Not true where I am.

I mean, there's a much bigger overlap of teaching professionals and practicing academics here.

wow quondam, that sucks. my school wasn't like that at all.

the real world is a bit closer but not for about 5 years now knock on wood. maybe its time to move for you too?

I'd say that this is a very short-term, intern-oriented way of thinking. If you observe the more tenured employees (at least where I am at) and what they do on a daily basis, I would surmise the percentage to be about a 25-50% overlap. It's a matter of the first few years out of school being viewed as an extension of academia, hence IDP.

The amount of overlap definitely varies from school to school. In my school, the overlap stands at about 10%, I'd say.

from my chair, i'm pretty convinced the statement's about right.

i never expect the academies and practice to ever overlap to a high degree ... however, it seems the two worlds are drifting farther apart with each passing year ...

it seems that fewer and fewer faculty members engage seriously in professional practice and, for that reason, don't seem to understand (or care) about the practical realities of professional practice ... they seem isolated from the real world

it seems that fewer and fewer practitioners have any close connection with the academies and, for that reason, don't seem to understand (or care) about the issues being explored and debated in academia ... they seem isolated from research and free exploration

too often, the views of practitioners don't seem welcome on campus ... too often, the views of academics don't seem welcome off campus

i don't feel comfortable with this trend

from my chair too

neither of the people that I have classes or studio with this semester are licensed par example

sorry quondam. unclear am i. my school was never adverse to ad hoc or unusual approaches to architecture, and totally open to most anything a student wanted to do as long is it was defensible and well done. my first job was different in that our scope for creativity was much smaller, but for the last five years i have been doing all kinds of crazy shit, much like school. what i learned in school and what i do in the field are totally different but that desire to experiment and see what happens, that sort of thing is turning out to be an important type of continuity.

for a different perspective, here in tokyo most of the profs run their own offices and are succesful practioners so the gap between education and practice is much smaller. students help profs with competitions for real buildings and sometimes help the profs with unusual projects in the office. not sure if that is good or bad, but it seems to work...

i see the overlap not in what i design, or even how i work, but in the way i think - about everything. there is no question that grad school changed that.

kwitcher bitchin'. be part of the 1% through practice and keeping involved with a local school and it will grow.

there is a lot of experience and knowledge that can be shared between schools and the profession. these academic vs. profession conversations reinforce entrenchment/separation.

responding to quondam / jump:

my school most certainly encouraged free thinking, and a student was welcomed to follow a certain path with any given studio investigation so long as they were rigorous in their methods.

The whole "typical architect" discussion was one that we had often, in one form or another, during school. Our program, and many design programs for that matter, turn out a wide array of design professionals, not just architects (although the curriculum is primarily architectural design). The architects that come out this system are also varied in their practices etc.

As far as ad hoc approaches and "vernacularism," that is perhaps less encouraged...not sure exactly.

rarely did my school projects look or function like buildings. i got decent grades and usually had one of the most interesting crits in the class.

my first year or two of practice was hard, drawing door jamb details for every dam door in the facility made me really wonder what architectural detailing was for. but i wouldn't have made it thru if i hadn't had my schooling. Schooling gave me, besides design sense, problem solving and reasoning capabilities: ability to read drawings, to imagine abstract qualities of materials, to know what areas to pay attention to - dissimilar materials for example, to talk to other designers in the language of design, to take a project beyond the obvious and create something out of nothing, to question a way of doing.

of course this is a particular experience that doesnt cover y'all's

i find that the difference begins with the image (if not reality) of the client. academia: u assume the client is as intelligent if not more so than you (your tutor, your critique-savvy friend..)
in practice, you assume the client is far less intelligent, wants a lot of quaint grc and you serve it all calling him (it is always a him here) an idiot behind his back. as an architect, you are jaded, you churn. in due fact, 'churning' is your sole self-referential excercise..day in day out. everything is about standards, you have an ecyclopedic knowledge of how its been done before and on that drawn. you do not have to be dumb, but u must be able to handle hypocrisy...your own that is. it must be your second language. perhaps, surprise surprise, a client shows up and he wants.....something new, something with razmattaz. you introduce a slanted wall, a sliver of hadid that sends shivers up your building's spine. no, but really, its just another trick of the trade.
congrats....you have become that mythical creature of architectural 'realism' that is was a third a rumour, a third a threat. and a third a promise at school. a corporate cog, a hypocrite, and all for the paycheck.

but..from the other side of the ocean...u also see that even if u worked for rem or zaha ... you're still a cog churning better architecture...and perhaps with a smaller check.

cdw...
what you describe is the fact that in order to get anything built you have to negotiate certain social, economic, and political realities. realities that have little if any impact on the zaha's of the world - even less in academia. however - if you allow it academia can prepare you to think about these items in useful and creative ways. am i rationalizing? maybe. maybe not. are you overly cynical? maybe. maybe not.

norm makes a good case that academia & practice represent a potentially symbiotic relationship ... each can learn a lot from the other ... too bad there's so little mutual respect

Rita Novel ... what the heck was that last post ?

isn't it obvious?

i think yall should have another look at strawbeary's post on the potentials of a good firm. and if you don't like where you are working vote with your feet.

well ... it's not obvious to me either ... but then, subtlety was never one of my strengths

norm. i said : 'of course this is a particular experience that doesnt cover y'all's'

our clients are very very rich individuals not corporations. hardly budget living. ironically, it is precisely from the side of abstract musing (theory?) that i find it worthwhile (perhaps i find the disputed distance between theory and practice, in this case, actually welcoming), whereas from the viewpoint of practice ... for persons who do not share the economic culture of them said individuals, it is vulgar. excess, exhuberence... the rippling musculature of blandness. rita would love it, the idiocy of reenactment that propels itself as its own reason and watches itself masturbating in the mirror. then points at itself:..reenactment...wow...reenactment. what ever. i'm in it for the money.

would anybody care to take a stab at explaining why practitioners and academics always tend to be tuned to different channels ?

that gurl has a way with an oar

i actually believe that the professional/academic overlap is far more significant than most believe, especially those just starting their first jobs. for one thing, a great many of my potential job contacts have been obtained from either my professors or other university resources. the last two employers i've had were contacted through the university in some way or another.

a second thing is that i never really felt as though the purpose of a college education was to just teach one to do their job. the lessons i learned in school i apply at work everyday. the difference is that when designing at work, those lessons are implemented into one holistic task as opposed to scrutinizing different subjects, albeit with less intensity. the university is a center of learning that is sealed off from the complexities and intricacies of real life to foster research, discovery and the testing of ideas, under the guise that these things can be eventually absorbed by the profession. and in the moments when i do sit down and work on some basic design problems, i am always remembering my studio projects and the conversations i had with my professors and colleagues while in school.

hey, giancarlo giannini and mariangela melato. time to bust out the italian film collection and leftovers. cranberry, turket, and stuffing sandwiches anyone?

1% overlap: no way, certainly not across the board
-- academia varies so much in its focus across the spectrum from theory to practice, as can the profession...the question begs either yet more generalizing or endless personal takes on one's own situation...