"Unfortunately, the schools are essentially run by theorists."

are you sure? have you been to all schools of architecture?

damn theorists.

i dunno about the theorists running things. maybe it would be better if all profesors were licenced and had offices of their own running concurrently with teaching responsibilities.

that is the way it works in my school. here in tokyo. actually most of the doctoral students are practicing architects (doing work in japan, china, and europe, while studying). but even wth all this architecture going on around them it doesn't seem to have much of an effect on the younger students. the regular grad students learn to do the math and all that stuff, but it still isn't as technical as in spain, for example. and they still won't be able to practice with any competency until they start an office or join one. based on my experience i don't have much faith in the spanish system either. there really isn't anything like experience in the real world to ground all of the abstract and technical knowledge.

whether you get that while in school, as the kids at the open university in valparaiso (chile) do, or later as in NA and most of the rest of the world, is maybe not that important.

so, no i don't think schools are failing to teach, not at all. they teach impt things, and then we learn more things after we graduate. and we never stop. in that sense we are much like doctors in that our education is a moving target.

that we can't do a building on our own after graduating is not impt. when i finished undergrad i knew enough to design something small...

when i finished grad school i knew enough to run a mid-sized project, say 5000 m2, 30 million dollar budget, because that was what i had been doing in the office before going back to school. What i learned in uni the 2nd time round was to think more clearly about what the building could/should/might be...that was much more impt than the technical stuff i had already aquired.

now i am learning to deal with small scale projects, which oddly enough is new to me. learning to design and get a 12 story residential tower built does not prepare you to do a 300m2 renovation. but my education DOES prepare me to pick up the stuff i need to get the work done. mere education in technical matters will not do that. and no education will be universal enough to cover everything that comes up.

least that is the way i see it.

oh, and btw, I (and my wife of course) delivered my first daughter myself, with a nurse. so am not sure your comparison is apt.

school is what you make of it, just like each job is what you make of it.

you maybe able to sweat-talk a starkitect into promoting you out of the modelshop or maya-monkey pen, but it's up to you to take the initiative.

solidered -

"I'd say that the business / technical side of the profession is more easily learned in practice than would be the artistic / conceptual side, because the latter requires space and time all to itself to allow the underpinning ideas to percolate: time you won't get in an office"

Let me be the devil's advocate here. On the conceptual side are we not arguing that we are educated in conceptualization? I agree with you but we cant justify are subconcious underpinnings to anyone but ourselves. We are not hired to perculate. Our office time is neatly accounted for and itemized. To do otherwise is to somehow snub the social order we toil inside of. For this to be true could architecture as purely practiced somehow an adopted orphan in our economic system? Reduced to "flair" making? Marketecture? Or siimply evolving and reacting?

" If I could, I'd make a deal with God" - K. Bush

treekiller -

do the maya monkeys get paid in bananas?

monkeys get paid in CASH!

My office would be so much cooler if we had live monkeys, like that comercial that asks, "are you working with a bunch of monkeys"?

Davey Jones was clearly trying to pick up Johnny Cash.

yeah - and when you visit the zoo, watch out for the flying monkey turds near the monkey pens.

I think architecture education is invaluable. Because the nature of Architecture and the social, physical, environmental, and artistic aspect of it, architecture education is very broad and thorough. I dont know about you but I learned alot about construction and building technology as well, besieds design and theory. Maybe what stems your questionin is the status of the architecture profession.

I think it is at a ridiculous point right now. For example, I have a 5 year degree, with 7 years experience (thats total 12 years of my life) and I only make about 60K a year. I think that we have allowed this profession to slip at the bottom and we only have ourselves to blame for it. WE NEED A REVOLUTION!!!!

I agree is invaluable. It gives us such insight to the entire AEC industry. It is up to us to use that to our advantage. IMHO I think any code official or planner should be an architect first.

Did you know that only 4% of architects pursue development. Unless we take back the ground we lost we will cease to be relevant in the coming years.

see architects the endangerd species part 2 thread....

I agree, I want to be a master builder. How do I start?

ben van berkel says he has learned that it is silly to want to be a master builder because it just doesn't work anymore...

instead he will be master co-ordinator, and hire people to do flow diagrams. i quite like his architecture and slighty agree with him... his observation does go a long way to explain our non-status as builders...

but really, the thing is architecture started out as a hobby sport for wealthy bunnies, and never did make money for its practitioners...i can't understand the worry and concern that our status is slipping cuz as far as i can tell we never really had any.

all that historical status came from being rich and powerful FIRST. you know like a duke or some kinf of friend to a king or other...i mean, cris wren was a scientist before he designed his first church, for god's sake...and before that he was the son of a loyalist. being friend to the king really helps aspiring architects.

