What is with our profession when you have students offering themselves up to work for particular firms FOR NO PAY (most likely because they have the "independently wealthy clause working for them) just so they can put a name on their resume...
And at the same time having certain firms with the audacity to offer someone a job but under the conditions that they "couldn't pay them right now" or " we have another applicant who is willing to work without pay on existing projects until a new project comes into the office where they can be placed....would you be willing to match his/her offer?
And based off of current office experience I'll go so far as to assume that once within the context of a non paying gig their wouldn't be the freedom of your own time but the expectations of paid employees in the office.
It seems to me that our profession is shooting itself in the foot led many a time by the poor choices of key players.
The AIA Rules of the Board currently require that candidates for Fellowship, candidates for national office, and persons appointed to office by the Institute’s president sign a declaration stating that neither they nor their firms employ unpaid intern architects, including “working students.†A similar requirement applies under the Governance Policies as to architects engaged as speakers at AIA events, recipients of AIA awards, and authors or subjects of books published by the Institute.
This has resulted in an anomalous situation when students seek internships at firms for academic credit, but are barred by their schools from doing so if they also receive compensation from the firms. With this in mind, the Board of Directors directed that the AIA Rules of the Board and AIA Governance Policies be amended to define “working students†(as discussed above) to exclude any individual satisfying the following conditions:
• The individual is enrolled in a regular course of study calculated to lead to the award of a degree in architecture or other design-related discipline from an accredited educational institution; and
• The individual is undertaking the unpaid internship for academic credit; and
• The educational institution specifies that, in order to receive such academic credit, the individual is permitted to receive no (or only nominal) compensation in connection with the internship; and
• Such arrangement is consistent with the applicable laws and regulations of the jurisdiction (whether federal, state or other) governing the arrangement.
At my school, we are required to work a total of 24 weeks under a licensed architect before we are allowed to graduate, but if you work without pay, you only have to work half that...
tagalong, I've never witnessed the zero pay examples you posted.
I do have a similar experience with an east coast firm when I asked for a higher salary than offered. The response was, "we've got dozens of silver spoon Ivy Leauge kids who'll work for next to nothing. We're offering you more than them because we want a mid-westerner on our staff."
That was years ago but I still wonder if that was just a line so I'd accept their offer or not. Doesn't matter, I went to work in Houston that year for a solid 20% more than I was offered from any NE firms.
can someone explain the correlation between pay and academic credits? i just don't see why an "internship" should be for either pay or credit? why can't you receive credit and be paid an equitable rate?
I think the problem is that when people work for free, it cheapens the work of the architects on staff. I mean, if Joe Harvard comes in after his 4th year, and does all the same CAD monkey stuff for free that a salaried employee is doing for pay, it cheapens the whole profession. At what point do principals say "why should I pay you, a licensed architect, minimum wage when I can get 10 interns to do the same job for free?" I'm interning at a firm in NJ, and I work right along side the architects, and if I were to work for free, it would be a major insult to my coworkers.
Cheapens the whole profession? What does that even mean? Look, if there's a huge supply of low-cost labor, I don't blame an employer for taking advantage of it.
So if you don't get into one of the A-list firms, to hell with them. You'll learn more at one of the hundreds of other good firms in the country (and they'll actually pay you to do it).
Actually, I think working for free is actually unethical. Its unethical on the part of the employer, and its unethical on the part of the intern.
It does cheapen the profession... If you are willing to work for free, you are undercutting the competition, and you are adversely impacting the work force, not just the entry levels.
#1. This diminishes the quality of the workforce. It means that the people who get the job are not necessarily the best, only that they don't need money as much. A person able to work for free is basically inherently wealthy, or sitting on their loans. A quality worker who needs to support themselves cannot compete. Furthermore, a person who is not compensated for their work has less incentives to do good work.
#2. This impacts not only the entry level salary of those "a-list firms", it affects the labor market as a whole. So you should all be aware that in underselling yourself now, you're not "investing in experience", you're impacting your own future, devaluing the work of the profession in general... this affects not just you, it affects your co-workers too.
Compete on merit, not on pricetag, don't sell yourself too cheap.
i think the distinction there, if i may interject into what psteiner said, is that slavery is typically involuntary and binding -- while nobody HAS to work for free in architecture.
however I would indeed liken the mentality of some of these employers to the slavedrivers of old: they saw their workers as chattel and of a lower station in life.
