Only one extra class to get a degree in construction management (versus a minor)? Not sure how that works, but I would do it in a heartbeat. You'll have a much better time getting into construction. Even if you strictly want to be an architect, you can easily market the additional skills and education if your program is any good.

My belief is that the practice of architecture requires CM and/or CA experience in order to know what the hell one is doing with the tools and variables of architectural design.  Unfortunately, the schools are not teaching this aspect and the contemporary office is so far removed from the field it usually takes 30 years to get as much CM/CA experience as the average graduate of a quality CM program gets by the time they graduate.

Its sort of like a boxer getting into the ring with Mike Tyson without ever even having sparred before.  Or a "painter" who studies painting ad nauseum for years yet hasn't touched a brush to paint before.

Any and all CM/CA experience, academic as well, is extremely valuable.  Why are CM graduates making so much more money earlier in their careers as well as enjoying more stable professional situations?

After working in architecture offices and getting my license I realized this and went and worked for a couple of large CM firms for 4 years.

Thanks for the feedback.

I do hope to become licensed and know that for at least two years I will have to suffer through doing CDs to fulfill my IDP hours in that area. I know that some CM/CA experience could be counted for IDP but will the second degree in CM become worthless if I'm not able to put it to use right away?

I wonder why schools don't focus on CM more than they do. All that taught of CM in the architecture school is only one lecture in only one class of 5 years of study. If estimating/scheduling/management is so important to the profession, it makes no sense as to more courses in these subjects are not required. 

Sorry for question..  how to o decipher the abbreviation CM/CA?

Thanks

Construction Management/ Construction Administration

"Unfortunately, the schools are not teaching this aspect and the contemporary office is so far removed from the field it usually takes 30 years to get as much CM/CA experience as the average graduate of a quality CM program gets by the time they graduate.

Its sort of like a boxer getting into the ring with Mike Tyson without ever even having sparred before.  Or a "painter" who studies painting ad nauseum for years yet hasn't touched a brush to paint before."

What a great way to put it. And so true.... and the reason why I find my 5-year arch degree somewhat regrettable at times... I look back and wonder; other than studying in Italy which really added perspective to urbanism/design and changed my life in some ways... I think; gosh what a waste of time bullshitting around spending 70 hours a week building and designing balsa wood models on bogus futuristic designs I'd likely have .01% chance of ever being built. Coming out of college; I never heard of what a project manual was, never met a contractor, never understood who/what/how a project is built, never talked budget, contracts, development finance, etc... no business skills or idea of how an architect firm even makes money!!

But hey.. didn't we all just like telling people we were "architects" ?...when we were young. (That lasted 5 years for me .. then I got out... and learned more in 6 months then I learned in 5 years in the arch office... now working for developer/contractor/mgmt company). to OP; yes get that damn CM dual degree ... you'll find more control, more opportunity, and more reward financially...and won't be stuck behind a computer drafting stair details.

Yes, the way I see it, the "architecture" schools have flooded the marketplace with graduates who are lucky to even be at the level at which they can compete in the marketplace with the average drafter or renderer.

In order to keep the schools packed to the gills with as many students as possible taking out as many loans as possible, the school administrators and professional accrediting bodies have lowered the bar and extracted most of the rigor out of the schooling   (>almost< Couldn't believe my eyes when the numbers of accredited schools actually increased during the Great Recession aka the Great Depression Reloaded for the Architecture Profession).

Students in their early 20s are mostly going to be more interested in pretty pictures of rainbows, peace, and railing against the man holding a brother down.  So, how to attract students en masse to 70 hour weeks of architecture school?  Dumb down the curriculum and teach them how to basically churn out eye candy while they circle jerk eachother for 5-6 years arguing about which exceptional abstract architectural situation is more exceptional and abstract than last weeks.

Would've made too much sense to go the route of 50 hours/ week and focus on the useful, dare I say profitable, aspects of practice of things like "how buildings stand up" (structural engineering), how to interact with normal business people (and not just from within the echo chamber of the same group of hipster wanna be's and non-practicing lifelong prisoners in the ivory towers), and boring old proposal and contract writing.  (Which is where the CM schools, for one, have picked up where the arch schools have become derelict)!  Instead, the schools have kept the 70-80 hours of what has been reduced to finger painting art class as the sole de facto requirement.

So, students these days graduate not knowing anything more about the actual practice, and indeed sometimes much less, than the average non licensed autocad monkey drafter out there.  It takes them 2-3 years on average just to unlearn the BS they learned in school and start fresh learning useful, practical applications of what are generally very good brains.  Right out of school, they end up at the mercy of the marketplace and not only have to compete in a marketplace which sucks for architects, but have to start at the bottom underneath every last non licensed Tom Dick and Harry cad monkey who thinks drafting (and usually not that great to boot) = architecture.  Unfortunately, the marketplace has an incredibly thick time perceiving that drafting does not equal architecture either.

Compare the situation to that of professions that are still considered rigorous and applicable to the marketplace after graduation (without 70 hour weeks, either...okay maybe 50), e.g. engineering, law, business.

Agreed. And I completely agree about the dumbing down of the curriculum and will add proof to that:

My graduating class in 2007/8 was the last to see a full 100% architecture curriculum at my school. (Not to say it was rigorous - was leaps easier than engineering school of which I was weeded out).  If you wanted to do architecture, you had to do the pre-arch 1 year, submit for acceptance (about 30-50% approval) and then continue for 4 year to get the accredit 5-year degree (unfortunately a rare degree anymore). ((First year was all about getting that artistic portfolio in order to showcase "your talents" ... so first year was about clay nude modeling lol, painting lol , drawing, classes on design and IKEA, a 9th grade physics class and an architect studio primer with poor asshole out-of-work profs))....

Anyways, what happened in 2008? The school decided that it was too exclusive and opened the architecture college to any painter, t-shirt designer, pottery maker or 'industrial artist/designer' under the sun. .. thus making the school of architecture into a mix of "designers", "artists" and "think outside-the-boxers".... Thus; our school lost significant measures of 'rigor' and went out of the top 10, then out of the top 20...

We were ranked 7th nationally in undergrad schools when I started - Design Intelligence Mag. (Rankings based on the marketplace - aka the people who hire you and think you're capable of doing real work). In 2008, my alma mater immediately dropped 10-12 rankings.

So my point being: arch school was already dumbied down, and then it went even a step further in the past 5-8 years (like you're saying since the recession) to add more hipsters and less professionals and less engineer-type people.

Evolution of my school; ARCHITECTURE MAJOR accredited degree:

1960-2000  Graduate: College of Engineering and Science (Engineers + Architects together & more structures/engineering). 

2000-2008 Graduates: College of Design w/ full Architecture curriculum

2008-current: College of Design pre-arch eliminated and all are welcome

Last thing I"d add.... be careful to use words like "the marketplace" around architects. lol . Architects hate those economic terms.

Yes, yes and....yes.  I can't add anything other than this is essentially what happened at the school I graduated from as well.  My degree reads "school of design" even though when I was accepted and matriculated it was the graduate school of architecture.

Yes, "cost" and "schedule" are contemptible to the average sycophant glued to the latest iteration of architectural record.  Especially those entrenched in the ivory towers.

Wonder if this has anything at all to do with the present non-profitability of the profession, generally speaking?

EEE-Gads!

A monty python skit dedicated to this topic would feel so right to reference right now if there was one.  You can't make this level of stupidity and self-sabotage up.

(and for all the hipster wanna be critics of this position:  get your architecture license first and then I'll care about your position regarding this topic)

It's terrible what they teach in school nowadays. There is really no reason the program has to be 5 years. However how can a collegend prevent itself from becoming a technical school? Could part of the reason for the decline of stressing CA/CM in school be due to the rise in the CM field? The architeft used to be able to do the things CMs do today. With the industry becoming more and more specialized, architects may only become the design guys and come up with crazy concepts. Leave the practical stuff to the CM.

 more technical skill training is needed... less design fluff. way less. I believe talented designers are not 'trained' at school. Instead, creativity is a skill learned thru a lifetime of experiences, interests, exposures to you when young, traveling, reading,  etc... School can provide new experiences... but I believe my creativity was already there due to years of music playing and interest in the sciences... We all liked drawing plans and treehouses when we were kids.... so why at school do we have out-of-touch professors spending the majority of our education time talking about 'the juxtaposition of this"..."the balance of this".. "study this painter for real inspiration".  Teach me how to build, and I'll work on being a talented designer through my own time...  if that's important to me.

 Unfortunately, our architecture school curriculum teach on the concept that we're all going to be Zaha Hadid (the 0.1%) . An embarrassing degree it has become... I don't even have any economics, accounting or finance - any business training AT ALL. So at a development firm, you see 24 year old finance majors making more money than 35 year old architects because they are specialized in a field of few... Design is a hard thing to sell solely on its own... (and you can't measure thru a test ).... it has to be backed by technical know-how / specialization... something very few arch grads have these days...

...plus; a lot of architects are complaining about IDP and "what's the point of licensure"?? Why have it?  Well, the license exams (although also somewhat b-s and vague, simplified, and a cake-walk compared to other professions)... are the last form of trying to pretend we're technical professionals. So get rid of that and where will we be??!

New architecture graduates are qualified for entry level construction management positions. Construction management graduates aren't getting hired to be entry level intern architects. You don't need the qualification to get into CM but it won't hurt. 

Most companies are having a hard time finding new CM grads and starting salaries are getting ridiculous. Firms are pretty much in bidding wars for grads with a couple summers on a job site. 

Thanks for the feedback everyone. @LITS, so do you think it would be redundant to work for the second degree? Or would employeers see it as some type of advantage even if the degree is not totally necessary for the job. Is it worth the extra $5,000 and having to take only CM classes? (there were only two classes I'd like to have taken that I couldn't due to having to take all the CM courses, approx 17 courses)

Most people I work with on the CM side are PEs, usually site/civil guys, that started working as project engineers right out of college. Or B.Archs who worked a few years as architects then jumped to the "dark side". The CM classes might help, but experience at a good office and making a few connections out in the field might be better. There are so many different paths in the construction industry it's good to get exposure to a few things so you can then narrow in on one. I'm in NYC and that's been my experience with Turner, Tishman, etc. 

And I couldn't agree more that architects need more technical know how, we've become so marginalized as a profession. We really need to take the profession back by becoming the construction and design experts we once were.   

Thanks for the input everyone. Any other opinions/insights would be valued. Most architecture students seem not to care about the CM side of things. They don't even want to know to to construct a building. I can't understand how they think like that.