Why do you want to do with an architecture education? to be an architect? politician? engineer with arch background? is a romantic dream of yours? are u having a mid twenties life crisis? or what?
Just thought I would ask this question, because it is interesting that since about 2002 people have gone to arch college in record numbers and even after the economic downturn that number is at an all time record high at my alma mater. Dont be shy to post why you are an architect if you are licensed, or not.
I'll start, One big reason I wanted to be an architect, was that I thought the people around me deserved better homes, and drawing, building just came naturally to me since i come from a family of craftsmen of sorts. I could easily have become a painter or some kind of artist.
People are naive. Most people think architect's make a lot of money. They are highly respected, sexy, smart and creative.
This is all false, for the most part, but no one tells you that and it takes the average person a few years to figure that out (hopefully Archinect is informing people earlier, I have certainly talked to quite a few off of this forum about this profession (from here)).
You can also blame high school somewhat. So little is taught here about options, about finances and about possibilities. Our schools breed the average, not visionaries and entrepreneurs (leave that to the 'wealthy' and private schools, which just compounds the 'why the rich get richer').
just one request: in your post can you mention if you are a student or applying to a college, if you are working or are licensed architect, you dont have to say anything, i can spot you guys a mile away.
congrats on being your own boss architectum, at least I hope you are since you are the only paid employee. the last time I was held upside down I was being tortured by a 14 year old bully, when i was like 7.
It's all well and good to bash architecture and the economy definitely sucks, but it still gives graduates an education about buildings, space, materials, theory, drawing, construction etc. You get to go to a place and learn how to make in some pretty fun ways for 4-6 years. I think finding some connection to the process is what makes students stay even with the BS, poorly directed criticism and the practice/school disconnect.
As far as the economy goes... it was doing pretty well when I started school, so I never really thought about the building industry collapsing as I'm leaving school. Why would I though? No one thinks about that sort of thing when entering college. It's part naivety, but it's also part sheltering. My parents and I think professors justify ARCH school as this safe space where you are supposed to learn and explore ideas, but I think it might be more interesting if they let students see thee reality of the industry much earlier on. Schools could be having workshops to explore the potential of Architectural skills outside of traditional practice and not just for some social cause (which I'm very sympathetic to in general), but also to make money, or redefine what we do with our understanding of drawing, space and buildings.
Now I'm about to graduate and I might not find my way through IDP to become an Architect and even if I do I might not end up completely satisfied with the realities of being in a firm. I still hope to use my education in some way, even if that just means doing renovation work for family/friends, or building/drawing with non-profit groups for a few months. What else am I going to do with my spare time when I'm not waiting tables to pay the bills?
Nope, not meeting anyone else, but I do get emails from people asking questions (mostly in response to what I post here). I try to offer what I can, answer questions, etc.
So when are we going to get that coffee/drink/lunch?
trace, I work in the burbs now, so not around downtown much anymore but that would be fun to catch up. If you haven't been following any of my posts over the last year or so, you might like to know I took some of your advice and acted on it. Thanks for being the voice on the 'nect that you are! You are the real deal.
Ever since I was a kid I was constantly looking at buildings and thinking about how I would change them. But really I think the more relevant point is not why people enter Architecture school, but why do they stay in Architecture School. Like I said above, the thing that keeps me going is that I really just enjoy making things, and I enjoy seeing other people make things to test out ideas and generate new ones.
Choosing a profession (and life path) based on current economic trends seems foolish. Finding something that satisfies your passion seems fundamentally more important. As stated above, lack of real education at the high school & early college level may be to blame. But you can't fault someone for pursuing a degree in architecture, simply because most architects are out of work right now. Like they say in 'Office Space'--it's a bullshit question, because no one would be a janitor and clean shit [if they had a million dollars]. Getting that degree and having that knowledge--no one can take that away from you--not a shitty economy or a collapsing arch firm.
I chose to go to arch school because its the only thing that would keep me interested and focused for 40+ years. I still hold that to be true and glad I did so--even if I don't know where my next paycheck is coming from.
Sorry, forgot to mention background. I graduated in '03 and am a licensed architect. Got laid off in Dec '08 and have started up my own consulting firm.
Thread title response. "People still go to architecture college. Why?"
I have to wonder that myself sometimes.
The question to ask yourself is "Why or for what reason is an architect licensed?" Basically asking why are you required to be licensed.
Then ask yourself, "What is it that I want to do that requires me to become licensed?" or "What is it that I do on a daily basis that requires me to have a license?" 3d rendering is not the answer nor is drawing door jambs.
I think the truth to the second question is that the need for licensure is to stroke an ego for most people in this business as they have no actual need, outside of being hired by a firm, for the license which they will very likely never use. Architects tend to hire people for the items that require an actual professional to do these days while they render pretty pictures. Or they rely on the building departments to correct their mistakes.
So what was my first question again and how does that apply to why you want to be an architect?
Careerwise, seems to me the profession is edging more and more in the direction of the fine arts and professional sports - meaning tons of people aspire to the cool professional lifestyle supposedly associated with being a successful actor, painter, sculptor, musician, NBA star, big league pitcher, etc. Regrettably, only a very small proportion of the aspirants in all those fields are able to earn a decent living in pursuit of their art or sport.
