sounds like a cult to me. I bet they all wear black nikes, and are waiting for autocad rapture.... AHHHH

sounds to me like this is a firm that actually a) is trying to make a profit by executing the work efficiently, and b) is trying to be honest with prospective candidates about what the job entails ... dilettants need not apply

look around this discussion board ... there are tons of complaints here about firms describing the work in glowing terms during the recruitment phase and then actually delivering the job described above ... this job description is refreshing in its honesty

when you have been in the profession for a while, you may start to realize just how realistic, and reasonable, this sort of position is for many recent graduates ... not every firm wants, or needs, to be a star-gazing, let's spends 100 hours studying 25 different options for the stair rail, why can't this be "art" sort of firm ... some firms just want to serve their clients and get the job produced well and efficiently ... that doesn't make them bad firms, that doesn't mean they produce bad work, and that doesn't make them a bad place for recent graduates to learn the nuts-and-bolts of architecture

i applaud this firm for being honest ... if that's not what you want at this stage in your career, don't apply ... this firm just helped you avoid making a huge mistake

true. There is a demand for these services and it will continue to grow as architecture services separate - design on one hand, cd/drawing production on the other. You don't need 2 degrees of design classes to master acad, and for those that don't care about design or just aren't talented, this offers an easy way to make decent $$. If you skip school, you could be making much more at the same age as an arch grad.

I worked at a firm where there was this guy that had no experience, no arch education, but started very young and mastered it. He's making a very good living and is only in his mid 20s - and no debt!! Basically, that describes his job. He's good at it and gets paid accordingly.

Is it boring? Sure, to me and many on here that became infatuated with design, but to those that come out of high school and have no idea what to do, it's an easy way to do something 'cool' (as opposed to being a slave in a corp setting), make good money at an early age, and be able to say you work at an arch firm.

This profession needs to realize that there will be more segregation of services and embrace it.

Hey, that sounds like my job...

BlueGoose / trace: let me pose a question for discussion - if the profession is devolving into those who "design" and those who "draw" what will the future look like - i've always found that the best mature designers have developed their abilities by learning how buildings really go together - they have much more than a superficial understanding of CDs and the construction process -- if those who "design" don't draw and those who "draw" don't design, would this not be a further weakening of our capabilities as architects ?

not saying they don't draw or know how to put the drawing together, of course they'd have to know. It's more on the production side of things. Similar to renderings, it's rarely worth the time for an architect (designer) to learn the intricacies of putting together perfect renderings. Many can make good images, but even Morphosis hires out for some of the presentation images.

This would also help to differentiate the pay scale. Right now, many firms can afford to have recent grads do production work because they can pay them so little. If recent grads from decent schools charged based on their education and talent, no one would pay them to do cad monkey work. They'd pay them to do what they were good at.

It's just my naive opinion, of course, but I don't see why someone coming from a top school with 2 degrees gets paid the same as someone that learned acad at a 1 year tech school.

Every successful profession that I can think of works this way - doctors, lawyers, etc.

In order for this profession to thrive, there needs to be some separation between what makes someone a talented designer, a talented cad guy, a talented business man (the latter is already separated). If we don't do something, all there will be is the 5 stararchitects and then everyone else gets paid the same....or, more likely, more and more leave the profession and 'sell out' in order to make a half decent living and pay off loans.

Just thinking outloud. I know many disagree and think architects need to know and do everything, I just don't see how that's a good business choice, nor do I see why every architect (with the exception of a few) gets paid more or less then same.

trace: lots of food for thought there ...

"I don't see why someone coming from a top school with 2 degrees gets paid the same as someone that learned acad at a 1 year tech school ... my view is that immediately after school both have about the same ability to contribute to a set of CDs and both have about the same capacity to know what to draw ... with the passage of time, the tech school grad is likely to learn how to draw much better, while the professional school grad will learn much better what to draw ... there will be a divergence and pay will follow what the firm values the most

i tend to agree with you on the topic of job separation ... but, what I fear is a "class system" that I see in some firms, where the only people who get real respect are the designers, while all of the others, who work as hard (if not harder) build a huge resentment

firms vary a great deal in how they address these issues ... departmental firms celebrate the differences ... studio / team oriented firms celebrate homogenization, where everybody tends to develop broad skills ... there are trade-offs in both approaches ... departmental firms tend to achieve great efficiency in each department, but lose something in the translation as the project moves from department to department ... studio / team oriented firms tend to achieve better continuity and coordination, but tend to be somewhat less efficient and may not always have the depth of skill needed in some areas

I think the truth about this job MIGHT be a little less "scary" than their post indicates. The language they're using regarding "creative latitude" and exercising independent judgement is familiar from similarly-worded descriptions of typical architecture jobs in places like salary.com, yahoo jobs, and even the AIA's designations in their salary surveys.

I think what happened here is that somebody looked to these general sources for a job description for a typical mid-level intern job and adapted that language to their own use.
Most of these large, general sources indicate that someone with up to about 4 years of experience would be expected to work under the supervision and management of layers of management. This of course is not typical of every firm - especially smaller firms - but it is the way that some operate.

Personally if I were considering this job I'd probably want to speak to other people in the firm that were at the same level and see what their job duties are, and what their take is on the atmosphere and management structure of the firm.

For example, under "Architect I", salary.com says in part:

"...Has knowledge of commonly-used concepts, practices, and procedures within a particular field. Relies on instructions and pre-established guidelines to perform the functions of the job. Works under immediate supervision. Typically reports to a supervisor or manager."

