stand your ground for your wage......

people under cut each other and it ends up affecting everyone



doctors have a standard price to pull a tooth.... and they are abide by that.... cause it's standard practice..


now all designers/etc...should have the standard hourly fee that they charge....


b

i dont know anyone who makes less than $12 per hour, which is totally enough to live on for a summer between-school-years gig. that's actually 25k/year which isn't a lot but it's enough to live on while you're young in most cities, although it would be hard to live in manhattan. and that was computed only at 40 hours a week. summer interns usually get paid by the hour and thus overtime pay for more than $40 hours a week, which quickly adds up to being more than what the salaried employees.

so that was a random rant from my own personal experience. i guess some people must make less than $12/hour, or live places where $12 isn't enough to live on. eh?

ok.. the difference between interns and exploitable blue collar workers is that the interns have a reasonable shot at being promoted as far as their talents will take 'em, in the same organizations that they start out in, as interns. This puts 'em in the same boat as analysts in banking outfits, 36-48-shift medical interns and management trainees in industrial corps... not as maquiladoras workers or other groups who suffer from the lack of organization into unions.

while i believe the internship process in architecture is fundamentally flawed, i'm not sure unionization is the answer. first, though, how is the process flawed? my first observation is that there are a heck of a lot more graduates with professional degrees than there are licensed architects. this says to me that somewhere between graduation and licensing, the profession is losing aspiring architects to other fields. while some may say this is a good thing, a natural weeding process, it says to me that the profession is not sustaining interns financially, intellectually, and emotionally during the internship years, and that they are looking for jobs elsewhere. futhermore, it seems that the people that are making it through the internship years are not necessarily the best architects, the best designers, or the best professionals, but instead those that are simply the most persistant in reaching their goal, perhaps not the best criteria for the making of a professional architect.

there is a vast schism between the idealism that graduates enter the internship process with and the reality of the situation that follows. many on this forum and elsewhere in the profession believe that this is a flaw in academia, that academia needs to more closely mirror the professional experience. i would in fact say the opposite - that the internship process, while teaching the skills and experiences necessary to function in the professional world, also needs to foster and embolden the creativity and idealism of those just entering the profession. with this fundamental understanding, i think that you start to break down the strict and overly bureaucratic categories outlined in the ncarb internship process to begin to find new ways to understand how we as a professionals educate interns and create new professional architects.

i second jafindler wholeheartedly.

I'm with fidler on this one. Another point is that unions artificially inflate salaries. Their wages go up not because the market calls for it, but because they corner the market.

With other professions, say plumbing, this works out. If someone decides that plumbers charge too much and they can fix their own drain, chances are, they're gonna screw it up. They may be able to rig it temporarily, but chances are sometime in the near future they are going to be calling that plumber to fix the original problem AND their mistakes.

This is not the case in Architecture. Especially in residential. I can't tell you how prevalent contractor designed housing is here in Texas. Why? Because legally, we don't have to stamp residential plans in Texas. So the homeowners have been talked out of the "ridiculous" fees of an architect. Why bother paying someone who spent several years of their lives studying and learning to design when some guy with a truck, a cell phone, and a stack of Better Homes and Gardens can draw something up for you?

The public already thinks our services are either unnecessary or should be free. Artificially raising our wages without legislating stricter stamping requirements will only cause fewer potential clients to seek our services. Loopholes will be utilized even more. Unionizing will only push us out of a job.

Even if we do manage to legislate stricter stamping requirements, that's still going to raise the price of building. Even though the increase is less than the increases we've seen in steel or OSB in the past several years, it would still slow the market.

People are cheap. They don't want to pay for us. Personally I don't think we've done enough to show the public we're worth it. I think the quality of our work needs to improve before we can start justifying these sorts of things.

That's my two cents.

The most unfortunate effect of the internship program is the eventual narrowing down of licenced architects to those who can afford to be paid minimum wage, and are simply doggedly persistent. In the end, those licensed are not only less numerous, but also significantly less diverse...all the efforts of promoting diversity within architecture schools are undone within the first three years...

I think that unionization may help us to talk to NCARB...we all know they do not listen to individuals. NCARB needs to be a nurturing organization and not simply a top down "governing" body..