We like to compare what we do - and what we should earn - to the other true professions, such as law, medicine, accounting, etc. For me, those comparisons rapidly are becoming less and less relevant. Our own profession is becoming quite Darwinian - and it's unclear which particular set of skills and talents represent the 'fittest' survival strategy.
this is completely unintuitive, but from my observations of the profession over the last few years, those who went to school for technical knowledge or to simply get qualifications that lead to licensure are most likely unemployed right now; those who went to school to learn to think have a much better chance of staying employed.
there are many on this site who rail against academia as being disconnected from practice, but in my opinion, it's the thinking skills developed in school, and not technical or "practical" knowledge, that is determining professional survival in this economy.
Totally agree - This is why the ability to use software, for example, is only a marketable skill as long as the knowledge is scarce. And scarcity in knowledge is only temporary - the ability to think is scarce and is the gift that keeps on giving...
I see where you are coming from won williams, and the profession has a bad habit of separating people into categories. I really don't think that you will be able to find any architecture college that merely prepares a person to be a technical guy. That is a label that you are placed into by the profession. I mean after all you know as well as I that only a select few actually design the building, all the rest of us make that building come to life.
so getting back to the post, we know won went to architecture college because he didn't what to be an ignorant troglodyte. Why did the rest of you do it? quizzical I'm not sure, are u saying you wanted to be rich and famous? and diabase didn't tell us.
quizzical --- interesting comment --- reminds me that this issue was raised at a symposium at GaTech last spring ---
Paul Finch's thought on the matter was that in the future, perhaps people going into architecture will treat it like a theater or music major --- he figured that unemployment in architecture may perpetually remain as high as it is, say, for actors or musicians ---
and so for those studying architecture, unless they are unusually talented or exceptionally driven, they'll study it because of passion but all the while they will plan on making a living in some other way until/unless they 'make it'
it is not the future i signed up for, but i think that it may be the one i have to address
Intuitively it felt like the right thing to do. I never was one of those people who knew from age 10 that I wanted to design buildings. After studying for an arts degree for 2 years and working for 1, I knew I wanted to do something with consequence.
Don't regret it for a second. I am unlicensed and probably always will be. I don't strictly work in architecture now, but I am involved in 4 different related fields - construction (as a full-time front-end PM), a small arch practice on the side when I have time (completed about 6 projects over the last 3 years), and two prefab start-ups (one seeking investment, one entering prototyping).
I could not do any of that without my b.arch, because in the very least it strengthens ones ability to act and think, and it gives people confidence that you know what you are doing.
False advertising of star-chitects and lack of knowledge on student behalfs...
The first year course at the uni I went to usually attracts 300+ students. About 80 make it to second year...and further more drop out in the years following when they understand.
The more stubborn ones like me continue because they're not artistic enough to be an artist and not boring enough to be an engineer...
Learning to think is good for the self-employed or principal architect, but until then copy/paste and "yessir" will suffice. Just kidding.
Why did I go to arch school? 'Cause the idea of getting an education in a lecture hall or classes with foreign grad students as instructors (math and science) turned me off. And my parents and guidance counselor told me I should.
congratulations, on completing 6 projects over 3 yrs diabase, and the prefab startups, I'm having a similar notion of working on something similar. I also appreciate Gibbost's comment where he said once we have an Arch. Degree no one can take that away from us. I know maybe this threads question of why anyone went to college might seem a little too simplistic or irrelevant, but I think for me anyways, it is encouraging me to see that there are people who honestly want to build good things, good buildings, and it encourages me to continue to study for my ARE's.
"False advertising of star-chitects and lack of knowledge on student behalfs..."
These people are not to blame - the media, clients, organisations, academia etc. have a huge part to play in the creation of starchitects. Of course, a starchitect-making franchise exists, and some people have the ability and desire to take part... Do people blame rockstars because they don't get a record deal?
Straw:
Why did I go to arch school? 'Cause the idea of getting an education in a lecture hall or classes with foreign grad students as instructors (math and science) turned me off"
diabase, At the university I attended, many undergrad courses are taught in huge lecture halls with as many as 200-300 students and then smaller classes called labs. Isn't that typical? The labs were usually taught by teacher assistants, not the professors themselves. Of the courses I took, more than a few of these TA's struggled with English and otherwise weren't dedicated to being educators and were busy with school themselves. I preferred the close-knit, hands-on coursework of architecture (B-arch).
Not that I'm trying to offend anyone, but there are people that decide to sign up as an Arch major, in a sort of random fashion, some people go from several majors to another, I noticed in college we tend to attract these kind of confused students, even attracting Achitecture groupies looking for something they really like? who knows. I think this thread will also help us sort of paint a picture of the present, and future of this professions participants, even the ones that didn't plan on being an Arch major until college time.
If the comment about students signing up for arch at random is directed at me me, I'll add that I was obsessed with buildings too, admittedly not architecture per se, but buildings. I didn't know the difference at the time.
Oh no i just wanted to make a point that there are people of all kinds of walks of life, i appreciate your honesty. I think this thread will be helpful to all of us especially to see what kind of people are out there trying to be an architect and what will be the future of architecture.
I just remembered that there is a tv ad here at the moment, following 3 high school graduates entering into university. One of them is going into architecture.
Part of her spiel talks about how she wants to design the next Donald Trump tower or something. Now, she will probably look back at that and think, god I wish I hadn't said that, but by and large her thoughts and aspirations would be pretty typical.
