key point to understand, mentioned above, but seeemingly lost in all this nonsense: interns have the ability to move up out the intern role. Enough said.
I would like to introduce an aspect to this discussion that I don't believe has been addressed yet.
Some years ago (early 70s), the US Department of Justice filed an anti-trust action against the profession that -- in the end -- resulted in a consent decree eliminating the profession's ability to establish and enforce "standard" fees.
Since that time, the profession has suffered from continual and debilitating fee competition, resulting in a never-ending spiral of ever lower fees. That defines the "revenue" part of the equation for us all. But there's also the "expense" side to consider.
While I understand what prompts these threads about "unionization" I'd suggest we look to Detroit and the difficulties facing the US Automobile Industry. While I won't for a minute acuse the unions of being the only cause of those difficulties, the fact remains that the combination of high labor costs, high benefit costs and low productivity have put the Big-3 auto makers into a non-competitive posture relative to their foreign competition.
It would be wise to consider -- in addition to all of the other thoughts expressed here -- what impact the creation of an architectural employees union might have on the overall competitiveness of the US Architectural Profession in an era of increasing globalization and competition.
oldfogey, you don't spend enough time around these parts anymore. i always liked your perspective on things.
quizzical, i'm not sure outsourcing ever lived up to the hype. there are too many differences between regional construction. kenneth frampton comes back to bite us in the ass. outside of a few oddballs like koolhaas i'm predicting architecture while having a global outlook remains economically fairly regional, much much more so than the auto industry.
(ironically, the translation of ideas into different cultures is what's holding architecture back from realizing the potential of globalization, i.e. there are no stud walls in india, while in the auto industry there is the problem of getting that axle 1,000 miles closer to that cam shaft - both circumstances lean towards more regional economies.)
many firms already are making outsourcing work, after experiencing early difficulties. once the learning curve is overcome, there are huge economic benefits (on the order of 50% lower cost per hour) that more than make up for a somewhat more complicated process.
a friend at another firm told me it wasn't any more difficult to train very smart guys sitting in India to detail the "american" way than it is to train u.s. trained grads - maybe easier, since they don't think they already know everything they need to know.
the auto industry buried its head in the sand for too long, thinking they had a particular local advantage.
indianastan has many carmakers guess what they are japanese cars. honda is building a huge plant. subaru and toyota have plants here as well. oh and hummer for the patriots.
i didn't mean to flip the topic to outsourcing which is deserving of its own thread, but my experience with it was much closer to oldfogey's than it was to babs' - too many difficulties in regional construction technique, too many problems in communication, little quality control.
the point of my above post (which probably wasn't very clear after a few beers myself) is that there are very simple factors that are holding the ideal of globalization back, namely cultural differences and the difficulty of having to move phyical objects from point-to-point. the former is affecting architecture, the latter affecting the auto industry. the global and the regional are actually tied together in a very complex manner - i think that's often lost on the hardcore globalization supporters.
back to the original question of how a more globalized world affects american unionization of architecture, completely theoretical, i don't think it has the same affect as it would in the auto industry, and for an interesting reason - because architecture is a skilled profession, you can't interchangably insert a new "non-union" architect into a project or office the same way you can a line worker in an assembly plant. that's essentially what outsourcing of consruction documents is and for the most part in my estimation that has been a failed experiment.
this thread is still going? come on, you want to change the system? quit the bitching, get licensed, join the AIA, get NCARB'd and raise holy hell with the state board about the bullshit.
Why do we put up with interns' bullshit to begin with? I would gladly pay extra for someone who truely understands how buildings go together and loves the art of deliniation regardless of their education experiance. They could be pinstripping cars and work part time as a framing carpenter and probly have a better understanding of graphic comunication and spatial translation that a lot of the renderfarmers being produced. Im seriously noticing a 50/50 split in recent grads' ability to even grasp the concepts of a full 8 hour workday, acceptable levels of production, how buildings work - worse is many of them Ive come accross just dont care to learn as if its somehow a distraction in their "advancement".
I feel like the time is comming for bringing back the profesional draftsperson model of architecture. Statements about unionizing interns indicate a complete disconnect and misunderstanding about how far away from being an actual architect interns are. Even newly licensed architects are especially vulnerable to the pitfalls of inexperiance. And its the critical experiance we are most delaying. Maybe its a generational failure to properly bring up the next group, or maybe its a rabid litigouse society or the dumbing down of the builders by low bid whore clients, but something aint right and unionizing, if its even leagal, would just make it far worse.
Why are we relying on AIA and NCARB to "solve" our profesional problems? AIA is there to lobby on behalf of our INDUSTRY and provide support service to its members.
If we really want to change architecture, we should start with the business of architecture and this funked up twisted model of miseducation and development.
