I hope no one takes this as another rant about the crippling economy, or the unemployed people in architecture enough has been said about that by now, and it is not in any way an attack against those going to architecture college, purely statistical.

If you go to the NAAB's web site here you can download a presentation called "2009 Report on Accreditation in Architecture." This document indicates that in 2009, there were:

10,264 students enrolled in M.Arch programs.

15,162 students enrolled in B.Arch programs.

3,231 M.Arch degrees were awarded.

2,764 B.Arch degrees were awarded.

So for both M.Arch and B.Arch, the total number of degrees awarded that year was 5,995. I realize that this does not include the 4-year B.S. Arch students, but it's a starting point.

Incidentally, the same document has some pretty interesting stats on Arch Faculty salaries and registration status.

thanks

Also, the "architecture and engineering" field [civil engineers, architects] is expected to add about 270,000 jobs between 2008-2018 (Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition, BLS).

Given only about 15% of those jobs will be actual architects, that's somewhere between 4000-5000 jobs will be created every year. Even if we go with the higher end figure and assume at least 500 or so B.Archs will pursue M.Archs, that leaves a deficit of around 500 jobs per year for architecture graduates.

Of course, "architecture and engineering occupations" could involve a lot of other similarly related fields that architects would be qualified to work in.

Gresham,
I would say that you can easily add (a conservative #) another 16,000 B.S. arch students making the total architecture student body around 42,000 students in 2009 anyway. So we have 5,995 B.arch's, & M.archs, graduating plus id say another 3000 BS arch's, per year, so roughly speaking there are almost 9000 graduates added to the architecture workforce of about 115,000 (unemployed) and in a lot of cases very qualified people. So, we can estimate that every year about 9,000 fresh bodies are added to the architecture community, subtract about 500 b.s. archs who stay in school for an March. still its a high number.

Wow that 42,000 annual student body number boggles the mind! Thats lot of dinero in tuition, with roughly 124,000 unemployed in architecture Yikes. and only about 110 still employed probably. 124,000 unemployed and destitute and it still doesn't discourage high school grads from signing up for arch college? maybe they just don't know how bad it really is, either way the only thing i can say is "why arent you all going to medical school" and good luck.

i taught freshman studio last year. without being completely discouraging, i tried to impress upon them the depression-level difficulties facing the industry in the current economy and the relatively low pay, even in good times

i didn't push too much though. my experience was that they have no way to comprehend what i was saying. first, most if not all of them come from families well enough off, even now, that true hardship seems tough for them to comprehend. second, to this point, they been performers throughout their educational history. so my impression is that they think, 'even if the situation is bad, i've always been more or less exceptional compared to my peers, so i'll still find a way to find a (good) job because I am in the top 5 or 10 percent of my peers' not realizing how intense the competition is and that they may not be as exceptional as their high school experience led them to believe

so i don't think warning students about the perils of the industry is a deterrent.....

oh no I am not trying to deter anyone, this was just pure statistics, but after seeing a tangible number of 124,000 unemployed, I guess thats what prompted me to blurt out "why aren't you going to medical school" my thoughts behind that is we actually need more doctors in this country, not to mention we need more skilled labor also, this statistical thread to could easily run off in a different direction, but no it is just a numbers thread nothing more.

In New Zealand there are 3 universities teaching architecture - around 280 graduate in a year and the population of NZ is 4 million people 280/4,000,000=0.00007 [ratio]

What's the ratio of arch grads to population in the US?

I think that relating the number of architecture graduates to the population of a nation is not the point, but rather was to point out by how many more people the architecture work force has increased. Besides as a new graduate, they are not really equipped with the years of experience, knowledge, or the coveted license to actually serve the community. There are a few graduates that have access to finances that will allow them to do something but that is a very small number almost insignificant, and even then they still have no license to practice architecture, here in the USA anyway.

In grad school I conducted some research that showed, rather conclusively, that the inflation adjusted growth of 'new-construction-put-in-place' in the US tracks population growth almost exactly. This would suggest that the ratio of architects to urban population is, in fact, a meaningful measure for architects to consider over time.

I haven't updated my data in some years, but my earlier research also indicated that the population of both Architects and architectural employment has grown considerably faster than the general population since the 1960s - thus suggesting that the share of new construction spending per architect has declined significantly over this same period of time.

This is kind of what I was afraid of, people coming out and taking this thread in a way different direction, it is just a statistical thread nothing more, and quiz, im sorry but here in the USA, we dont call recent graduates "Architects" just because they graduated from college, unlike Europe, I dont make the rules here.

just a reminder I have stated that I started this thread to figure how many new architecture graduates join the architecture workforce per year that's really about it.

ce ... don't be such a pompous ass?

Your question was answered by Gresham. Now - in this DISCUSSION FORUM - others want to explore the ramifications of that information, which I find both useful and informative.

