Angela Brady calls for an end to free working and for better student skills
The next president of the RIBA has blamed star architects and larger firms for promoting an "endemic" culture of working for free amid soul-searching over the institute's landmark report on the future of the profession.
Angela Brady - who takes over from Ruth Reed in September - refused to name particular practices, but said star names who take on students and pay them nothing were exploitative and are promoting a culture which makes no business sense.
Brady was speaking at 66 Portland Place on Tuesday as RIBA think- tank Building Futures officially launched its report into how the profession might look in 2025. As reported last week, it calls on architects to toughen up and become better businessmen to survive the next 15 years.
She said firms believed many students could afford to work for free because they came from wealthy backgrounds.
"There is this view that says 'they don't need the money,'" she said.
"They're lucky to get a pizza at midnight. I think it's fundamentally wrong. Big firms do it because they can get away with it. Students tell me they are being exploited but say they do it because they won't get a job otherwise. We have got to stop exploiting students. It's endemic in our profession."
Brady also claimed too many architecture schools were churning out students not competent enough to work in the wider building process.
"We do need to change and upskill the way we teach our students," she said. "So many do not have the skills to work in our offices at the moment."
At the event, she told one student that he was "living a dream if you think architects sit around all day designing. I do 10% if I'm lucky."
Brady concluded that the profession as a whole gave away too many skills for free, and called on architects to respond to what she described as an "excellent" report.
"We have to start doing something about it," she said. "Let's not navel gaze. We've got to become business people."
The Building Futures report says architects will "need to develop greater financial nous and commercial acumen" and warns that a swathe of medium-sized design-led practices and small metropolitan boutique firms could disappear in the coming years.
(c) 2011 Building Design. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.
Good for Ms. Brady. I think Ms. Brady is an archinector, or at least reading the threads. I have to say it takes some guts to say what she said. Her speech though focused mainly around students and spoke on there behalf. What about the rest of us?
This also goes for young (and even not young) professionals. In this climate where we have to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into our career between school and licensing processes, why are people with masters degrees making below poverty wage? I realize that anyone is lucky to have a job and get paid for it, but I have worked at two different firms where the people with masters degrees who were licensed or almost licensed were making the same or less than our receptionists, who tended to be temp employees, people who had yet to go to college or in one case, a high school student.
I especially like how she wants to bring real skills back into the profession - degrees mean nothing when you spend the entire time making blob sculptures on the computer, and when you're hired you have to know how to keep a roof from leaking. Also, how have architects become such pathetic business people? An extremely valuable profession is being quickly rendered obsolete by everyone else. We know we're important and that design is, but if no one else thinks so, it doesn't matter.
The work-for-free culture of prominent firms has contributed much to the downfall of our profession. The sad reality is that the kids graduating with top grades and test scores (i.e. the best and brightest) are not going into architecture because there is simply no earning potential.
Even in this shit economy, take a look at any of the top 20 MBA programs in the U.S. and look at their starting salary and placement rates. Most MBA grads *start* at 70-90k and get a signing bonus in the 10k+ range.
Look AIA the Royals are doing it, now get your head out your ass and start forcing skills to be taught at school.
My main complain about architecture school is this - the need for critical and creative thinking. If you don't have skills, so what!?! If you can't speak the language so what if you are over the top intellectually critical!
You know what really sucks is being a young guy like me trying to tell potential clients - I do everything, old school architect, I do the concept 3d, the fabrication, the cost estimating, the code and city navigation...just to have them to want to bring other consultants in as I sit there going - yes I know, that's why I did that! As I work really hard a small fee becasue as far as the public perception of architects go - I shouldn't be capable of anything else besides ADA plans and being an obstruction in an aggressive business.
So I say things like - design builder, consult for engineers...I am getting my license but it doesn't mean much frankly.
ITS COMPLETELY ETHICAL TO MAKE MONEY. Fuck the artist approach, we don't make better buildings, make fewer and fewer and become irrelevant. The education and work model should solely revolve around a model for making money and creating demand.
Marketing companies that do websites and renderings make more than the architect.
Code consultants who aren't even licensed in anything have the time make more.
Fucking wake up already. Critically think about learning something useful, geez.
And that's why I wouldn't pay half the pompous critical thinkers out of school more than a receptionist. They offer little production and skills and too much "opinion" about shit they read in books.
So its kind o justified to not pay useless entry level people not much money.
Now BIM me some CD's overnight and we can talk.
The critical thinking point is obsolete because no one cares what we think anyway. We have thought ourselves so far out that we are the occasional useful servant, the jester, the king debeloper needs something cute to make some money, let's go have cool ABC and hot DEF put a concept on it...
Apologize for the rants, it may be partially due to the fact I will be producing a massive set of CD's overnight....
Why do we think if we don't instill massive amounts of theoretical critical thinking in school people won't learn it on their own? I have met plenty contractors that want to talk about architecture as if they had just left a modern architecure lecture? Isn't wanting to be critical a personal desire?
