transfer to an accredited program so you can get a b.arch, work for 5 years and get licensed, then go back to grad school. a lot of academic positions are asking for a phd AND licensure now. if you are absolutely opposed to licensure, you'd be better off focusing on history, theory, or something very specific like architectural acoustics.

You want to be an architecture professor with no design or construction experience and only a humanities degree?

Great. I hope my alma mater doesn't hire you.

archimaniac,
I guess you have to find out which fields in architecture you want to be specialized. Do you want to be an arch. history professor, or design, urban design, landscape...?? Top of that, architecture is not something that you can "crunch" in short period of time; you need to gain experience and slowly grow up in this field. Plus, teaching someone without real experience is not something I would recommend.
Why don't you get BArch or MArch, and start looking for a adjunct prof. or part time position to gain some teaching experience? You don't have to have arch license to be a part time professor. Almost all those big name institutes require you to have some teaching experience to be their full time professor.
If you really don't wanna deal with getting a license and teach rightaway, enter one of those BIG international competitions, WIN, and get media coverage. I gotta tell ya though, that's not easy at all.

I agree with myriam,

What on earth could you teach someone that they couldn't read in a book? There is more to architecture than a pretty drawing... some fancy words and a sexy model... (although, unfortunately, in acadamia those things take you pretty far)

do you want to teach because you're good at understanding concepts and explaining to others what you understand with passion and enthusiasm? or do you just view teaching as your way to avoid entering the mainstream profession?

I am going to agree with everyone else and add that your life will take many twists and turns along the way. Deciding that you are going to teach architecture, while you are only in your second year is a premature decision.

Take your time, experience different schools, work for many firms, or in other trades. Your interests will change along the way.

If you are still dedicated to teaching architecture then you must verse yourself in many areas - history, theory, etc.

You are probably 10 years away from teaching so slow down and enjoy the ride. By that time, with a variety of experiences you will have something to offer the students.

Can you even do a PhD without a Master's???

Hi..
Thank you all for your comments and suggestions...

The reason why I want to be a teacher is that I really like to share my knowledge with other people....and also..I enjoy learning and doing research so much....so..I am just thinking about becoming a professor...
I admit that I am not an expert or anyone like that...i am just a young learner...

As bryan4arch said, I better focus on some aspects of architecutral history..... may be I should do more extensive resarch, analysis and criticism on architectural theories...

Architecutral acousitc is pretty specialized interesting area I should check out...

Do you guys know is there any niche which seems to be very popular in the future?....
any comments on my future plan?....

Thanks!!!!!!

picking a niche - just because it is popular, is a cowardly move...

whatever knowledge you think that you have will be nothing compared to what you know in 5 yrs, in 10 yrs - or - even a single year in a school of architecture.

If you are not sure on what you want to do...

a.) finish your non-arch degree
b.) get into an acredited program
c.) work in a firm
d.) then decide

Teaching is fun. Academia, in my opinion, is not fun.

I went straight to a Master's program out of undergrad because I was a TA in school and loved "sharing knowledge" and discussing theory etc etc. But now that I'm a practicing architect I think I would shoot myself in the head if I had to wake up every day and face the politics and soul-sucking drudgery of being a full-time faculty.

Not that some people don't love academia! I'm just saying don't pigeonhole yourself too quickly. And I agree with others that it's better to teach after you have some experience in the field as well as some general life experience.

Don't convince yourself that you need to "sacrifice anything" to achieve your goals. You should set goals for yourself of course, but you should also be enjoying the ride and learning as you go. Good luck.

jeez liberty, you're so friendly - i had a good caustic post all ready and now it would be un-nice to submit....

niche - fabrication - controlled so that shop drawings are gone

"many people would like to author a book, but few would like to embark on that task" -sun tzu, The Art of Doing Stuff

First off, PhD?! How many architecture professors have PhDs? I think an MArch would suffice if you want to teach. How many PhD programs are even out there? That being said, ditto what everyone else said.
"Do you guys know is there any niche which seems to be very popular in the future?" This is a no-brainer. Sustainable design.

Well snowi it's all perspective - I'll bet any full-time faculty who read that I think their work is all political, soul-sucking drudgery don't think I'm so sweet ;-)

them, and printmakers

Ha! Very funny snowi.

holy fruck !
I thought this thread was about human rights abused victims or someone needing blood or something.
archimaniac..dont do that man.

sorry guys...if the topic looks so misleading........
but seriously, what i talked about is very very important to me :)

Archimaniac, don't get to discourage by some of the comments here...we are all supportive but some are more direct than others.

