My wife is a PhD arch history/theory prof. It's insanely hard to get the degree, even harder to get the job, and even harder to get tenure. If she is awake, she is working. Every day of the year. Many people never get a job because there are more grads than jobs. Only recently has she started to make more money than me, mostly because I started a business. One perk - she does travel a lot - for her job. If you are seriously considering it, then you have to ask yourself if you have what it takes. Love for a subject isn't enough. 

My biggest gripe about academia is that you have to move where the job is, and there's no guarantee that you'll get to keep the job. To add insult to injury, if you don't get tenure, you cannot get any other sort of job, anywhere, ever again (except adjuncting, and if you don't know the difference, then you'd better brush up on it now). 

Contrast that to architecture. You can probably find a job anywhere you wish, and if you lose the job, you can get another job somewhere else. You only need to be moderately competent to find some sort of employment. If you do happen to be really driven or more, then you'll go further. 

Anyway, best of luck. 

Those who can, do; those who can't, teach

If you are into design, become an architect, if you are into talking about design, teach.  

@chigurh

Wow, that's some ignorant shit.

I agree with gruen. My spouse is a historian, and those days were entertaining. furthermore the market for historians is tough and very inch driven in the united states. As example, consider how many individuals are interested in modernism and then look at the job boards for those types of positions. Historic Preservation is similar.

As someone who has practiced more than I have taught, I'd say "it depends."  I'd also agree with gruen that if you do not have the title of professor, that works against you in the long run- the longer, the worse it is. If you work as a lecturer, adjunct or instructor you work contract by contract and often based on demand for a course. Added to that there are implicit expectation that may be made upon you- like research or innovative teaching practice- without funding.

That's not to say that professors have it easy. There's an expectation to maintain a presence in your field through publications, funded research and outreach. This sounds easy, but if your peers don't like your work - no matter how brilliant it is- you don't get funding or publications. Added to that, architecture is sliding towards a science based research model, meaning in some schools that funded research really matters.

Practice on the other hand depends on the stability of the market and the office. In addition, there's the practice niche of the office and their market area. My point is that as you look for work in    "the industry," ask the office you interview with about how they forecast work and how stable things are. Answers may range from a clear forecasted system, with staffing needs based check and balances or "on demand." Either way you'll have a more information to make make your evaluation of the office.

Financially, they're the same in the long run. Lot's of hustle and hard work to see a significant return.

@ splines

not really.  The difference between becoming an architectural historian phd and a licensed practicing architect is night and day.  Studio instructors might have more overlap since some have their own practices.  Even the studio side of school has a whole bunch of career academics in teaching roles i.e. those who choose not to do, but teach.  Some of the best instructors I ever had were career academics with no interest in running a parallel practice to the teaching gig.  

Or put another way-

Those who can: read, reflect and record-

Those who cannot: design 

At least that's how I understand the argument.

@chigurh

Nope, still super ignorant and now you're backpedaling and contradicting yourself. Of course there's a huge difference between becoming a historian and a practicing architect. No one is arguing that there isn't.

What you said before is that tired, reductive, and condescending "those who can't, teach" nonsense that reeks of someone hanging onto a petty grudge against the people who criticized his/her shitty student work.

I earned both an architecture license and a PhD, and over time have worked in practice and academia.  Both are proud accomplishments, and both required a boat-load of work and dedication.  Of course, the work is not the same, and this may be where some of the disagreement above stems from.

On the career-path issue, there's no doubt in my mind that the opportunities are better for full-time employment in practice.  But I don't rue my schooling at all.

guess I struck a nerve since you are probably one of those shitty instructors that thinks you will make it back to practice someday after wasting a huge chunk of your life looking at first year foamcore models...good luck with all that... you are going to be famous!

Thank you for demonstrating my point so precisely.

for the original poster:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/09/how_do_professors_get_hired_the_academic_job_search_explained.html

Based on my brother-in law's job search with a Phd in chemistry and articles like the above, i  think it is no contest that teaching is an extremely difficult way to make a living.  Unless you have tenure, which is unlikely, the pay is bad, as is the job security, but the profession compensates for that by requiring you to pick up and move on short notice. (sarcasm)

The reality is that academia is not well respected outside of the school system meaning that your only option outside of teaching would be to start your own practice.  Many architects have taught to support their fledgling practices.  

I think if you can get tenure at a top notch university you can be well paid. But it's years to get to that position. Now that my wife is within spitting distance of tenure, I can say that start to finish (beginning of PhD to tenure) looks like approximately 15 years with only the last 5 she was getting anything that resembled a real salary. I was the sugar daddy for the first 10. She will take care of me on the back end as I get my practice off the ground. In the middle we are both making money. 

I can't tell you if a tenured prof makes more than a firm principal. I suspect it's similar pay. The difference is that you can draw a real salary for those first 10 years. Of course, you may never be a firm principal. Of course, you may also never get tenure. 

This thread might be one of those conversations that would be just so much more entertaining if it took place in person.  Person "A" says his wife is a professor.  Person "B" pipes up with "those who can't, teach".  Person "B" regains consciousness on the hood of his car.

But that's just my world with my highly colorful group of friends.  No offense, Chigurh.  My own nose has been broken three times (from hurting other guys' fists), giving it a highly distinctive presence.

The tenure track timeline for advancement from assistant to associate professor is actually structured in a fairly straight forward manner.

Once you have signed your teaching contract tenure should take 6 years (+/-). You'll know if they will support your tenure case after three years, at which time your progress is reviewed. If you get at red flag at either review, start packing because the next year is your last.

Each University/program is different with respect to how they frame the requirements for tenure and the qualifications of the individual will change the specific requirements, but it's a matter of developing a body of work/research that represents excellence in the realms of the institution and the discipline at larges. In other words, make yourself known in the institution and internationally. The more the better, and if money come with it- even better. Note that teaching will be part of the overall evaluation, but may not be the primary metric used for evaluation. It may even be manipulated to the benefit of the review committee or the person you report to so they may get their desired outcome.

So- Timeline? Easy and clear. Metrics for evaluation? Not so much...