That's not why I started but it's what it's boiled down to. Like most architects, I suppose I was a good combination of creativity/artistry and respectable math/science smarts along with a desire to make a social difference. Unfortunately, I've generally come to regard architects as arriving too late in the game and too small of players to actually make that big of a difference. To make a difference, you have to have a client that wants to. Your office has to want to. One, much less both, don't happen often. Offices and architects in general are some of the most poorly reimbursed members of the building process, and as such, do not have the resources to dilly-dally and reinvent the wheel. This means that offices are typically most interested in getting that project done asap so that everyone can get paid, usually leaving little room for innovation. I don't know if anyone agrees with me, but I hardly find the practice of architecture all that satisfying as a conceptually creative process. So, for the most part, cross out that creative/artistic half I mentioned. As far as the scientific half, architects in general avoid math like the plague. If you care to dig all that deep into building science, you end up becoming a specializing consultant if not an engineer. Construction is built to standards and always will be. Architects, for the reasons stated above, will tend to follow the standard.
It is a boom or bust profession and there is little you can do about that except be lucky enough to make the right connections, specialize in a growth field, marry someone who makes enough for both of you in the lean times, or get a second job/ degree... like online day trader or something. I've been casually researching the final option while toying with the idea of practicing part-time like one of the posters above mentioned. Because money for business function can and will dry up. I've been out a decade and have already been through two recessions. Several of the firms and offices I've done work for no longer exist. It's simply reality.
That said, I am forever drawn to architecture's "possibilities", even if most are just pipe dreams. It's like that ex-girlfriend you just can't get over. She's never going to change for you. You either have to accept her for what she is or cut ties entirely. I want to accept her but remove all reliance on her.
Going to college is suppose to qualify you to be competent in your particular field of study. Degrees in the Arts and Sciences do generally instill a great deal of knowledge into their students.
But perhaps the greatest skills taught to students in the Arts and Sciences are restrain, courtesy and having an opinion.
The claim of 'knowing' is a pretty pretentious statement. That's why I particularly chose to use the word 'opinion.'
However-- those who have graduated college, perhaps, have a more correct or complete opinion that someone who doesn't.
Architecture, though, is neither art nor science. It's a technical field of study much like engineering, computers [I'm using this term ironically] or even applied physics.
Many people usually assume that fields like engineering are sciences but engineers, nor architects, debate in the same circles as Arts and Sciences. In a different sense, architecture and engineering are applied sciences.
...
I chose to study planning because I don't really care for abstract mathematics. The reason I chose planning was a combination of my degree in the humanities and my study in art.
From humanities, I always argued that most instances in history were often the result of strategic planning and premeditated actions rather than chance encounters or random events.
There has always pretty much been some variety of bureaucracy that mediates, makes or invents these decisions.
Even 80,000 years ago before architecture existed, the art world was pretty alive. We know that because someone spent a significant amount of time collecting, processing and applying dyes to the interior of cave surfaces.
Desperate people do not produce or make art. The amount of flowers, stones et cetera one must collect, dry, smash and transform into a paint or ink is staggering. Even here, an economy exists.
I originally majored in civil engineering but the lack of discourse was baffling.
The number of "Yes Men (and women)" in engineering is unbelievable. These people never made assumptions outside of nominal values, they never hypothesized about cultural ramifications of their work and they certainly never tried to expect the unexpected.
Architecture has an alluring soul but it is, foremost, a trade. It promises functionality and utility but it also promises creativity and change.
However, I still firmly believe that Architecture is an applied science and an implied art but not necessarily pure in either aspect.
No, architecture has some, not nearly as severe, of the same deficiencies. I like planning because of the aspect of control and power.
Planners make design choices, they make economic choices and they make cultural choices. I don't need a degree in architecture in order to manipulate the physical environment.
Unfortunately, I find planners to be even more hardheaded and banal than architects. And we all known architects can be difficult to get along with! But that says something, at least from my viewpoint, when architects are more fun to be around than planners.
I find that both industries require a certain amount of traditionalism and a certain amount of liberalism. In some sense, you really do have to maintain the past. In most other aspects, you have to be a really open-minded person.
But I often find architecture filled with a lot "broham" types making it really no different than business school or public administration.
i went to architecture school because i was pretty good in both technical thinking and creative thinking, i liked to make/build things and draw, i loved reading philosophy, and i liked the idea of picking a major that would allow (even encourage) me to mix and roam between the different views each of these domains offers
i did not have a realistic understanding though of what it means to be in a boom/bust industry and i did not realize how hard it would be to find/make the sort of opportunities i desire
i think there are some very strong fundamentals to our education in the thought and production processes we learn, but how we are taught to think of ourselves, sell our services and communicate with other professionals and the public needs much improvement
i also think we are coming off of what has been about 150 years of boom-time expansionary growth in the US which reached its zenith in the years after WWII when we were in a position to expand while everyone else was rebuilding -- thus our educational and professional infrastructure is built for a market that no longer exists and may not return for several years to come, if ever --- so due to external circumstances, there are just too many of us and so it is not lucrative for the vast majority right now
I'm not much of a poster, but since I have been considering this decision for years and just got in to a couple schools for M.Arch (3 year), I may as well try to articulate my reasoning (if for nothing else, so that I can understand it myself).