They are right though, your non-accredited arts in architecture degree isn't going to cut it. You'd have to balance that with A LOT of work experience. Keep in mind, skipping getting a masters before a PHD is going to make it difficult just getting into a quality PHD program. Many schools don't want tenure faculty unless you've got a lot of previous education experience, you've done some signature buildings with your name on it, or you've written a couple books. A PHD is only part of the equation.

You could be an adjunct professor, teaching studios or specialized courses (not the mainstream theory and history courses that tend to go to tenure faculty). Ofcourse the job isn't secured and you probably need to work at a firm in conjunction...but it would suffice your teaching bug, and you can stop anytime you want!

I would recommend getting into a 5 year B.Arch or 4 year B.S. Arch degree ASAP. Then either go into the profession for a couple years or go directly to a Masters (that's what I'm doing and I'm currently in my first year of my M.Arch). I would recommend a Masters in a different profession if you received a 5 year B.Arch (since you can get licensed with a B.Arch. Otherwise you need an Master in Arch if you only have a B.S. to get licensed). Doing a masters in something other than architecture but would be useful to your PHD in architecture is a good idea (something related like social theory or environmental).

Keep in mind licensing will take AT LEAST 3 years of internship (which is underpaid) and another year of testing, plus at least a half a year additional for waiting for paperwork. You may get licensed in less than 5 years (less if you can spread work out over schooling). But some people take 6-7 years. I wouldn't get your PHD in architecture until after your licensing which will give you more than enough work experience. Depending on your current age (early 20's i assume) you may be licensed and have your Masters before 30, and perhaps your PHD in your late 30's...

I'd like to get my PHD some day (and yes partially so I can be called Dr.) but will it be in Architecture and what will I use it for I'm not sure....I'll just worry about the next 6 years finishing my Masters and getting licensed.

You don't have to work to get a PhD. It just means that you don't get to be called an architect. You might have heard of these people. They are also known as architectural historians, critics, or simply.....professors. I was taught several classes by some PhD's that didn't have any built work to speak of.

Another thing is that if your pursuits are academic to begin with, then trying to work for 3 years just to get your license is going to be hell for you, and it will probably turn into 5+ years.

My advice? Stay in school as long as possible. Fail some things if needed. Throw parties a la Van Wilder to support yourself. :o)

I'd like to clarify. My first sentence above said "You don't have to work to get a PhD." Ha ha, funny WonderK. What I meant to say was "You don't have to work in professional practice to get your PhD."

Oh you'll have to work alright. Good luck writing those dissertations....

pollen:

it's true that most current architecture professors don't have phd's but universities have raised the bar in the 20 or so years since most of them were hired. if you look at the credentials required for tenure-track full time faculty at a lot of top schools they are requiring a phd or a significant amount of professional practice or published work in its place, especially for history/theory.

also, while i don't disagree that sustainable design will be important, so-called "experts" in sustanability have become a dime a dozen with the LEED accreditation program. so i think to differentiate yourself as a sustaniability expert you'd really have to focus on a specific issue and take it way beyond anything LEED says.

Don't listen to Wonderk, she's just saying that because she doesn't actually do any work, they just pay her to sit at her desk and look pretty...

And she's right, you don't necessarily need professional experience to get your PHD, but I think you're doing your students a diservice if you don't.

Those that can; do
Those can't; teach.

I agree with SuperBeatledud. On both the "doing your students a disservice by not working", and the "me looking pretty" part. (Thanks hon!)

The credentials required for tenure-track faculty in most accredited architecture programs these days usually state that professional registration as an architect is required or "strongly preferred". There are exceptions in some programs for faculty who are mainly theory or history people, but in interviewing recently with a few programs I'm seeing target percentages in place for professional credentials which would make it difficult for a person without a professional degree to be seriously considered.

I have very few PhD professors. None of my studio critics have PhDs. My history profs had PhDs and our environmental systems guy. But most other courses are taught by non-PhDs.

right, but most of those courses are adjunct faculty and not tenure...tenure = more money, secured job, people HAVE to listen to, and being a lazy bastard.

bryan: when I said sustainable design, it was simply and answer to the any niche becoming popular in the future question. This more than anything I've seen would be an answer to that question. Design-build would also be an answer. Prefab. I don't believe I ever mentioned LEED.

i think my school would hire you

i'm not saying you mentioned LEED, i'm just making the point that 20 or 30 years ago someone could have made him or herself a nice research career in sustainability by just looking at some of the fundamental concepts that are taken for granted today as part of LEED. Someone wanting to start a research career in sustainability really needs to be willing to get into specifics and take things to the next level.