I think REVIT and BMI are also a form of out sourcing. We out source human decisions to software, or is that atomization? BMI , cad block exchanges, digital detail libraries are streamlining the drafting process thus reducing the number of hours needed to produce construction documents. Thank god for lawyers whose relentless persecution of professional blunders have lead us architects to dramatically increase the number of construction documents and technical info we need to have on a drawing to CYOA. Right now the profession is doing two things, it is reaching a point where technology is taking on larger more important roles in design, and the educational side of the profession is growing out of pace with demand. The reason lawyers and Doctors can demand a higher salary is because the AMA and the Barr Association limit the number of seats in graduate schools. NAAB does not dictate to Yale, Texas A&M or anyone else how many students they can start an M Arch program each year, and how many they can graduate. If you want wages to go up we need to reduce the number of graduates in accredited programs.
ep: Statements about unionizing interns indicate a complete disconnect and misunderstanding about how far away from being an actual architect interns are.
yep. and also indicates a misunderstanding of even how this profession works.
PJN26 - I agree completely about reducing the number of graduates. All the arguments about starting an "intern" union is mostly about wages and benefits. Only easy way I see for across the board pay/benefit increases is wholesale reduction in the number of architects/interns.
EvilP - I agree that the grads coming out today are largely worthless help in putting together a set of CD's. The fact that so many on Archinect want to work at a "design" firm and could care less about production is another problem. Schematic design is a very small part of the job and it has much too large a focus on the collegiate level. The universities could cull the graduates if they just taught the reality of this profession. Arch theory is fine but CD's or "production" is still the bulk of work we must do.
Usually, when I copied things EP says I'm disagreeing with them, but I've got a twist on the motif here:
Why are we relying on AIA and NCARB to "solve" our profesional problems? AIA is there to lobby on behalf of our INDUSTRY and provide support service to its members.
Agreed. I think NCARB needs some reform, and the AIA sometimes spends more time advocating complicating the process of becoming an architect and not enough advocating for the services of architects, but these are separate concerns covered in other threads, and ones best addressed from within as a member, rather than as an adversary.
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
good luck getting that idea (reducing the number of grads) past the architecture schools. if you really want to reduce the number of architecture grads just teach in school what the normal routine of an architecture office is. then the number of architecture students really dive...(i know i make this point all the damned time)
architecture "interns", lets unionize !
key point to understand, mentioned above, but seeemingly lost in all this nonsense: interns have the ability to move up out the intern role. Enough said.
I would like to introduce an aspect to this discussion that I don't believe has been addressed yet.
Some years ago (early 70s), the US Department of Justice filed an anti-trust action against the profession that -- in the end -- resulted in a consent decree eliminating the profession's ability to establish and enforce "standard" fees.
Since that time, the profession has suffered from continual and debilitating fee competition, resulting in a never-ending spiral of ever lower fees. That defines the "revenue" part of the equation for us all. But there's also the "expense" side to consider.
While I understand what prompts these threads about "unionization" I'd suggest we look to Detroit and the difficulties facing the US Automobile Industry. While I won't for a minute acuse the unions of being the only cause of those difficulties, the fact remains that the combination of high labor costs, high benefit costs and low productivity have put the Big-3 auto makers into a non-competitive posture relative to their foreign competition.
It would be wise to consider -- in addition to all of the other thoughts expressed here -- what impact the creation of an architectural employees union might have on the overall competitiveness of the US Architectural Profession in an era of increasing globalization and competition.
Just some more food for thought.
oldfogey, you don't spend enough time around these parts anymore. i always liked your perspective on things.
quizzical, i'm not sure outsourcing ever lived up to the hype. there are too many differences between regional construction. kenneth frampton comes back to bite us in the ass. outside of a few oddballs like koolhaas i'm predicting architecture while having a global outlook remains economically fairly regional, much much more so than the auto industry.
(ironically, the translation of ideas into different cultures is what's holding architecture back from realizing the potential of globalization, i.e. there are no stud walls in india, while in the auto industry there is the problem of getting that axle 1,000 miles closer to that cam shaft - both circumstances lean towards more regional economies.)
many firms already are making outsourcing work, after experiencing early difficulties. once the learning curve is overcome, there are huge economic benefits (on the order of 50% lower cost per hour) that more than make up for a somewhat more complicated process.
a friend at another firm told me it wasn't any more difficult to train very smart guys sitting in India to detail the "american" way than it is to train u.s. trained grads - maybe easier, since they don't think they already know everything they need to know.
the auto industry buried its head in the sand for too long, thinking they had a particular local advantage.
they were spectacularly wrong.
indianastan has many carmakers guess what they are japanese cars. honda is building a huge plant. subaru and toyota have plants here as well. oh and hummer for the patriots.
i didn't mean to flip the topic to outsourcing which is deserving of its own thread, but my experience with it was much closer to oldfogey's than it was to babs' - too many difficulties in regional construction technique, too many problems in communication, little quality control.