For better or for worse I've always been on the path to working in an artistic field in some form, despite trying to escape that fate during undergrad and a couple years beyond. A few years at a few desks (all indistinguishable in retrospect) showed me that I am literally not capable of concentration in a purely administrative capacity, so I figured my options were: star artist, waiter/odd jobber, or designer. I worked a couple years in architecture firms and got a grasp on the reality of it--a large enough dose to shake the dream for a time. Then back to more office jobs, a catatonic blur, wasted life. Now I am studying towards an MFA in design in a program with zero focus on academics--literally, no books are assigned or read in two years--and I realize with every passing day that I want to design something of 'consequence,' however subjective and ridiculous that may sound. What I mean is I want to design things that need to exist in physical form; that serve a purpose that can only be served in physical form; that ideally improve the daily life of other humans in some small way. That said, I don't like 'things'--I don't collect gadgets, video games, custom Japanese knick-knacky character toys, or any of what my designer friends are preoccupied with--I essentially just want to live and work in a comfortable, beautiful space. I know I am not destined for fame in architecture, but survival would be great. Mild poverty is fine--that's where I come from. My big concern is debt. Being poor is fine, but poor + debt sounds bad.
Today at my internship (in Tokyo), my boss asked to think of the world in ten years and imagine what kind of interactive device people would need. I paced the city for hours, thinking about how I already have more devices than I want or believe I need, and I eventually presented that idea, which he understandably was less than impressed with. He went on to explain how, despite people having what they need, it is essential to convince them otherwise, that that is essentially a designer's role. Seems like a bummer. I would much rather deal with space and shelter--although no one needs 5000 square feet, we do need a place to sleep.
Too long, already, I know.
I am happiest in calm, well-designed (or non-designed) environments, with minimal stimuli. I would be happy to be able to take part in the creation of such environments: homes, public spaces, small-scale architecture. And I think it is essential that artists learn about the connections between aesthetics and all the more real-world aspects of the real world: math, sciences, construction, finance. Not just making pretty color combinations, like I am doing in school now. I'm not sure that architecture is perfect for me since I didn't dream of it as a child, legos in hand, but I am pretty sure that I won't regret having the education.
Also, Sasazuka,
You must remember that you should keep your love of architecture from your boss, and your co workers, I mean don't wear your emotions or thoughts on your sleeve as they say. Unfortunately, the mentality that architects love what they do, therefore they will work for next to nothing, is prevailing and probably always has. Unfortunately there are people out there that do work next to nothing because they can afford it, but that's a topic for another thread.
"I think it is essential that artists learn about the connections between aesthetics and all the more real-world aspects of the real world: math, sciences, construction, finance. Not just making pretty color combinations"
I couldn't agree more. For a building to be truly successful it has to do alot more than look good. Too many acclaimed designs have fallen apart early or functioned poorly from the day they were completed.
And now to answer the question of the original post...
I went into architecture because I think most of what we build today is shit. I hate strip malls, big box stores, and needing a car to accomplish the most simple task like getting milk or going to the park. I wanted to live in a walkable downtown or small city type place. I thought if I could help design more places like this they would be more affordable. Affordability has been a major obstacle to my reaching this goal.
Thinking about this question I realized I wanted to do this since high school about 20 years ago. I went to a trade high school and took drafting, but they only taught mechanical. The school insisted you would never get a job in architecture and refused to teach it. Out of about 15 students in that shop 3 ended up in architecture anyway. I didn't really apply myself and worked some odd jobs after high school. I intended to work to live and did not see the necessity in working on building a career. There was enough money to go out drinking and dancing back then so I was pretty happy just doing whatever for work. Then I moved out on my own. The sudden increase in bills made a big enough dent in my lifestyle that I decided I needed a better job. I spent one year at a tech school learning Autocad and construction technology. Unfortunately I was a wiz at Acad, but didn't pay enough attention to the materials part of the education which a few years later I came to regret. I moved to the city and signed up for one architecture class while working in an office during the day. They put me in studio 1 which I wasn't prepared for after tech school. I also have to admit that drinking and dancing were a much higher priority than school and I ended up dropping the class :( I moved back home from the big city and worked as a draftsman at mostly engineering firms for a few years. Due to several layoffs and an office closing I was never anywhere for more than 1 year. I got sick of sitting in front of Acad all day and the way some small offices treat employees and left the field. With the cost of living creeping up about 4 years ago I again found myself living a lifestyle I wasn't too fond of and wondering what I should do to earn more income. A few sessions with a career counselor convinced me to enroll in college and get a B.Arch. I thought the degree would help me get a better income as well as have some work responsibilities besides CAD all day long. I think about the future and wonder if this degree is going to be a good stepping stone or a financial ball and chain upon graduation.
"Should you sink yourself into tens of thousands of dollars of debt studying courses that do not do a great at preparing you for work in a field that does not have enough jobs?"
is it still a BS question? I think in 2011 anyone enrolling for an architecture degree needs to consider many things before making a decision.
you can't fault someone for pursuing a degree in architecture, simply because most architects are out of work right now. Like they say in 'Office Space'--it's a bullshit question
People still go to architecture college? Why?
Why do you want to do with an architecture education? to be an architect? politician? engineer with arch background? is a romantic dream of yours? are u having a mid twenties life crisis? or what?
Just thought I would ask this question, because it is interesting that since about 2002 people have gone to arch college in record numbers and even after the economic downturn that number is at an all time record high at my alma mater. Dont be shy to post why you are an architect if you are licensed, or not.
I'll start, One big reason I wanted to be an architect, was that I thought the people around me deserved better homes, and drawing, building just came naturally to me since i come from a family of craftsmen of sorts. I could easily have become a painter or some kind of artist.
cross out Why replace it with What.