So why the jurys? The elaborate critiques on concept?
You know what really sucks is being a young guy like me trying to tell potential clients - I do everything, old school architect, I do the concept 3d, the fabrication, the cost estimating, the code and city navigation...just to have them to want to bring other consultants in as I sit there going - yes I know, that's why I did that! As I work really hard a small fee becasue as far as the public perception of architects go - I shouldn't be capable of anything else besides ADA plans and being an obstruction in an aggressive business.
but you don't actually know everything - you're the one who should be suggesting to hire consultants and have the client tell you that "no we don't need them."
you need to put yourself into a position of authority, which means that you can demonstrate the ability to quickly assemble a TEAM of experts under your command. no one in any other industry actually believes they can handle everything themselves (which is why they hired us in the first place), and the moment we show up claiming to be a one-man show, they're going to be like "yeah, right" and start bringing in other people.
THIS is how we reduce ourselves to being underpaid ADA compliance lackies.
No what happens is because you have a TEAM you quit thinking about everything to the point a project manager or a CM has to be hired that can put it all together.
Ask an architect a technical engineering or means and methods question and the response will be something like, I need to check with my engineer. Ask the GC or CM the same question and they will say - I have done it this way or that but you should have the engineer verify. That's a huge difference. At that moment the architect looks like an inexperience guy who just doesn't care enough to even take a stab at the solution.
You should know enough to really look like the TEAM leader and not the design intent only moron.
Detached family dwelling - you should know everything as an architect (if we spent time in school inspecting and preparing specs and CDs this would be the case)
Small Basic retail design - know everything
Bar design - we are experts
After that sure for an airport you ned some consultants.
The problem some schools of architecture are facing or I should say a few problems.
One schools without licensed faculty are accredited and continue to be accredited. Faculty who do not hold a valid registration in some state or territory must not teach studios ever, they also must not vote in committees and must not have tenure. NAAB needs to use this as a prerequisite for accreditation.
The other problem schools need to ditch the vocational versus academic debate when it comes to teaching software or other skills, art schools teach skills, medicine teaches skills and they ate not regarded as any less valid in a university community.
Architecture departments are expensive, and their faculty are paid less than in most other departments and this insecurity has departments and faculty scrambling for research grants instead of practicing and teaching.
Mar 11, 11 8:21 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.
AIA take note and follow suit..
Star Architects Urged to Stop Exploiting Students
03/04/2011
Angela Brady calls for an end to free working and for better student skills
The next president of the RIBA has blamed star architects and larger firms for promoting an "endemic" culture of working for free amid soul-searching over the institute's landmark report on the future of the profession.
Angela Brady - who takes over from Ruth Reed in September - refused to name particular practices, but said star names who take on students and pay them nothing were exploitative and are promoting a culture which makes no business sense.
Brady was speaking at 66 Portland Place on Tuesday as RIBA think- tank Building Futures officially launched its report into how the profession might look in 2025. As reported last week, it calls on architects to toughen up and become better businessmen to survive the next 15 years.
She said firms believed many students could afford to work for free because they came from wealthy backgrounds.
"There is this view that says 'they don't need the money,'" she said.
"They're lucky to get a pizza at midnight. I think it's fundamentally wrong. Big firms do it because they can get away with it. Students tell me they are being exploited but say they do it because they won't get a job otherwise. We have got to stop exploiting students. It's endemic in our profession."
Brady also claimed too many architecture schools were churning out students not competent enough to work in the wider building process.
"We do need to change and upskill the way we teach our students," she said. "So many do not have the skills to work in our offices at the moment."
At the event, she told one student that he was "living a dream if you think architects sit around all day designing. I do 10% if I'm lucky."
Brady concluded that the profession as a whole gave away too many skills for free, and called on architects to respond to what she described as an "excellent" report.
"We have to start doing something about it," she said. "Let's not navel gaze. We've got to become business people."
The Building Futures report says architects will "need to develop greater financial nous and commercial acumen" and warns that a swathe of medium-sized design-led practices and small metropolitan boutique firms could disappear in the coming years.
(c) 2011 Building Design. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.
take out the "e" in suite.....
Rock on, Ms. Brady! This practicing licensed architect and former AIA member totally agrees with you!
yes. yes. yes. yes.
...did i mention, YES!
i think we should keep this at the very top of the thread list....
Yes! is More
Good for Ms. Brady. I think Ms. Brady is an archinector, or at least reading the threads. I have to say it takes some guts to say what she said. Her speech though focused mainly around students and spoke on there behalf. What about the rest of us?
This also goes for young (and even not young) professionals. In this climate where we have to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into our career between school and licensing processes, why are people with masters degrees making below poverty wage? I realize that anyone is lucky to have a job and get paid for it, but I have worked at two different firms where the people with masters degrees who were licensed or almost licensed were making the same or less than our receptionists, who tended to be temp employees, people who had yet to go to college or in one case, a high school student.
