The salary? Yes I am asking the taboo question that is formally forbidden to be asked but yet we live in a capitalist country where money is everything. I wonder these things, now more than ever especially as I look for a more secure future for myself in Architecture.
I have worked in the field for sometime and I have been contemplating this type of profession while things are booming in the industry.
I have been advised by one professor at a state college what their life is like, but his professorship is for another field.
Example of Work life:
Work 3 days a week, for Max 5 hours a day, classes being 3 hours. Full medical coverage, and other benefits, union etc. Paid as 40 hours a week. Must add, 6 week Summer vacation.
Besides all those yummy things, I remember my experience interacting with my studio professors and I want to have that with other students. To be the ear to listen to their ideas, give mentorship and advice, that, I like. Many things I have done in my personal time has molded me to go in this direction. But it was not until that person said hey, look into it. I thought why not. I have to go back to school and that is not an issue. One year, MAA program I can do that.
Any feedback from personal experience or what you heard, when it comes to approximate salary, type of school, requirements and class schedule etc, is appreciated. This is part of my research before I add on more debt to my pile. Thank you all.
And I think someone is pulling your leg. If your friend is working 15 hours a week "max" and drawing a full salary and bennies with summers off, then he's either sucking the Dean's c*ck on a regular basis or has photos of the Provost romancing a sheep. Otherwise, lying.
The whole higher ed gravy train is coming off the rails. Don't gear your career hopes to it. Pampered academics training the armies of future unpaid interns and underpaid cannon fodder for the building industry is a contradiction that won't be sustained in the long run.
if you're looking to break into teaching you're going to very likely start out as adjunct faculty. If you want your students to produce good work, you'll probably spend at least 10-20 hours per week outside of class time developing course materials, presentations, setting up crits, and generally being available to review their work. And - you will definitely need another source of income if all you're doing is teaching one studio.
"Work 3 days a week, for Max 5 hours a day, classes being 3 hours. Full medical coverage, and other benefits, union etc. Paid as 40 hours a week. Must add, 6 week Summer vacation. "
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Whoooo- ok, back to grading and writing conference proposals
Walks away mumbling "15 hours... of contact time for one class perhaps"
Sep 28, 17 10:43 pm ·
·
citizen
Or, the occasional 15-hour day...
Sep 29, 17 1:37 am ·
·
citizen
I was thinking more of class prep, class time, office hours, and grading. But, yes, review days are a killer, too.
"The whole higher ed gravy train is coming off the rails."
Perfect. You mean the future won't be female deans selected for their plumbing standing around cardboard parametric train-wreck scale models talking about "inclusion" and "diversity" while conning the kids out of $60,000 a year?
Sep 30, 17 8:14 am ·
·
randomised
That's pretty sexist and/or offensive Volunteer, are you talking about any dean in particular? Just curious.
A year or two ago, I was offered a position at a Tier 1 university to teach an option studio in a grad program. This particular studio is mandatory for one of the program's certificates. The deal in a nutshell was basically a 2-2. (Two in fall; two in spring. One course would be studio, the other would be an option course like theory that would also fit into the certificate's curriculum.) I would have 12 hours of contact time per week (9 for studio; 3 for option) then 3-4 hours of office hours. The rest of my time would be divided between university service (serving on committees with other faculty) and my own research endeavors/mentoring students/being a faculty adviser for student organizations/grading, etc. The starting salary for someone what no teaching experience outside of a few years of TA-ship was in the range of $65k with benefits. (I found out later that this is pretty high and it's mostly because the dean has a lot of trouble finding qualified people to live in this part of the USA.) I chose to turn down the job because I was not yet licensed (wanted to get that out of the way before I got to tied down with other commitments) and didn't feel I had an adequate handle on how I would want to organize my studio, and what the learning goals would be for this level of students.
Oct 2, 17 9:35 am ·
·
thatsthat
Just to add, I think this situation is pretty rare unless you can find a university that is in a terrible location or has another huge drawback and has a hard time retaining/attracting faculty. I've heard from friends who teach at university level in various fields that it's more typical to start as an adjunct at $24k per year and supplement with outside work. The position I was up for was for a VAP that is only 2-3 years long ideally, but with opportunity to apply for non-tenured Assistant Prof position down the road. Numerous profs I had in grad school told me that universities are changing their funding structure so that Assistant Profs and up are required to help with fundraising efforts for their departments on top of their normal teaching/service duties and your abilities to raise money could affect your chances of tenure. So hope you have some rich friends.
