It's a cloistered circle - you could build a career teaching, writing and talking about what your colleagues are teaching, writing, and talking about. You do a symposium on what I'm thinking - and I write an article on what you're talking about. Then we all hold an exhibition on what we're jabbering on, be it politics or French philosophy. In the meantime, let's not build anything and instead mock architectural professionals for "selling out". But who's going to pay for our apartments and charrettes!

Ah, here comes that sweet tuition fee from Chinese students - and all the free, visa-less labor they can provide. Have them attend classes where we teach them all about what we are up to.

Maybe someday we can anoint one of them to join our hallowed circle to continue the cycle of teaching, writing, and talking.

Seems like it's causing a lot of drama within SCI-Arc as well as online.

Semantic discussion of office vs. other words which mean office? Seriously?

It's the only way they can justify their taking advantage of people. It's not unethical if we call it something different and pretend like everyone who participates in this other thing is different and special somehow and we all understand the costs involved [wink, wink].

Step 1: Admit you need us more than we need you. "Put yourself in a mode of learning..."

If an ENTIRE INDUSTRY is told to only accept jobs that allow their WORK to define themselves, we're totally fucked as a species.

The only reason they believe that they can pull this shit, is because they are SCI-Arc, and not a state school. Which is so fucking elitist. The thing is though, a lot of what they said is almost intrinsic to the process of getting an architectural education, so much so, that I wanted to say, bitch, what are you smoking.

There's a remarkably lucrative niche for writers who cannot compete with the pros, philosophy PhDs who have no business in an actual doctorate program, and artists who lack the technical ability and imagination to make a career as a full fledged artist - you find them all in architecture departments like this, where they make a pretty penny as dilettantes surrounded by friends and family. As "architects" who dabble in everything but architecture, they're not held to any standards - not as artists, authors, philosophers, historians, and certainly not designers. There is no objective way to assess what they do in their self-sustaining world.

A few years back at the GSD some poor philosophy student wandered into a panel discussion hosted by KMH. During the Q&A said student pointed out several flaws, many fatal, in KMH and the panel's reading of Foucault. After an increasingly tense exchange, KMH threw up his hands and said "I don't have to use Foucault correctly, I can use him however I want!  Stop pestering me!"

An apt if unintentional summary of the standards to which architecture faculty are held.  

The hot subjects for archi professor dilettantism at this moment are environmental and social sciences.

... but the live chat was on:

Completely understand that. I think the archispeak dwindles the further you get into it ... but if you still can't get through it at least do the brave person who asked this question the honor of listening to it and then the complete dismissal of a response in the hemming and hawing that comes after it (starts at 1:16:43 ... https://youtu.be/iszdoZCdWZE?t=4603)

Rage inducing stupidity. You're a fucking professor and you didn't even have the decency to LISTEN TO THE QUESTION. Nobody gives a flying lefthanded FUCK about your cute little job at 15. Your school traps students into an unlivable condition with promises that it cannot deliver on, then proceeds to tell them that maybe they're in the wrong place? Get the fuck out of here, lady.

What a lying ass.

That was an exceedingly poor response to what didn't even have to be a hard question. As much as people complain about the profession, the reality is that entry level pay at most firms (not run as a hobby) have livable pay. Do they not even realize this?

I just noticed I typed 15 when she said 16. Considering I was excoriating her for not listening, the irony is a bit rich.

The salaries are par for the course at a fancy art school. What I find egregious is the alleged blackmailing of students and coerced free student labor by the program director and his missus, who also happens to run both his studio and his theory department.

I think this gives some context. To your point.

It does put into context his decision to take full advantage of his power over students instead of paying out of pocket for labor. Insurance, a healthy pay package for the missus, free student labor, access to fab equipment ... ah, to be the program head of Sci-Arc.

those salaries do not include bonuses, btw

I really hate the overused word “toxic” but arch school is truly toxic.

Some are. Some aren't.

True.

Yeah, not exactly the person I'd want to take this type of advice from. I wonder if she was thinking of capitalization? It could bite a lot of students if they don't understand how it all works during deferment or forbearance periods.

https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/loans/interest-rates#capitalization

It's a case of the messenger messing up the message because of who he/she is. The points she is making are undermined by the recent allegations at TW - especially the abuse of power by the principal via his dual roles as boss and program director. Not to mention pilfering student work. 'Getting shit done' is a perfectly fine adage by it's own but it can be twisted to the purposes of whoever wields more power in a work relationship - "You gotta get shit done for free FOR THE GREATER GOOD of (my) architectural doodles, which will greatly benefit humanity"

monosierra, I can see how the messenger (amid recent allegations at TW) can distort how one reads and interprets the message but the culture of "reading into things" is also not healthy. I agree where you are coming from when a good point and message is twisted for some purpose of abusive exploitation for the benefit of the 'whoever' that wields more power in a work relationship.

