Archinect
anchor

Concerning Licensure

240
marmkid

haha the thread almost just went in a weird direction


i think its not necessarily that architects think their skills arent worth something, its just thinking about a way to get the most out of them to be prepared once you leave school, be it to teach, or to work towards your license, or whatever

Apr 7, 11 2:17 pm  · 
 · 
Token AE

Apparently I didn't re-paste the most crucial point of my comment- my mistake. Add this on to the end:

Theory and practice: both are equally valid and necessary.

Apr 7, 11 2:18 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

but you're letting everyone else (prospective employers, the market etc.) set that value for you. OF COURSE they're going to try to undervalue you....

set your own value, create your own market, etc. etc.

Apr 7, 11 2:19 pm  · 
 · 
jbushkey

What is it you think a student can do right out of school that is so valuable Elinor?

inadequate knowledge of the "boring, out dated construction methods" currently used on the vast majority of real projects makes them unable to draw buildable plans from a sketch.

Also please let us know when you start hiring because we all wanna come get a real paycheck right out of school :D

Apr 7, 11 2:20 pm  · 
 · 
Token AE

And as an aside, to further complicate things:

The "soft" skills that I learned from my 8-10 architecture courses were always the skills that landed me engineering jobs.

The "hard" skills that I learned from my engineering courses (the majority) were the skills that landed architecture jobs.

It pays to be different?

Apr 7, 11 2:22 pm  · 
 · 
wrecking ball

the fact of the matter is, a license isn't valuable in the current market and i don't see how that is the fault of the university.

i can't speak for others, but ALL of my professors were brilliant and licensed. schools are very open about the fact that they are teaching students to think, not generate construction details (methods and materials change over time anyway). i was in my fifth year when NAAB visited and approved the current curriculum. we are not supposed to be engineers, GC's or sustainbility experts (despite the best efforts of LEED to snow us). an architect is trained to be generalist visionsary and problem solver.

problem is, idealistic schools are graduating students into a career that basically doesn't exist. i would argue that in today's market an 'architect' is marginalized at best. btw the fact that most residences don't require stamps and the standardization of the construction industry, architects are being all but removed from the process of building.

i do however feel that you should be licensed when you graduate. as it stands now, the ARE is just a foundation of architecture knowledge, in no way comprehensive. the tests are a pain, but not hard and do not require experience, especially when interns aren't getting training in the offices that they should.

Apr 7, 11 2:26 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

ok, look at OMA for example. they take talented people right out of school, put them to work on good, real, substantial projects all over the world, and seem to impart a sense of ability, ownership, and commend over their skills and work that renders them able to go out on their own afterwards without a sense of being hobbled by these perceived 'inabilities'. there are threads all over archinect about successful oma alums.


i do think they can do this without first working them to death, but that's an issue for another day...

Apr 7, 11 2:32 pm  · 
 · 
marmkid

@elinor
"set your own value, create your own market, etc. etc. "


while that sounds great in theory, i dont think this is a practical approach at all


Besides, a lot of grads i have seen seem to set their own value at being above doing any sort of detailing work or anything else they dont consider fun and they seem to think they should be designing skyscrapers their first day

That seems to point to a potential problem somewhere, perhaps in the way the school systems are set up

Apr 7, 11 2:33 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

*command*

Apr 7, 11 2:34 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

marmkid---try it. it just might work.

Apr 7, 11 2:35 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

columbia under tschumi is a good academic example...he had little money and decided to hire a lot of younger, less-experienced people with good ideas and it became one of the more forward-thinking, dynamic programs of the time. as much as some of you don't want to admit it, the early computational/parametric experiments had a trickle-down impact on everything down to construction (bim, etc...)

Apr 7, 11 2:43 pm  · 
 · 
marmkid

@elinor
"marmkid---try it. it just might work."

I am perfectly fine with my position and career to this point, and am not here looking for career advice by any means

The discussion is for others. And in my experience, students are told one thing in school, and then its the opposite when they graduate.

Their opinion of what they should be doing and what they can be doing is completely unrealistic to the real world when they get there.

