I'm curious about how Bartlett grads are viewed in the industry, within UK itself but also outside (Europe and the US). I've heard stuff about employers within the UK having a sort of love-hate relationship with how they view Bartlett architecture grads (due to the non-architectural/conceptual nature of the course...Is this true? And, how about within the US? Is an architectural degree from the Bartlett seen at par with a degree from Harvard GSD?
this shouldn't be taken personally- but at the entry level, i think most firms care a lot more about cutting costs than hiring "talent," at the very least striking a balance between the two that leans more heavily towards cost savings (though a lot of firms try to have their cake and eat it too here, which leads to them being shitty). let's be honest- arch firms don't command the types of salaries that allow them to poach talent like tech firms. at the end of the day, entry design positions and candidates are a dime a dozen. i don't think this holds true for mid and higher level positions, though.
side note- it's a bit unfair in my mind to expect people to be "talented" in order to be viewed as worthy; expecting the exceptional out of everyone for low pay is a problem across the industry.
I think that is a short sighted view - especially for small to medium firms. My first position out of school was because of my talent. To quote the partner I interviewed with that day " I don't care about how well you know AutoCAD. We're not hiring a drafter, we're hiring talent. We will teach you to be a good drafter. We can't teach someone talent."
You are correct though that untalented entry design positrons and candidates are a dime a dozen. So are PA's and PM's with mediocre design skills.
I'd like to add that I'm not saying you have to be exceptionally talented to be worthy. You do need to be good at what you do, be that design, detailing, management, ect. What really pisses me off is the view that fresh grads are only good for cheap drafting labor. That's incredibly short sighted and stupid. The idea is to mentor and teach the fresh grads. Not pay them nothing to pick up redlines all day.
That's not you foster the development of a good architect.
Jul 27, 21 11:26 am ·
·
square.
What really pisses me off is the view that fresh grads are only good for cheap drafting labor.
i agree, 100%. but actions speak louder than words or intent on this one, and based on both comments on this forum as well as my observation working in several firms and with colleagues, i think more often than not firms signal one thing but behave a different way- whether paying little, demanding long hours, bad vacation/time off policies, giving little to no voice to decisions etc. i know your firm isn't like this, but there are many that are.
i also am pushing back a little from something i hear often on this forum (not from you), which is that recent grads have adverse delusions of grandeur, but then are typically asked to be talented, special, and above the cut wherever they land. this is a little bit of that cake thing i was talking about.
Competitive is what I would use to describe the field of architecture. If you can be at the top of the pyramid. Congrats. If not, well, you know what happens. Just don't be a jerk and call others untalented for not able to get into good firms. When you take a good spot, someone has to take the bad spot or leave the field. And honestly, I feel networking, office politics, and nepotism have more power than your "talent".
And honestly, I feel networking, office politics, and nepotism have more power than your "talent".
absolutely agree with this- i stopped believing a while ago that talent and merit are the main things get people to the "top." i was always described as a talented student, but the only reason i am at the job that i am is because of connections. maybe talent was what allowed me to be taken seriously, but i wasn't landing good job interviews until i got a direct referral.
On last thing. I am still surprised by the amount of people who normalize the idea that architects are expected to work long hours, for little pay, and not have any sort of work life balance. I've been working in the field of architecture for over 15 years at seven firms and NEVER experienced this. I know that there are shitty firms like like square describes. I've just been lucky and steered clear of them. This is even with being a type 1 diabetic who requires good employee provided health insurance to survive. Then again I've never worked in in a major metropolitan area so that could be why I've been so lucky.
Are you familiar with the work they do? Google ‘Bartlett CJ Lim Studio’ for example...
Jul 28, 21 5:57 am ·
·
mitbos
Do you even go to Bartlett? Courses are organized really different here comparing with the US. Once you pick a unit, you stuck with it. So 95% of people here don't get to take a class with CJ
Jul 30, 21 11:52 pm ·
·
mitbos
Bartlett is super technical. Students here are extremely skillful at using all different sorts of software and advanced technology. In contrast, traditional and historical non technical theories are the weaknesses here. If you're interested in construction of traditional wood houses, Yale is the place to go; pouring a lot of concrete, Cornell is the place.
How are Bartlett architecture graduates viewed?