Come on now...........we all know people that work for free or pretty damn close to it. I still know people two to three years out of school and are still working for free. On the posts above there might even be a person who does such a thing. They are all around us. They hate it, but they do not have enough confidence in themselves to ask for compensation out of fear that they might be fired therefor loosing a job that they enjoy doing but hate the way they are compensated to do it.
you guys know what we need an architectural "katrina".
Something catastrophic that forces the industry to:
a-even see and acknowledge the problem
b-reform.
Have their ever been Architectural Unions? An ol' skool architectural strike would be something to see.
In my life it isnt a real issue right now, but this affects me, and will affect me in my life.
how many offices could function if every intern, cad monkey, and underpaid overworked mid-level arch walked out? somehow I don't think that my PM, who can barely check his email, would be able to finish this CD package i'm working on. won't happen though - there will always be somebody who will chicken out at the last minute.
I think there should be a minimum wage, it could be set it differently for student interns that are also receiving credit, but working for nothing is b.s. Or better yet, instead of having a lower wage for students needing credit, give firms better tax breaks for hiring students who need credit. The thing that is kind of messed up is that student actually pay tuition during work terms... They are paying tuition, and yet they are supposed to work for free? They are getting exploited by both the schools and the employers...
I worked with a small office, simply because i wanted to offer myself to them. I was bonded to another practice out of the country but still wanted to do what it is I love most....architecture.
There is really nothing that will stop people from degrading themselves and working for free at some star architect’s office.
Those who partake in this have the luxury of not needing to support themselves (most likely by way of handsome trust funds from wealthy parents). Or they lack the common sense necessary to understand that receiving a salary for work performed is what our society is based on – and by disregarding this system – they do much more harm then they realize. bRink and seanNOLA among others have commented quite eloquently about this in previous posts.
The employers are even more to blame, because they should know better. If the AIA had the nerve they would resort to stricter sanctions against firms and individuals that were guilty of this practice. Unfortunately these same individuals who hire unpaid help are the crème de la crème of architects and provide the AIA with plenty of marketing material for periodical covers and national conventions. So they will not do much more than slap their hands – for fear of disenfranchising the darlings of the profession. Gee – isn’t this profession just grand?
The only thing that we can do as individuals is to express our disdain to any individuals that we encounter that are working for free (or even worse paying to work somewhere – I thought that I remember some big name architecture office pulling that stunt a few years back). Let them know how it hurts the profession and every other hard working architect and architecture student in the profession.
Just browsing through the [url=http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=25355_0_42_0_C
]Student Loan Debt Totals[/url] thread just enforces the ignorance of individuals working for free.
I think its important to look at the scale of this issue.
Working for months or years for free is way bad. Ties up the economy denies others who should be paid for a job. Allows a pretty bad practice where interns are treated rather unfairly and creates disdain in the profession - see above.
However working for a few weeks rubbing up details at an office that just won a competition, or a design proposal (and haven't been paid yet, because they haven't shown how they are going to execute the design) is good. Shows a sense of merit that you CARE about the work. Or simply to learn something that wasn't taught in school - its old fashion apprenticeship. It is helpful...for the individual more than anything else, this is where the "studio" type architects office was born sharing ideas etc.
Architecture like Life is rarely right or wrong, it depends on the context. DEtroit made a point, be more eloquent in my response. That's my two cents on it.
being an architect is like being a woman. you have to decide whether you want to be a whore for pay or a slut who'll do it with the guy you really want to do it with for free. or a wife who does the laundry.
i find it interesting that so many architects use the whore analogy when referring to our noble profession ... while survey after survey of the general public ranks architecture as being the among the most highly respected of the professions
does this mean that being a whore is the path to true respect ?
a lot of the general public assumes that we are designing what we want to design - that we have full design discretion. until someone is actually in a client/architect relationship they don't realize how often an architect must defer to client, plan reviewer, neighborhood, user, public opinion, etc.
there is a huge range in how architects work and what measure of discretion they are able to retain: from prima donna/starchitect on the left to whore on the right. the public assumes most of us are in the left end of the scale. many of us fear that we're moving toward the right end. (many probably are; path of least resistance, etc.) i'd expect most of us are somewhere in the middle.
we live in a competitive world. to get what you want requires sacrifice. some of us, for whatever personal reasons, are either willing or capable of working for no money.
