Glad to know my PhD in urban planning is "less relevant" ;-)

Sorry, I'm kidding, and I know what you mean.

The short answer is no, it will not be worth it for most people. Research and writing (and teaching) is what the PhD trains you for. If someone who's practice-minded still has the bug for more schooling, I always recommend a second master's degree in a compimentary field: planning, urban design, landscape architecture, real estate development, business, engineering, fine art, whichever.

Also, do a search of discussion threads for more on this subject, and you'll find lots of opinions.

"a complementary field" I meant to write...

what citizen said.

i would add that most of the profs at my archi-school are phd-ed and have own offices. it is more or less expected here. even shin takamatsu has a phd...but i don't know if it makes a difference...is peter eisenmann any better than rem for his phd? couldn't say. practice and academia are generally quite different. managing both is very hard. being good in both is even harder. but i wouldn't say phd will make you a better practioner. the opposite is perhaps even more likely.

A professor at my school told me that some firms take a PHd as a negative because they will wonder why you weren't eager to get done with school and practice. Don't know if this is true though.

Sorry Citizen, :C

...Thanks Cit and Jump, I was just wondering, There just seemed to have been a seemingly odd trend in my reading latley where I was finding that people who had chosen to pursure extensive education and practice afterward completed their education but never pursued practive and put their degrees toward "less traditional roles" <as one book describes aritecture as the only tradtional degree path.

Thanks

Rfrox, that seems likely- (not common, likely)

I was also wondering about that aspect also, I wonder, would even a secure (personally and professionally) employer be as eager to hire a PhD?
(No one throw cyber darts at me, just a thought)
...would they call him/her Dr.XXX at the firm?... lol...

Anyway, just a wonder

Jump's experience in Japan seems to counter that here in the US, where most firms may be impressed with the doctorate, but not interested in hiring it... for pretty much the reason you cite, IYCSM.

Still, there's the occasional good fit. My firm does a lot of research as part of its design methodology, so that works well for both of us. I also am licensed and have some years in practice (yes, I'm a codger), and without that I probably wouldn't be as interesting to them.

As for "Doctor...", one guy in our studio calls me that, for fun. As my first mentor (also a PhD-- a physicist before becoming an architect) used to say: "an academic calling himself "Doctor" is an a**hole by definition."

I say: if there ain't no blood, there ain't no doctor!

my $.02

our practice is what most of you would label a "mainstream commercial practice" ... from time-to-time, we review resumes from professionals with PhD level education ... and, we invite some in for interviews ... for the most part, we find it very difficult to understand how they would fit in to our world ... we're very pragmatic about our work and these candidates seem to just want to sit around and talk about stuff and study it some more ... they're all very smart people and they know a lot about their area of interest ... many have interesting resumes and portfolios ... but, we find that "generalists" who want to drive the project forward to completion seem to do best in our workaday world.

Understandable and even likely,

But, Quiz,

As there seems to be an exception to every rule, if this PhD was actually a "generalist" who just happened to be intrigued by academia and also "want[s] to drive the project forward to completion" and this was apparent during interview- that while they enjoy education, have had their fill of it-, would they be hired as readily as someone who had not pursued a PhD?

And despite the perception, and often reality, that the profession as a whole seems to be for the "older" as when this is when recognition comes, would someone who had chosen to pursue a PhD be considered "too old" (30-33 at least) not on technicality but as a preference of the employer) or even the slightest less desirable than someone younger?

Another thought,
Would a PhD have to "throw out" their degree or otherwise not mention it on the resume or in the interview to get a job?
Even with an impressive portfolio and completed IDP and excellent references from past employers?
(yes, considering this person had the time and money/financial sponors to accomplish these tasks)

And what if this person had achieved those items and along with a license, would a successful architect WANT to make that hire (generally asking, delete all the morality and personal security)?

What about an unlicensed yet unsuccessful Starchitect?



Just thoughts...

well ... with every hire, we deal with each individual on a case-by-case basis. you asked a general question and I gave you a general answer.

sure, I suppose all that you propose above could be possible ... I'm just saying that the typical PhD graduate that we've seen has pursued the degree primarily because they want to teach and conduct research ... that's what PhD programs typically train people to do.

I tend to feel that such candidates typically are seeking employment in the commercial sector because they are unable to find a suitable teaching position. I've yet to come across one who really seemed to be highly motivated to join a private firm in lieu of securing a faculty position at a university.

IMHO, the typical "mainstream commercial practice" such as ours would have a great deal of trouble making effective use of the skills and temperament that we typically see demonstrated by the typical graduate architect sporting a PhD.

but, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the only way to go.

?!?!

Yeah, I got the TYPICAL response and why it was TYPICAL; I UNDERSTAND.

This thread was mainly just a wonder, food for thought even, and generally people don't respond to threads if they see them as a waste so, with your reply came another wonder, WONDER...