But if your experiences are that much different, that is great. I can only pass along what i have seen



That example is a great one, but unfortunately not the norm among schools from what i have seen. If it became the norm or what was strived to when colleges hired professors, that would be fantastic. I havent actually seen or heard that to be the case though. Though its not surprising for a prestigious school to be getting it right first. If only we were all able to go to ivy league schools

Apr 7, 11 3:29 pm  · 
 · 
jbushkey
schools are very open about the fact that they are teaching students to think, not generate construction details

Perhaps the disconnect is that some of us believe you have to have a strong understanding of how things are built in order to design them.

Can every office be OMA Elinor? Do they use any unpaid interns?

Apr 7, 11 3:29 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

no idea about interns, but they pay their f/t staff more than you'd think.

fine, i give up. you guys win:

-most firms will do mediocre work, because some law somewhere dictates that it must be so. we can't all be good after all, or successful, because there's some sort of set limit on how much 'good' architecture can be produced in the world, and it's a really minuscule amount. not only that, it's not actually necessary, because 'reality' dictates that most buildings do not need 'design', only competence in how 'things' typically 'come together'.

-most recent grads are useless, and it's appropriate that they are paid miserable wages until they learn how to detail conventional buildings. then they can be paid a bit better, but they still have to work a lot of unpaid overtime until...what exactly? where does it end? i don't know. until they get laid off in mid-career, i guess, or transition into real estate or construction.

-unless one learns 'the basics' of construction, any intelligence or intellectual ability they may have is not really applicable to this profession.

...but i'm sure i took that all out of context, somehow.

we are DOOMED.



Apr 7, 11 3:43 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

oh, i didn't see your last post, marmkid. i'm fine at the moment as well. and licensed--twice! the road there, though, was the lowest point in my career to date.

Apr 7, 11 3:47 pm  · 
 · 
jbushkey

Also speaking of OMA:

Prince-Ramus: We’re starting to hire nonarchitects... It’s an architectural education issue. It’s not that I’m not hiring architects. But as someone who teaches and has a practice and has real projects, I see the skill set of people with architectural education as increasingly irrelevant, if not detrimental.

Their solution
– one born of America’s conservative, risk management architectural climate – is to become tough, Machiavellian businessmen. They talk in terms of “liability”, “control”, “negotiating hard on contracts” and above all, putting the client’s needs first – “Once you do that, the client’s totally fine to be pushed way outside of their comfort zone.” This is the stuff, they feel, that architecture students need to be taught, not deconstructivist literary theory.

Apr 7, 11 3:47 pm  · 
 · 
wrecking ball

JPR has also said that he believes that design talent isn't cultivated, you either have it or you don't. He has been outspoken about the the fact that students should learn construction documents in school. And if you believe this, then architecture school IS truly irrelevant b/c 90% of it is teaching you to develop a parti and think critically.

Apr 7, 11 3:57 pm  · 
 · 
marmkid

I am 4/7 of the way to being licensed, and while its a pain, it is not the life ending miserable stupid worthless broken devil system everyone makes it out to be

It is a licensing path, and i am pretty sure doctors and lawyers, who architects constantly compare themselves to, probably dont find their licensing path enjoyable by any means.

I just happen to not agree with the idea that the education system is perfect the way it is or that you can completely ignore how conventional buildings get built and only focus on the completely innovative and cutting edge.

Grad today seem to come out with an ego that makes them think they are above any kind of work that doesnt include them designing a brand new skyscraper with no budget constraints.


To say there is no value in learning the basics to the point where it doesnt need to be learned at all is completely unrealistic for anyone who wants to work or get licensed ever.

Apr 7, 11 3:57 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

JPR has not much to to with OMA, jb. OMA's still building all over the place. JPR, not so much. again, probably largely because of the constraints of practice in the usa vs europe/asia. bjarke ingels is having a much better time, and i'm sure he hires designers.

Apr 7, 11 4:03 pm  · 
 · 
wrecking ball

but the firms and clients that value designers are few and far btw. my first boss never cared whether he hired interior designers or architects b/c in the end, we were all just drafters.

i guess i'm saying that the system is broken but it's not necessarily the fault of greedy firm owners or unlicensed theory professors. i think it has more to do with the context that we find ourselves in.

Apr 7, 11 4:20 pm  · 
 · 
jbushkey

Elinor define "good design" for us. Is it the way you feel in the space? Does it capture your imagination? Must it hold your attention like a museum exhibit? I realize this is a tricky question.

