^ This, though I'd stop short of "very" easy. Architecture programs are frequently on the lookout for someone to teach a studio section, and the threshold is often cleared with a decent portfolio. There are plenty of upsides to this arrangement, but a full-time, secure livelihood it ain't.

fair point.. i'll redact the "very"

don't get me wrong, I like architecture. I just don't like the lifestyle of an architect. Also, I have always liked the theories that are usually hard to be implemented in the real world. From my own experience, most of the times in both studios and in big architecture firms, unless I own one. I understand what you mean, but student works, in exploring creativity than reality are also worth a lot. But the lifestyle is the big part of my decision.

or at least a foot in the door for a significant amount of time before you leave it- i trust professors who, even if no longer in professional practice, had a long resume of professional work; i can see the value in full-time faculty who are entirely committed to their programs. very little experience however and i'm suspect like whistler.

also, "theories that can't be implemented in the real world" don't belong in a discipline that is exclusively concerned with material things being built. as someone who teaches, i'm incredibly suspect of architecture "theory," whatever that means. for some disciplines, theory can be successfully isolated from praxis, but absolutely not in architecture.

Theory in some schools have nothing at all to do with the practice of architecture - for the worse, I think. You'd be writing on architecture as a field of study rather than the profession of designing the built environment. Most likely, you'll be writing and curating exhibitions on other people who are doing the exact same thing. Then you organize symposiums and lectures to talk about what your friends/colleagues are talking about. Its a very small, insular circle. Topics include French philosophy, semantics, the idea and image of architecture, and whatever is in vogue in other academic circles ten years ago. Faculties looking for some newfangled lens to wrangle the idea of buildings came across OOO a few years back and milked it for a healthy number of symposiums and exhibitions.

not sure I understand you completely, but i would love to slowly transition. In regards to theory, (not sure I understand you) but I meant it as - I work in one of the big named architecture studios, and I feel like I'm just a working robot, and I actually like looking at student works, though seem unrealistic in an architect/client's perspective. Whether or not theories can be implemented in practice, depends more on where you work I guess, or would not belong in this thread.

edit: I actually don't think we're all in terms with what architecture theory is? For I know, Rem is a master in analyzing theories, and history. Which could be explored more in the study, but would be kind of useless in firms, at least in my firm, which is already a named international studio. BUT that is not what I want to do in academia, I just don't feel like I can be an architect as in lifestyle, with my personal issues. 

Thanks @trashbandicoot, I was wondering if it would be easier if I do phd, to transition completely to academia.

on point monosierra with OOO - a philosophical concept, developed through real theoretical work, misapplied to architectural practices that serve to do nothing more than "distinguish" them as a brand, thus justifying their principals's place as tenured faculty. like you say, it's all one big circle jerk.