I don't think that an architecture union would impose any wage level higher than minumum wage, nor regulate working condition. The purpose of the union is to form a powerful bargaining unit for interns when they negotiate with their employers and with NCARB.

maybe this wouldn't be so much of a problem if architecture education was made more boring and more practical to get us adjusted to the idea of internship being boring and practical. not that practical is always boring. but architecture school is pretty much like art school plus a few classes on structures and wall detailing. whereas interning (and probably post-intern for the most part) is not like art school at all. they're giving us false expectations.

i think you're being sarcastic, chase, but this is exactly what i've heard from many experienced professionals. they think the schools are in la la land, and it's not helping their bottom line that graduates need to be trained to put construction documents together. not that there isn't a bit of truth to what they're saying, but you might as well reduce architectural education to the level of community college if the end goal is simply to create interns adept at production work to help pad the bottom line.

i like what you're saying, nonarchitect, but i think the term "union" may be too loaded to use for an intern organized group to stand up to ncarb. i absolutely agree that the leadership of ncarb is clueless, mainly because they are a product of their own system.

the issue of wages for me is a separate issue. yes, i find it irritating that there are offices out there that treat their employees like slaves and interns that are willing to put up with it, but in reality it is a consensual agreement, and i doubt that it is hurting in any discernible way interns who choose not to go the unpaid starchitect route postgraduation.

very interesting points Fogey.

Fogey, great post and an intriguing vision for the industry... I have heard, however, that young people trying to get into Hollywood (be it directors, writers, whatever) have to go through a few years of absurdly low-pay (or no pay) internships (even at the big production companies) before they have a chance of making any money, leaving such jobs to those whose parents are willing/able to support them through the ordeal.

suggesting "unionization" also suggests that you believe you will never become more than an hourly wage earner.

consider the same proposition from the perspective that say, ten years from now, you own your own firm.

in my experience, many young professionals who complain bitterly over compensation become equally bitter over the high cost and low productivity of "their" employees when they become principals.

it may seem very naive of me to say this, but logically, as an employer I would dismiss employees who fail to meet quality and productivity standards and do everything in my power to keep employees who exceed those same standards, including fostering their talents, giving them ample space for promotion, etc.

Thanks Fogey, the model of "unionization" that I am thinking of is much closer to that of the "actor's guild" or to the "union of musicians", and not at all like the union in the construction industry...yes, the reach of this union has to be far reaching enough to gain substantial bargaining power...Yet the difference between the architecture intern union vs the actor's and writer's union is that the architectural interns are performing the very job functions of the licensed architect, so in the end I think, this is part of the reason why aspiring interns and licensed architects alike resist this type of unionization. ( like quizzical's point about being the employer. )This is why in the end, the architectural intern's union should be more an alternative and a competition to NCARB than anything else...someone needs to tell them that they are way out of the loop.

"consider the same proposition from the perspective that say, ten years from now, you own your own firm."

quizzical, unfortunately a great number of talented graduates are not making it that far, and those that do, are a product of that same ncarb/internship system, thus the unproductive "what was good me is good for you" attitude. i think it will take an approach outside of that system to come up with a better solution to the problem.

while old fogey makes some interesting points, i would actually favor a system that is less formalized than unionization or a guild system. take the i.t. industry for instance. there, creativity is king, hierarchical organization is nearly non-existent. i think there's the perception in architecture that to go this route would lead to a degradation of professional skills, but instead the opposite has happened in i.t. the skills required of the industry are built off of the creative drive; you learn what you need to advance the idea and thus the business. it's a very efficient model. clearly, because public safety is an inherent aspect of our profession, some formalized assurance of competency is necessary, but why couldn't this be built into the testing process and the overly formalized aspects removed from the internship itself?

Here's what I keep wondering: what's going to happen in five years, when Revit and other BIM systems have so saturated the profession that there's no demand for even CAD monkeys anymore.

Revit tends to favor more a team of equal collaborators than a hierarchical division of labor between ideation and execution. Where before, you had people picking other stuff up gradually during their CAD monkey stint while they were doing redlines, what happens now that drawing coordination and all the other grunt work is tending to disappear?

fogey- very interesting analogy between architecture and film making, but....

as somebody from the trenches of hollywood and a former member of IATSE 847 (set designers) and the art director guild (and a fan of organized labor), I'm less convinced that the profession of architecture would be well served by this model. Are we architects a profession making complex decisions with life or death consequences based on our proven legal competence, or just a puppet marching to a script? If the developer/client is seen as the auteur with a singular vision that we as architects just interpret with no liability or points on the back end, then the guild system would work fine for us.