People are naive. Most people think architect's make a lot of money. They are highly respected, sexy, smart and creative.
This is all false, for the most part, but no one tells you that and it takes the average person a few years to figure that out (hopefully Archinect is informing people earlier, I have certainly talked to quite a few off of this forum about this profession (from here)).
You can also blame high school somewhat. So little is taught here about options, about finances and about possibilities. Our schools breed the average, not visionaries and entrepreneurs (leave that to the 'wealthy' and private schools, which just compounds the 'why the rich get richer').
trace, I don't know about you but I think I'm pretty sexy.
because i can draw upside down while blindfolded,
and so i can smoke and curse openly in my office,
where i am the only employee who gets paid.
just one request: in your post can you mention if you are a student or applying to a college, if you are working or are licensed architect, you dont have to say anything, i can spot you guys a mile away.
congrats on being your own boss architectum, at least I hope you are since you are the only paid employee. the last time I was held upside down I was being tortured by a 14 year old bully, when i was like 7.
It's all well and good to bash architecture and the economy definitely sucks, but it still gives graduates an education about buildings, space, materials, theory, drawing, construction etc. You get to go to a place and learn how to make in some pretty fun ways for 4-6 years. I think finding some connection to the process is what makes students stay even with the BS, poorly directed criticism and the practice/school disconnect.
As far as the economy goes... it was doing pretty well when I started school, so I never really thought about the building industry collapsing as I'm leaving school. Why would I though? No one thinks about that sort of thing when entering college. It's part naivety, but it's also part sheltering. My parents and I think professors justify ARCH school as this safe space where you are supposed to learn and explore ideas, but I think it might be more interesting if they let students see thee reality of the industry much earlier on. Schools could be having workshops to explore the potential of Architectural skills outside of traditional practice and not just for some social cause (which I'm very sympathetic to in general), but also to make money, or redefine what we do with our understanding of drawing, space and buildings.
Now I'm about to graduate and I might not find my way through IDP to become an Architect and even if I do I might not end up completely satisfied with the realities of being in a firm. I still hope to use my education in some way, even if that just means doing renovation work for family/friends, or building/drawing with non-profit groups for a few months. What else am I going to do with my spare time when I'm not waiting tables to pay the bills?
trace, are you recalling when we met for lunch? Or are you meeting other 'nectors behind my back?
so phld21,
Why do u want to be an architect?
or why did u go to architecture college? what was your motivation?
Hey Strawbeary,
Nope, not meeting anyone else, but I do get emails from people asking questions (mostly in response to what I post here). I try to offer what I can, answer questions, etc.
So when are we going to get that coffee/drink/lunch?
trace, I work in the burbs now, so not around downtown much anymore but that would be fun to catch up. If you haven't been following any of my posts over the last year or so, you might like to know I took some of your advice and acted on it. Thanks for being the voice on the 'nect that you are! You are the real deal.
Ever since I was a kid I was constantly looking at buildings and thinking about how I would change them. But really I think the more relevant point is not why people enter Architecture school, but why do they stay in Architecture School. Like I said above, the thing that keeps me going is that I really just enjoy making things, and I enjoy seeing other people make things to test out ideas and generate new ones.
Choosing a profession (and life path) based on current economic trends seems foolish. Finding something that satisfies your passion seems fundamentally more important. As stated above, lack of real education at the high school & early college level may be to blame. But you can't fault someone for pursuing a degree in architecture, simply because most architects are out of work right now. Like they say in 'Office Space'--it's a bullshit question, because no one would be a janitor and clean shit [if they had a million dollars]. Getting that degree and having that knowledge--no one can take that away from you--not a shitty economy or a collapsing arch firm.
I chose to go to arch school because its the only thing that would keep me interested and focused for 40+ years. I still hold that to be true and glad I did so--even if I don't know where my next paycheck is coming from.
Sorry, forgot to mention background. I graduated in '03 and am a licensed architect. Got laid off in Dec '08 and have started up my own consulting firm.
Thread title response. "People still go to architecture college. Why?"
I have to wonder that myself sometimes.
The question to ask yourself is "Why or for what reason is an architect licensed?" Basically asking why are you required to be licensed.
Then ask yourself, "What is it that I want to do that requires me to become licensed?" or "What is it that I do on a daily basis that requires me to have a license?" 3d rendering is not the answer nor is drawing door jambs.
I think the truth to the second question is that the need for licensure is to stroke an ego for most people in this business as they have no actual need, outside of being hired by a firm, for the license which they will very likely never use. Architects tend to hire people for the items that require an actual professional to do these days while they render pretty pictures. Or they rely on the building departments to correct their mistakes.
So what was my first question again and how does that apply to why you want to be an architect?
so you won't go through life being an ignorant troglodyte.
[though evidently this happens to people who have been to college anyway. keg stand anyone? wooooo hoooooooo!]
Programs are getting smaller and some are actually closing. The boom times are OVER!
make, can you provide detail? if not, i understand.
Thanks Strawbeary! I appreciate the kind words, made my day! :-)
I have read most/many of your posts but would love to hear more of the details sometime.
maybe i shouldn't have mentioned the economy you guys focused too much on that.
Careerwise, seems to me the profession is edging more and more in the direction of the fine arts and professional sports - meaning tons of people aspire to the cool professional lifestyle supposedly associated with being a successful actor, painter, sculptor, musician, NBA star, big league pitcher, etc. Regrettably, only a very small proportion of the aspirants in all those fields are able to earn a decent living in pursuit of their art or sport.