of course, i don't feel that their is anything unethical about this. as it has already been pointed out by other posters, we are not talking about slavery here. we are talking about people who seem to be unhappy because there is no easy way to get what they want, i.e., to do good architecture and be well-paid for it. very few of us get to do that and i suppose that is why they tend to be "celebrated" by the rest of us when the do finally make it.
i think i've posted this before, but to reiterate, it takes sacrifice to get what you want. choose yours strategically and you will be fine. these are tough questions, but if money is most important, then maybe being an architect isn't for you. likewise, if architecture is no. 1, then make do without the cash. most of us fall somewhere between such extremes.
and by the way, don't make the mistake of thinking this only happens in architecture. there are plenty of other professions/industries in which people are forced to similiarly claw their way to the top or otherwise settle for less than they originally dreamed about.
the distance between a lot of star architects and their more work-a-day peers in the profession widens because stars can get cheap labor to which others do not have access.
since all architects really have to sell is time, some architects getting time for free and others paying market value for it amounts to an imbalance.
working for free/cheap enables this imbalance:
many good architects could be better - stars even - with access to this free/cheap labor. their time would be freed up to focus on design quality, which we all know takes a lot of time and often get short shrift if a project has a tight fee structure.
some less-than-inspired or old-guard star architects not only get larger fees but are able to remain afloat by riding on the backs of their free/cheap labor.
the simple fact is...star architects have a wide pool of willing 'victims' to draw upon, like a star athlete always has his groupies who'll do it for the cache, or story, or experience...
the pay-off is, they get that name on their resume and in their black book.
it may not be cash, but it is a different kind of currency, perhaps more important than cash, depending on one's goals. the architects are not working for 'free', they are working for the reference.
all offices are not created equal...it is not a simple matter of an hourly rate for grinding out the project...it may not be worth it to you, but it may be worth it to them...
the starchitects also have a few very good people they rely on and pay well...but for the minions...well, they have no power other than giving their free contributions....
Not saying names but I know of people been project architects for star architects getting paid 22K in NYC. And this architect builds a lot, so I don't understand how this could be the case. This person has been in the office for at least a year and hasn't even asked for a raise. (in my book full on looser)
Scary but true.
Actually I should come off clean:
When I finished my undergrad I went to work for Enric Miralles for a year. No pay (internships are usually paid by the government specially if you are Dutch, German ect…), but didn't need to because I was back at home, car, food, plus some other endeavors took care of my needs. I loved working there and it helped me grow a lot as an architect. If I had to look for a job right now, I would go work for someone which I liked and demand full benefits and a decent pay. I have friends that also work for other star architects and they get paid well, with benefits and don’t stay all nighters like others in the same office.
I believe it all comes down to how you present yourself, and how convincing you can be that you are an asset and are bringing something to the team that others might not have.
"thus we nurture an elite class of architects who rise above the supposedly free market in which the rest of us practice..."
how do you figure? what is happening is actually classic free market behavior...not rising above it but embodying it...the most in-demand starchitects get the best talent working for them for the least monetary outlay ..its capitalism through and through...the obvious retort would be...go be a starchitect yourself and have others work for you for free, or possibly start a union so that this 'exploitation' cannot occur legally...architect's low pay in general is due to what the market of clients is willing to pay, not due to a few lowly entry-level or slightly better architects willing to work for free for a few celebrated offices...
i wholeheartedly agree that markets involve more than just money. i'm glad somebody understands that. it's a bullshit to claim that any of this is slavery or rigged in the favor of the starchitects. everybody has the complete freedom to act as they wish, working for free or not, staying in arch or not. these choices are made by individuals, each in accordance with his/her own evaluation of circumstance. i doubt that you could possibly find a more free market.
as for the profession failing to bring in enough money from clients, that is actually another issue that has more to do with the salesmanship (or lack thereof) of architects. how often to you hear about salesmanship in the context of architect? rarely, and it is usually accounted for as someone's latent ability rather than being approached as a teachable skill/craft that can be learned and mastered.
I still think we need a union. It is a problem, and one day the whole system in our faces.
It is not ethical, and everyone should say it loud and clearly. We cannot stand for it. It affects US ALL. It is also sad that the firms that can afford to pay more than smaller competitors refuse to. We study too hard, and work too hard not to be compensated fairly.