The world of architecture and landscape architecture that I encounter daily, requires the architect to step up as a significant author in the conception of the project (more like the producer) and holding that legal liability for safety to hold the public's well being above our clients financial interests. On a movie set, there is only the interest of the producer and the director as their agent whom you answer to. I've seen engineers and licensed riggers take some responsibility for safety in the construction of scenery, but have witnessed more osha/calosha rules broken then observed beyond the typical 18 hour production day. Ok, some architects pull all nighters due to poor time management or agreeing to a bad schedule work long hours - but this is less common then in Hollywood where abusing the crew is the only way to make a profitable film. If Hollywood had to perform to the same level of public health safety and welfare, Ishtar would never have been made and tom cruise would have never gotten so far.

The biggest limitation of the guild system is the restrictions of who can do what. As an art director, I was forbidden from picking up a paint brush to demonstrate the texture I wanted or drawing anything with dimensions. If architects had to have five people to do the work that one person could perform, from answering the phones (production department), budgeting (line producer), scheduling (assistant directors), drawing (set designers), creating a rendering (illustrators) - then most small offices would go out of business. On the larger and more complex projects, there is the division between project manager, principal-in-charge, project designer, project architect, job captain, spec writer and everybody else - but there is nothing to prevent the pm from picking up a pencil if needed. A guild system would prevent that by sharply delineating between management and workers. Most of us are professionals, not workers even if we feel like cad monkeys.

Hollywood is the last remnant of the economy where your education doesn't matter- there are more directors with no film/theater schooling, plenty of grips and gaffers with only a high school diploma, and tons of actors with no intelligence what-so-ever. YouTube and DV is allowing for amateurs to storm the gates of Tinsel Town, but nobody is going to die if they make a film that bombs at the box office. Architects, Landscape Architects, Engineers and our allied professions are responsible for more.


let the credits roll....

Oh, to stand up to NCARB, it is critical to organize interns within each state. NCARB has no power, the state boards that are members of NCARB are the tyrants.

When will sustainable design be part of the LARE or IDP?

need to find a side hobby/hustle to fall back on if you are afraid of the future of architecture.....

b

This is interesting to me not because I worry to much about whether interns should unionize or not, because I don't think internship is a step in which anyone wants to in perpetuity. Young architects have no interest in organizing because interns expect to move on soon.

I am interested in what Jafidler brought up earlier about retention in the profession after graduation. I took a job in a related field because I hope to pay off my loans faster and gain some experience beyond the CAD field. Now everybody I'm working with says that once you go to the owners side you'll never go back. A big reason for a lot of my coworkers in the money, but for many others it is sense of command the get over the project.

But me, just coming out of school and full of creative vigor still want to be excited about design. But it becomes very hard to stay engaged when the opportunity to be a part of a not necessarily profound, but good, design firm comes at such a cost.

Let's face it, while a small percentage of interns may claim they are doing work so creative that they do not mind the lack of financial compensations, most interns are relegated to the job functions of CAD drafting, making foam models, and 3D-rendering someone else's ideas....while highly important to the firm's eventual production, is also highly out-sourcible, and have a much lower entry barrier than much blue collar work....The protection of a body that ensures interns get reasonably paid, and are not made to staple drawing sets or cut foam all day, would, I think in the end, improve the retention rate of the profession ... In the end when interns feel competent enough, they give up their union membership, take their exams and become non unionized licensed architects...Maybe it would help if the interns' union also have a time limit for membership ( 5 years for example - ample time to gain experience and earn most, if not all or their credit hours )

i will admit straight up that i have not read the entire thread.

however, many of you are arguing for this unionization as a means to help more interns achieve their objectives to become architects. are you guys saying that this is a good thing? part of the reason architect salaries are so low is that the market is saturated with too many architects. it is to every licensed architect's benefit that 90% of those who start the path to become architects fail. personally i find the definition of a "good" architect to be too nebulous to ascertain whether or not those who are succeeding are the ones who "should" be. a lot of talented people don't make it simply because professional architecture is less glamorous, less creative, and more tedious than they were led to believe. these are the people who in my mind just give up; most go into related fields or teach.

i don't think unionizing would change anything. with so many small, "botique" type firms in the field, there would be no way to ensure everyone could be unionized, or that a union could really do anything significant to force a firm to pay a certain wage. many of these firms simply wouldn't hire union members, simply by telling them they weren't qualified for the job. there would be as many scabs as unionized professionals. nobody would take such a union seriously. and we are more or less in the right to work era, even if you aren't in a right to work state. no one can force union membership.

my first year after college, i made $20k/yr. now i make $44k/yr, four years later including 2 in grad school. i understand the first couple years of internship are tough, but they are temporary. believe me, i've worked for peanuts doing less than glamorous work. it is just part of paying your dues. this will never take off because in two years, most of you will have moved beyond this segment of your career into something better.

personally i think the internship process is flawed only because of a lack of real accountability that some architects put on their interns. many architects simply sign idp reports without considering whether or not their employees know these things enough to move on to the next level. i know licensed architects who don't know anything about construction. this is what frightens me.

