For the past two years, I've been extremely conflicted between getting a PhD in Planning, or pursuing my registration as an architect. I have no IDP hours, so I would be starting from scratch. My goal is to teach urban design and theory, but I would still like to build a little on the side.
My question is: What is more critical, registration or getting a PhD? It seems like the old model of teaching and practicing is going out the window considering you need your registration to build and a PhD (increasingly) to get a tenure-track position. I am utterly conflicted as I absolutely love teaching and don't want to leave it behind, but there is a lot of pressure to get my registration. Thoughts?
I managed to do both, but not at the same time. I also got an early start. There's no reason not to to both (if you're willing to work really hard and take the financial hit), but you should figure out the one you want/need to have first.
My take on your dilemma is this:
Having a PhD is more immediately useful for getting a desirable teaching job than an architecture license is for being involved in building design and construction. They're both very good credentials to have in their respective areas, but I see a lot more unlicensed designers working in interesting firms than I do non-PhDs getting hired for tenure-track academic positions.
i would say do both, but given that you don't have any idp hours yet that might be difficult... when i started my phd i was already done with idp and all but 2 of the exams... then i took one exam each of my first two summers and now i'm licensed and hoping to finish my dissertation in the next year...
the phd will definitely be more helpful in finding a tenure-track teaching position, especially in planning... in architecture being able to do both seems like a great idea (and is the road i'm attempting to travel), but it could potentially confuse your eventual tenure case since they won't know what box to put you in...
@ citizen: that is an excellent summary of the situation! in fact, i think i could get a tenure-track position at this point without a phd, the phd is really necessary for finding grants
@phillip: you bring up an excellent point, i don't need to be practicing to take the exams, that makes it seem a bit more manageable. I think if i were to get my registration, I would probably stick to architecture in academia, going into planning would be a bit much at that point.
I'll have to decide in the next few weeks, so I will keep you guys posted!
both is better if you can swing it. most of my colleagues (in japan) have license and phd. it is more or less a requirement to have both here unless famous, or teaching history not design. i wouldn't say it makes the teaching any better but having the option to shift to practice is really a great thing to have.
that said if you are going to focus on urban planning a license is maybe not so important. you can always be consultant and build cities instead of individual buildings....
most of my colleagues say that it is more important to pursue registration first then go for a phd (as Philip describes), though i'm afraid that going back to school and living on a stipend will never seem better than the salary of a registered architect
planning is an interest of mine, but i think at this point, i will need to stick to architecture, it's what all my training and experience is in!
IDP does make some effort to accommodate people who wish to pursue higher education and a license at the same time. you can earn up to 1960 training hours if you are teaching and/or researching full-time in a NAAB accredited program, and an additional 930 hours just for earning a post-professional degree (930 hours per degree, as I understand it). You would still need to earn the core competency hours of project management, design, construction documents, etc. etc., but it's still over 1/3rd of the entire IDP process completed without ever stepping foot in an architectural office. If you are flexible in your summers and able to intern at offices, then you would be well on your way.
Also, tell Darla and the gang that I say hi :-) (this is Adam)
*The post-professional degree does not need to be accredited to earn the 930 hours, but it must come from a school with at least one NAAB accredited program.
Oh, and the Emerging Professional's Companion (EPC) let's you earn up to 1800 IDP hours, 800 of which can count toward your core competency categories (but you can't earn more than 40 hours/category from the EPC, anything over this counts as elective hours).
So, again, with teaching/research, a degree, and the EPC, you're already looking at 1960+930+1800 = 4690/5600 hours completed.
haha, i was thinking "wow This Great Northern is saving my butt!" then i got to the Darla part and thought "wait, he's a stalker" then i saw your name and felt better! Now that I've been found out on archinect, I'll just have to post as me, lol! Hope everything is going well!
That is an enormous help though! So I wouldn't be blindly walking into IDP. I actually should be almost done with IDP, but when the system changed in 2009, I couldn't get my hours in from two years of experience and they no longer accepted the hours, so that was disheartening. But I think I'm going to go for it! If my teaching counts, then I would get to start a PhD much sooner, which makes me feel better!
Awesome! Don't forget about the 6 month rule for reporting experience though. Stupidly, this rule applies to all areas of experience reporting, including post-professional degrees. So if you don't report your degree within 8 months of your graduation date (6 months + the 2 months reporting period) you cannot ever receive IDP credit for it. (I did not realize, nor did I even suspect, that the six month rule applied to post-professional degrees, so my recent attempt to gain IDP credit for my master's was denied...whiiich I am still fighting with NCARB about).
i was finally confronted with making the decision between registration and a phd, i was accepted into one of my top phd programs! and.... i threw registration out the window! i was surprised at how easy the decision was when i finally had to make it.
My advisor is a registered architect, so she may help me complete IDP, but it seems less critical now, I could be completely wrong though...
A PhD is a really bad investment unless you have a solid inside line on a tenure track academic position at a well-endowed university (these are extremely rare, btw). Otherwise, it's a waste of money. An architectural license at least allows you to practice architecture independently if you can figure out a way to make it pay.
I've never heard of anyone with "a solid inside line on a tenure-track position" while they're just a doctoral student. (Some department is going to hold a position for 5 or 6 years, for a candidate who may or may not graduate, much less prove themselves a competent scholar? It makes no sense.)
There is always risk (of many kinds) with any type of major investment, PhD included. But, for some, it can be well worth it.
ditto what citizen says. inside track is hard to come by.
my salary when doing phd was indeed low and in retrospect we lived rather frugally. wouldn't disdain the pursuit of any kind of education though (unless you are rick santorum, in which case i assume it is a genetic tick and can't be helped)
most of my current life emerged from phd. not just the new expertise on planning and planning theory. partner in my office was phd candidate in same lab, and my current teaching gig has lots of connections to where i studied.
it isn't all obvious stuff and none of it is easy in this economic climate, but man the option of teaching has made a huge difference. It is difficult to get even an adjunct gig here without a phd so i really appreciate it. Am learning a ton from the students and that is making our practice better too.
Apr 22, 12 4:17 am ·
·
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.
Registration VS PhD
For the past two years, I've been extremely conflicted between getting a PhD in Planning, or pursuing my registration as an architect. I have no IDP hours, so I would be starting from scratch. My goal is to teach urban design and theory, but I would still like to build a little on the side.
My question is: What is more critical, registration or getting a PhD? It seems like the old model of teaching and practicing is going out the window considering you need your registration to build and a PhD (increasingly) to get a tenure-track position. I am utterly conflicted as I absolutely love teaching and don't want to leave it behind, but there is a lot of pressure to get my registration. Thoughts?
That's a tough one.
I managed to do both, but not at the same time. I also got an early start. There's no reason not to to both (if you're willing to work really hard and take the financial hit), but you should figure out the one you want/need to have first.
My take on your dilemma is this:
Having a PhD is more immediately useful for getting a desirable teaching job than an architecture license is for being involved in building design and construction. They're both very good credentials to have in their respective areas, but I see a lot more unlicensed designers working in interesting firms than I do non-PhDs getting hired for tenure-track academic positions.
Keep us posted on your choice...
i would say do both, but given that you don't have any idp hours yet that might be difficult... when i started my phd i was already done with idp and all but 2 of the exams... then i took one exam each of my first two summers and now i'm licensed and hoping to finish my dissertation in the next year... the phd will definitely be more helpful in finding a tenure-track teaching position, especially in planning... in architecture being able to do both seems like a great idea (and is the road i'm attempting to travel), but it could potentially confuse your eventual tenure case since they won't know what box to put you in...
@ citizen: that is an excellent summary of the situation! in fact, i think i could get a tenure-track position at this point without a phd, the phd is really necessary for finding grants
@phillip: you bring up an excellent point, i don't need to be practicing to take the exams, that makes it seem a bit more manageable. I think if i were to get my registration, I would probably stick to architecture in academia, going into planning would be a bit much at that point.
I'll have to decide in the next few weeks, so I will keep you guys posted!
both is better if you can swing it. most of my colleagues (in japan) have license and phd. it is more or less a requirement to have both here unless famous, or teaching history not design. i wouldn't say it makes the teaching any better but having the option to shift to practice is really a great thing to have.
that said if you are going to focus on urban planning a license is maybe not so important. you can always be consultant and build cities instead of individual buildings....
most of my colleagues say that it is more important to pursue registration first then go for a phd (as Philip describes), though i'm afraid that going back to school and living on a stipend will never seem better than the salary of a registered architect
planning is an interest of mine, but i think at this point, i will need to stick to architecture, it's what all my training and experience is in!
@ Dani
IDP does make some effort to accommodate people who wish to pursue higher education and a license at the same time. you can earn up to 1960 training hours if you are teaching and/or researching full-time in a NAAB accredited program, and an additional 930 hours just for earning a post-professional degree (930 hours per degree, as I understand it). You would still need to earn the core competency hours of project management, design, construction documents, etc. etc., but it's still over 1/3rd of the entire IDP process completed without ever stepping foot in an architectural office. If you are flexible in your summers and able to intern at offices, then you would be well on your way.
Also, tell Darla and the gang that I say hi :-) (this is Adam)
*The post-professional degree does not need to be accredited to earn the 930 hours, but it must come from a school with at least one NAAB accredited program.
Oh, and the Emerging Professional's Companion (EPC) let's you earn up to 1800 IDP hours, 800 of which can count toward your core competency categories (but you can't earn more than 40 hours/category from the EPC, anything over this counts as elective hours).
So, again, with teaching/research, a degree, and the EPC, you're already looking at 1960+930+1800 = 4690/5600 hours completed.
*600 of which can count toward your core competency. Sorry - so many messages!
haha, i was thinking "wow This Great Northern is saving my butt!" then i got to the Darla part and thought "wait, he's a stalker" then i saw your name and felt better! Now that I've been found out on archinect, I'll just have to post as me, lol! Hope everything is going well!
That is an enormous help though! So I wouldn't be blindly walking into IDP. I actually should be almost done with IDP, but when the system changed in 2009, I couldn't get my hours in from two years of experience and they no longer accepted the hours, so that was disheartening. But I think I'm going to go for it! If my teaching counts, then I would get to start a PhD much sooner, which makes me feel better!
Thanks all!
Awesome! Don't forget about the 6 month rule for reporting experience though. Stupidly, this rule applies to all areas of experience reporting, including post-professional degrees. So if you don't report your degree within 8 months of your graduation date (6 months + the 2 months reporting period) you cannot ever receive IDP credit for it. (I did not realize, nor did I even suspect, that the six month rule applied to post-professional degrees, so my recent attempt to gain IDP credit for my master's was denied...whiiich I am still fighting with NCARB about).
i was finally confronted with making the decision between registration and a phd, i was accepted into one of my top phd programs! and.... i threw registration out the window! i was surprised at how easy the decision was when i finally had to make it.
My advisor is a registered architect, so she may help me complete IDP, but it seems less critical now, I could be completely wrong though...
Congratulations, Dani !
congratulations! where are you headed?
That's GREAT news! Where are you off to now? Berkeley? Michigan?
A PhD is a really bad investment unless you have a solid inside line on a tenure track academic position at a well-endowed university (these are extremely rare, btw). Otherwise, it's a waste of money. An architectural license at least allows you to practice architecture independently if you can figure out a way to make it pay.
@ghwarton - is investing, no, value, measured in dollars and cents...? Pity.
Go for it, Dani! Because it's what you want to do.
im heading to michigan!
@gwharton: if it were about money i would certainly not get a phd, this is for my personal betterment :-)
I've never heard of anyone with "a solid inside line on a tenure-track position" while they're just a doctoral student. (Some department is going to hold a position for 5 or 6 years, for a candidate who may or may not graduate, much less prove themselves a competent scholar? It makes no sense.)
There is always risk (of many kinds) with any type of major investment, PhD included. But, for some, it can be well worth it.
ditto what citizen says. inside track is hard to come by.
my salary when doing phd was indeed low and in retrospect we lived rather frugally. wouldn't disdain the pursuit of any kind of education though (unless you are rick santorum, in which case i assume it is a genetic tick and can't be helped)
most of my current life emerged from phd. not just the new expertise on planning and planning theory. partner in my office was phd candidate in same lab, and my current teaching gig has lots of connections to where i studied.
it isn't all obvious stuff and none of it is easy in this economic climate, but man the option of teaching has made a huge difference. It is difficult to get even an adjunct gig here without a phd so i really appreciate it. Am learning a ton from the students and that is making our practice better too.
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.