For those who may come across this thread in the future, I want to be clear that part of the reason I was ignoring the controversy as I was writing my responses above is that this current controversy at Sci-Arc because I haven't studied up on the controversy issues enough to be confident on talking to it, specifically. At the moment, I treat allegations as that... allegations. I am not sure of the truth in the matter but what is clearly fact is that there is a controversy at Sci-Arc, right now. I do agree with there being systemic issues of architecture school, internship, etc. I reserve my opinion on that. There must be some kernal of fact in any controversy and all those students can't be entirely wrong. If there is this kind of exploitation in any and all architecture school and the profession, unethical exploitation must come to an end as there is nothing right about doing such things... ever. I am still trying to wrap my head around this but I can thank Everyday_Architect, and Katherine (in the recent Archinect editorial/article or whatever we call it) for their take and Katherine's summarization. It is helping in those key points. When exploiters exploits students while giving what are fine points (when you take the words for what they mean) and twist it through unethical exploitation, it distorts the message and that harms the profession of architecture.

also the condescension is so palpable.. the flexing about hiring and firing, describing the students are ripe and prime for exploitation. any student here now - gtfo, your "professors," though i hesitate to use this term because there is hardly any intellectual rigor and only a pathetic thirst for power in a weak profression, have no respect for you and see you as nothing more as replaceable drones.

There is no business case for his practice to be around. And there is no artistic case too, given how much of the stuff the office produces is student work. These people enjoy playing the role of architects. Perhaps many years ago, they had been legit designers. But now they sit bloating and gloating on the fat of academic largesse.

Square, I couldn't agree more about the lack of rigor and discipline. The lecture by TW was total BS. There is a huge difference between the discards surrounding the development of the nucleus of an idea and a flotsam mashup of arbitrary ideas. It was insulting.

queue "we're being canceled" + "what about free speech" etc etc

Looks like half of the faculty should be put on administrative leave and investigated. Cut all the salaries in half!

If Wiscombe and friend start ratting on their colleagues who are doing the same unpaid shickt ... What are the odds this practice is well known in school and Wiscombe got caught only when he went too far i.e. the alleged blackmail threat by his missus

Close down Sci-Arc -- it should have been done about 15 years ago though.

How to “be” vs how to “work” or “operate” or “succeed”. The word “be” reveals the problem. It’s a Freudian slip

The schadenfreude is worth it.

my favorite line: "i too hire and fire sci-arc students"

it's a student-organized 'base camp' talking about some positive experiences of recent graduates. Noticeably is that students are supportive of their classmates and other recent graduates and current students. The language reflects current generational thinking and it has a survivalist tone. The times are different than throwing rocks and barricading the gates, these guys are talking clearly about the nonpaying and/or abusive faculty jobs surfaced on 'base camp' panels and saying those jobs are not the only ones. Very useful messages and very calmly stated.
I am an ancient graduate and this whole event wouldn't bode very well with my classmates. Barricades would be set up.
These kids, however soft-spoken, are, smarter. We were combatant. 

It is like an SCI-Arc tradition. Every now and then students rise against the situation that bothers them. It is in the school's DNA. Sort of checks and balances.

I don't think their situation is not unique in any way. This is everywhere. Everyone is paying attention because it is happening at sciarc.

Thanks for sharing this Orhan. Completely different vibe after listening/watching the twitch stream for a few minutes compared to the basecamp.

More of this, less of that.

Knowing some of the panelists, they are not necessarily evil people nor are they there to exploit students. A lot of them really believe they are helping the students. All of them pay however minimum that pay is. The architectural workforce is a different culture now with better life quality expectations and recognition of their creative labor. This is a good wake-up call from the bottom up. The fringes that the panelists operate aren't at the center of today's architectural practice where thousands of new graduates find employment.

Happy Cesar Chavez Day everyone!

That wig makes him look like an anime villain.

It’s tempting to blame individuals, especially when they are overflowing with elitist cringe, but in reality this all comes down to the licensing process and the vague “intern” position propped up by occupational licensing law.