I think this firm just cribbed its language from there and other places. So it may not really be especially specific to the actual job.

Intern II.ABII
Job Code: 060122CADDIE

Unlicensed and Un-jaded architecture school graduate in second or third years of internship; 3 to 5 years verifiable work experience or criminal record.

Work under the direction of the Team Leader and in cooperation with the project team, using the latest in CAD (Computer Assembly Donut) technology, to pump complete high-quality design efficiently, accurately and within budget that meet our client's need$, like a donut shop. Must be able to work in a fast-paced environment with demonstrated ability to complete competing demand customers.

Knowledge of commonly used concepts, practices, and procedures. Relies on instructions and pre-established guidelines to perform the essential functions of the job, meaning don't change the shape of donut. Works under immediate supervision whom cannot make the difference between 6 and half-dozen and as a part of a team. Minimal creativity or latitude is required, go easy on the frosting, just glazed it. Essential functions do not typically require exercising independent judgment.

sounds awful (the orginal post). but i do know people who actually would be pretty excited by just that sort of position.

not everyone with a degree in architecture enjoys thinking, oddly nuff.

but the idea that someone who wanted to be a real architect would consider a position like that is very scary. Any firm that felt it was investing in its own future by training people to refrain from thinking would have to be a seriously fucked up office. its just plain stupid, no matter how big and efficient you wanna be. hire techs for the tech shit and architects to do what they are trained for, and try not to confuse the two...man, 3 to 5 years experience (you could just about be licenced!) and they want you to do the drafting? whatever.

I applaud their honesty.

First of all...this debate is wonderful!
I want to thank all of you who responded to this post with your broadly varied -and informed- opinion.

To trace:
Is it boring? Sure, to me and many on here that became infatuated with design, but to those that come out of high school and have no idea what to do, it's an easy way to do something 'cool' (as opposed to being a slave in a corp setting), make good money at an early age, and be able to say you work at an arch firm.

I think this job IS being a slave in corp setting.
And I guess it is is good to know right away what you would be getting into, i.e, artistic types need not apply.

Thank you so much Bloopox for the research, it does shine more light on the issue. I guess this is what happens when the job post is written by an HR person with no experience in design , as opposed to a practicing architect, who, I would hope, would not sound so "mechanical"

The creativity comment and the indipendent judgement bit in the post gave me pause. Thank you all for your perspectives.

yup, it'd be a 'slave', but you'd be doing something I think most would find far more interesting than word processing and spread sheets. After all, you are 'making' a building and that's kinda cool to anyone.

It could be for a firm that just does cds and drawings. I know of several firms that I've learned of in the last few months that outsource the cds to a specialty firm. Saves tons of time, tons of money, and gets the job done quickly without overdue stress or hiring/firing.

Philarch posted the comment above in another thread earlier today ... i thought it highly germane to this discussion

A GC(40 years experience) gave me some advise this past week while in a meeting. He stated that even the completion of the schematic drawings and construction documents does not teach one how to put a successful building together.

The next big question is: Is it serviceable, does it leak, is it still operating 5-years later, etc..

i thought is was a powerful point.

The job listing we are discussing at hand is not a slave position, it is a position of employment. architecture students need to realize that when it's all said and done we are all merely looking for a job just like everyone else. Walking around and thinking you are still at competition with classmates will not get you anywhere.

todd_ufl, I agree with your point; however, when talking about post occupancy evaluations (P.O.E for short) few architects put their money where their mouth is and could care less. Also I think people with little experience might do well under this type of job because they may not know the actual size of a 2x4, but if you really want to be a leader then this CAD monkey job is probably not for you. Lastly, they want 3 to 5 years of experience... if you are not designing after 5 years of work then find another job… this is why so many people in our field are complacent and never get their license or take the ARE.

Actually they're asking for only a 2nd or 3rd year architecture intern. I think they mean 3 to 5 years of experience working in ANY field, not necessarily fulltime in architecture. Most of their job description is directly copied from www.salary.com's descriptions of a 1st or 2nd year architecture position, but they've doctored that last part about independent judgement, because even www.salary.com describes a 2nd year architecture job as requiring a little bit of independent thought and creativity.

yeh todd ufl,

but i GUARANTEE you this job would teach you nothing about making a building worth its name. Architects will NEVER know for certain how well the building will work, but that is what mock-ups are for. not even contractors know how to build alot of what goes up...

i mean you think PRADA in tokyo went to construction straight from the drawings? but there was i bet a shit load of informed thinking going on, even at the cad level, and after 15 iterations for each of the details.

Nah, this job is total bollocks and anyone who wants staff to refrain from thought is a fool.

I worked in a large firm once, they certainly encouraged independent judgement, but most of our time was taken up doing cad monkey work. Anyway, the guy I sat next to was one of the straight out of high school guys. One day he said, "Where else can I get paid to sit around and draw all day!"

It totally changed my perspective on the job and all of the sudden I could see that to most the world even being a CAD monkey is pretty cool.

The same firm used to have a policy NOT to hire GSD kids since they all got grumpy doing cad and left pronto.

The ad sounds to me like a project manager was sick of interns re-designing his/her projects. I also appreciate their honesty, I would never apply for that job, but I certainly understand where they're coming from.

yogarchitect

they want draftsmen.

or, maybe "drafters" ... but, at least they're being honest about it.

I wonder of they give an Autocad test.

...that would be "if"