I disagree bossman. If that logic played out, then lawyers would be the lowest paid people on earth. There are more lawyers in California than Architects in the country. Lawyers have the numbers to be a formidable political force that uses the system to benefit themselves. Personally, I think if there were more architects we would make more money. Why, because of the increased political power gained from critical mass. If you have the numbers behind you, than you can push for greater involvement in the process. Architects have not saturated the construction market. There is plenty of work out there being done without architects. With greater political power to wield, architects could expand into the construction that they currently aren't required for. If for example, licensure was available shortly after graduating from an accredited program, there would be a glut of low experience architect that could infiltrate the remodel/small residential market. Gaining real experience instead of CAD experience. Having an increase in the low experienced architects however will have no impact on the larger jobs, as you always need experience to get them. No kid out of college is going to beat out SOM for a campus or skyscraper job.
In one sense you are right though, the way architecture is currently practiced could never support a lot of new architects. But we can't change the market without the political power that comes in numbers.
I think architects should do three things:
1. Require passing the ARE during College as a prerequisite to a professional degree in architecture. This should be the parallel coursework to the studio. In reality, it would require 7 classes outside of studio, not that big of a deal for a 5 year program, or even a 4 + 3.
2. Established architects need to push politically to require more construction to fall under the "you need an architect to stamp this" category. Single family residential should not be exempt from architects influence.
3. Let the market determine who has enough experience to get a project. IDP is a joke that doesn't achieve any added value. No kid straight out of school is going to get a commission for anything that big. Let them cut there teeth doing Single family/remodels or working under an experienced architect on the larger side of the profession.

The funny thing about my ideas is that it changes little except for the education. Anyone can legally design Single family residential, we just codify it to require architects to do it and then let the small fish get bigger on the small projects, but make sure the public knows that you need an architect for it.

Just my 2 cents.
j

"2. Established architects need to push politically to require more construction to fall under the "you need an architect to stamp this" category. Single family residential should not be exempt from architects influence.
"


Im totally for architects and our profesion but these two points above will never happen, heres why - when I worked in construction architects, even the best ones we worked with, rarely came up with appropriate solutions to technical problems. Many where downright dangerous and arogrant, an quite frankly the contractor saved the lives of workers or public from collapse and failure.

Single family homes should never be allowed to be run by interns because the profit margins are too slim, this is many people's biggest investment in their lives and should not be arogantly thrown to the interns as suggested above, reinforcing the perception of us as disconected ineffectual pricks.

Its not architecture or NCARB thats the problem - its the people entering architecture who are redefining what it means to be an architect, for better and worse.

i say let competition decide the future of the profesion at all levels. Keep all the existing NCARB required paths to licensure but also allow a parralel technical path, and let the market decide. If architects continue to build higher and higher barriers to entry into their sacred space, they will eventually wall themselves off from reality.

It is somewhat sobering to me that most of you guys would rather let the laws of the jungle prevail at all cost than to introduce a safety net that has the slightest chance of eliminating competitiveness...yes, for better or for worse, interns will have to decide for themselves what they want out of their experience... le bossman, that lost two years when you were making 30+ instead of 45+ a year, dramatically affects your future finances...yes, one can always say "who needs that much money" and be self righteous about "paying your dues", but perhaps if you've had that extra 20K you could have taken classes, or volunteer to build homes in guatemala..Ultimately, I am more concerned about all the lost opportunities; the interns who gave up because they cannot afford it, or will not put up with sub-standard labour practices....

evil,
I don't disagree with your point (I am not naive enough to think my solution is the best or only solution or even possible). I still think that an architect who can pass the ARE is as qualified to design a single family residence as well a contractor who just passed his contractor license exam, if not more so. In the end, I agree that the market (and the lawyers) will determine who gets work and who doesn't.

the client decides who gets the work, and they are speaking.