But the real progress will we made if te newer generations refuse to engage on this unethical practice.
although for the sake of full disclosure, I do like my job and feel extremely respected.
I just think that this issue may affect me in the not so distant future, as I may be moving into one of those bigger cities, with starchitects and low pay.
"there are plenty of employers who respect the individuals who they employ and pay them a fair rate"
j ... thank you for weighing in on this point ... so often in these forums a few disgruntled individuals (who may have truly legitimate grievances) will use generalities about the profession as a whole and paint us all with that ugly brush ... my own perspective embraces your own and suggests that most firms operate with a reasonably high degree of integrity and fairness
this is a hugely fragmented industry ... there are firms of all types and varieties ... some are truly poor places to work ... most are very reasonable places in which to pursue a career ... a few are truly great
j, jabber, im saying that too, i work for a great firm right now. Fair, pays decently, great bosses, good learning experiences and opportunities, responsibility, respect, etc.... And I beleive that the majority of firms are like mine.
Im not disgruntled, BUT I do believe there is a problem, and we need to fix it, is that simple. we need to shame people into doing what is right and ethical. Is OUR career and the few bad apples are damaging it for all of us. We need to take action. Yesterday I saw a special about the 60's on PBS, and might just be talking revolution out of excitement. But it is nice to see when different groups and people thought they COULD change the way things where done at all levels of society. That idea has lost the cultural battle with the status quo, and we are a worse country for it. Anyway, now I'm off subject.
My two cents....
Detroit, I'm with you. It must be nice to not have to worry about money (referring to those trust fund babies, rich kids, etc.) but what about those of us who would love to do architecture for free because we have a passion for it, but cannot because we have mouths to feed?
DEtriot / mnmckee24 ... an interesting connection ... student loans and working for low (no) wages ... but a question please ... i'm pretty sure most architecture students don't have trust funds ... i'm also pretty sure most architecture students don't come from poverty ... what I don't understand is why anybody would accumulate humongous loans without a clear idea how those loans will be paid off ... is this the same logic that leads some consumers to run up humongous credit card debt, buying stuff they can't afford and probably don't really need ... i simply don't get it ... why would anybody do something so stupid ?
Quizzical:
So do you think that someone should be deprived the opportunity to go to college just because they have to do it using loans? Loans are there so that there is a way to attend school for people who do not have the money, nor any other means of financial support. Yes, how you will pay it off later would be a concern. Hence the reason you cannot work for free. Especially, if you are an adult with a family. The loans are there at a low interest rate so that it is something that you can pay off when you finish school. So does that make us stupid for utilizing loans?
I would guess quizzical is speaking to the return on investment arguement. Where law students/mbas/mds take out loans and invest lots of time and money into their education, they are almost guaranteed a far greater and must faster return on their money (loans or otherwise), than we as architects can expect. This gets back to other threads about buisness accumen and loan debt. It's a tough question to answer. In a buisness sense, architecture is the worst possible investment of all professional careers. Period. However, we all love it, so we endure the self-induced poverty/lower middle class existance for the chance to design buildings and environments for the rest of the professional class..the mbas,doctors,lawyers than control the purse strings. ironically, these professionals all pay each other market rate for their individual services. hmmm....so maybe we entry level pukes don't have to be broke? what a concept.
Architecture Slavery
What is with our profession when you have students offering themselves up to work for particular firms FOR NO PAY (most likely because they have the "independently wealthy clause working for them) just so they can put a name on their resume...
And at the same time having certain firms with the audacity to offer someone a job but under the conditions that they "couldn't pay them right now" or " we have another applicant who is willing to work without pay on existing projects until a new project comes into the office where they can be placed....would you be willing to match his/her offer?
And based off of current office experience I'll go so far as to assume that once within the context of a non paying gig their wouldn't be the freedom of your own time but the expectations of paid employees in the office.
It seems to me that our profession is shooting itself in the foot led many a time by the poor choices of key players.
Has anyone done, been part of, or witnessed this?
The AIA Rules of the Board currently require that candidates for Fellowship, candidates for national office, and persons appointed to office by the Institute’s president sign a declaration stating that neither they nor their firms employ unpaid intern architects, including “working students.†A similar requirement applies under the Governance Policies as to architects engaged as speakers at AIA events, recipients of AIA awards, and authors or subjects of books published by the Institute.