I disagree that JPR has not much to do with OMA. I thought he was a partner there while running the US office before branching off. You also should not negate someone because they don't have work right now. He is an educator, speaker, and celebrated practitioner with a viewpoint similar to many expressed in this thread.

It would be really interesting if students could choose between a more practical degree focused on real buildings with a limited amount of theory and an all out bleeding edge design focused degree to see the results.

Apr 7, 11 4:23 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

oh come on, good design--an effective solution to a SPECIFIC problem that takes into account the particularities of site, function, budget AND its position in an urban/social/political context.

in other words, a proposition that provides maximum responsiveness to ALL its requirements without being actively limited by any one over the others.

what this is NOT:

-beauty over functionality
-cost over quality
-successful piece of real estate over successful public place (if in a city)
-successful piece of real estate over effective long-term land-use/sustainability strategy.

-any of these points, vice versa.

Apr 7, 11 4:34 pm  · 
 · 
Ms Beary

Do architects even make the type of decisions that the education and all its criticism preps us for? Seems like you come in after and leave before many of those desicions are made, the architect's role is to make other people's dreams come true.

Some of you need to look up the definition of a Professional Degree, basically it is a degree that prepares you for a specific profession. Crazy, I know, why should the schools care if you actually want to be an architect? Why should those of us that wanted to design buildings be expected to waste our educational years for those that want to be superstars?

Apr 7, 11 4:42 pm  · 
 · 
burningman

Elinor:

You love the current arch education and OMA's work. We get that. But it's one thing to say that and quite another to say that OMA's project are good for the urban environment; experimental signature buildings commonly tend to do the opposite. I don't know how the CCTV building make its environment any better. Since you're in NYC, how exactly does Gehry's building by the west side highway improve the surrounding environment? But I guess good design can neglect its surroundings?

So all this ranting about how bad the profession is, what are those five things you learned in architecture school that the stupid everyday architect hasn't figured out? Enlighten us.

Apr 7, 11 4:48 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

i guess that's it--i believe in a kind of social/ethical responsibility to the role of architect that goes beyond just successful construction. a client + a GC coud probably get you the first part,

'an effective solution to a SPECIFIC problem that takes into account the particularities of site, function, budget'

but you need an architect for the second,

'its position in an urban/social/political context.'

you don't just design for the client/user--that thing will be around probably longer than you will...

Apr 7, 11 4:49 pm  · 
 · 
Ms Beary

Elinor, how many clients have come to you with an empty lot and a wad of cash and asked you for ideas? I have had a few I guess. Usually, they come to you with a highly developed idea of what they want based on requirements and desires that have little to do with "architecture" but have everything to do with the larger project at hand (providing shelter, turning a profit, updating the outdated, etc.)

Apr 7, 11 4:51 pm  · 
 · 
Matt_A

What is missing from this discussion are the quantitative facts about the outcomes the system is producing. I can think of no reasonable objection to the publication of these statistics. That picture will enrich this conversation, and provide a way to find common ground to addressing the problem (if there is a problem); at a minimum it will also have an ancillary benefit of providing those who are in the process (and those contemplating joining) an accurate picture of the road ahead.

Ten years of internship is roughly 25% of a career. I do not believe a system that requires this kind of investment can be called successful. I also don't believe that those who benefit from such a system (regulators, educators, practitioners) can claim to be ethically clean when they describe the process as taking one-fourth as long as it does. At a minimum, that deception must be ended.

Please continue with your subjective discussion, point fingers all you want. I am interested in outcomes, I am interested in resolutions. We can't afford to waste another generation in this infinite blame game. I'm tired of that, it serves no purpose.

Lets get the numbers and look at them together. If you support this approach -- public disclosure -- please communicate with your representatives at the local, state, and national AIA, and with the architect members of your state licensing board. The state licensing boards are the "Members" of NCARB, and are the only entities that can command accountability from the Council.

If you don't know who to contact, drop me a note and tell me what state you are in and I'll give you the information I have. mda1618 (at) gmail.com.

elinor --

I'll go with your definition, except I'd add that an architectural design solution will include the timeless play of light on beautiful forms and materials in space in a way that delights and inspires the inhabitants, and facilitates their enjoyment of life.