the point of my above post (which probably wasn't very clear after a few beers myself) is that there are very simple factors that are holding the ideal of globalization back, namely cultural differences and the difficulty of having to move phyical objects from point-to-point. the former is affecting architecture, the latter affecting the auto industry. the global and the regional are actually tied together in a very complex manner - i think that's often lost on the hardcore globalization supporters.
back to the original question of how a more globalized world affects american unionization of architecture, completely theoretical, i don't think it has the same affect as it would in the auto industry, and for an interesting reason - because architecture is a skilled profession, you can't interchangably insert a new "non-union" architect into a project or office the same way you can a line worker in an assembly plant. that's essentially what outsourcing of consruction documents is and for the most part in my estimation that has been a failed experiment.
this thread is still going? come on, you want to change the system? quit the bitching, get licensed, join the AIA, get NCARB'd and raise holy hell with the state board about the bullshit.
that is exactly what i am doing.
Let's just ask the government for money. Like a bailout. ;)
yeah but aren't a lot of the towers getting erected in china and dubai designed by americans and europeans?
Why do we put up with interns' bullshit to begin with? I would gladly pay extra for someone who truely understands how buildings go together and loves the art of deliniation regardless of their education experiance. They could be pinstripping cars and work part time as a framing carpenter and probly have a better understanding of graphic comunication and spatial translation that a lot of the renderfarmers being produced. Im seriously noticing a 50/50 split in recent grads' ability to even grasp the concepts of a full 8 hour workday, acceptable levels of production, how buildings work - worse is many of them Ive come accross just dont care to learn as if its somehow a distraction in their "advancement".
I feel like the time is comming for bringing back the profesional draftsperson model of architecture. Statements about unionizing interns indicate a complete disconnect and misunderstanding about how far away from being an actual architect interns are. Even newly licensed architects are especially vulnerable to the pitfalls of inexperiance. And its the critical experiance we are most delaying. Maybe its a generational failure to properly bring up the next group, or maybe its a rabid litigouse society or the dumbing down of the builders by low bid whore clients, but something aint right and unionizing, if its even leagal, would just make it far worse.
This got me a little steamed this morning so -
Why are we relying on AIA and NCARB to "solve" our profesional problems? AIA is there to lobby on behalf of our INDUSTRY and provide support service to its members.
If we really want to change architecture, we should start with the business of architecture and this funked up twisted model of miseducation and development.
I really dont understand the point of NCARB still but thats another thread
I think REVIT and BMI are also a form of out sourcing. We out source human decisions to software, or is that atomization? BMI , cad block exchanges, digital detail libraries are streamlining the drafting process thus reducing the number of hours needed to produce construction documents. Thank god for lawyers whose relentless persecution of professional blunders have lead us architects to dramatically increase the number of construction documents and technical info we need to have on a drawing to CYOA. Right now the profession is doing two things, it is reaching a point where technology is taking on larger more important roles in design, and the educational side of the profession is growing out of pace with demand. The reason lawyers and Doctors can demand a higher salary is because the AMA and the Barr Association limit the number of seats in graduate schools. NAAB does not dictate to Yale, Texas A&M or anyone else how many students they can start an M Arch program each year, and how many they can graduate. If you want wages to go up we need to reduce the number of graduates in accredited programs.
ep: Statements about unionizing interns indicate a complete disconnect and misunderstanding about how far away from being an actual architect interns are.
yep. and also indicates a misunderstanding of even how this profession works.
BMI? Body Mass Index has something to do with architecture??
Sorry my overzealous spell check foiled me again
PJN26 - I agree completely about reducing the number of graduates. All the arguments about starting an "intern" union is mostly about wages and benefits. Only easy way I see for across the board pay/benefit increases is wholesale reduction in the number of architects/interns.
EvilP - I agree that the grads coming out today are largely worthless help in putting together a set of CD's. The fact that so many on Archinect want to work at a "design" firm and could care less about production is another problem. Schematic design is a very small part of the job and it has much too large a focus on the collegiate level. The universities could cull the graduates if they just taught the reality of this profession. Arch theory is fine but CD's or "production" is still the bulk of work we must do.
can we call it the AIIA... American Institute of Intern Architects?
Usually, when I copied things EP says I'm disagreeing with them, but I've got a twist on the motif here:
Why are we relying on AIA and NCARB to "solve" our profesional problems? AIA is there to lobby on behalf of our INDUSTRY and provide support service to its members.
Agreed. I think NCARB needs some reform, and the AIA sometimes spends more time advocating complicating the process of becoming an architect and not enough advocating for the services of architects, but these are separate concerns covered in other threads, and ones best addressed from within as a member, rather than as an adversary.
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
I just really loved that quote.
good luck getting that idea (reducing the number of grads) past the architecture schools. if you really want to reduce the number of architecture grads just teach in school what the normal routine of an architecture office is. then the number of architecture students really dive...(i know i make this point all the damned time)
Are firms paying interns being payed for the education they did not, and by implication should have, received elsewhere?
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.