This has resulted in an anomalous situation when students seek internships at firms for academic credit, but are barred by their schools from doing so if they also receive compensation from the firms. With this in mind, the Board of Directors directed that the AIA Rules of the Board and AIA Governance Policies be amended to define “working students†(as discussed above) to exclude any individual satisfying the following conditions:
• The individual is enrolled in a regular course of study calculated to lead to the award of a degree in architecture or other design-related discipline from an accredited educational institution; and
• The individual is undertaking the unpaid internship for academic credit; and
• The educational institution specifies that, in order to receive such academic credit, the individual is permitted to receive no (or only nominal) compensation in connection with the internship; and
• Such arrangement is consistent with the applicable laws and regulations of the jurisdiction (whether federal, state or other) governing the arrangement.
At my school, we are required to work a total of 24 weeks under a licensed architect before we are allowed to graduate, but if you work without pay, you only have to work half that...
sorry, this is not slavery. you have a choice of where you want to work.
tagalong, I've never witnessed the zero pay examples you posted.
I do have a similar experience with an east coast firm when I asked for a higher salary than offered. The response was, "we've got dozens of silver spoon Ivy Leauge kids who'll work for next to nothing. We're offering you more than them because we want a mid-westerner on our staff."
That was years ago but I still wonder if that was just a line so I'd accept their offer or not. Doesn't matter, I went to work in Houston that year for a solid 20% more than I was offered from any NE firms.
can someone explain the correlation between pay and academic credits? i just don't see why an "internship" should be for either pay or credit? why can't you receive credit and be paid an equitable rate?
I think the problem is that when people work for free, it cheapens the work of the architects on staff. I mean, if Joe Harvard comes in after his 4th year, and does all the same CAD monkey stuff for free that a salaried employee is doing for pay, it cheapens the whole profession. At what point do principals say "why should I pay you, a licensed architect, minimum wage when I can get 10 interns to do the same job for free?" I'm interning at a firm in NJ, and I work right along side the architects, and if I were to work for free, it would be a major insult to my coworkers.
Cheapens the whole profession? What does that even mean? Look, if there's a huge supply of low-cost labor, I don't blame an employer for taking advantage of it.
So if you don't get into one of the A-list firms, to hell with them. You'll learn more at one of the hundreds of other good firms in the country (and they'll actually pay you to do it).
Actually, I think working for free is actually unethical. Its unethical on the part of the employer, and its unethical on the part of the intern.
It does cheapen the profession... If you are willing to work for free, you are undercutting the competition, and you are adversely impacting the work force, not just the entry levels.
#1. This diminishes the quality of the workforce. It means that the people who get the job are not necessarily the best, only that they don't need money as much. A person able to work for free is basically inherently wealthy, or sitting on their loans. A quality worker who needs to support themselves cannot compete. Furthermore, a person who is not compensated for their work has less incentives to do good work.
#2. This impacts not only the entry level salary of those "a-list firms", it affects the labor market as a whole. So you should all be aware that in underselling yourself now, you're not "investing in experience", you're impacting your own future, devaluing the work of the profession in general... this affects not just you, it affects your co-workers too.
Compete on merit, not on pricetag, don't sell yourself too cheap.
don't even try to make the link to slavery...you are making yourself look and sound like a dumb jerk...
A-men bRink
i think the distinction there, if i may interject into what psteiner said, is that slavery is typically involuntary and binding -- while nobody HAS to work for free in architecture.
however I would indeed liken the mentality of some of these employers to the slavedrivers of old: they saw their workers as chattel and of a lower station in life.
Come on now...........we all know people that work for free or pretty damn close to it. I still know people two to three years out of school and are still working for free. On the posts above there might even be a person who does such a thing. They are all around us. They hate it, but they do not have enough confidence in themselves to ask for compensation out of fear that they might be fired therefor loosing a job that they enjoy doing but hate the way they are compensated to do it.
you guys know what we need an architectural "katrina".
Something catastrophic that forces the industry to:
a-even see and acknowledge the problem
b-reform.
Have their ever been Architectural Unions? An ol' skool architectural strike would be something to see.
In my life it isnt a real issue right now, but this affects me, and will affect me in my life.