Oct 2, 17 10:08 am ·
·
citizen
Great post, very informative. Plus, a good example of prioritizing licensure!
Tenure-track positions are very rare, and you have to be very smart, talented, and motivated to get them, even at the more middling universities. If you are casually thinking this might be a good option chances are you are many years away from even being close to having the credentials to be tenure-track faculty.
Adjunct positions are more plentiful, but pay poorly - most often you will be paid by the credit hour. Adjunct positions rarely include benefits. Adjuncts are mostly a way for universities to not hire more full-time faculty.
If you are fortunate enough to land a full-time position, most of your time will not be spent with students - it will be spent organizing conferences, writing papers, participating on committees, etc.
Finally get a PhD if you are really serious! (Yes, even in architecture.)
Not so sure about the PhD. It sounds great, but it's a great deal of commitment that does not guarantee additional leverage beyond the masters and a license. It also suggests that the curated niche is far more important that crafted practice- despite what the profession demonstrates.
Oct 2, 17 1:18 pm ·
·
won and done williams
If you are pursuing academia as a career (not a Professor of Practice), the PhD helps a lot. While architecture schools may have their own tenure review committees, the application still goes through the university-wide office of the provost where the PhD is considered essential. I'm not saying you have to get a PhD, but it just helps a lot in the tenure process, particularly if your practice credentials are marginal.
Very true, but before you get to the Provost, you are reviewed by your peers and the Chair, and the report is evaluated by the Dean- for potential. After the Chair's report, you are reviewed by the College, exterior (nationally) peers, and again the report is evaluated by the Dean- for recognition. At the final stage, you would be reviewed by the department, college, and exterior reviewers (internationally). This would be examined by the Provost. Note: it's not the individual that gets reviewed, it's the report and your demonstration of academic accomplishment, not to jump through presumed hoops as a part of a protocol.
Oct 2, 17 4:29 pm ·
·
thatsthat
I could be wrong, but typically universities just require a "terminal degree" which in architecture amounts to an MArch II. I think it just depends on what the university values (a practical approach vs. a more theoretical one
) whether they'd prefer an MArch grad probably with a license or a PhD.
Everyone wants to teach studio, so the difference maker is strong qualification to teach a core course (theory, history, ProPrac, software, construction, etc). In most cases I've seen expectation to have student contact twice number of credit hours minimum (which is fine for classroom work, but studio is much more). Starting out teaching a studio and at minimum 1 other class at 9 credit hours a week, that's 18hrs/wk min in contact hours (figure 12 studio hrs, 3hrs in class room, 2hrs office hours, few minutes each side of classes); figure another additional 6hrs/wk being engaged outside normal studio hrs + course prep time (can't imagine any less than 3 hrs for coursework and a few for studio), faculty meetings, committee meetings, organizing events... it's a lot.
I've been fortunate to be in teaching heavy universities as a student - but faculty did mention how taxing it is in in terms of their time (50~60hrs). The flip side was that the experience was invaluable as senior faculty were heavily engaged in mentoring young faculty as well as being stellar examples.
As one can see from many articles on academia and from previous posts, unless you're tenure track or are a star, the pay is low, benefits typically minimal if you're adjunct, and overall career trajectory minimal. Most faculty I know are in one of the categories of: practitioner interested in more theoretical pursuits (supporting themselves through both incomes), practitioner keeping foot in academia for interest as well as recruiting/networking (teaching income is irrelevant), theorist/historian pursuing tenure (via adjunct/assistant positions). If you can get into a full time / tenure track position it gets pretty cushy (tuition benefits and retirement plans in academia are quite nice, and the hours can be more flexible).
"If you can get into a full time / tenure track position it gets pretty cushy (tuition benefits and retirement plans in academia are quite nice, and the hours can be more flexible)."
Are you saying tenure-track or tenured?
Oct 2, 17 4:31 pm ·
·
thatsthat
It sounds cushy, but there are a ton of requirements put on profs with tenure, for instance the requirements for publishing are typically pretty rough. And publishing is such a gamble. You could spent a ton of time on papers/research that never see the light of day. And even if you are lucky enough to get your paper written and peer reviewed in time, and chosen for publication, guess who is footing the bill for the copyrights? (Hopefully a grant or the university, but if not, it's you.)
What is the salary and schedule like for a Architecture studio Professor?