I have to agree to a certain degree. However, there are exceptions I think, one is Brunelleschi. Wasnt he just a master problem solver/inventor? A watchmaker who created one of the greatests domes in the world?

I guess what i mean by master builder is, somebody who is in charge. I am sick and tired of working for "clients". I want to be my own client.

Modularnyc,
All you need is capital. Development requires nothing more than money or the ability to raise money.

Illegal architect - J Hill

I could deliver a baby with no medical school.

If you really want to design than become a developer, because no matter what the architect does the client will always have the power to change it. You don't need architecture school, you don't need a license, although I would highly recommend it. If you are well educated and experienced in the construction/a/e fields you could make a lot of money at the same time. Projects and ideals start at the top. Architects, believe it or not, are very far from the top. And even though many of us believe ourselves to be the "jack of all trades" we are actually a very specialized field that would not exist in this day and age without government subsidy.

Well I have to disagreee on the part that a developer can design. Developing I think is money driven, at least most of the time. Architecture is aesthetically and practicality driven, at least most of the time. I have worked with some developers and to be frank, have not left a good impression on me. I do however appreciate good contractors who are problem sovers, builders and just care about craftsmanship

I want to be an architect/developer. Actually I think there is a guy in San Diego named Jonathan Segal. He is an architect/developer with amazing work. His website is www.jonathansegalarchitect.com I just want to be like him.......

modularnyc , i don't know if brunneleschi was a watchmaker or not, but he was certainly friend of a king. the medici basically protected and supported him. protected him because he was an unpleasant maverick with a bad temper and needed a patron, and supported him because the duomo and other work was used to cement their position in society. it was a dangerous time though. the friends and family of the medici were killed often enough to be scary, at least by today's standards.

interestingly michelangelo was also brought up by the medici, basically being adopted and raised as one of their own. although they had a difficult relationship his position in society was never exactly low...

wurdan, dude, i delivered my first daughter with a nurse cuz the doc couldn't make it in time, but i would NEVER assume to be ready to do it on my own. complications do arise, and for that a doctor or nurse is necessary.

as for having to become a developer to design, that simply isn't so. my partner is a developer and an architect, with a licence and everything...and he is painfully aware of the constraints of the market on the work he and i will do. we can't go too crazy because the people we are aiming for simply won't accept too much. you think richard meier is popular in NY for his radical design sensibilities?

for other commisions and for public work we are more able to free up our hands a bit and aim for icon buildings...but that is a matter of patronage by the state, not of getting money in hand on our own. phillip johnson had it right, we are whores for sale and rent...nothing wrong with that mind, but being a prostitute doesn't always lead to wealth or status, unless you got something else going on...

If I had to deliver a baby I would probably vomit all over the place.

Jump, good point, cant argue with that. I do beleive that some people are good no matter what their support or status. What about Frank Lloyd Wright though, he didnt have much to start, he was just talented no?

Also, my point is, architecture is a slut profession, we do as we are told by the powers above us. What I am saying is, ......eh i dont know what im saying, i just want to be the guy on top bitchslapping the architects.

I live in California, one state that recognizes that working with a licensed Architect is of equal value of a college education. Architecture school to me was a BIG JOKE, not to mention a big expense. I quit the traditional school thing, studied for a time at Taliesin, then worked for one of FLLW's most successful former apprentices. After he passed away in his mid 80's I went to another firm, but one that was quite different. Now, I am finishing up my exams, making $70,000 a year, with great benefits, manage projects, and of course, dont have a student loan to repay. For me this was the only way to go, otherwise, I know the "education" would have slowed me down, and not prepared me for the real world of Architecture.
Not so bad for a guy without an "education".

taliesin, remember, to each his/her own

tooright

TaliesinGuy, in terms of creating architecture, perhaps Taliesin was all you needed. But in terms of overall life experience, working with a licensed architect is definitely not of equal value to a college education. And I say this as a graduate of Cranbrook, a cult-like, sequestered, balls-out architecture-only-eduacation experience if ever there was one.

As sameold said, to each his own. Thanks for sharing your story as an example of an alternate path.