I'm curious about how Bartlett grads are viewed in the industry, within UK itself but also outside (Europe and the US). I've heard stuff about employers within the UK having a sort of love-hate relationship with how they view Bartlett architecture grads (due to the non-architectural/conceptual nature of the course...Is this true? And, how about within the US? Is an architectural degree from the Bartlett seen at par with a degree from Harvard GSD?
like all other arch grads- cheap labor, and not much more.
Only if you're not talented and work for a shitty firm that views interns as labor.
this shouldn't be taken personally- but at the entry level, i think most firms care a lot more about cutting costs than hiring "talent," at the very least striking a balance between the two that leans more heavily towards cost savings (though a lot of firms try to have their cake and eat it too here, which leads to them being shitty). let's be honest- arch firms don't command the types of salaries that allow them to poach talent like tech firms. at the end of the day, entry design positions and candidates are a dime a dozen. i don't think this holds true for mid and higher level positions, though.
side note- it's a bit unfair in my mind to expect people to be "talented" in order to be viewed as worthy; expecting the exceptional out of everyone for low pay is a problem across the industry.
I think that is a short sighted view - especially for small to medium firms. My first position out of school was because of my talent. To quote the partner I interviewed with that day " I don't care about how well you know AutoCAD. We're not hiring a drafter, we're hiring talent. We will teach you to be a good drafter. We can't teach someone talent."
You are correct though that untalented entry design positrons and candidates are a dime a dozen. So are PA's and PM's with mediocre design skills.
I'd like to add that I'm not saying you have to be exceptionally talented to be worthy. You do need to be good at what you do, be that design, detailing, management, ect. What really pisses me off is the view that fresh grads are only good for cheap drafting labor. That's incredibly short sighted and stupid. The idea is to mentor and teach the fresh grads. Not pay them nothing to pick up redlines all day.
That's not you foster the development of a good architect.
What really pisses me off is the view that fresh grads are only good for cheap drafting labor.
i agree, 100%. but actions speak louder than words or intent on this one, and based on both comments on this forum as well as my observation working in several firms and with colleagues, i think more often than not firms signal one thing but behave a different way- whether paying little, demanding long hours, bad vacation/time off policies, giving little to no voice to decisions etc. i know your firm isn't like this, but there are many that are.
i also am pushing back a little from something i hear often on this forum (not from you), which is that recent grads have adverse delusions of grandeur, but then are typically asked to be talented, special, and above the cut wherever they land. this is a little bit of that cake thing i was talking about.
Competitive is what I would use to describe the field of architecture. If you can be at the top of the pyramid. Congrats. If not, well, you know what happens. Just don't be a jerk and call others untalented for not able to get into good firms. When you take a good spot, someone has to take the bad spot or leave the field. And honestly, I feel networking, office politics, and nepotism have more power than your "talent".
And honestly, I feel networking, office politics, and nepotism have more power than your "talent".
absolutely agree with this- i stopped believing a while ago that talent and merit are the main things get people to the "top." i was always described as a talented student, but the only reason i am at the job that i am is because of connections. maybe talent was what allowed me to be taken seriously, but i wasn't landing good job interviews until i got a direct referral.
I agree 100%.
On last thing. I am still surprised by the amount of people who normalize the idea that architects are expected to work long hours, for little pay, and not have any sort of work life balance. I've been working in the field of architecture for over 15 years at seven firms and NEVER experienced this. I know that there are shitty firms like like square describes. I've just been lucky and steered clear of them. This is even with being a type 1 diabetic who requires good employee provided health insurance to survive. Then again I've never worked in in a major metropolitan area so that could be why I've been so lucky.
they’re seen as having overdeveloped graphics skills and underdeveloped technical skills...for your typical architecture office.
I think that perception can be very incorrect.
Are you familiar with the work they do? Google ‘Bartlett CJ Lim Studio’ for example...
Do you even go to Bartlett? Courses are organized really different here comparing with the US. Once you pick a unit, you stuck with it. So 95% of people here don't get to take a class with CJ
Bartlett is super technical. Students here are extremely skillful at using all different sorts of software and advanced technology. In contrast, traditional and historical non technical theories are the weaknesses here. If you're interested in construction of traditional wood houses, Yale is the place to go; pouring a lot of concrete, Cornell is the place.
I’m just saying how they’re viewed...
artsy wankers
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.