Like with law school, licensing should be granted upon graduation and test.

x-jla wrote: 

"sci arc is an interesting and unique place. The students know what they are getting. "

How do you know this?  In my experience most students don't know how unethical unpaid internships are.  Nor are they aware of how faculty are able to take advantage of them.  They have no other frame of reference or experience in this other than what their professors tell them.  

x-jla wrote: 

 “The problem is not that professors are evil and predatory, but that there really isn’t an established definition in the profession for interns. “ 

I disagree.

In the practice of architecture there is a clear and established legal definition of what an intern is and what their responsibilities can be. 

The issue is that some firms and schools do not disclose or accept what that definition is. Instead, they express what their interpretation of what an intern should be. In most cases this interpretation is only bifacial to the firm / school and is detrimental to the interns. This is the definition of being predatory, and in my opinion being rather evil. 

In addition, each state has separate definitions on what a professional is and this impacts how interns can or can not be paid for their services.  That is how unethical people are able to take advantage of interns.  

Because I’ve been there several times, and have colleagues who went there. Again, you’re not comprehending.

The students know what they are getting in terms of the artsy lean of the school.

Isn't the allegation that the internships were unpaid with vague or never explicitly stated promises of rewards that never appeared? Debate the merits and demerits of licensure all you like, but I thought this was worse than the standard "work for exposure" bullshit.

“Intern” and “employee” should be two complete different things. In architecture and landscape there is this weird mix. It’s dumb and unnecessary. Licensing upon graduation would remove the firm’s ability to be career gatekeepers. With that, comes too much potential for abuse. Useless schools graduate useless grads, then dump the responsibility on firms to teach them to be useful on their dime. It’s an obvious recipe for what has happened. True Apprenticeships can be integrated into school programs. Upon graduating one would have that exposure, and can test. The laws prop this system up. Ultimately it’s only beneficial to the university and to a minority of predatory employers. Most employers would prefer to hire competent employees rather than have to supplement education, deal with idp, etc.

Someone write this down. I agree with JLA.

Problem is that most of the professors and "leadership" is extremely monolithic - privileged, well to do, non-diverse and Euro/American. Ok Hernan is Argentinian, but you get the point. Most of these idiots are totally unaware of the travails of what a middle-class student faces in their daily lives, in school and after. Pretty amazing when Margaret Griffin is asked a question by and international student and she totally fumbles up the answer.

Forget Sci-Arc, the AIA (if it had any cojones) should stop these jerks from practicing ever again.

In a way, I agree with x-jla and Sneakypete's agreement to x-jla. Honestly, we should ultimately get rid of unpaid internships altoegether and remove all exceptions that exists in any federal or state law. If you do anything for a for-profit entity, you get paid. Volunteering should only exist for non-profit / religious entities (that falls into the non-profit realm like when a congregation member volunteers to usher at worship services or stuff like that which are of very limited time commitment. 

On the other hand, most architectural firms are for-profit entities (even though some or possibly, as some may argue, most runs them like a non-profit because of poor business skills) and therefore should pay for every second that person works for them, fairly. Just because you suck at business does not make it a non-profit. People who are hired (employed to work), should be paid fair compensation. Business owners are not necessarily employees in the legal sense and therefore may or may not be paid a salary in the normal sense as would be an employee. 

I don't necessarily agree that all architectural firms should be required to provide a path to ownership stake in the firm as some have stated somewhere. There are times where opening up path to becoming a firm owner (shareholder, LLC member, etc.) may make sense but I don't think it should be rigidly mandated. Employees are not necessarily entitled profit-sharing nor should it be mandated.... that makes them a shareholder. However, it might be better to pay them better wages or salaries as a baseline and invest more into employees, and adjust fees and business practices as needed but that is something the firm owners needs to discern how best to do it in the competitive environment. 

If the profession decided to work on some plan to systematically increase how much they charge clients without collusion then over time, that may make for more financially sustainable business practice. It's a studio and an office, and a business. It is all of those things. It's not merely a cause even if a cause may be at the heart of your mission statement as a business and why you are an architect and how you want to serve clients.

x- jla wrote : 

 “Because I’ve been there several times and have colleagues who went there. Again, you’re not comprehending.” 

My comprehension is just find. You have a reputation here for being dishonest and stating options as facts.  As such I'm not going trust much of what you say.   You should have stated that you have experience with SCI-Arch.   I'm still going need a little more information before I can lend credibility to what you're saying.

 When was the last time you were at SCI-Arc? 

When did you collages attend SCI-Arc? 