This isn't your own private research service. Now that Gresham gave you the data you wanted (data you could have looked up yourself) what else is there to say about your very personal and private 'statistical' question?

hay hay watch the language, go ahead people take this thread and morph it how ever you like.

ps. babs,
im glad that this information is useful to you and other people. incidentally, i knew a person from germany that had a similar sounding name to yours, (in college), if that is you im sorry, and just wanted to tell you that I always thought you were hot.

How many architect's retire/die/quit a year?

i second that question

@SHELLARCHITECT

More illuminating, how many stay in the profession vs drop out after just a couple of years?

Certainly an issue when it comes to the women in architecture, though I know men who gave up pretty quickly after graduating as well.

TOO MANY.

Are we back to "architect bashing" again...where is that dip shit NS to make everyone feel inferior?

Please help - need advice.

I am about to say effit to licensure and would like some input - I am going crazy.  I am almost 40, B. Arch + an MPA (finished architecture school during recession so I went back for an MPA with planning concentration).  I did the NCRAP 3+2 exam plan as I didn't have much choice with the timing.  The last two exams (PPD/PDD) are crazy, they are like 6 exams rolled into two, and they don't seem to test on the reality of architecture.  They are also buggy/glitchy.  I am about to throw in the towel.  I am an exempt employee for a large jurisdiction on the west coast and I write building codes.  I don't NEED my license, and I will never stamp a drawing... I think the only reason I continue to chase it is to validate all the effort I have put toward this effort so far (nearly 1/2 my life when you consider preparing for college and all that s**t).  

Is this familiar to anybody?  Would you continue to chase the license for maybe a 15% pay increase? ...to validate your efforts?  Would you give the process the bird?  

Personally, besides some project management other basic stuff, what do architects DO that isn't done by engineers, construction managers, planners? I don't really even respect the architecture "profession" (I think it's BS and needs to be scrapped) that I am struggling to enter...maybe I just answered my own question.  

redacted

From the professions point - too many; waters down competition for jobs and salaries.

From the corporate point of view - not enough; for the reasons opposite to the ones above.

eh, I am over it.  Failed my PDD exam yesterday.  I have PPD on Friday. If I fail that, I am cutting the cord for good.  Not sure why I continue to put myself through this when I don't need to.  So, unless there is a miracle on Friday, I will be turning the page on this shit and moving on ;-) 

went through the exact same 3/2 thing where I hit the hard fail wall x4. It took me almost a year to pass the last two, and was on the ledge to quit for good after each fail,.. each time they got me closer and when you cross that line a new life awaits you. If you made it this far, know that you are just a nudge away my friend. 

Hi, I am VERY passionate about architecture and it's all I've been dreaming of ALL MY LIFE. I am currently in the college applying process (high school senior) and the things I hear about architecture everywhere is nothing good/nice. I just want to understand why the people learning it hate it so much that they want to quit. I have heard many things and I still want to be an architect with all of my heart, it's all I think of. So, can someone please explain to me why so many people are dropping out/hating it? And can you explain to me in a way a high school senior like me would understand please?

Passion - real talk for a minute. Every job/ vocation/ career has its positives and negatives. For some reason, the general public imbues architects with something called "social capital." Social capital might get you invited to some good parties where a handful of people might put you on a pedestal for all of five minutes. But when you go home at the end of the night, it's just like any other job. It doesn't pay well when considered against all the schooling and training it requires. It's stressful. You'll almost surely never be able to buy a new car that's not a Hyundai. But it's not all bad. You'll get to work with your brain instead of your body. You'll meet some interesting people. You'll probably never be homeless. If you're really good, you'll make an honest, middle class salary and be able to take a vacation once every few years. There's nothing wrong with any of the above, but you should know that passion will get you nowhere without skills and the ability to bullshit. Anybody can have passion. You need a thick skin, a high tolerance for bullshit, and low to medium expectations. About everything. 

Too many....

Passion - I was once you, in HS, determined to improve the built environment and be an "architect."  I left architecture a few years back because "architecture" is bullshit; it's a lie.  What you envision when you imagine being an architect is nothing like the reality of being an architect.  This is because architects and TV perpetuate lies about what it is to be an architect.

1) The education is expensive, arduous, and does nothing to prepare you for being an architect.  Architectural education is a waste of time.  This is why older architects often don't have degrees in architecture because architecture used to be a trade, not an academic discipline.  In California, you can become an architect without a degree.  Only about 1/2 of the people I went to architecture school with actually finished.  

2) If you become an architect, statistically you will never design anything that improves lives for anybody.  You will probably end up drafting or designing tiny portions of a large projects, over and over, or drafting residential additions.  But you will never design the multi-million dollar mansions for the .01% (which are usually just reproductions of an Italianate villa anyways) and if you are lucky enough to work on a large public project with a big budget, you will be responsible for door schedules, managing the team, or client communications.  You will most-likely not do anything creative.