nonarchitect - why should an intern get more than 35K? Are they worth it? If you look at a burger flipper at McD's making $6.50/Hr. I bet the total sales and payroll taxes generated by this one wage earner are greater than an architectural intern. Also included would be revenues to McD's. So really- in a sick way, architecture interns may be overpaid. Theyre essentially being paid to get the education they didnt get elsewhere.

also - nonarchitect, laws diminishing competativeness only help those who arent as competetive. I dont see why thats a good thing. If you started a firm and worked for years to make it competetive, wouldnt you deserve the upperhand?

bossman stole my thunder. I always hear the problems with retention in the field of architecture. Who cares? My guess is that most of those "lost" people went into college right out of high school, graduated in their early 20's and still didn't know what they wanted to do with their life. Heck, sometimes I don't even know.

My argument is that Architecture Colleges are graduating far too many people. Case in point is the Pharmacist profession.

Similar to architects they make decisions that affect the health and safety of the public. Also similar they have low paid support staff, assistants, similar to our CAD techs, that only require technical training.

But a Pharmacist right out of college with a masters degree (6 years) will start somewhere around $60-70k, or more, while an arch intern is making 30 something.

Why? There are 28 universities with pharmacy programs. All graduating somewhere around 50 grads/year = only 1400 new professionals per year. That probably doesn't even cover those retiring.

Since you have to be a pharmacist to distribute drugs you have a high demand and pay to match. Architects have a legislated demand, outside of single family homes, so we shouldn't be much different. But we are. 1000's of surplus Architects out there is a big reason. Ever notice that when things get busy you don't jump on those crappy projects. Well, if the guy that works for damn near free were suddenly gone that developer would need to pay a heck of a lot more...or at least cave to your terms.

a couple of things: regardless of the number of lawyers in california, does anyone have any hard data about the ratio of legal cases to law practitioners as opposed to the ratio of architects to architectural projects? that would be interesting to see. but not all professions are created equal. i would argue that, if lawyers make more money, it isn't because there are more lawyers. it is because of the value clients hold in the services they provide.



obviously lawyers make more money than architects. but these are average salaries. i'm just not convinced that an inturn average, ambulance chasing law office is doing much better than one in your average ambulance chasing architectural firm.

taking the ARE? well i could go either way on that one. it is arguable as to whether or not all students are really educated on what is on those exams. that said, some states allow you to sit for the ARE right out of school.

i'm not sure what you mean when you argue that we need more architects to lobby for a higher payscale, but then concede that the profession can't handle that many more architects. and doesn't the AIA lobby on behalf of architects the importance of design to federal gov't and the general populace?

to nonarchitect:

yes, you know that i would rather be building houses in guatemala than sitting at this desk. you and i both would rather be sitting on the beach with puddles drinking mojitos. there are a lot of things i'd rather be doing than sitting here. you see, i started in this field working for a steel erector for $9/hr. this was an intense, dangerous job. the guys i was working with who risk their lives for peanuts on a daily basis are probably the ones who should be unionizing. my first day on the job a 19 year old was killed on one of our jobsites. i am not against unions as a concept, they serve their purpose. but i also believe that i am lucky to be where i am in life, that i am educated, that i am moving up in the world, and i'm not running to shut off a welding tank that is about to explode and kill myself and our whole crew like i did when i was 19. there are lots and lots of stories i could tell you about what i learned from working in a war-zone like construction environment when i was a teenager, but the gist of it is that whenever i've been sick of autocad, complaining about bills, or working at 3am in studio, i'm just happy that i'm not sitting on a three inch beam waiting for a crane to drop off a load of roofing sheets in the rain. that is horrifying. the last couple of years have been your first working experience, no? i do sympathize. and the fact that it could be worse doesn't mean it shouldn't be better. there may be some cheesy rhetoric here but when i know roughneck ironworkers who don't want to unionize out of sheer pride, i am skeptical when architects complain about their jobs and call for unionization.

as interesting as all of these posts are, i have to admit that, as an underpaid intern in a starchitect office, i understood exactly what i was getting into before i even stepped foot in the office. nobody is twisting the arms of the interns to work for sub standard compensation. there is always another opportunity. i worked for a large corporate firm last summer and was paid rather well for an intern. the architecture produced may not have been all that exciting, but once again, i knew what i was getting into before i applied.

I am also going to have to agree with jumphigh in the fact that, as interns, we expect to move up much sooner than later. Nobody wants to be an intern 5 years out of school. and i for one feel that the poor treatment of interns only helps to push me towards that next level.

and as far as idea that this leads to less competition and therefore a lesser quality of interns becoming licensed, thats just a bunch of bologna. its mostly the competitive ones who are willing to sacrifice their nights and weekends for little or no pay. and in the end, i think those who were competitive, and those who suffered, not only get the opportunity to shine, but on more occasions than not, are happier with where they are in life. if money was such a big deal, then this industry would not have as many dedicated people who actually enjoy what they are doing (believe it or not, i have actually met a few of these people. turns out they have been amazing mentors). and as much as i love money, i have realized that it is not my priority. call me a dreamer, but the way i see it, those who suffer and pay their dues will be rewarded if they want it bad enough.

and still, if you cant earn a decent wage, then you sell out and work for a crappy developer and step on the little guys such as myself.

LameArc ; Those who suffered may not be the most talented or competent - this bothers me more than anything else. In the end the small pool of architects are those with sado-masocistic tendencies or are just plain dumb... I know you have been brainwashed into slave labour in architecture school, when you would have been better off training your mind filling crossword puzzles...

damn, nonarch, don't pull your punches.

i think the problem of the most talented not making it to licensure is only getting worse as other fields become more horizontal in their hierarchy. idp is set-up perfectly for someone who intends to stay in one office for 3-5 years. how common is that for young professionals? a typical start-up is usually in existence only 1-2 years before it is sold. all too often i've seen interns rewarded for staying at a firm for 5-8 years when they may or may not have the talent or skills of new recruits. other fields don't operate this way - in business placement and promotion is based largely off of ability, not simply longevity.

i understand the argument that architecture works at a slower pace than business, that you need employees to stay long enough to first learn the system and second complete projects. at the same time though, i would argue that this old school mentality is moving some of the best away from architecture to look for opportunity and reward, both financial and professional, in other fields.

i thought my working-class hero rhetoric killed this conversation once and for all. and as for nonarch, you are just jealous.

being an architect is not knowing how to do kick ass rhino scripts just like in 1972 being an architect was more than being a stud with the prisma colors

le bossman, just because you are content with where you are doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight for something better....all these responses only show me that architects would rather suffer than disturb the status quo...a very useful disposition indeed....for a profession that claims to be about innovating...maybe this is why I left

well, i still say the licensing process ensures that the majority of the profession is made up of hard working, clenched jawed, somewhat myopic, nose to the grindstone types. it's a good thing in that we don't hear of too many buildings falling down, bad in that it explains the state of our built environment.

does this mean we should all unionize? probably not.

my argument is not that we shouldn't fight for something better, only that we aren't suffering.

besides, you are a notarchitect so what business is it of yours anyway?

wait wait. that's nonarchitect

structural engineers are responsible for the structural safety of buildings. I know quite a few licensed engineer who hasn't a clue for structures...I think licensing ensures that architects would be competent enough to perform the services, and this should be maintained. However, the process is seriously flawed. Even if unionizing is not the answer, there is no reason to deny the existence of the problem.

the prospect of an architect designing a structure for anything more than a simple residential building frightens me. architects have the background for schematic structural design, but not to manage the minutia that comes with a complex project. and architects handle a myriad of complex technical issues on a day to day basis which goes beyond the mechanics of structures. i think what i do best compared to the engineers and builders just involves complex spatial problem solving. i'm critiquing there work as much as they are mine, and it goes far beyond aesthetics.

unions are not the answer. the answer lies in reaching further back to a guild system. the guilds protected their craft and livlihoods. yes people all the famous artists, sculptors, violin makers, armorers, saddlemakers of the renaissance and before and beyond were in guilds. it wasn't until all this artistic genius bullshit raised its ugly head that the guilds fell apart and now we have loads of overeducated underpaid "interns" lining up to build blue foam models for their heroes.

ah, the old "are we craftmen" or "are we artists" debate ...

I love it!

a guild system? are you serious?

hey guys, why don't you email me after work so we can start pre-renaissance a guild system to make our internship period easier. nonarchitect, remember to bring the hooded cloaks and hot coals for the initiation rights.

and dont forget your tribute money, or else!

you would be done with your internship which would have started at age ten. you would be a busy architect by now.

also, architecture is not a "non-essential" unless you're talking about really simple buildings. architecture is an essential profession, and if you are talking job protectionism, we have licensure.