When is the last time you spoke with students attending SCI-Arc?

x- jla - I do agree with you about there needing be a difference between an intern and an employee. 

 I was fortunate and my college provided me with a lot of practical coursework and design projects. This type of education was able to prepare me to work in an actual firm on actual projects. Just barely though. There was still a lot more to learn and experience before I could be considered 'good' at my profession.  Even after 20 years in this profession I'm still learning.  That will never stop.  

Homie wants to make sure he doesn't lose his 260k (+ bonuses) yearly salary. What workshops? Didn't many of his staff quit recently?

He likely forced one of the lowly serfs in his office to draft the manuscript for his apology tour.

"We want to change at TWA. There has to be a better way for a small office like ours to both survive and thrive. Has to. We are committed to figuring out how we can make a creative environment where our colleagues feel more enfranchised and less micromanaged, which we understand can be demotivating."

Kudos, Tom and Marrikka, for realizing your business model isn't sustainable. Tell your friends. I wish you and TWA the best of luck in figuring out how to become a profitable and creative business. And if you can't figure it out, I wish you a happy bankruptcy. In the meantime, I wish everyone who attempts to work for/with TWA the ability to stand up for yourself and better working conditions.

Its pretty amazing that it took the better part of 20 years for the collective profession to try and out TW. He's been known as a zero-worth d-bag since the early 2000s at least, and all of this just proves that hes gotten much worse.

They're done for if they lose the academic positions. Insurance, paycheck for the missus, fab facilities, student labor, the aura of being part of a hip school.

He's STILL at Sci Arc? Man, between these and Richard Meier harassing his employees architecture is going toe to toe with the film business in terms of unholy characters.
I'd wager if the two victims had been the size of football players, this Alexis chap would not have dared assaulted them.

Heh it's funny you mentioned the film industry since the same phenomenon is reflected in the gaming industry as well (Blizzard employee sexual assault anyone?)

Man, the cultural businesses are all warped. Entertainment, gaming, sports, design ... power asymmetry galore meets passion industries where one's sense of worth is much more defined by one's work than in other professions.

What's amazing about most Sciarc instructors (including the Head) is that they probably couldn't get jobs stocking shelves at Costco. This is where they will all stay till they retire.

Once you're in ... you're in for life - unless you eff up monumentally like TW did, which now threatens all their livelihood.

"I'm sorry you feel that way" vibes.

That's probably the smarter direction legally...

I love that we all live in fear of litigation. It really makes things more human.

"We didn't do anything wrong and we'll never do it again."

I agree. The things is that most architecture will not leave a lasting mark in history or make life better for their users. The architects that do accomplish this don't have to tell people that their work dose this.

Having buildings is generally better than not. I'd argue not making life better for users, but I'll give you the mark in history.

Yes, perhaps I am being a little harsh when I say Griffin's buildings don't make life better but she sure talked her creative credentials up and when I look at her buildings I see a lot of Southern California buildings with all white interiors, huge skylights, and oversized window walls with no roof overhang. That translates to users having to either wear sunglasses inside or suffer from eyestrain, not to mention faded furnishings, art, and books. But as you said at least she has real buildings and I tip my hat to her for that.

natematt wrote:

 "Having buildings is generally better than not."

I disagree. 

I know plenty of buildings that actually made the users lives worse. Look to any failed public housing project for numerous examples.  

 That's not including the buildings that didn't meet the users needs and were demolished. Then there are the short life buildings that serve a temporary niche market. The resources wasted and pollution created in these types of 'disposable' projects have made people lives worse as a whole.

He'll drop the AIA designation.

Mmmmm - not sure about since 1994. This is the exact language I wrote to be incorporate for the national awards programs. It was passed in 2015, sponsored by AIA Georgia, and was the closest vote ever to having a true unanimous, unopposed resolution up to that point (one delegate voted against solely because he didn't like the retroactive tracking). The language (verbatim as here or with small modifications) has since been incorporated into many of the state and local awards. The previous language was more vague, had no time limit on it, and had no teeth to enforce it.

Wow. That seems kind of low. Some retail and fast food places here in flyover country USA are offering more than that at the moment.

During the Great Recession I would have taken this in a heartbeat. The truth is I took much less than this right out of school at firms ($13-14/hr), and worked for less than this during the summers to help pay for college (usually around $10-12/hr) ... at that time these weren't great paying gigs, but they were good enough to not feel exploited.