The salary? Yes I am asking the taboo question that is formally forbidden to be asked but yet we live in a capitalist country where money is everything. I wonder these things, now more than ever especially as I look for a more secure future for myself in Architecture.
I have worked in the field for sometime and I have been contemplating this type of profession while things are booming in the industry.
I have been advised by one professor at a state college what their life is like, but his professorship is for another field.
Example of Work life:
Work 3 days a week, for Max 5 hours a day, classes being 3 hours. Full medical coverage, and other benefits, union etc. Paid as 40 hours a week. Must add, 6 week Summer vacation.
Besides all those yummy things, I remember my experience interacting with my studio professors and I want to have that with other students. To be the ear to listen to their ideas, give mentorship and advice, that, I like. Many things I have done in my personal time has molded me to go in this direction. But it was not until that person said hey, look into it. I thought why not. I have to go back to school and that is not an issue. One year, MAA program I can do that.
Any feedback from personal experience or what you heard, when it comes to approximate salary, type of school, requirements and class schedule etc, is appreciated. This is part of my research before I add on more debt to my pile. Thank you all.
Salaries at public universities are public information... At least last time I was looking it up.
^ Yes, even in capitalist countries. Look it up.
And I think someone is pulling your leg. If your friend is working 15 hours a week "max" and drawing a full salary and bennies with summers off, then he's either sucking the Dean's c*ck on a regular basis or has photos of the Provost romancing a sheep. Otherwise, lying.
The whole higher ed gravy train is coming off the rails. Don't gear your career hopes to it. Pampered academics training the armies of future unpaid interns and underpaid cannon fodder for the building industry is a contradiction that won't be sustained in the long run.
I hope this is true
if you're looking to break into teaching you're going to very likely start out as adjunct faculty. If you want your students to produce good work, you'll probably spend at least 10-20 hours per week outside of class time developing course materials, presentations, setting up crits, and generally being available to review their work. And - you will definitely need another source of income if all you're doing is teaching one studio.
"Work 3 days a week, for Max 5 hours a day, classes being 3 hours. Full medical coverage, and other benefits, union etc. Paid as 40 hours a week. Must add, 6 week Summer vacation. "
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Whoooo- ok, back to grading and writing conference proposals
Walks away mumbling "15 hours... of contact time for one class perhaps"
Or, the occasional 15-hour day...
I was thinking more of class prep, class time, office hours, and grading. But, yes, review days are a killer, too.
and btw, the acsa did a survey of salaries a few years back.
"The whole higher ed gravy train is coming off the rails."
Perfect. You mean the future won't be female deans selected for their plumbing standing around cardboard parametric train-wreck scale models talking about "inclusion" and "diversity" while conning the kids out of $60,000 a year?
That's pretty sexist and/or offensive Volunteer, are you talking about any dean in particular? Just curious.
wow dude, cool it with the sexism.
A year or two ago, I was offered a position at a Tier 1 university to teach an option studio in a grad program. This particular studio is mandatory for one of the program's certificates. The deal in a nutshell was basically a 2-2. (Two in fall; two in spring. One course would be studio, the other would be an option course like theory that would also fit into the certificate's curriculum.) I would have 12 hours of contact time per week (9 for studio; 3 for option) then 3-4 hours of office hours. The rest of my time would be divided between university service (serving on committees with other faculty) and my own research endeavors/mentoring students/being a faculty adviser for student organizations/grading, etc. The starting salary for someone what no teaching experience outside of a few years of TA-ship was in the range of $65k with benefits. (I found out later that this is pretty high and it's mostly because the dean has a lot of trouble finding qualified people to live in this part of the USA.) I chose to turn down the job because I was not yet licensed (wanted to get that out of the way before I got to tied down with other commitments) and didn't feel I had an adequate handle on how I would want to organize my studio, and what the learning goals would be for this level of students.
Just to add, I think this situation is pretty rare unless you can find a university that is in a terrible location or has another huge drawback and has a hard time retaining/attracting faculty. I've heard from friends who teach at university level in various fields that it's more typical to start as an adjunct at $24k per year and supplement with outside work. The position I was up for was for a VAP that is only 2-3 years long ideally, but with opportunity to apply for non-tenured Assistant Prof position down the road. Numerous profs I had in grad school told me that universities are changing their funding structure so that Assistant Profs and up are required to help with fundraising efforts for their departments on top of their normal teaching/service duties and your abilities to raise money could affect your chances of tenure. So hope you have some rich friends.