LB - your description of Cranbrook "a cult-like, sequestered" seems like an apt description of how the architectural design comunity sees itself in the bigger world. This seemingly unsurpasable mountain of design integrity vs. profit motive needs to stop being preached. As stated above about Michaelangelo and Bruneschi - they were well paid and I dont see where in our western tradition art and commerce became seperated ( prob neitzche or the commies ). Im hoping one day not to end college education of architects but rather see a readjustment of curriculum. ( I'd start w/ spelling and grammer)

spelling and grammar are over-rated.

oddly enough, i think the whole idea of the genius and unswerving artist started about the same time as michelangelo and bruno were getting going. maybe they started it even. certainly they had the egos and the drive...but the whole deal then, and even as recently as with chris wren, was that they had to please only one person, the king, or duce, or whomever they served. as long as they were on the same wavelength all went well. and they acould afford to have an attitude...

on the other hand, and continuing with that period, look at the fate of yet another medici protege, one boticelli, who under fear of torture or death from the inquisition, and with medici protection weakened by same, threw many of his paintings on the fire...

point being that the artist and his patron don't always get what they want or think is right. the world is complicated. dealing with that is where all the fun lays, whatever your background is...

Totally agree, and I think this is where a combination of both well-rounded general cultural education/awareness and a passionate dedication to one small set of ideas (e.g. architecture represents and has a responsibility to represent cultural memory) intersect.

Not all that important.

My uncle has no formal education at all, but he can do a whole town planning! i think of us architects as basically people with just good common sense.

yeah, and I'm an expert at development and real estate coz I win at Monopoly!

Architectural education is important and should be continuous throughout practice (see continued professional development). The formal part in University gives time to develop the understanding through mentors, the rest is self discovery.

Of course buildings were and are being constructed without any formal architecture training, a parallel to the fact that many babies are and have been born without medical assistance.

Vernacular architecture has a lot of merit and is often informed by local skills, self taught. Often this type of building cuts through the crap of theory and architectural bullshit to respond to the direct needs of the user within a local context.

That is funny. If education is not important, then why dont we go to accountants when we have health problems, or go to a doctor for tax returns, or go to a mechanic to get our teeth pulled. That is just nonsense. Education is what makes a profession, especially Architecture.

I agree to some extent that architecture educatino is maybe stretched and one might question the process, but can anybody point out to me the best architecture being built today and if those architects were educated or not?

i think, and liberty bell will back me up on this, that one must get an architectual edumacation so that one can visualize things to their contractors.

Are you making fun of me, vado?!? That was ONE time that I slipped with contractor and used that word!

modularnyc I agree - and BOTS too.

modularnyc - '...can anybody point out to me the best architecture being built today and if those architects were educated or not?'

I don’t think best and educated can be related. There is an inherent cultural bias that may cloud your educated perception of what may be considered best ‘architecture’. The vernacular style has an honest merit that would slaughter many an educated construction.

What do you rate as educated architecture?
You can rate theory or design against environmental or construction brilliance, however the most important, RIBA stage M- Feedback is perhaps the most underused process in the UK profession.

I think education is very important in becoming an Architect, I just don't think that most colleges and universities are the the place to learn it. I do believe that the big U is the place to learn the structural engineering aspect.

Hmmm... Depends which school you attend. Both my grad and undergrad didn't focus on structural engineering one bit.

yeh, apart from a few statics courses, numerical mathematics, and the regular course in structures by slightly silly architects, we didn't have much either. at least not in comparison to an engineer.

for me i learned structure when asked to do the structures set for one of my office's buildings (architects here are licenced as structural engineers), but honestly i can't remember how to size a beam anymore, and will hire an engineer rather than do the work myself. it is a different field of creativity than architecture, intertwined though it may be and i prefer to leave the sesimic calculations to someone who can get more bang out of the equations than i can....

still, i think architecture school is worth the price of admission, even if it doesn't stack up to taliesin for some...

USC was very good at structures when I was there.

Our pop quizzes were the CA ARE structures exams. I am routinely brought into buildings built in the 1920 with second floors built with 2x6 at 16” o.c spanning 12’-0”.

For me, and again we do rather simple buildings, if you can’t size a beam we won’t let you design. There are too many designers out there who need imaginary sky hooks to hold up their designs. A building that can not be structurally built for the client is a waste of the client’s money.

yeh that makes sense dsc.

in my case i have not really done simple buildings (they may have looked simple but the structure was not ), and the only wood buildings i have worked on were glu-lam or timber framed traditional japanese style. mostly though i have been working in steel and reinforced concrete for the past 10 years, and while i i can do the calculations when i want anything off normal (in earthquake country) the structural calcs become cumbersome and structural creativity is required. i usually bring prelim dwgs to the table and get the engineer to help me make it real. i do not ask them to figger out all the angles cuz most aren't intereted, but if i ask them the right questions i get what i want that way...so it is a kind of collaboration rather than separation of skills..

but anyway making a structural set is a full time job and i don't know many architects who have the time to do them as well as the design all on their own. in london and in tokyo we always hire(d) an engineer. and when i worked for a larger traditional firm we had 2 architects in house who devoted 16 hours a day to structural calcs and dwgs. the other 13 were busy doing the architecture sets and supervising construction, shmoozing clients, etc...that seems normal enough to me.