I think entry level wages in architecture are lagging behind other industries at the moment and they'll need to catch up or we'll find ourselves in an industry where no one from lesser means will ever be able to make it. Those competitive wages in retail and fast food are probably leading indicators of wage growth because the companies are run profitably enough they can manage the increase. I'm not sure architecture can manage it when firms are still relying on side hustles like teaching at SCI-Arc to keep the lights on. We need a restructuring of the business model to keep young architects paid well enough to stay in the profession.

I don't know if it's going to be convincing owners to pay us more based on value added, or we need to chase down other revenue streams, or something else entirely. But, in my opinion, if you're leading a firm or thinking of going out on your own you need to be thinking of this. If not, you might as well find someone to buy you out now or expect to be bankrupt sometime in the next 10 years.

reallynotmyname - Fast food and retail workers make more because they are valued more than architect. It's that simple.

It's the hard truth of our industry that people don't talk about.  

The University of Cincinnati salaries are averaged over all levels from Freshman to Seniors. The students farther along in their schooling are paid more as are the really talented students. What is the hourly rate at SCI-Arc?

The change in the system need to happen all the way from the top - from the clients' side. As much as I hate the way Mayne etc behave, the truth is that a well-designed project will always take up more time and money than Joe Shmoe Architect down the street will take up. BUT an firm that wants to do decent work gets paid the same as Joe Shmoe architects. Hence the firm owners squeeze the employees, so on and so forth.

That said, firms like TWA do not really fit in the "good work" category, they are just parasites that keep sucking off of their students and collect bullshit AIA awards in return.

I'll gladly eat these words if proven false, but the AIA would never open that can of worms. They'd have to revoke so many awards over the years they'd never know where to stop.

There is a retroactive component you're certifying to when you apply. Realistically, it was almost impossible to claw back a 15 year old award if it wasn't part of the criteria then. But, yes, I have seen someone challenge a firm who won locally on the grounds that they were using unpaid labor. 

I don't disagree. I was simply making a point about why TWA values the AIA membership. BTW, the requirement has been in place since 1994, so it's been part of the criteria for a long, long time. Also, it sounds like, from the Town Hall recordings, that TWA believes that he does pay his interns--$3k/month. However, when you require 13hrs/day and 7 days/week, it drops well below minimum wage. There is no way that interns would be categorized as "exempt" employees, so the time and half rules kick in as well.

There was an article some time ago about the awful working conditions of adjunct faculty across the country - even as they spend even more time on the job as professors who should be teaching classes are busy doing research or lecture tours.

oh i just posted this too, on Sean's editorial. The staggering thing which the article doesn't emphasize enough is that this isn't some shady business or greedy owner, this is a public institution 'offering' unpaid jobs to qualified candidates! even in non-profit organizations, the notion of 'purpose' is exploitative.

I love everything you said. Please please please stick around to contribute to this and other discussions. Your voice is a refreshing one. Thank you so much for your insight

Exactly. It's great content, without being a wall of impenetrability.

Well said. 

Hard to respond to any one of your well made points individually, but I will say that among them all, I would relish seeing more practitioners teaching.

though i don't disagree with any of this, and think it's incredibly perceptive, it still paints a bleak picture of not only academia, but particularly the profession. seems to me the profession has lost many of its aspirational qualities, and every year more and more attention has to be paid to increasingly complex issues of money and technology, along with a faster pace of work, client demands, etc.

while i'm not condoning it by any means, i understand the impulse of the "art studios," attempting to hold onto any of the humanities side of architecture. unfortunately, i think it's gone, and i'm pessimistic that it will ever return. the decline started with cad and is all but assured with bim. now, as this post says, it's exclusively a business that has to manage increasingly complex demands; perhaps both sides would be better off if they accepted reality.

Agree with everything you're saying, but I take issue about the Paul Sehnert contract favored towards the University story. 

You either play by their rules, or you aren't awarded the work. 

In my short career so far no series institutional client negotiates their contracts. That is, the actual agreement, not necessarily the proposal and it's terms.

When you capitulate to the degree the profession has, there's only so much ground you can retake.

exactly- like i said, incredibly pessimistic over here.. feels like the last few years have been a grieving process, recently moving into acceptance, which means moving on.

What you seem to be suggesting is a technical education instead of a college education. If that is what you mean,
I couldn't disagree more.

i'm not sure i have the solution here - but there is a huge ontological disconnect between what one does in order to prepare through education for an almost unrecognizable profession. i'm torn because on the one hand i absolutely loved my architecture education, especially the unique studio model, but on the other, 90% of the values of the environment is rejected by practice, and i don't see it getting any better.

maybe it's too cynical, but in my mind the two are growing too far apart to reconcile. perhaps the quality of the experience in education is enough to justify it, but i absolutely reject the notion that an aspirational model of education is going to be able to amend what is lacking in practice; the forces there are too strong.

