Hi, I recently graduated from my 5 years of architecture school. The journey was tough but also exciting and memorable. But lately my self confidence has hit the rock bottom and I'm wondering maybe I'm not meant to become an Architect. So I'm planning to switch my career options, studying architecture has given me a wide perspective on design and has vastly changed my thinking skills. But is Change good? Am I wasting my time switching career? Will I make it out fine?
Traditional = Internship while working at an architectural firm, Licensure etc etc
Non Traditional = Branching out into another related, or non related field where one can still use their architectural methods of rigor, graphical interpretation etc.
I dont think the traditional path is of any use to younger grads anymore with declining rate of increase of wages and general growth.
Oct 10, 24 1:15 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
That makes sense. It's more of an 'other profession' than an 'alternative path to architecture'.
Yes, using the architecture base to go into another profession, pretty much...
Oct 10, 24 2:08 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
I've always wondered what else you could do as an architecture that's not related to architecture. To me being an owners rep, construction manager, ect is pretty much the same as being an architect.
Oct 10, 24 2:43 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
There are other fields too that can benefit from the "design thinking" that we are (hopefully) taught in architecture school - Ive seen lots of kids go into UI/UX, Industrial Design, and to a lesser extent into Business (MBA)
I like that a MBA could involve 'design thinking'. 'If we move this loss to the overhead category, carry the three, involve the Cayman Islands, add a Ponzi scheme, our company is profitable!'
Thank you so much, you are right. There’s still a lot for me to learn, I should follow through it.
But sometimes I just feel like I don’t have enough time or that maybe I should have already figured it out by now.
graphemic is correct: change is inevitable, as is fluctuating confidence. And most likely, so will your salary / compensation. Agency also comes with consequences: some decisions may require a sidestep before rocketing upward, some may require a long slog. And of course, some could turn out to be bad ideas, which should simply become a confirmation that a certain course of action is not worthwhile.
From my 50+ years since graduating with a 5 year degree, I'd opine that larger firms offer more defined roles with "upward mobility". Smaller firms typically are sole proprietors or partnerships, and equity options are less. Small firms tend to be either profitable "crank it out" shops or if led by a charismatic designer type, can offer a chance to work on higher profile work. Some of those are enjoyable and exciting options, some require figuring out how to deal with the overgrown ego of the leader.
Just sayin....I'd also agree that putting in a few years and obtaining a license might be worth-while from the experience gained perspective as well as adding a credential in the event you elect to move onto a different career track. No cosmic urgency indeed.
Larger firms may offer the illusion of upward mobility, but I still believe that working in smaller firms in the beginning to get some "real" mentorship and perspective. It is very easy for a newbie to get lost in a large firm and one of the "revit guys" or "rendering guys"
I started out in a big firm, made as much progress in 1.5 years that I did in 7 years working in small firms after. That being said, I had more control over what I was doing and more variety.
It's best to start out in a big firm if you can demonstrate the necessary chops and don't mind the 60-80 hour weeks. If you can hang in there for 2 years, it pays off in the long run.
Oct 11, 24 3:54 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
No one is producing good work while working 60-80hr weeks. No one. That's some shitty advice.
Even in design build, the owner typically controls the design and financing of projects.
Design Build typically results in a lower quality design and building.
The owner doesn't save any money over other project delivery methods.
The only benefit to the owner is there are less contracts.
I know a lot of owner think things will be better coordinated and less costly with design build but that isn't true. What owners are thinking of is an integrated and / or design assist project delivery method. Those project delivery methods can be done int DB, however they are not unique to that delivery method.
I think that's what ID is suggesting.
Unfortunately he incorrectly called it Design Build.
A Design Build contractor doesn't control design or financing on a project. The building owner does. If it's a development and design build company then they control the design and financing.
You would be the owner, rasining your own capital to make your own projects happen. Whats the point of doing design build if you don't control everything. Thats a true artist architect when you can control everything and maybe even hire a licensed architect to do your drawings etc and guide them to how you want the project.
Oct 13, 24 10:14 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
That's not Design Build though. That's Developer, Design Build.
In my opinion, Design Build is pretty much worthless.
Developer, Design Build and Integrated Design Build are great.
@oddarchitect , go work for a developer looks like you are missing valuable knowledge from your experience. It will open new horizons for you and your personal growth. Leap, stop being comfortable doing Revit and CAD drawings. How many more can you do, different sizes, shapes, and colors, it's the same drawings for the CD Set.
Oct 13, 24 10:18 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
I've worked with developers for around 20 years.
I think you're combining developers and design build. They are not always the same thing.
I've worked on / designed most project types except for large stadiums, high-rise, large scale industrial, and theme parks. That being said, I'm always looking for more experience and project types.
Maybe change within architecture first. There a lot of ways to practice, but if you like how buildings look and work then try working for a builder or developer. Even if you don't like it, it might give you a perspective on the built environment not well covered in your education.
I'm unsure whether to continue pursuing architecture and switch to another field.
Hi, I recently graduated from my 5 years of architecture school. The journey was tough but also exciting and memorable. But lately my self confidence has hit the rock bottom and I'm wondering maybe I'm not meant to become an Architect. So I'm planning to switch my career options, studying architecture has given me a wide perspective on design and has vastly changed my thinking skills. But is Change good? Am I wasting my time switching career? Will I make it out fine?
