it's called job training. teaching project management in school is laughable. plenty of other professions have systems in place to train people how to manage on the job. unfortunately most firms believe in a trial by fire method.

Why can't some basic knowledge of project management be taught in school?

it’s like teaching a mechanic without a car in front of them. it’s a thing you need to learn in context. i understand teaching a few more production based skills, but a) school is not the environment to teach pm skills in (there’s nothing tangible to respond to) and b) not everyone needs to learn pm skills because not everyone will be one. to me we’re letting firms off the hook by blaming schools for
not teaching certain professional skills

Couldn't they have a car in front of them as you say?

A day or two a week working with habitat for humanity or being laborers with local construction companies?

ok, but now we’re talking about understanding the construction process better.. there’s only so much content you can cram into a 4-5 year degree. it’s already an incredibly broad and nuanced education. my point is it’s very difficult to teach building codes when you might not be in the state you’ll eventually be practicing in, and project management skills when there’s no project (staff, consultants etc) to manage. if offices aren’t satisfied with their employees professional skills, then maybe they can train them better. again- happens all the time in other professions. instead we sit down recent graduates and say ok get started with rarely any type job orientation, yet the overwhelming tendency is the blame th
e education.

Shouldn't "working drawings, specifications, building codes, and project management" be the the focus or a good portion of that content though?

Entry level people are not likely to be designing anyways if I am not mistaken. And as far as I can tell almost all the theory taught is just gibberish anyways. 

Shouldn't there be a good balance of practical knowledge and theory and hands on experience?

you’re just asking questions without an explanation. most programs are fairly balanced, asking students to understand, yes, theory and history (it is school after all), as well as drawing skills, structural calculations, building assemblies, and portions of professional practice. you have yet to address my broader point that practice should also have a “good balance” of both asking their new employees to be skilled and training them in certain skills that are better taught in a professional setting. in fact, many schools have done a lot to be nimble, adapting to new technologies, standards and approaches (a good thing for schools to be doing, pushing the discipline forward..) whereas other than picking up some ne
w software most offices are stuck in the 80s.

Not sure

Panda's pov is correct. Designers are a dime a dozen. That's the easy part of school. So maybe have a 2y college level diploma in that and live with a very low career ceiling. I'm good with that. I don't have time for fresh grads who don't know shit about technical or project management. Seek a refund from your fancy designer school if you think that's not fair.

considering it’s a point of view it’s not correct; it’s a perspective. my bigger point here is everyone blames the education (where of course there is some fault), but not the offices for providing the apprenticeship new grads deserve. there are certain things, like project management, that are much easier taught in a professional setting. if anything, the current recession that is once again killing the profession isn’t architecture schools fault.. this profession has some glaring problems that go far beyond being taught too much design in school. it’s easy to point the finger, but at some point you have to move on from blaming 21 year olds coming out of school, and instead look at what offices can do better. the problem is bottom lines are so tight that there’s no time to try to address broader systemic problems in practice. so, blame school.

so, in that case when the real education is expected by private business, the blame still falls on academia for pumping out delusional kids who think their 6-figure "education" makes them rockstars. The profession is not dying in the way you explain it. It's academia's fault for glorifying architects.

Because since that training is not provided in academia... why would a client pay for the insanely overpriced degree of the lowest tier employees? Salaries come from fees clients. Fees are competitive. Clients don't have unlimited cash and projects are finite. You can't blame the market for not living up to the ridiculous standard schools paint for their students.

fun story you have but my experience is different than that. Probably because no one here is taking out a mortgage to pay for a thin design degree.