We like to compare what we do - and what we should earn - to the other true professions, such as law, medicine, accounting, etc. For me, those comparisons rapidly are becoming less and less relevant. Our own profession is becoming quite Darwinian - and it's unclear which particular set of skills and talents represent the 'fittest' survival strategy.
this is completely unintuitive, but from my observations of the profession over the last few years, those who went to school for technical knowledge or to simply get qualifications that lead to licensure are most likely unemployed right now; those who went to school to learn to think have a much better chance of staying employed.
there are many on this site who rail against academia as being disconnected from practice, but in my opinion, it's the thinking skills developed in school, and not technical or "practical" knowledge, that is determining professional survival in this economy.
Totally agree - This is why the ability to use software, for example, is only a marketable skill as long as the knowledge is scarce. And scarcity in knowledge is only temporary - the ability to think is scarce and is the gift that keeps on giving...
I see where you are coming from won williams, and the profession has a bad habit of separating people into categories. I really don't think that you will be able to find any architecture college that merely prepares a person to be a technical guy. That is a label that you are placed into by the profession. I mean after all you know as well as I that only a select few actually design the building, all the rest of us make that building come to life.
so getting back to the post, we know won went to architecture college because he didn't what to be an ignorant troglodyte. Why did the rest of you do it? quizzical I'm not sure, are u saying you wanted to be rich and famous? and diabase didn't tell us.
quizzical --- interesting comment --- reminds me that this issue was raised at a symposium at GaTech last spring ---
Paul Finch's thought on the matter was that in the future, perhaps people going into architecture will treat it like a theater or music major --- he figured that unemployment in architecture may perpetually remain as high as it is, say, for actors or musicians ---
and so for those studying architecture, unless they are unusually talented or exceptionally driven, they'll study it because of passion but all the while they will plan on making a living in some other way until/unless they 'make it'
it is not the future i signed up for, but i think that it may be the one i have to address
Why?
Intuitively it felt like the right thing to do. I never was one of those people who knew from age 10 that I wanted to design buildings. After studying for an arts degree for 2 years and working for 1, I knew I wanted to do something with consequence.
Don't regret it for a second. I am unlicensed and probably always will be. I don't strictly work in architecture now, but I am involved in 4 different related fields - construction (as a full-time front-end PM), a small arch practice on the side when I have time (completed about 6 projects over the last 3 years), and two prefab start-ups (one seeking investment, one entering prototyping).
I could not do any of that without my b.arch, because in the very least it strengthens ones ability to act and think, and it gives people confidence that you know what you are doing.
False advertising of star-chitects and lack of knowledge on student behalfs...
The first year course at the uni I went to usually attracts 300+ students. About 80 make it to second year...and further more drop out in the years following when they understand.
The more stubborn ones like me continue because they're not artistic enough to be an artist and not boring enough to be an engineer...
trace, we will do lunch again, promise.
Learning to think is good for the self-employed or principal architect, but until then copy/paste and "yessir" will suffice. Just kidding.
Why did I go to arch school? 'Cause the idea of getting an education in a lecture hall or classes with foreign grad students as instructors (math and science) turned me off. And my parents and guidance counselor told me I should.
congratulations, on completing 6 projects over 3 yrs diabase, and the prefab startups, I'm having a similar notion of working on something similar. I also appreciate Gibbost's comment where he said once we have an Arch. Degree no one can take that away from us. I know maybe this threads question of why anyone went to college might seem a little too simplistic or irrelevant, but I think for me anyways, it is encouraging me to see that there are people who honestly want to build good things, good buildings, and it encourages me to continue to study for my ARE's.
These people are not to blame - the media, clients, organisations, academia etc. have a huge part to play in the creation of starchitects. Of course, a starchitect-making franchise exists, and some people have the ability and desire to take part... Do people blame rockstars because they don't get a record deal?
Straw:
Why did I go to arch school? 'Cause the idea of getting an education in a lecture hall or classes with foreign grad students as instructors (math and science) turned me off"
What do you mean?
diabase, At the university I attended, many undergrad courses are taught in huge lecture halls with as many as 200-300 students and then smaller classes called labs. Isn't that typical? The labs were usually taught by teacher assistants, not the professors themselves. Of the courses I took, more than a few of these TA's struggled with English and otherwise weren't dedicated to being educators and were busy with school themselves. I preferred the close-knit, hands-on coursework of architecture (B-arch).
Not that I'm trying to offend anyone, but there are people that decide to sign up as an Arch major, in a sort of random fashion, some people go from several majors to another, I noticed in college we tend to attract these kind of confused students, even attracting Achitecture groupies looking for something they really like? who knows. I think this thread will also help us sort of paint a picture of the present, and future of this professions participants, even the ones that didn't plan on being an Arch major until college time.
If the comment about students signing up for arch at random is directed at me me, I'll add that I was obsessed with buildings too, admittedly not architecture per se, but buildings. I didn't know the difference at the time.
Oh no i just wanted to make a point that there are people of all kinds of walks of life, i appreciate your honesty. I think this thread will be helpful to all of us especially to see what kind of people are out there trying to be an architect and what will be the future of architecture.
I just remembered that there is a tv ad here at the moment, following 3 high school graduates entering into university. One of them is going into architecture.
Part of her spiel talks about how she wants to design the next Donald Trump tower or something. Now, she will probably look back at that and think, god I wish I hadn't said that, but by and large her thoughts and aspirations would be pretty typical.