Apr 7, 11 4:52 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

what are the negative effects of gehry's building? it's pretty much a standard residential tower w/a more involved facade treatment...don't really see it as being more detrimental than any other condo tower, though it looks a lot better than most...not sure i'd call it 'good design' though...

i don't love OMA's work necessarily...i like how they don't wear their younger employees into the ground but instead employ their skills in a way that is effective for their practice and also propels them into successful careers of their own.

Apr 7, 11 4:55 pm  · 
 · 
burningman

Elinor,

I'm talking about that frosted white buidling along the west side highway, (not new condo building he put up which IS NOT along the west side highway -I haven't seen it yet). It's very bad for urbanism. Most buildings at least have a street presence on the ground floor unlike Gehry's bdg along the west side highway, which looks like it has cut have been cut off the 20th floor and put on the ground whiled internalizing itself. Gehry didn't design for the environment, he designed for himself! That's the current arch school mentality.

So what were those 5 THINGS you learned in school that the rest of us can't seem to figure out? What makes it worth 40-60k a year?

Apr 7, 11 5:07 pm  · 
 · 
toasteroven
Besides, a lot of grads i have seen seem to set their own value at being above doing any sort of detailing work or anything else they dont consider fun and they seem to think they should be designing skyscrapers their first day

That seems to point to a potential problem somewhere, perhaps in the way the school systems are set up


there was a switch over the past decade - projects coming out of schools for a while seemed to be very heavy on contextual analysis and formal/spatial explorations using new digital tools but very vague on material, smaller scale tectonic explorations, and the physical act of constructing something - it seems to be coming back, though... now that software has matured (and the scale of real-world projects have gotten much smaller).

the attitude I encounter a lot among recent grads is "someone else will figure it out" - which if everyone thinks this way we end up leaving a lot of design decisions up to people with no design training. it also seems like there are fewer and fewer recent grads who are intrigued by "the joint" and the act of making. if there are no well-crafted physical models and just 3D renderings in someone's portfolio then you've got to wonder...

I don't want to turn this into a computer vs. hand debate, but I think we're losing something if less and less students have experienced actually putting two sticks together. even if you don't end up becoming a detailer it's still useful to have actually been in a wood shop.

Apr 7, 11 5:13 pm  · 
 · 
marmkid

and it doesnt mean things need to swing completely back the other way


there just needs to be a balance, and right now, it doesnt quite seem to be there with schools

Apr 7, 11 5:14 pm  · 
 · 
toasteroven

maybe it's also this mentality that makes it unappealing to get licensed? less of a willingness to take on responsibility?

I'd also be interested to see the number of architecture school graduates over time - maybe we're actually getting more architects licensed than in the past, but it's just that there are far more graduates than ever before.

Apr 7, 11 5:25 pm  · 
 · 
Matt_A

Frankly, I can't believe this information isn't already available. When I started this pilgrimage three years ago I thought it would be a simple matter of googling up the answers. The only reason I drew all those charts is because I wanted to see them. I thought they would be regularly published and updated by the NAAB, NCARB, and AIA. What was I thinking?

Apr 7, 11 5:30 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

the white building is quite nice, actually, even at street level. no idea what you're talking about.

i think a good new building in NYC is the new museum by sanaa. i like its compact and efficient layout/circulation strategy, the effective facade using very modest materials, and especially the ground floor, because although it is arguably the most opulent space, it is publicly accessible even if you don't pay the admission fee. that's a good move, urbanistically. plus, it looks good.

i'm not crazy about Rem's fascination with capitalist dystopia and don't love everything by OMA, though i do think some of their work is successful and all of their work at least attempts to address complex issues.

your 5 things, bm, would take me a few hours to fully outline, but i will try, in brief:

1. theories, methods of representation, and ideological systems are artificial constructions that allow us to comprehend, analyze, isolate, and propose solutions to problems beyond us in scale and scope. they are not necessarily meant to be learned and digested as products in and of themselves, but rather as tools for the extension of our intellectual/practical abilities. think of how a mathematical equation encapsulates and describes phenomena occurring in nature on a large scale--many of these were once theoretical experiments or hypotheses, or hunches with little immediate practical value.

2. abstraction is a very powerful thing. the ability to extract multiple 'realities' from the same set of facts can lead to many, very different discoveries. binary code, for example, is the whole world in ones and zeroes.