Great post, very informative. Plus, a good example of prioritizing licensure!
Tenure-track positions are very rare, and you have to be very smart, talented, and motivated to get them, even at the more middling universities. If you are casually thinking this might be a good option chances are you are many years away from even being close to having the credentials to be tenure-track faculty.
Adjunct positions are more plentiful, but pay poorly - most often you will be paid by the credit hour. Adjunct positions rarely include benefits. Adjuncts are mostly a way for universities to not hire more full-time faculty.
If you are fortunate enough to land a full-time position, most of your time will not be spent with students - it will be spent organizing conferences, writing papers, participating on committees, etc.
Finally get a PhD if you are really serious! (Yes, even in architecture.)
Not so sure about the PhD. It sounds great, but it's a great deal of commitment that does not guarantee additional leverage beyond the masters and a license. It also suggests that the curated niche is far more important that crafted practice- despite what the profession demonstrates.
If you are pursuing academia as a career (not a Professor of Practice), the PhD helps a lot. While architecture schools may have their own tenure review committees, the application still goes through the university-wide office of the provost where the PhD is considered essential. I'm not saying you have to get a PhD, but it just helps a lot in the tenure process, particularly if your practice credentials are marginal.
Very true, but before you get to the Provost, you are reviewed by your peers and the Chair, and the report is evaluated by the Dean- for potential. After the Chair's report, you are reviewed by the College, exterior (nationally) peers, and again the report is evaluated by the Dean- for recognition. At the final stage, you would be reviewed by the department, college, and exterior reviewers (internationally). This would be examined by the Provost. Note: it's not the individual that gets reviewed, it's the report and your demonstration of academic accomplishment, not to jump through presumed hoops as a part of a protocol.
I could be wrong, but typically universities just require a "terminal degree" which in architecture amounts to an MArch II. I think it just depends on what the university values (a practical approach vs. a more theoretical one ) whether they'd prefer an MArch grad probably with a license or a PhD.
A terminal degree = march (regardless of I or II). But the language around "terminal" is changing
Everyone wants to teach studio, so the difference maker is strong qualification to teach a core course (theory, history, ProPrac, software, construction, etc). In most cases I've seen expectation to have student contact twice number of credit hours minimum (which is fine for classroom work, but studio is much more). Starting out teaching a studio and at minimum 1 other class at 9 credit hours a week, that's 18hrs/wk min in contact hours (figure 12 studio hrs, 3hrs in class room, 2hrs office hours, few minutes each side of classes); figure another additional 6hrs/wk being engaged outside normal studio hrs + course prep time (can't imagine any less than 3 hrs for coursework and a few for studio), faculty meetings, committee meetings, organizing events... it's a lot.
I've been fortunate to be in teaching heavy universities as a student - but faculty did mention how taxing it is in in terms of their time (50~60hrs). The flip side was that the experience was invaluable as senior faculty were heavily engaged in mentoring young faculty as well as being stellar examples.
As one can see from many articles on academia and from previous posts, unless you're tenure track or are a star, the pay is low, benefits typically minimal if you're adjunct, and overall career trajectory minimal. Most faculty I know are in one of the categories of: practitioner interested in more theoretical pursuits (supporting themselves through both incomes), practitioner keeping foot in academia for interest as well as recruiting/networking (teaching income is irrelevant), theorist/historian pursuing tenure (via adjunct/assistant positions). If you can get into a full time / tenure track position it gets pretty cushy (tuition benefits and retirement plans in academia are quite nice, and the hours can be more flexible).
"If you can get into a full time / tenure track position it gets pretty cushy (tuition benefits and retirement plans in academia are quite nice, and the hours can be more flexible)." Are you saying tenure-track or tenured?
It sounds cushy, but there are a ton of requirements put on profs with tenure, for instance the requirements for publishing are typically pretty rough. And publishing is such a gamble. You could spent a ton of time on papers/research that never see the light of day. And even if you are lucky enough to get your paper written and peer reviewed in time, and chosen for publication, guess who is footing the bill for the copyrights? (Hopefully a grant or the university, but if not, it's you.)
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym. Those who can't teach gym, teach architecture.
Well, those teachers must have done something right...or not...they taught you didn't they?
Nope, switched to industrial design after freshman year.
But you're an artist, that's cheating.
And hoping I can get away with it.
So far so good
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.