Too bad the working conditions, benefits,  and job security for that line of work are worse than architecture.  

Last Week Tonight had a good episode on that recently.

Yeah, and if you hit Tracey Morgan again, we gon have problems.

I thought that was the only perk of being a Walmart truck driver . . .

He's a fully functional, adult white man, he'll be fine to take a hit here.

Up until this Sci Arch thing I'd never heard of Wiscombe or Prix and had never seen any of their work.

Chad, I am surprised you never heard of Wolf Prix - Coop Himmelbau was all the rage in the 90s. I wont lie, I used to like photos of their stuff but started hating them when I got to visit one of their buildings. Total garbage. And hearing the stories of abuse that Wolf used to subject his students to, I am convinced they are pure, unfiltered shit. So you didn't miss anything by not knowing them. Tom Wiscombe is another level of shit - at least Wolf has some built work to show.

High School #9 is a great building, regardless of how terrible of people designed it.

...is it?

Sameold - well I graduated arch school in 2002 so Prix would of been popular when I was in high school . . . .

I like the way you think.

I absolutely agree with everything you said, but don't lay it all at the feet of the hated boomers. As a boomer myself, I can tell you that this suffer-for-your-art mentality was firmly established when we embarked on our own career journeys. We pulled the same all-nighters and got the same hard-ons reading the Fountainhead as you. FLW was running the same students-as-free-labor scam at Taliesin in the thirties. It is a very old story in this profession. The difference is that while a stint at Taliesin might have genuinely been a worthwhile career investment, these days every hack firm grinding out strip centers and masonite condominiums thinks it is a creative atelier worthy of slavering dedication. And they get away with it because the supply of architects and near-architects vastly exceeds the available worthwhile opportunities. The only answer is a reduction in supply, but I don't see a realistic scenario for it.

@geezertect I agree this culture of exhaustion and exploitation has been handed down the generational pipeline - but it needs to stop. It's antiquated and out of touch with the real world. It paints architecture as a luxury further alienating those who may contribute significantly but cannot due to age old politics that hold the profession back. Architecture has been falling behind. The problem is also leadership. Our mentors, teachers, employers, and professional organizations have been complicit in carrying this outdated mindset forward. I'm glad sci-arc is actively and openly looking into these issues, but without our leaders stepping in and listening, we will get nowhere.

I agree.  The problem is that those who might be in a position to fix things don't perceive a personal advantage in doing  so.

Yup! And what you said about strip mall firms demanding expensive degrees is absolutely true and comical. Its always these bottom tier bullshit "offices" 1-8 employees with the most egregious "qualifications"... lol

Even if you work for a developer or large corporate office it will take you 30 years to pay off $350K in student loan debt. The average pay for a fresh grad is around $41K a year. Keep in mind those numbers are skewed from the higher pay in large costal metropolitan areas.

SCI-Arc has been (at best) a vertical marketing scheme since EOM's crew deposed Neil Denari.

It should be a criminal offence to charge 50k (tuition alone) for 7 years to study architecture. The first thing that should have been addressed by the panel was how on earth can they justify working for a school that charges 50k a year (for seven years in order to get the M.Arch to get licensed) knowing that graduates will be earning circa 40k (if they are lucky) a year. It makes zero financial sense and its plain wrong. Charging that kind of tuition is killing the profession and future basic life opportunities (i.e. having a family) for aspiring architects.

Yeah, 50k for the privilege of working for free! But, one has to seriously ask what the students (and maybe their parents) are thinking. If they are intelligent enough to complete such a program, then they should have enough common sense to know bullshit when they smell it.

They need to charge such amounts of tuition so that Hernan can make half a mil per year, and TW can make 300k

there's a lot of cultural/societal/economic forces pressuring people to pursue expensive degrees - this is a common enough problem across not only this industry, but many others, that blaming individuals for bad decisions isn't getting at the heart of the issue.

'm sure when you weren't a geezer it wasn't even remotely possible to take a degree for 50k a year, in which case, you have no credibility in assessing the validity of such a decision.

@ Chad - I can assure you recent grads in Atlanta are getting a lot more than 41k. Also, 5 years is the max anyone needs to do a degree. If you want a Masters... I think you'd want to go somewhere where the tuition/fees are much lower. SCI-Arc - like any private school IMHO - needs to demonstrate a significant increase in long term value to justify the expense now (and I've got degrees from a public school and private school).