I think this is it
Yaaaay New Zealand
I couldn't think of anything better to do.
That's not why I started but it's what it's boiled down to. Like most architects, I suppose I was a good combination of creativity/artistry and respectable math/science smarts along with a desire to make a social difference. Unfortunately, I've generally come to regard architects as arriving too late in the game and too small of players to actually make that big of a difference. To make a difference, you have to have a client that wants to. Your office has to want to. One, much less both, don't happen often. Offices and architects in general are some of the most poorly reimbursed members of the building process, and as such, do not have the resources to dilly-dally and reinvent the wheel. This means that offices are typically most interested in getting that project done asap so that everyone can get paid, usually leaving little room for innovation. I don't know if anyone agrees with me, but I hardly find the practice of architecture all that satisfying as a conceptually creative process. So, for the most part, cross out that creative/artistic half I mentioned. As far as the scientific half, architects in general avoid math like the plague. If you care to dig all that deep into building science, you end up becoming a specializing consultant if not an engineer. Construction is built to standards and always will be. Architects, for the reasons stated above, will tend to follow the standard.
It is a boom or bust profession and there is little you can do about that except be lucky enough to make the right connections, specialize in a growth field, marry someone who makes enough for both of you in the lean times, or get a second job/ degree... like online day trader or something. I've been casually researching the final option while toying with the idea of practicing part-time like one of the posters above mentioned. Because money for business function can and will dry up. I've been out a decade and have already been through two recessions. Several of the firms and offices I've done work for no longer exist. It's simply reality.
That said, I am forever drawn to architecture's "possibilities", even if most are just pipe dreams. It's like that ex-girlfriend you just can't get over. She's never going to change for you. You either have to accept her for what she is or cut ties entirely. I want to accept her but remove all reliance on her.
On the fence, quizzical, diabase speak the truth.
Going to college is suppose to qualify you to be competent in your particular field of study. Degrees in the Arts and Sciences do generally instill a great deal of knowledge into their students.
But perhaps the greatest skills taught to students in the Arts and Sciences are restrain, courtesy and having an opinion.
The claim of 'knowing' is a pretty pretentious statement. That's why I particularly chose to use the word 'opinion.'
However-- those who have graduated college, perhaps, have a more correct or complete opinion that someone who doesn't.
Architecture, though, is neither art nor science. It's a technical field of study much like engineering, computers [I'm using this term ironically] or even applied physics.
Many people usually assume that fields like engineering are sciences but engineers, nor architects, debate in the same circles as Arts and Sciences. In a different sense, architecture and engineering are applied sciences.
...
I chose to study planning because I don't really care for abstract mathematics. The reason I chose planning was a combination of my degree in the humanities and my study in art.
From humanities, I always argued that most instances in history were often the result of strategic planning and premeditated actions rather than chance encounters or random events.
There has always pretty much been some variety of bureaucracy that mediates, makes or invents these decisions.
Even 80,000 years ago before architecture existed, the art world was pretty alive. We know that because someone spent a significant amount of time collecting, processing and applying dyes to the interior of cave surfaces.
Desperate people do not produce or make art. The amount of flowers, stones et cetera one must collect, dry, smash and transform into a paint or ink is staggering. Even here, an economy exists.
I originally majored in civil engineering but the lack of discourse was baffling.
The number of "Yes Men (and women)" in engineering is unbelievable. These people never made assumptions outside of nominal values, they never hypothesized about cultural ramifications of their work and they certainly never tried to expect the unexpected.
Architecture has an alluring soul but it is, foremost, a trade. It promises functionality and utility but it also promises creativity and change.
However, I still firmly believe that Architecture is an applied science and an implied art but not necessarily pure in either aspect.
so, gc, would you say that deficiencies as you saw in other professions swayed you to Architecture?
No, architecture has some, not nearly as severe, of the same deficiencies. I like planning because of the aspect of control and power.
Planners make design choices, they make economic choices and they make cultural choices. I don't need a degree in architecture in order to manipulate the physical environment.
Unfortunately, I find planners to be even more hardheaded and banal than architects. And we all known architects can be difficult to get along with! But that says something, at least from my viewpoint, when architects are more fun to be around than planners.
I find that both industries require a certain amount of traditionalism and a certain amount of liberalism. In some sense, you really do have to maintain the past. In most other aspects, you have to be a really open-minded person.
But I often find architecture filled with a lot "broham" types making it really no different than business school or public administration.
i went to architecture school because i was pretty good in both technical thinking and creative thinking, i liked to make/build things and draw, i loved reading philosophy, and i liked the idea of picking a major that would allow (even encourage) me to mix and roam between the different views each of these domains offers
i did not have a realistic understanding though of what it means to be in a boom/bust industry and i did not realize how hard it would be to find/make the sort of opportunities i desire
i think there are some very strong fundamentals to our education in the thought and production processes we learn, but how we are taught to think of ourselves, sell our services and communicate with other professionals and the public needs much improvement
i also think we are coming off of what has been about 150 years of boom-time expansionary growth in the US which reached its zenith in the years after WWII when we were in a position to expand while everyone else was rebuilding -- thus our educational and professional infrastructure is built for a market that no longer exists and may not return for several years to come, if ever --- so due to external circumstances, there are just too many of us and so it is not lucrative for the vast majority right now
I'm not much of a poster, but since I have been considering this decision for years and just got in to a couple schools for M.Arch (3 year), I may as well try to articulate my reasoning (if for nothing else, so that I can understand it myself).