3) Most buildings don't require an architect to build.  Two story residential structures don't require an architect to build.  The McMansions do, but again, you won't get those commissions because you, nor anybody else, is Howard Roark.  Most commercial structures have already been built and are like a recipe: once perfected, you just follow the instructions.  Many developers follow this path: they use designs pre-approved by the building department, thus bypassing the need for an architect.  99% of buildings don't need an architect's stamp or have already been built and thus require no creativity. 

4) The buildings of the past and buildings of today are vastly different.  Construction technology of the past deferred for every project and required detailed, intricate instructions and the architect was hands-on during the entire process.  This is what people think of when they think of "architecture": Falling Water, cathedrals, high-rises, etc.  The reality is that buildings of today are built from standardized parts like legos: architects just say, "Connect this piece here and that piece there..." there is zero creativity and innovation in architecture. Take a building in California and compare it to the same building in New York, take away the facade that attempts to make the building look unique and you have the same basic parts.  Like a McDonalds burger or Walmart, architecture is essentially the same basic thing wherever you go because of the standardization of building elements and construction methods.  This is where building science is going and it's going there faster and faster.

5) Architects used to know a little bit about everything and worked with a contractor and maybe an engineer.  Today, with technological advances, there is so much to know that architects are nothing more than project managers.  The consultants do all the analysis and specialized work: engineers, landscape architects, planners, code professionals, sound professionals, lighting professionals, interior designers, building envelope specialists, sustainability specialists, construction managers, etc.

The take-away here is that many architects became architects and started where you are because of "passion."  But architects perpetuate the idea of themselves as "master builders" and this is simply not true.  75-100+ years ago, this was true.  But not today.  Today, being an architect means being over-worked and underpaid, not doing much of anything creative, and having to talk like you are a car salesman/woman because the consultants are where the value is.  So if you want to do anything creative (which costs money), you have to spew bullshit to the client to convince them that your creativity is worth their money because the architects just isn't that valuable - anybody can manage a project but governments take a while to catch up to industry and eventually an architect's stamp will no longer be required to get a building permit.  This is why architects talk in metaphors about subjective crap like feelings and frolicking in meadows.  The money is not in architecture, it's in the other disciplines listed above.  So, if the architect wants to put their creative signature on a building, they have to use meaningless jargon to convince the client to give them extra money for a curved wall or a cantilever (like a car salesman will try to up-sell you on crap that you don't need).  

If you want to be creative, study interiors.  Don't believe the reputation that interiors is "fluffy" because it can be quite technical but by nature it's creative.  If you are technical/analytical, study engineering (not as difficult as you think).  If you like to be outdoors, study landscape or construction.  All of these fields pay MUCH MORE than architecture and require MUCH LESS effort to get your foot in the door.  If you study architecture, consider getting a Master's degree in something else afterwards.  Or, you could go the 4-year degree route in architecture if you decide to pursue a building science related path without actually practicing architecture.  The government jurisdiction where I work is phasing out the licensed architect classifications for "Project Directors."  Project Directors are required to have a Bachelors degree in engineering, architecture, or construction management but no license.  If you really want to be an "architect," keep in mind that it will take you 10-15 years, from start to finish, to become licensed by your state.  There are exceptions which I am sure people here will talk about, but plan for the long-haul.  And it would really suck to put in all that time and money to get to where you thought you wanted to be, only to realize it was all smoke-and-mirrors and you don't want to be there.

Best of luck! 

Bammerdon- I understand what you are trying say. And that is an honest experience you had and that's nice. Thanks for the new inputs.

Non Sequitur- I will try my best to learn!

JLC-1- That is a positive insight and also a part of reality. Thanks for sharing some positivity in the midst of other realities and real experiences slapping me in the face. Thanks for having a good experience :)

thatsthat- I like challenges and solving problems too!

Non-sequiter, I’m not disgruntled at all. I left a sinking ship, and now I’ve got a cush gov’t job, 6-figure income, great benefits, pension, and stability - no lay offs here. I don’t depend on “letting the winds lift me.” It amazes me the stuff people tell themselves to feed their own ego. Have fun drawing stairs and plumbing chases, or as an architect would say, “ascensions to heaven and the lifeblood of buildings.” 

Nuffin’ different than selling cars. 

Passion,

Pick up a copy of Francis DK Ching, Building Construction Illustrated and see if the detailed construction drawings interest you as much as all of the beautifully rendered design drawings you've probably seen.

If you haven't already, read Roger K Lewis, Architect? A Candid Guide to the Profession.

A lot of people are passionate about only one aspect of architecture, and very few actually get "fast-tracked" to doing the big designs without spending years first doing production (or, worse, getting stuck as the "visualization specialist" - nothing but the Big Guy's modeling and rendering flunky) - they're the ones who end up bitter and always complaining.