Having the desire to teach is a good thing. The old adage mentioned above is a good rule of thumb. Realise that most professors and lecturers teach because they have to, or as a side to their main enterprise - researching for a PhD. Others teach because they are practitioners and have knowledge to impart from the real world.

I'm not saying that teaching is a side line job, merely that it is often part of your research curriculum. Many of my lecturers lead studios directly related to their PhD dissertations. Many PhD candidates were roped in to teaching as part of their scholarship or stipend deal.

If you have the desire to teach, which is a good desire, I would focus on putting yourself into a position where you can start to have a relationship with a credible institution, and generally, research your arse off. Lecturers and Professors generally have stellar undergraduate and graduate marks, and interesting and innovative theses. Rare is nepotism so rife that a monkey will become a history lecture.

I would'nt expect you to have any idea of a research direction until your final year. I would warn against pursuing an interest that you have no passion for, as passion is an essential need for teaching or research.

Lastly, and not as a note of discouragement, there is vast competition for the field you want to enter into. You have to be the best across all domains of the architectural education to even stand a chance. Money helps.

liberty is sooo right about academia. teaching is a blast, academia is so not a blast.

but if you are into it, phd is maybe not so necessary, though you will have to get a master degree at the least. at my grad school we had one or two phd profs, but i couldn't tell the difference. the rest were licenced, or not; those without a licence didn't get the tenure track positions. They will always be on a pseudo part time-ish basis. and they are fine with that as they have other things going on ( i assume).

i should mention that my school came from the bauhaus vision of things, so we had artists and architects and artisans all teaching and we never really knew what their field was until well into the program. Unlike many of the above posts might suggest in my school the administration was more into what the people did than what kind of paper they had. Having work in the national gallery was as worthy as a phd, in their view (as far as i can tell ). and it was a great education, if a bit weird and drunken at times.

my point is that it is just as important to get out and DO things as to get that phd. It will at the very least make you a better teacher.


btw, as a cautionary tale, a buddy recently finished his phd at top school in Japan, after getting his licence and working for years with a real starchitect, and he can't get a teaching job ANYWHERE (hooda thunk academics needed to network?). Don't put too much faith in that piece of paper.

If you're smart enough to get a Ph.D, don't be a fool: go to law school and have some comfort in your life.

archimaniac, the first thing you can start with on your road to being a teacher is learn to punctuate a sentence. it may be a pet-peeve, but how many times can one person use an ellipsis in one response? peeve aside, i too am contemplating the teaching profession with one more year to go for my masters. phd sound great, but i'm more interested in getting back out into the profession to exert theory into practice. fortunatly, i have a place in the world waiting for me that appreciates my strengths and current "research". after an appropriate level of testing, i plan to evaluate the results of my masters and whether further study is warranted--not to mention my willingness to continue studying french. good luck. read more. write more. experiment and evaluate :)

There are always more phds around than openings for phds at at one time so getting a phd does not guarantee you a teaching job, much less a 'tenured track' professorship thereafter. So my recommendations is to aspire less to become a professor than seek depth or clarification on the topic matter that interests you in this or other field.

That said, I think the main question lies in asking yourself if you have research question (or a curious question) in mind about the field of architecture, design or X? Then, ask yourself if you are able to formulate the question in such a way that it is a "real" question and not a pseudo or presumptuous one (i.e. does architecture have two histories?). I have done some phd application reviews before and it is often the case that most do not have both the first and the second, and the second often is the hardest to do. I am facing that in my personal experience.

Yes, I must say teaching can be quite fun if it is not seen as a chore or duty. I must also disagree with the old adage of why people teach when they cannot practice. This simple adage eliminates that category of folks who practice when they do not know what to do better but also precludes those who teach because they prefer this activitiy to full fledged practice. It is really not a dichotomy of limitations but one of preference too.

move in europe, every university here has PhD programs.

after a 5 year bachelor degree you can enroll straight to a PhD program, you don't need to have work experiences of registration.

usually no more than 20/30 people are enrolled to PhD, because it's very hard to get in, your marks must be outstanding and must prove that you already have a strong knowledge of the field of architecture where you want to specialize.

usually PhDs are more about criticism and history of architecture, because the subject is so vast that you can specialize in anything you want, from the benedectine monasteries in france to the development of palladio's ideas in britain, to the criticism of the modern urbanist implants of modern cities.

3 part time years, where you have to follow lessons, doing your own research in the field you ahve chosen, help the professor with his lessons, you can do lectures at the university, ecc, ecc.