Gregory Walker - I'm aware of that. 

I should of been more clear in my post - it's the national average pay for a first year intern.  $41K is the national average.  Some places will pay much more, some much less. Hence an average.

The average first year intern pay in Atlanta is $52K. If you remove the top and bottom 10% of pay then the average drops to around $44K.  

The irony is the state where Sci-Arc is located, you don't need a degree to get licensed as an architect. Perhaps a community college education and maybe a 4 year BA/BS in architecture from a public university/state college is maybe enough if architecture firms in California calibrate the pay appropriate. Sure, maybe the first couple years pay might be $31K to $41K, then those with 3-5 years experience gets paid between $40K and $50K. Those with between 5 to 10 years of experience would be about $60K to $70K. This initial lower level of pay might be reflected in the work that may be needed for in-office training practicum. Once licensed, the starting pay being $75K a year and is then calibrated based on number of years of Post-licensure experience. I know firms may vary as they are able but this is something that is a ballpark figure that I would think would be somewhat fair and may need adjustments for specific local cost of living adjustments because cost varies wildly in California. In higher cost of living areas, I might say the figures be bumped up say 50% to doubling the above figures. That depends on where you are.

I would encourage firms to figure out ways to build into their practice some form of curriculum training that maybe a step above just logging hours for AXP but furthering the education and training of new employees. In which case, an initial pay might be lower like closer to minimum wage for those without an NAAB accredited degree. However, the pay rate increases with a PAID structured internship period where employees are paid but guided. AXP provides elements to it but helping new employees in this period of their career as emerging professionals to develop while they are working with you on projects is important. Sure, if they had all this properly taught to them at the architecture school level then they would be coming into the firm at a higher initial pay rate. Firms should encourage a "mentor-supervisor" to mentor, guide, and supervise these individuals. This is particularly important if you hire people without NAAB accredited degrees but I think we can argue that is true in many cases for even those with NAAB accredited degrees.

I would be inclined to agree that having better preparation to be profitable out of school would serve as a benefit. Maybe we should have a more well-rounded curriculum in practice and theory.

@rcz1001 NAAB accredited degrees are not as significantly more valuable as you would expect. A 4-year BS/BA architecture degree will do the same work a 5-year Bachelors or Masters will out of school. You will be paid the same. You are no more important to their business than others if there is no experience. This is clearly shown in the compensation model all new graduates are employed under.

I would be inclined to agree that having better preparation to be profitable out of school would serve as a benefit. Maybe we should have a more well-rounded curriculum in practice and theory. However, firms would not be in business. They profit immensely from "cheap labor". Why would they be incentivized to hire graduates if they are now costing them twice as much? Will they up their fees? How will clients react? What about competition in business and landing commissions? Sadly, I think firms profit more from margins on staff vs margins on commissions. Its in their best interest to underpay supporting help as they desperately need it to be profitable. 

Every year we cost more... inflation. Additionally, if all firms moved towards increasing the cost... it becomes a new norm which clients would be forced (more or less) to these new norms because we charge what we value our worth and don't budge below acceptable minimum. The race to the bottom only hurts us.

Well, inflation doesn't quite work like that. Everything else costs more. The fed just hiked interest rates for the first time since 2018 and will continue to go through a cycle of steady increases through 2023 to fight inflation. That means if firms are not adjusting accordingly, they will be in a deficit. Inflation does not mean you are worth more, it means your dollar is fractionally cut until you adjust. Its a zero-sum result at best, unless you skim from the top and intentionally pay your staff less than the true rate. Unfortunately, firms are not incentivized to hire more profitable staff/graduates as they cannot afford them in a market where fees and business practices are a "race" to the bottom as you say. Maybe the profession can advocate for itself but we are dealing with decades and decades of compound interest.