The People's Union of Architects, or something.
oooo i like the sound of that.
then let them get confident and but quick. there is a real validity to the assertion that free labor lowers the price of all of our labor.
of course in the old days people PAID to be apprentices -- but i guess that's why there's school now...
how many offices could function if every intern, cad monkey, and underpaid overworked mid-level arch walked out? somehow I don't think that my PM, who can barely check his email, would be able to finish this CD package i'm working on. won't happen though - there will always be somebody who will chicken out at the last minute.
I think there should be a minimum wage, it could be set it differently for student interns that are also receiving credit, but working for nothing is b.s. Or better yet, instead of having a lower wage for students needing credit, give firms better tax breaks for hiring students who need credit. The thing that is kind of messed up is that student actually pay tuition during work terms... They are paying tuition, and yet they are supposed to work for free? They are getting exploited by both the schools and the employers...
what about doing it for the love of it?
there is no supposed to work for free
I worked with a small office, simply because i wanted to offer myself to them. I was bonded to another practice out of the country but still wanted to do what it is I love most....architecture.
There is really nothing that will stop people from degrading themselves and working for free at some star architect’s office.
Those who partake in this have the luxury of not needing to support themselves (most likely by way of handsome trust funds from wealthy parents). Or they lack the common sense necessary to understand that receiving a salary for work performed is what our society is based on – and by disregarding this system – they do much more harm then they realize. bRink and seanNOLA among others have commented quite eloquently about this in previous posts.
The employers are even more to blame, because they should know better. If the AIA had the nerve they would resort to stricter sanctions against firms and individuals that were guilty of this practice. Unfortunately these same individuals who hire unpaid help are the crème de la crème of architects and provide the AIA with plenty of marketing material for periodical covers and national conventions. So they will not do much more than slap their hands – for fear of disenfranchising the darlings of the profession. Gee – isn’t this profession just grand?
The only thing that we can do as individuals is to express our disdain to any individuals that we encounter that are working for free (or even worse paying to work somewhere – I thought that I remember some big name architecture office pulling that stunt a few years back). Let them know how it hurts the profession and every other hard working architect and architecture student in the profession.
Just browsing through the [url=http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=25355_0_42_0_C
]Student Loan Debt Totals[/url] thread just enforces the ignorance of individuals working for free.
Damn links....
Just browsing through the Student Loan Debt Totals thread just enforces the ignorance of individuals working for free.
I think its important to look at the scale of this issue.
Working for months or years for free is way bad. Ties up the economy denies others who should be paid for a job. Allows a pretty bad practice where interns are treated rather unfairly and creates disdain in the profession - see above.
However working for a few weeks rubbing up details at an office that just won a competition, or a design proposal (and haven't been paid yet, because they haven't shown how they are going to execute the design) is good. Shows a sense of merit that you CARE about the work. Or simply to learn something that wasn't taught in school - its old fashion apprenticeship. It is helpful...for the individual more than anything else, this is where the "studio" type architects office was born sharing ideas etc.
Architecture like Life is rarely right or wrong, it depends on the context. DEtroit made a point, be more eloquent in my response. That's my two cents on it.
being an architect is like being a woman. you have to decide whether you want to be a whore for pay or a slut who'll do it with the guy you really want to do it with for free. or a wife who does the laundry.
or have a sex change operation.
i find it interesting that so many architects use the whore analogy when referring to our noble profession ... while survey after survey of the general public ranks architecture as being the among the most highly respected of the professions
does this mean that being a whore is the path to true respect ?
that's not what my mamma taught me ...
What's wrong with being a whore?
a lot of the general public assumes that we are designing what we want to design - that we have full design discretion. until someone is actually in a client/architect relationship they don't realize how often an architect must defer to client, plan reviewer, neighborhood, user, public opinion, etc.
there is a huge range in how architects work and what measure of discretion they are able to retain: from prima donna/starchitect on the left to whore on the right. the public assumes most of us are in the left end of the scale. many of us fear that we're moving toward the right end. (many probably are; path of least resistance, etc.) i'd expect most of us are somewhere in the middle.
readers of this thread also might enjoy the discussion taking place under:
"The Art of Architecture / The Business of Architecture: Can they co-exist ?"
we live in a competitive world. to get what you want requires sacrifice. some of us, for whatever personal reasons, are either willing or capable of working for no money.
of course, i don't feel that their is anything unethical about this. as it has already been pointed out by other posters, we are not talking about slavery here. we are talking about people who seem to be unhappy because there is no easy way to get what they want, i.e., to do good architecture and be well-paid for it. very few of us get to do that and i suppose that is why they tend to be "celebrated" by the rest of us when the do finally make it.