For better or for worse I've always been on the path to working in an artistic field in some form, despite trying to escape that fate during undergrad and a couple years beyond. A few years at a few desks (all indistinguishable in retrospect) showed me that I am literally not capable of concentration in a purely administrative capacity, so I figured my options were: star artist, waiter/odd jobber, or designer. I worked a couple years in architecture firms and got a grasp on the reality of it--a large enough dose to shake the dream for a time. Then back to more office jobs, a catatonic blur, wasted life. Now I am studying towards an MFA in design in a program with zero focus on academics--literally, no books are assigned or read in two years--and I realize with every passing day that I want to design something of 'consequence,' however subjective and ridiculous that may sound. What I mean is I want to design things that need to exist in physical form; that serve a purpose that can only be served in physical form; that ideally improve the daily life of other humans in some small way. That said, I don't like 'things'--I don't collect gadgets, video games, custom Japanese knick-knacky character toys, or any of what my designer friends are preoccupied with--I essentially just want to live and work in a comfortable, beautiful space. I know I am not destined for fame in architecture, but survival would be great. Mild poverty is fine--that's where I come from. My big concern is debt. Being poor is fine, but poor + debt sounds bad.
Today at my internship (in Tokyo), my boss asked to think of the world in ten years and imagine what kind of interactive device people would need. I paced the city for hours, thinking about how I already have more devices than I want or believe I need, and I eventually presented that idea, which he understandably was less than impressed with. He went on to explain how, despite people having what they need, it is essential to convince them otherwise, that that is essentially a designer's role. Seems like a bummer. I would much rather deal with space and shelter--although no one needs 5000 square feet, we do need a place to sleep.
Too long, already, I know.
I am happiest in calm, well-designed (or non-designed) environments, with minimal stimuli. I would be happy to be able to take part in the creation of such environments: homes, public spaces, small-scale architecture. And I think it is essential that artists learn about the connections between aesthetics and all the more real-world aspects of the real world: math, sciences, construction, finance. Not just making pretty color combinations, like I am doing in school now. I'm not sure that architecture is perfect for me since I didn't dream of it as a child, legos in hand, but I am pretty sure that I won't regret having the education.
I hope.
sasa - no, you won't regret the education. I love and cherish mine. What you will regret is the cost and what opportunities it immediately offers.
School, that's the fun part/easy part.
I see none of the "2011 M.Arch applicants, commiserate here!" people have said anything. What does that say about them? Just thinking out loud here.
Also, Sasazuka,
You must remember that you should keep your love of architecture from your boss, and your co workers, I mean don't wear your emotions or thoughts on your sleeve as they say. Unfortunately, the mentality that architects love what they do, therefore they will work for next to nothing, is prevailing and probably always has. Unfortunately there are people out there that do work next to nothing because they can afford it, but that's a topic for another thread.
I couldn't agree more. For a building to be truly successful it has to do alot more than look good. Too many acclaimed designs have fallen apart early or functioned poorly from the day they were completed.
And now to answer the question of the original post...
I went into architecture because I think most of what we build today is shit. I hate strip malls, big box stores, and needing a car to accomplish the most simple task like getting milk or going to the park. I wanted to live in a walkable downtown or small city type place. I thought if I could help design more places like this they would be more affordable. Affordability has been a major obstacle to my reaching this goal.
Thinking about this question I realized I wanted to do this since high school about 20 years ago. I went to a trade high school and took drafting, but they only taught mechanical. The school insisted you would never get a job in architecture and refused to teach it. Out of about 15 students in that shop 3 ended up in architecture anyway. I didn't really apply myself and worked some odd jobs after high school. I intended to work to live and did not see the necessity in working on building a career. There was enough money to go out drinking and dancing back then so I was pretty happy just doing whatever for work. Then I moved out on my own. The sudden increase in bills made a big enough dent in my lifestyle that I decided I needed a better job. I spent one year at a tech school learning Autocad and construction technology. Unfortunately I was a wiz at Acad, but didn't pay enough attention to the materials part of the education which a few years later I came to regret. I moved to the city and signed up for one architecture class while working in an office during the day. They put me in studio 1 which I wasn't prepared for after tech school. I also have to admit that drinking and dancing were a much higher priority than school and I ended up dropping the class :( I moved back home from the big city and worked as a draftsman at mostly engineering firms for a few years. Due to several layoffs and an office closing I was never anywhere for more than 1 year. I got sick of sitting in front of Acad all day and the way some small offices treat employees and left the field. With the cost of living creeping up about 4 years ago I again found myself living a lifestyle I wasn't too fond of and wondering what I should do to earn more income. A few sessions with a career counselor convinced me to enroll in college and get a B.Arch. I thought the degree would help me get a better income as well as have some work responsibilities besides CAD all day long. I think about the future and wonder if this degree is going to be a good stepping stone or a financial ball and chain upon graduation.
Gibbost If I reframe the question as:
"Should you sink yourself into tens of thousands of dollars of debt studying courses that do not do a great at preparing you for work in a field that does not have enough jobs?"
is it still a BS question? I think in 2011 anyone enrolling for an architecture degree needs to consider many things before making a decision.
you can't fault someone for pursuing a degree in architecture, simply because most architects are out of work right now. Like they say in 'Office Space'--it's a bullshit question
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.