3. intuition is very important in creative work. so is discipline. the ability to establish a rigorous framework for solving a problem (any problem, even a pragmatic one) is essential to your ability to come up with an effective solution. you have to learn which questions to set and how to frame them. this is an intellectual process that has to be learned, even if the question at hand is a fairly simple one.

4. after you come up with a good solution, always push it further. come up with five more. you'll come up with something better, and no effort is ever wasted.

5. the last test, for me, for anything I, or anyone else, has designed, is 'is this a place i want to be in?" and i don't only mean 'is this a cool place i want to hang out in for a while' but is this a world that i want to inhabit? morally, ethically, etc. if the answer is no, regardless of who is to blame, it is a failure. sure, we can't control everything and many things we'll have a hand in will be failures on this level (maybe all...) but we can try, right?




Apr 7, 11 6:12 pm  · 
 · 
marmkid

those all seem incredibly valuable, and if a student learns those in school, then they are in good shape. But if they have absolutely no technical skills at all to suplement this, then they will have a very difficult time catching up when and if they get a job.


I think an architectural education should include both if they are truly preparing someone to become an architect

Apr 7, 11 6:30 pm  · 
 · 
burningman

Elinor,

The white building may be "quite nice," but that is a matter of opinion. It does absolutely nothing to engage the street. The thing is completely internalized, there is nothing at street level that speaks to its context or pedestrians. See Jane Jacobs. That's what I'm referring to.

I respect the effort made to address the five things. And it would be nice if kids did learn these things out of school -even if from the less practical side. I would agree Item 1 is more often seen in school is less in practice.

I have to say that items 2,4,5 can be learned in most architecture offices. The limitation is time and budget, even in schools you have deadlines and would have to stop pushing the design at some point and produce. Also, I also don't think any reasonable minded architect would design a place they couldn't picture themselves in. Item 3-intuition, I not fully convinced intuition can be taught. "Discipline" isn't a trait you find among recent grads. I also don't think this is can be taught in arch school.

IMO, of these five things, 1 is legitimately missing in most offices, but the other 4 are general common sense or personal traits- which leads me to believe that 80% of what they are teaching in arch schools should be reconsidered.

Apr 7, 11 9:25 pm  · 
 · 
elinor

ok, well now give me 5 examples of how/where 2,4,5 are addressed in offices, because i'd bet you it's not really true.

just kidding, you don't have to do that. :) in my experience, the ones who say they do are usually full of it.

Apr 7, 11 9:47 pm  · 
 · 
burningman

I'll play along:)

2. Abstraction: see your admiration for the Gehry west side highway "white building" and the inability to tie that abstraction back to "reality" or urban context. Gehry full of context? Yeah right, "full of it."

3. Intuition/Discipline: more of a personal trait than something you can pay to learn.

4. Pushing design/ design as an endless process: driven more by time and budget. Clients, architects, and even their staff always see an opportunity to improve things but there has to be a compromise between design changes and the project budget and schedule.

5. Designing a place you could also see yourself in: Aside from the occasional Walmarts and gas chambers, how many architects are designing things they couldn't see themselves in. You know what I can't see myself in- the gravity defying spaceships they design in most schools.

1. Theory: "quite nice."

Apr 7, 11 11:19 pm  · 
 · 
Matt_A
http://chronicle.com/article/A-Perfect-Storm-in/126969/

A perfect storm in undergraduate education.

I don't think these issues are confined to architecture, and I think it is foolish to attempt to sweep them under the rug or minimize them.

Apr 8, 11 1:16 pm  · 
 · 
toasteroven
"Discipline" isn't a trait you find among recent grads. I also don't think this is can be taught in arch school.

discipline is tough when it seems like no one gives a shit if you go above and beyond. and it's not just in school, but in the office.

I worked my ass off that first year out of school - I even got to design something 6 months in - but not once did anyone tell me that I was valuable to the office until I handed in my 2-week notice. I think as you get older you realize no one is going to pat you on your back and say "good job" - you have to make people tell you that they think you're doing good work and you have to make them "show" you that they think you're valuable. I think a lot of younger people simply don't know how to go after what they need in order to be happy and productive - how to "ask" for positive reinforcement - maybe it's always been like this, or maybe it's more recent...

Apr 8, 11 1:54 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.

  • ×Search in: