i'm just the dumb builder] etc. etc.
I had a meeting with a young architect late last week. He has a fantastic client with tonnes of money, and some amazing projects. The scale and type of the projects in Europe would probably be awarded by competition with major architects participating. Very, very impressive.
He is a sole practitioner and collaborates with others to get things done when he needs to. One of the main reasons he has got the job is because he genuinely understands the client and where they are coming from, and he has managed to solve the design problems by actually using design - by really focusing on design that is purely specific to the building and the site.
In fact, one of the commissions was given to him after another practice did 'once over lightly' design. It was genuinely refreshing to see an architects work that was dedicated, sincere and exciting.
That should be the norm - but it's not.
tr - not sure that you read the posts, but there is some thought put into these, whether you agree or not is irrelevant (more or less). This is with, perhaps, the exception of IHM who seems quite pleased with talking everything down.
I do think that you need to evaluate what you can offer, objectively. There is a need for quality design in every industry. It isn't as large a need as there is supply, just like in architecture, but quality design in other professions is valuable and commands more $$ (unlike architecture). But you have to really evaluate your abilities and talents. Too many architects think that because they are "architects" then the can immediately transition into graphics or web and be successful.
Personally, I enjoy the combination of design with business. This keeps me interested and I enjoy it, but I also understand the practicalities of creating solutions that bring value to our clients. Best of both worlds, I think.
Tough world right now, but thinking bigger anything is possible. You can create a path that balances ideals with realities.
Environmental Science or Studies. Pursue an MBA and use it in your developer scheme or something similar. Thats what I would do. Whatever you choose, do something will actual meaning.
trace, what kind of combination of design and business do you speak? I always get the impression that taking a business position in another field requires hanging up your design credentials, or at least the practice of it anyway, to become more or less strictly a number puncher towards the bottom line.
For $$$, law school. 2 years of torture + BAR + corporate law practice (more torture, real 80 hour weeks). Starting salary in NYC is 160K + bonuses.
i disagree, sanguebom. unless he gets into a top tier school. even then, he might have to "delay" his job to work pro bono for a few years.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/unemployed-boston-college-law-student-tuition-back/story?id=11937494
(sorry, not sure how to insert a link. just copy/paste into browser)
this is not exclusive to BC....it is the same story for most law grads not at top tier schools. google "toilet law" and follow one of the many blogs if you are interested.
oh, and those big salaries are MEAN not median. the median is somewhere around architect starting salaries. the mean gets dragged up by the few in the top tier schools that start with big salaries and by those who have not found jobs and are not reporting to career services. likewise, schools have been in a lot of hot water about fudging their numbers as of late by employing students at the school, or counting those who work in non-law jobs.
there seems to be very few "get out of jail free" professions right now.
the economy for architecture may, in fact, not change for the better. an economic recovery is assumed because it has happened before. it may not happen this time. therefore, as a profession the critical mass of those needed to produce both the Big A architecture and the every fewer, thank god, spec development appears to have been satisfied for the forseable future. Given that, the idea of spending tens of thousands of dollars to go into debt for an advanced degree in a shrinking market doesn't seem like a good idea. now i understand that we all like to be optimistic and grad school, although expensive and exhausting is also more fun than being in the humdrum world of bathroom details. I would only pursue this career if you're are completely obsessed with architecture, can finance the endeavor without incurring debt and are, frankly, incredibly talented. and i mean talented at a high genius level. ie christopher wren or robert hooke or james watt kind of genius. if you cannot satisfy those requirements i would advise another career choice.
With your background in architecture and your degree, I'd guess that you have a pretty good amount of experience to go on already. Whatever the argument about 'big-A architecture versus little-a architecture', we have training as building experts; there are a whole lot of directions that you could go into using that angle, especially if you add some graduate school to your belt.
Looking through my list of people I went to undergrad with and who did not go on to get a professional degree (or who did, but got some other degree afterward), I seem to have a lot of friends who (successfully) went into the following industries:
- construction management
- like, one planner (who, interestingly, is back in school for architecture)
- other technical, possibly architecture-related specialty (me: second grad degree, also some of the people who I go to school with who were once architects)
- an artist or two
- entrepreneur (various businesses)
- a couple of people are some kind of barista or something, but might moonlight on the side as a designer of some kind or other
In most instances, people who didn't go into architecture for a second degree (among my limited sample set) seem to have skewed in a technical direction instead of a "design-y" direction. Also, they (mostly) got a second degree. As long as we're drawing a distinction between "big A" and "little a," this seems to suggest that our training is probably more valuable in the "building expert" department rather than the "design expert" department. (I'm not really all that convinced that it's a hard line between the two, for the record - someone somewhere mentioned that great engineers are architects at heart, but I think the reverse is true too.)
By and large, most people who got the professional degrees seemed to stick with architecture (in architecture firms), or maybe moonlight as some kind of design professor. It may have taken them a little while to find jobs, but a lot of them were successful at doing so eventually. (It's been a couple of years since the professional degree, so things have sort of shaken out; it was rough back in '08-'09, I tell you that!)
As far as age, you're probably not that old in terms of your fellow students; in "real" graduate school, you might be on the lower end of the age bell curve in some fields (in "professional school", you might be in the middle or slightly above). Plus, people tend not to peak as architects until late middle age; if you were going to pick a profession to go to school for, I'd probably choose this one, since you're bound to be in it for the long haul anyways. And once you have the license, I'd imagine it can only be an asset if you do anything in the building industry. (If you've been keeping up with IDP, you're already partway there! If not, experience can only help land future work.)
I wouldn't make a decision on a career based on this particular moment in time right now (if we all did that, the world would be flooded with nurses or something in five years), but instead what sort of experience you have and how you can move forward with it.
xalip - i'm not sure i personally would recommend grad school for a degree in architecture to anyone at the moment, unless money is either of no consequence, scholarships are involved, or it's with a state institution and the total debt at the end is manageable (ie, 30k or less). but that's a really general rule - obviously even with the info you've laid out, it's hard to get specific due to a lack of knowledge about all the subtleties that make up your whole story.
from my own perspective, as a middling ager who's owned their own company for a little more than half a decade (and we've managed along ok - no layoffs, great clients, just not great money yet), what really has gotten me out of bed each day the past couple of years is realizing what kinds of truly amazing entrepreneurial opportunities there are out there, that lay outside the norms of a more 'traditional' practice. sure, there's risk and less of a safety net, but the past 10+ years have taught me that there are so many needs in the construction industry that a whole army of creative talent could be unleashed on it.
flip side of that stance is looking out and seeing just how much technology is changing our social fabric (yeah, facetwit's one aspect - i'm talking much more about where/when/how/etc. we interact). i think 'the' profession of the next 20 years is going to be user interface (UI) design - it's one of the things which has really vaulted apple to the top. everyone else 'gets it', but there just aren't a ton of great ui designers out there.
finally - read this this morning. inspiration, really, for anyone who's feeling stuck in a rut and wondering how to make the next move:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/business/12yec.html?src=me&ref=general
i saw that article, outed. pretty inspiring. let's bring that kind of enthusiasm to our profession.
are there any good landscape painters out there anymore?
Re: outed,
"a state institution and the total debt at the end is manageable (ie, 30k or less). " : +1. You can get a pretty good education at a state school, and I get the impression that people care less about your credentials after the first few jobs anyways (particularly if you become a construction manager or a product rep, both of which I've known architects to do). You seem to have at least some experience under your belt, so in a sense the education is more a formality at this point if you're going for licensure (of course, you can make your education about more, which I highly recommend - if you're going to be in school for two years, you might as well learn something).
Also,
"what really has gotten me out of bed each day the past couple of years is realizing what kinds of truly amazing entrepreneurial opportunities there are out there, that lay outside the norms of a more 'traditional' practice. sure, there's risk and less of a safety net, but the past 10+ years have taught me that there are so many needs in the construction industry that a whole army of creative talent could be unleashed on it."
+ (however many I can add, 1 seems to be too little)
Speaking from experience, there are a *lot* of things that architects can do that don't fall within the traditional (or all-encompassing) practice of architecture. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but people need experts who know
- how buildings are put together
- how to analyze space requirements and other design inputs
- how to work with requirements and design data
- how to manage things
- how to make and present concise solutions to problems (note: they may or may not be built solutions)
- how to make things visually appealing.
Architects can generally do all these things and more, and any one of these skills (or combination thereof) can be helpful to someone. Your own individual experience will hopefully tell you what combination of these things appeals most to you, and how you can find problems in the construction (or other) industry to which you can provide solutions.
The experience you listed leads me to believe that you've focused a lot on the 'design' aspect (being a renderer, working for a design firm that did more designing than building), so you might feel pulled in that particular direction. I'm working from conjecture here and this is my own personal opinion, but exploring a bit more on the technical side (which you probably have from your 'crappy' firm) may add a bit of 'oomph' to your design skills and make you more marketable, in whatever field you are.
Granted, it's not a list of "alternate jobs", but it might be something to chew on for a bit; if you decide to go to school for something, you can analyze what you think your strengths and weaknesses are (relative to what kind of job you want to do) and figure out how to accentuate/compensate for them through education. There's always that anecdote about the engineer for IBM(?) who mentioned that when he was in high school, none of the job categories at his company even existed - things can change fast.
xalip, I struggled with the same thing. Unfortunately, I had to leave the profession (hopefully not for too long) for lack of work in our area. Fortunately, what I ended up stumbling into is greatly rewarding and ridiculously lucrative. I am an environmental inspector for pipeline work. My B.S. architecture eduction and experience in residential construction (working with crews) got me in the door and the environmental portion of my work is teachable. I am very grateful for the experience and it will allow me to further my education in architecture / business down the road.
If movies have taught us anything, the apocalypse will draw soon and only the strongest will survive. That said, get in shape, you never know who you’ll have to eliminate when a cult of night dwelling mutants are infected with a plague. Boost your immune system in the event that you are the only last man on earth. And learn how to fly a jet. I can’t stress that one enough. And know how to make a fire by rubbing two sticks.
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.