i think i've posted this before, but to reiterate, it takes sacrifice to get what you want. choose yours strategically and you will be fine. these are tough questions, but if money is most important, then maybe being an architect isn't for you. likewise, if architecture is no. 1, then make do without the cash. most of us fall somewhere between such extremes.
and by the way, don't make the mistake of thinking this only happens in architecture. there are plenty of other professions/industries in which people are forced to similiarly claw their way to the top or otherwise settle for less than they originally dreamed about.
the distance between a lot of star architects and their more work-a-day peers in the profession widens because stars can get cheap labor to which others do not have access.
since all architects really have to sell is time, some architects getting time for free and others paying market value for it amounts to an imbalance.
working for free/cheap enables this imbalance:
many good architects could be better - stars even - with access to this free/cheap labor. their time would be freed up to focus on design quality, which we all know takes a lot of time and often get short shrift if a project has a tight fee structure.
some less-than-inspired or old-guard star architects not only get larger fees but are able to remain afloat by riding on the backs of their free/cheap labor.
the simple fact is...star architects have a wide pool of willing 'victims' to draw upon, like a star athlete always has his groupies who'll do it for the cache, or story, or experience...
the pay-off is, they get that name on their resume and in their black book.
it may not be cash, but it is a different kind of currency, perhaps more important than cash, depending on one's goals. the architects are not working for 'free', they are working for the reference.
all offices are not created equal...it is not a simple matter of an hourly rate for grinding out the project...it may not be worth it to you, but it may be worth it to them...
the starchitects also have a few very good people they rely on and pay well...but for the minions...well, they have no power other than giving their free contributions....
thus we nurture an elite class of architects who rise above the supposedly free market in which the rest of us practice...
Not saying names but I know of people been project architects for star architects getting paid 22K in NYC. And this architect builds a lot, so I don't understand how this could be the case. This person has been in the office for at least a year and hasn't even asked for a raise. (in my book full on looser)
Scary but true.
Actually I should come off clean:
When I finished my undergrad I went to work for Enric Miralles for a year. No pay (internships are usually paid by the government specially if you are Dutch, German ect…), but didn't need to because I was back at home, car, food, plus some other endeavors took care of my needs. I loved working there and it helped me grow a lot as an architect. If I had to look for a job right now, I would go work for someone which I liked and demand full benefits and a decent pay. I have friends that also work for other star architects and they get paid well, with benefits and don’t stay all nighters like others in the same office.
I believe it all comes down to how you present yourself, and how convincing you can be that you are an asset and are bringing something to the team that others might not have.
46. So many dogs, so little time.
"thus we nurture an elite class of architects who rise above the supposedly free market in which the rest of us practice..."
how do you figure? what is happening is actually classic free market behavior...not rising above it but embodying it...the most in-demand starchitects get the best talent working for them for the least monetary outlay ..its capitalism through and through...the obvious retort would be...go be a starchitect yourself and have others work for you for free, or possibly start a union so that this 'exploitation' cannot occur legally...architect's low pay in general is due to what the market of clients is willing to pay, not due to a few lowly entry-level or slightly better architects willing to work for free for a few celebrated offices...
right on, cyn!
i wholeheartedly agree that markets involve more than just money. i'm glad somebody understands that. it's a bullshit to claim that any of this is slavery or rigged in the favor of the starchitects. everybody has the complete freedom to act as they wish, working for free or not, staying in arch or not. these choices are made by individuals, each in accordance with his/her own evaluation of circumstance. i doubt that you could possibly find a more free market.
as for the profession failing to bring in enough money from clients, that is actually another issue that has more to do with the salesmanship (or lack thereof) of architects. how often to you hear about salesmanship in the context of architect? rarely, and it is usually accounted for as someone's latent ability rather than being approached as a teachable skill/craft that can be learned and mastered.
I still think we need a union. It is a problem, and one day the whole system in our faces.
It is not ethical, and everyone should say it loud and clearly. We cannot stand for it. It affects US ALL. It is also sad that the firms that can afford to pay more than smaller competitors refuse to. We study too hard, and work too hard not to be compensated fairly.
But the real progress will we made if te newer generations refuse to engage on this unethical practice.
manumission for all!