as an aside, skyhoooks are also not allowed in my world cuz i do plan to build this shit. i just don't want to do it all by myself.

guys, you misunderstand me. If a person doesn't have the innate common sense to visualize, to hold a 1001 details simultaneously in his head together and see how come they emerge as a whole, it doesn't matter how much education, how much math, how many concepts he's fed, chances are he's not going to be an architect. Sure he may know how to design and plan, but architecture is a lot more than that isn't it, else we might all have been structural or civil engineers than calling ourselves architects. Its all about The great X factor. We elusive ones!!

I see good architecutre as something permanent, functional and beautiful to the eye. I think the more I work, the more I try to define what architecture is, and those three concepts are what I would like to think architecture is. Its the creation of a space that is somewhat permanent, with good function and pleasing to the eye. This can be vernacular or can be something modern and different. I just think todays architects have become "photoshop architects" with a selective fiew who really know about construction, detailing and knowing what it takes to create a space or a building.

Technicalities tend to require education more clearly, but when we're talking about the art, creativity, and meaning in our work, education is not a silver bullet.

What are alternate models that could lead to the generation of meaningful works? What about an environment where peers gather to discuss what's happening in the world and what would be a good response / point to make with a work of architecture?

Does architecture really need the seal of academic approval to be valid? Have there been any major contributions / creative leaps in art and architecture that followed the academic rules?

I've heard artists talk about their work becoming its most powerful once they shed the stuff they were pushed towards in school.

Who really has the authority to define the creative act? How does a building become Validated as a cultural icon?

I'm not against education - but a reformist, perhaps. Perhaps we need to go through the gauntlet, to earn our stripes and have a basis against which to say something... In any case, it's fun to look at these various ideas and question our establishments and authority systems.

dsc_arch

Those 2x6's are still spanning and not grossly deflecting correct? See a 2x6 doug fir ( actual 2x6 ) prob from northern mich forests was similar in modulus of elasticity to todays 2x10's. Old growth versus new growth. More heartwood.

Educating an architect today take both school and mentoring. Before life got so complicated (with too many codes, systems) in the days of pencil on vellum, you could work for 12 years and gain sufficient experience to pass the AREs. Those days sitting at a drafting table or running blueprints (real wet process blueprints) constituted a form of education that has faded away. we don't apprentice at age 7 to a master craftsman to learn a trade- we're stuck in school learning how to be 'productive citizens' not working in the real world.

So now we have overpriced universities indoctrinating us into the secrets of the pyramids and proclaiming us ready for IDP... So what if Ando or FLlW didn't get a degree- my grandpa didn't need one in the 1930s either to become an architect. Or do we want to return to the days of Howard Roark?

Back up to Taliesin's comments for a sec.
The responses “to each his/her own?” don’t make sense. This conversation benefits by the input from those who are in practice w/out specific architectural education. It’s comical to ask a group of graduates if college education was the best route to follow. Ask an arms manufacturer if weapons are good and you will get a one-sided response.

Maybe you don’t want to hear that side of the equation? Best then to silence the dissenter.

If clients make the decisions, then we would all benefit from their architectural education. In a sense we all become architectural educators as we try to explain the value of design to the persons paying for it.

i ran some blueprints the other day. i am soooo old school

howard who? does he use maya?

My final opinion is: I think my Architecture education was worth it becuase it was only about 6,000 a year.

I would not say the same if it was more then that, bottom line.

And my final opinion is that my choice to shun the traditional route was worth it because it offered the oppty of learning by doing. Working on real projects with real schedules, clients, budgets, city plan checkers, problems, success, failures, etc....
My 3 mentors in my 8 years in Architecture were mentored themselves by the likes of FLLW, Gropius, Luigi Moretti. While attended school briefly, for me the first real step in becomming an Architect was to get a job doing Architecture. But again, I am just informing you of the path I took, not suggesting it is the best way.

I think that each method is different for different people. Education can benefit some, not others and vice versa.

Taliesin guy, there is new book out about the taliesin fellowship, any reviews?

I agree wholeheartedly with modularnyc's financial element, and that is definitely something mising from this discussion.

I don't want to slam the Ivies in particular: I think the most important path, in any decision, is to follow your heart. If School X at $30K/semester truly feels like the place you belong in comparison to School Y at $5K, then do it.

But do it with your eyes open as to the repercussions. Graduating with a huge debt leaves you with significantly less freedom to focus on pursuing a career that really interests you rather than finding a job that will pay the bills.