A) working ~40 hrs per week, getting paid $45k/yr + benefits, as a CAD monkey in a large corporate firm. you don't see all the aspects of any one project, because it is more efficient for you to do the same task over and over. the projects are uninteresting, and sometimes even socially irresponsible. you have little hope of ever meeting all IDP requirements and learning all the aspects of professional practice.
B) working 50+ hrs per week, getting paid $25k/yr w/o benefits, in a small practice. The work is very interesting, and you are involved in all aspects, even managing some of your own small projects from the beginning. With some determination, you will be a licensed architect within the next 5 years.
I realize I am simplifying the choices available in the real world, but I just want to provoke a discussion about this.
If an architect is TALENTED and DRIVEN, then there will be better opportunities than what you are suggesting! It will just require a great portfolio, and dedication to go out and pitch yourself to the people that YOU want to work for.
And... if there is no talent, and no drive... then who cares what you do for a living??
I think your examples are a bit extreme. There are firms out there that will pay you plenty more than 25k and give you plenty of experience. I'd say find something in between.
if these were truly my only two choices (as is the case with hypothetical questions... come on liz and brian, lighten up), i would definitely go with the $25/hr one. it would basically be like an extension of school, where i would be learning stuff that would benefit me greatly later in life. i think if you knowingly accept a cad monkey job with a professional architecture degree, you are a chump. c-h-u-m-p, chump.
it is said that no question is a stupid question, and yet you have hypothosized one! Are these the alternatives that you are facing? I certainly dont plan to be in a situation where I would have to make such a decision. But then if your question (spare the particulars) is asking whether one would rather work for an architect (being a cad monkey, not a real architect), or be an architect at the loss of wages; I would have to say that if you are an architect there would be no question, sort of like "if you could be an architect and make $25K a year, or be a whore for $50K", you would undoubtedly be an architect. This post should be thrown out, and yet I took the time to respond to this assanine question!
just for one moment i wish you
could stand inside my shoes
and then you'd see what a drag it is
to be you-
bob dylan's thoughts on this question- positively 4th street.
the truth is you will probably be a cad monkey for 25 thousand and have four roomates 500+ in student loans a twenty year old beater.
"vado retro", something tells me that you are a indy rocker who doew indeed live this scenerio and loves it in some weird postmodern way, like your living a movie,
this is an assumption, you can correct me if im wrong, it just sounds like you are speaking out of experience.
If you are really driven and talented take the CAD monkey job and use your evenings “off†to get your own work going. Nothing clears the head like a good mindless, day job. Takes discipline though which I only have in spurts.
geez people, being awfully rough. it is a HYPOTHETICAL question, which generally tend to be extreme in order to make a point and allow a cohesive and clear argument/discussion.
it's not an assinine question by any means. no need to apologize.
i'd say that abviously the answer depends heavily on your personal goals and interests, but in general i would lean towards less money/better experience. (though i must say, being just out of school, and not being much more than a cad monkey, i don't make any where near 45k. so i would certainly take the extra 10k to do the same crap i'm already doing :)
I don't understand why there is such a violent response to this....it's just like that book that asks you questions like "would you rather get eaten by a shark or a bear?".....no need to apologize, and you certainly shouldn't have to worry about being belittled and berated on what is normally a nice board to visit....
The less paying one. I've gone that route before and was very pleased with myself, it was an extremely creative place and I ended up making more money in the long run anyway.
We collectively ought to quit short changing ourselves/industry (even if it is in a forum) and demand from the client quality pay for quality work. As for doing the same tasks over and over, which is what computers are for, anyone would be a wasted resource performing those task.
In a situation that extreme, I'd keep looking. The only way I'd take either of those jobs is if I was so unqualified for the field of architecture that I couldn't get anything else.
Value yourself for your intelligence, knowledge, and complete body of skills. Don't let yourself only use one of the many things you've learned, because people weren't meant to work like that. And make sure that the people you work for value you for all (or at least many) of these things too.
That said, if this were a less extreme situation, say an $8,000/year pay difference instead of a $20,000/year difference, I would say go with the lower paying job. But $25,000 is just not enough to live on (at least where I'm at).
don't mean to nit-pick at your hypothetical situation, but you're far more likely to meet idp requirements at a large, corporate firm than you are a small, high design firm. i wouldn't say you're more likely to get registered sooner at the small firm than the large one.
that being said, i would pick the $25,000 job and do some work on the side (anyone need a dog walked?) =)
Mar 22, 05 3:30 pm ·
·
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.
hypothetical: which job would you rather have?