I especially like how she wants to bring real skills back into the profession - degrees mean nothing when you spend the entire time making blob sculptures on the computer, and when you're hired you have to know how to keep a roof from leaking. Also, how have architects become such pathetic business people? An extremely valuable profession is being quickly rendered obsolete by everyone else. We know we're important and that design is, but if no one else thinks so, it doesn't matter.
The work-for-free culture of prominent firms has contributed much to the downfall of our profession. The sad reality is that the kids graduating with top grades and test scores (i.e. the best and brightest) are not going into architecture because there is simply no earning potential.
Even in this shit economy, take a look at any of the top 20 MBA programs in the U.S. and look at their starting salary and placement rates. Most MBA grads *start* at 70-90k and get a signing bonus in the 10k+ range.
that starting salary is probably incentive to those business grads, so they will hopefully behave, who knows, but either way good for them.
Look AIA the Royals are doing it, now get your head out your ass and start forcing skills to be taught at school.
My main complain about architecture school is this - the need for critical and creative thinking. If you don't have skills, so what!?! If you can't speak the language so what if you are over the top intellectually critical!
You know what really sucks is being a young guy like me trying to tell potential clients - I do everything, old school architect, I do the concept 3d, the fabrication, the cost estimating, the code and city navigation...just to have them to want to bring other consultants in as I sit there going - yes I know, that's why I did that! As I work really hard a small fee becasue as far as the public perception of architects go - I shouldn't be capable of anything else besides ADA plans and being an obstruction in an aggressive business.
So I say things like - design builder, consult for engineers...I am getting my license but it doesn't mean much frankly.
ITS COMPLETELY ETHICAL TO MAKE MONEY. Fuck the artist approach, we don't make better buildings, make fewer and fewer and become irrelevant. The education and work model should solely revolve around a model for making money and creating demand.
Marketing companies that do websites and renderings make more than the architect.
Code consultants who aren't even licensed in anything have the time make more.
Fucking wake up already. Critically think about learning something useful, geez.
And that's why I wouldn't pay half the pompous critical thinkers out of school more than a receptionist. They offer little production and skills and too much "opinion" about shit they read in books.
So its kind o justified to not pay useless entry level people not much money.
Now BIM me some CD's overnight and we can talk.
The critical thinking point is obsolete because no one cares what we think anyway. We have thought ourselves so far out that we are the occasional useful servant, the jester, the king debeloper needs something cute to make some money, let's go have cool ABC and hot DEF put a concept on it...
Apologize for the rants, it may be partially due to the fact I will be producing a massive set of CD's overnight....
Why do we think if we don't instill massive amounts of theoretical critical thinking in school people won't learn it on their own? I have met plenty contractors that want to talk about architecture as if they had just left a modern architecure lecture? Isn't wanting to be critical a personal desire?
So why the jurys? The elaborate critiques on concept?
i irony was PRITZKER seems only to be giving to those who exploit students the most!
typo> The irony
but you don't actually know everything - you're the one who should be suggesting to hire consultants and have the client tell you that "no we don't need them."
you need to put yourself into a position of authority, which means that you can demonstrate the ability to quickly assemble a TEAM of experts under your command. no one in any other industry actually believes they can handle everything themselves (which is why they hired us in the first place), and the moment we show up claiming to be a one-man show, they're going to be like "yeah, right" and start bringing in other people.
THIS is how we reduce ourselves to being underpaid ADA compliance lackies.
No what happens is because you have a TEAM you quit thinking about everything to the point a project manager or a CM has to be hired that can put it all together.
Ask an architect a technical engineering or means and methods question and the response will be something like, I need to check with my engineer. Ask the GC or CM the same question and they will say - I have done it this way or that but you should have the engineer verify. That's a huge difference. At that moment the architect looks like an inexperience guy who just doesn't care enough to even take a stab at the solution.
You should know enough to really look like the TEAM leader and not the design intent only moron.
Detached family dwelling - you should know everything as an architect (if we spent time in school inspecting and preparing specs and CDs this would be the case)
Small Basic retail design - know everything
Bar design - we are experts
After that sure for an airport you ned some consultants.
Commercial interiors - know everything while consulting with building engineer on systems
Commercial interiors - know everything while consulting with building engineer on systems
Basic multi story - enough to not have to involve the engineering and GC cost estimating until moving into CD phase
The problem some schools of architecture are facing or I should say a few problems.
One schools without licensed faculty are accredited and continue to be accredited. Faculty who do not hold a valid registration in some state or territory must not teach studios ever, they also must not vote in committees and must not have tenure. NAAB needs to use this as a prerequisite for accreditation.
The other problem schools need to ditch the vocational versus academic debate when it comes to teaching software or other skills, art schools teach skills, medicine teaches skills and they ate not regarded as any less valid in a university community.
Architecture departments are expensive, and their faculty are paid less than in most other departments and this insecurity has departments and faculty scrambling for research grants instead of practicing and teaching.
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.