Inflation is driven by pay rate increase. Since much of everything is manufactured on an assembly line which mean when workers get an increase in pay, the cost of items go up in cost because they don't produce more per unit of labor per person. In a sense, the institution of the minimum income system has been a contributor of the rapid increase because all the attempts to get more pay is only going to result in the cost of all the things we buy goes up because that is how the business owners recoup the increase in cost and frequently also profit on top of it. It is a viscious repeating cycle because as you know, minimum wage increases and other pay level increases don't all go up at the same time so in reality we rarely ever see an being worth more but then you aren't worth more because of the supply vs demand ratio. If there is others willing to charge less and live on less, this race to the bottom occurs but to combat it means we all have to collectively agree to charge more and raise our prices but we don't make an agreement on the exact amount of increase because that would trigger the "price fixing" issue that gets the US DOJ involved. We decide our prices not the clients. The clients can decide to either contract with us or go with someone else. Sometimes, there's wiggle room to negotiate and that you proceed with such negotiation within what you are willing to go down to. Surely, there will always be competition but the competition would also rather make more money than they do now if they can. If we all decided we would raise prices anywhere from 20% to 250% (depending on where we are in our pricing and the market ceiling)... we are raising the price ceiling. Ultimately, the clients are going to end up paying more for architectural services. The point isn't merely to increase by rate of inflation but of course when we raise ourselves up to decent pay levels for the work we do, we make inflation adjustments but if you are under paid at a substandard level of pay, you increase your price up in increments until you are more or less with the statistical pack and not stray too far because you analyze what you charge from what it would need to charge to be a financially sustainable business where you and your employees are making decent family wage income. What do you need to make to raise a family on a decent level, and have money put away for retirement and so forth. There are people who simply don't even think about that and even charge what they were making as an employee or worse. That can be said and concerning. It hurts the profession. The race to the bottom by succumbing to the idea of charging less to get the job mentality is what is hurting the profession. Surely, if we cut the number of architecture schools by 75%, and reduce the number of students in the architecture schools that are admitted by 10-25% then we would have some reduction in supply and that would help. Also, if the bottom feeders simply give up on the profession and move on to something else, that may help, too.

Architecture has to produce profits and adjust for inflation or they will not be in business. However, its a matter of how they do it. Do they simply up their fees to keep up with higher expenses? What exactly are those higher expenses? Unless people en masse are receiving significant salary adjustments, they are not costing them more. If 15% was the bump trend, you should now receive 20-22% to adjust for inflation with your raise. The reported inflation rate for 2021 was 7%. As of march 2022 its 8.5% - the highest since 1981. I am not seeing higher salaries in architecture. They are more-so the same as pre-pandemic levels. Wages are stagnant. So if firms are adjusting, and you are not seeing at LEAST a 7-8.5% raise on your bottom line, then this is an undeniable question of ethics. There is a business model where you are the product. What they pay you vs. what you cost them vs. what they bill for you. I just don't see how firms are incentivized to have graduates come out of school profitable. Yes it costs them to train, but then again they are hiring you dirt cheap. There's profit there. 

Of course it will all go back to being the way it is right now. There are too many trust fund babies who will get attracted to the DTLA lifestyle without much regard for the future

he also makes 400k a year - what a joke. the real huckster here making a salary he never would in private practice.

Initially it did.

While I have conflicting feelings about them, I don't think you can be up to date on current controversies in architecture with out following @dank.lloyd.wright on Instagram. They skewered NYT over the article, and were at the very least a documenter of the article being changed to not reference his affiliation.


https://www.instagram.com/p/Ch...

The timing of the article seems like a PR move… “if you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation ”

According to your social media pics it looks like you've put on some weight. 

See how creepy and rude that is?  Tom may be a  #@* but have some decency.  

Everyone is aging. It's not a worthwhile topic when Tom's BEHAVIOR is abhorrent. 

I don't think he will still be talked about as the most important emerging (read young) voice in architecture.

was this ever true (i'm skeptical..)? sad if so

I don't think it's true so far. There are several LA and east coast practices currently eclipsing TWA at this moment. TWA needs to get some artsy condo complex and museum building projects to really compete and move forward.  Maybe the NYT article will help with that.  It is a very prominent placement in a media outlet important to the USA elite establishment.

Outside SciArc, I don't see Wiscombe being studied or emulated. His style seems right out of the '90s/'00s - far from the synth revival or millennial pastels that's in vogue on campuses. His whole design approach is also passe.

Look at the young faculty getting exhibitions around town or mid-career stars getting projects built around the world - the H&Ys and SO-ILs. TWA is not in that league.

Before the SciArc debacle I'd never heard of Wiscombe or SciArc.

It means that I don't spend much time on the site . . .

Why would anyone with knowledge of their unethical business practices ever want to work for (not with) TWA?

I wonder how many employees they have, more than 15 I think requires them to list a pay range in their advert in LA :)

Probably don't have that many to be real.

The pay range is also wonky - the pay may seem comparable but not so when he makes you pull 90 hours a week

I didn't see a pay range on the posting.