(assume you are just out of school)
A) working ~40 hrs per week, getting paid $45k/yr + benefits, as a CAD monkey in a large corporate firm. you don't see all the aspects of any one project, because it is more efficient for you to do the same task over and over. the projects are uninteresting, and sometimes even socially irresponsible. you have little hope of ever meeting all IDP requirements and learning all the aspects of professional practice.
B) working 50+ hrs per week, getting paid $25k/yr w/o benefits, in a small practice. The work is very interesting, and you are involved in all aspects, even managing some of your own small projects from the beginning. With some determination, you will be a licensed architect within the next 5 years.
I realize I am simplifying the choices available in the real world, but I just want to provoke a discussion about this.
ugh.
This is a ridiculous question!
If an architect is TALENTED and DRIVEN, then there will be better opportunities than what you are suggesting! It will just require a great portfolio, and dedication to go out and pitch yourself to the people that YOU want to work for.
And... if there is no talent, and no drive... then who cares what you do for a living??
I think your examples are a bit extreme. There are firms out there that will pay you plenty more than 25k and give you plenty of experience. I'd say find something in between.
if these were truly my only two choices (as is the case with hypothetical questions... come on liz and brian, lighten up), i would definitely go with the $25/hr one. it would basically be like an extension of school, where i would be learning stuff that would benefit me greatly later in life. i think if you knowingly accept a cad monkey job with a professional architecture degree, you are a chump. c-h-u-m-p, chump.
it is said that no question is a stupid question, and yet you have hypothosized one! Are these the alternatives that you are facing? I certainly dont plan to be in a situation where I would have to make such a decision. But then if your question (spare the particulars) is asking whether one would rather work for an architect (being a cad monkey, not a real architect), or be an architect at the loss of wages; I would have to say that if you are an architect there would be no question, sort of like "if you could be an architect and make $25K a year, or be a whore for $50K", you would undoubtedly be an architect. This post should be thrown out, and yet I took the time to respond to this assanine question!
okay, it was asinine.
i apologize.
just for one moment i wish you
could stand inside my shoes
and then you'd see what a drag it is
to be you-
bob dylan's thoughts on this question- positively 4th street.
the truth is you will probably be a cad monkey for 25 thousand and have four roomates 500+ in student loans a twenty year old beater.
"vado retro", something tells me that you are a indy rocker who doew indeed live this scenerio and loves it in some weird postmodern way, like your living a movie,
this is an assumption, you can correct me if im wrong, it just sounds like you are speaking out of experience.
b
Another thought is this…
If you are really driven and talented take the CAD monkey job and use your evenings “off†to get your own work going. Nothing clears the head like a good mindless, day job. Takes discipline though which I only have in spurts.
geez people, being awfully rough. it is a HYPOTHETICAL question, which generally tend to be extreme in order to make a point and allow a cohesive and clear argument/discussion.
it's not an assinine question by any means. no need to apologize.
i'd say that abviously the answer depends heavily on your personal goals and interests, but in general i would lean towards less money/better experience. (though i must say, being just out of school, and not being much more than a cad monkey, i don't make any where near 45k. so i would certainly take the extra 10k to do the same crap i'm already doing :)
I don't understand why there is such a violent response to this....it's just like that book that asks you questions like "would you rather get eaten by a shark or a bear?".....no need to apologize, and you certainly shouldn't have to worry about being belittled and berated on what is normally a nice board to visit....
The less paying one. I've gone that route before and was very pleased with myself, it was an extremely creative place and I ended up making more money in the long run anyway.
If Rob Venturi taught me anything it is:
BOTH/AND rather than EITHER/OR
We collectively ought to quit short changing ourselves/industry (even if it is in a forum) and demand from the client quality pay for quality work. As for doing the same tasks over and over, which is what computers are for, anyone would be a wasted resource performing those task.
In a situation that extreme, I'd keep looking. The only way I'd take either of those jobs is if I was so unqualified for the field of architecture that I couldn't get anything else.
Value yourself for your intelligence, knowledge, and complete body of skills. Don't let yourself only use one of the many things you've learned, because people weren't meant to work like that. And make sure that the people you work for value you for all (or at least many) of these things too.
That said, if this were a less extreme situation, say an $8,000/year pay difference instead of a $20,000/year difference, I would say go with the lower paying job. But $25,000 is just not enough to live on (at least where I'm at).
don't mean to nit-pick at your hypothetical situation, but you're far more likely to meet idp requirements at a large, corporate firm than you are a small, high design firm. i wouldn't say you're more likely to get registered sooner at the small firm than the large one.
that being said, i would pick the $25,000 job and do some work on the side (anyone need a dog walked?) =)
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.