Free at last, free at last
I thank Meier I’m free at last
Free at last, free at last
I thank Meier I’m free at last
Way down yonder in the graveyard walk
I thank Meier I’m free at last
Me and my mentor going to meet and talk
I thank Meier I’m free at last
On my knees when the light pass’d by
I thank Meier I’m free at last
Tho’t my soul would rise and fly
I thank Meier I’m free at last
Some of these mornings, bright and fair
I thank Meier I’m free at last
Goin’ meet King Meier in the air
I thank Meier I’m free at last
:)
hmmmm...
+q
you guys know what we need an architectural "katrina".
Maybe it's time for 'NANA[M] to raise its head again:
link
word....
lets do it!!!
although for the sake of full disclosure, I do like my job and feel extremely respected.
I just think that this issue may affect me in the not so distant future, as I may be moving into one of those bigger cities, with starchitects and low pay.
"there are plenty of employers who respect the individuals who they employ and pay them a fair rate"
j ... thank you for weighing in on this point ... so often in these forums a few disgruntled individuals (who may have truly legitimate grievances) will use generalities about the profession as a whole and paint us all with that ugly brush ... my own perspective embraces your own and suggests that most firms operate with a reasonably high degree of integrity and fairness
this is a hugely fragmented industry ... there are firms of all types and varieties ... some are truly poor places to work ... most are very reasonable places in which to pursue a career ... a few are truly great
j, jabber, im saying that too, i work for a great firm right now. Fair, pays decently, great bosses, good learning experiences and opportunities, responsibility, respect, etc.... And I beleive that the majority of firms are like mine.
Im not disgruntled, BUT I do believe there is a problem, and we need to fix it, is that simple. we need to shame people into doing what is right and ethical. Is OUR career and the few bad apples are damaging it for all of us. We need to take action. Yesterday I saw a special about the 60's on PBS, and might just be talking revolution out of excitement. But it is nice to see when different groups and people thought they COULD change the way things where done at all levels of society. That idea has lost the cultural battle with the status quo, and we are a worse country for it. Anyway, now I'm off subject.
My two cents....
Detroit, I'm with you. It must be nice to not have to worry about money (referring to those trust fund babies, rich kids, etc.) but what about those of us who would love to do architecture for free because we have a passion for it, but cannot because we have mouths to feed?
If this still were a profession of artisans and understudies then I would concede some validity in the notion of working for free as "training". I highly doubt that working in the model shop of FOG at 3am teaches you life long lessons in the profession (I've got friends that have worked as professional model builders that get the same experience with decent pay as well). The fact of the matter is that these offices take advantage of the naiveté of fresh grads. And no matter what you think - having a 6-month stint at some high design firm will not get you hired somewhere else - unless they too would like to pay you a McDonalds wage.
DEtriot / mnmckee24 ... an interesting connection ... student loans and working for low (no) wages ... but a question please ... i'm pretty sure most architecture students don't have trust funds ... i'm also pretty sure most architecture students don't come from poverty ... what I don't understand is why anybody would accumulate humongous loans without a clear idea how those loans will be paid off ... is this the same logic that leads some consumers to run up humongous credit card debt, buying stuff they can't afford and probably don't really need ... i simply don't get it ... why would anybody do something so stupid ?
Quizzical:
So do you think that someone should be deprived the opportunity to go to college just because they have to do it using loans? Loans are there so that there is a way to attend school for people who do not have the money, nor any other means of financial support. Yes, how you will pay it off later would be a concern. Hence the reason you cannot work for free. Especially, if you are an adult with a family. The loans are there at a low interest rate so that it is something that you can pay off when you finish school. So does that make us stupid for utilizing loans?
I would guess quizzical is speaking to the return on investment arguement. Where law students/mbas/mds take out loans and invest lots of time and money into their education, they are almost guaranteed a far greater and must faster return on their money (loans or otherwise), than we as architects can expect. This gets back to other threads about buisness accumen and loan debt. It's a tough question to answer. In a buisness sense, architecture is the worst possible investment of all professional careers. Period. However, we all love it, so we endure the self-induced poverty/lower middle class existance for the chance to design buildings and environments for the rest of the professional class..the mbas,doctors,lawyers than control the purse strings. ironically, these professionals all pay each other market rate for their individual services. hmmm....so maybe we entry level pukes don't have to be broke? what a concept.
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.