Before I give any advice, may I ask what type of degree you have? Is it an accredited degree in architecture?
Yes, an accredited degree in architecture
Architecture is not a "growth profession" anymore. If you do not love it, do not pursue a traditional path in architecture anymore.
What is a 'traditional path' in architecture?
Traditional = Internship while working at an architectural firm, Licensure etc etc
Non Traditional = Branching out into another related, or non related field where one can still use their architectural methods of rigor, graphical interpretation etc.
I dont think the traditional path is of any use to younger grads anymore with declining rate of increase of wages and general growth.
That makes sense. It's more of an 'other profession' than an 'alternative path to architecture'.
Yes, using the architecture base to go into another profession, pretty much...
I've always wondered what else you could do as an architecture that's not related to architecture. To me being an owners rep, construction manager, ect is pretty much the same as being an architect.
There are other fields too that can benefit from the "design thinking" that we are (hopefully) taught in architecture school - Ive seen lots of kids go into UI/UX, Industrial Design, and to a lesser extent into Business (MBA)
Ah! Those are good ideas.
I like that a MBA could involve 'design thinking'. 'If we move this loss to the overhead category, carry the three, involve the
Cayman Islands, add a Ponzi scheme, our company is profitable!'
Well it would also help the MBA dude/dudette make some cool 3d diagrams to explain the Ponzi scheme! Win Win.
Your confidence will fluctuate, pay it no mind for now. More important: can you get a job? Then: do you like this job?
Change is inevitable and you will be fine because you have agency.
There's no cosmic urgency out there right now, just focus on the brass tacks. Follow through on this degree for a few years and then assess.
(Advice from someone who's dealt with crippling anxiety at many points on my journey)
Thank you so much, you are right. There’s still a lot for me to learn, I should follow through it. But sometimes I just feel like I don’t have enough time or that maybe I should have already figured it out by now.
graphemic is correct: change is inevitable, as is fluctuating confidence. And most likely, so will your salary / compensation. Agency also comes with consequences: some decisions may require a sidestep before rocketing upward, some may require a long slog. And of course, some could turn out to be bad ideas, which should simply become a confirmation that a certain course of action is not worthwhile.
From my 50+ years since graduating with a 5 year degree, I'd opine that larger firms offer more defined roles with "upward mobility". Smaller firms typically are sole proprietors or partnerships, and equity options are less. Small firms tend to be either profitable "crank it out" shops or if led by a charismatic designer type, can offer a chance to work on higher profile work. Some of those are enjoyable and exciting options, some require figuring out how to deal with the overgrown ego of the leader.
Just sayin....I'd also agree that putting in a few years and obtaining a license might be worth-while from the experience gained perspective as well as adding a credential in the event you elect to move onto a different career track. No cosmic urgency indeed.
Larger firms may offer the illusion of upward mobility, but I still believe that working in smaller firms in the beginning to get some "real" mentorship and perspective. It is very easy for a newbie to get lost in a large firm and one of the "revit guys" or "rendering guys"
I started out in a big firm, made as much progress in 1.5 years that I did in 7 years working in small firms after. That being said, I had more control over what I was doing and more variety.
It's best to start out in a big firm if you can demonstrate the necessary chops and don't mind the 60-80 hour weeks. If you can hang in there for 2 years, it pays off in the long run.
No one is producing good work while working 60-80hr weeks. No one. That's some shitty advice.
I'm sorry zonker but I think that is correct. I'm glad it worked for you but it's not typical.
Never work 60-80 hours a week. Especially if you're not paid overtime. You won't learn anything more than if you worked 40 hours a week.
The amount of experience / project types doesn't depend of the firm size. It depends on the firm.
Get an MRED DEGREE SO you can leverage your B.Arch. Maybe eventually do design build and control design and financing of projects
Even in design build, the owner typically controls the design and financing of projects.
I know a lot of owner think things will be better coordinated and less costly with design build but that isn't true. What owners are thinking of is an integrated and / or design assist project delivery method. Those project delivery methods can be done int DB, however they are not unique to that delivery method.
Maybe he's suggesting being the developer-owner & also be the D/B.
I think that's what ID is suggesting. Unfortunately he incorrectly called it Design Build.
A Design Build contractor doesn't control design or financing on a project. The building owner does. If it's a development and design build company then they control the design and financing.
You would be the owner, rasining your own capital to make your own projects happen. Whats the point of doing design build if you don't control everything. Thats a true artist architect when you can control everything and maybe even hire a licensed architect to do your drawings etc and guide them to how you want the project.
That's not Design Build though. That's Developer, Design Build.
In my opinion, Design Build is pretty much worthless.
Developer, Design Build and Integrated Design Build are great.
correct see comment below or above
@oddarchitect , go work for a developer looks like you are missing valuable knowledge from your experience. It will open new horizons for you and your personal growth. Leap, stop being comfortable doing Revit and CAD drawings. How many more can you do, different sizes, shapes, and colors, it's the same drawings for the CD Set.
I've worked with developers for around 20 years.
I think you're combining developers and design build. They are not always the same thing.
I've worked on / designed most project types except for large stadiums, high-rise, large scale industrial, and theme parks. That being said, I'm always looking for more experience and project types.
Maybe change within architecture first. There a lot of ways to practice, but if you like how buildings look and work then try working for a builder or developer. Even if you don't like it, it might give you a perspective on the built environment not well covered in your education.
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.