My 02/06/08 11:14 questions were just questions,
what does one think, what expiriences/second hand knowledge lead up to this thought, what one thinks adjacent to what they "know"/have heard/feel about the subjective aspect of architecture and so on and so on, basic (or factual) input

...Of course I never expected concrete responses, just TYPICAL ones...
of course I'm not so stupid as to think you all act as a total institution when hiring, no one successful does; they can't...individuals are need to be delt with individualy...!!! I gotta go...

lol (but just a little)

my case is more like citizen's, cuz i worked for some time in offices before doing phd, and a few years before doing m.arch as well. here in japan a phd is meaningless in an office. no one would hire me for having it. hell, I wouldn't hire me for it. and i won't expect a job just because i have one, but then, for me phd is a personal thing, not a career thing. i am mostly interested in practicing architecture. phd is more for context, understanding where practice fits in...

as an aside, when i was looking for a topic for research i chose very carefully to NOT study architecture but planning issues. this may have been a lack of imagination, but the work my classmates were doing at phd level on architecture tended towards the typological. which is coolio, but somehow didn't seem so relevant to practice for me.

so i went for planning. my prof is an architect. a good one, all things considered, but he practices planning as well - much of that work is supported by research with students, and he has some interesting things going on...but his research as phd is not really connected to theory of design, just theory of how to live in the city.

in that respect i find the phd perfectly valid, even for someone who plans to practice architecture, as it helps put things in perspective. if the perspective is always going to be limited to one building at a time, without regard for society, culture, or the city at large then it would be a waste of time...but i am personally of opinion that architecture is more than that...and i expect to use the things i learned in phd to make good architecture (and maybe good cities)...

which sounds more or less what citizen is doing.

as a final point...my partner did his phd research on public and private partnerships in urban planning, ie the role of corporate entities in creation of urban realm in tokyo. he used the contacts and knowledge to form basis of development company. not all phd research is useless or about merely talking. i might say very little of it really, but i am biased...;-)

(*ByTheWay, if it even still matters... 02/06/08 11:14 "What about an unlicensed yet unsuccessful Starchitect?" was supposed to read "What about an unlicensed yet SUCCESSFUL Starchitect?")



Hmmm, thanks for the response Jump; definitely a different and appreciated perspective.
I especially like the idea of a PhD in this field being a personal, not professional, thing; interesting.

But bias aside Jump,
Would a PhD have to "throw out" their degree or otherwise not mention it on the resume or in the interview to get a job?

Any opinion? (TYPICAL, lol, or whatever)


Also, thanks for posting those links. The work is really nice, its always interesting to see cultural perceptions of the some concept; while the work reminded me (or I could identify with the concepts, might be a better wording) a lot of US modern, it still had a different feel to it.
I'll add it to my favs and go over the work in more detail (not only do I love design, I'm a total geek for sociological aspects of the physical environment... sociology, social studies, urban studies, urban design)... anyway, thanks for sharing!

My strong hunch is that Quiz's view/experience with PhD's looking for jobs in firms is the norm, IYCSM. At my interview, I got the same kinds of questions: Don't you want to teach? Why do you want to go back to practice?

Another hunch is that, due to our firm's emphasis on research, having a PhD on staff was seen as having promotional value--and that may have won out over concerns about any divided interests I might have.

I will say that if I was going wide on the job market any time soon, I'd consider taking the PhD off my resume. Some will be intriqued and not worried about it, but more will see it as a potential liability for someone expected to perform well in an office setting, I think.

There is PLENTY of satisfaction (along with sacrifice) that comes with doing the doctorate--especially FINISHING it. If it sounds good to you, make it your Everest, as I did. Just keep in mind that it's a completely separate undertaking relative to practice with a firm.

Did you work during your PhD, Citizen?

Yes, limited part-time. I borrowed from Sallie Mae for some, and got grants and assistantships as well.

This hits on the biggest underemphasized part of long-term graduate study: all the years one is out of the earning pool. Some programs provide funding, but it is a pittance compared to what you'd be earning in a regular job of even middling salary.

that is hardest part for me too (the money thing)

i had schoalrship up until recently that was pretty good as such things go (the only comparable one i found was in the UK), but not quite enough to live on.

as far as not writing phd on resume... i will keep it there, but for me is not such an issue cuz i show my resume to clients not to employers. in japan in fact having it there is important because the school i am going to is well known and a phd there provides an aura of competence...

more than that though, when i began studies here i made sure to keep working. i wanted to be able to say that i never left practice. My business partner did the same, spending his time during phd working part-time for a starchitect connected to my prof. i couldn't afford those wages so instead worked for myself and recently began an office, so there is no dead space in my portfolio and i have continued to learn to design and run sites through practice...that was a conscious decision based on the same fears you have brought up ifyoucanseeme. if i ever do look for a job again i can point to a nice body of work, mostly built. that was not easy to do however and i don't know if it is even possible in the united states. it also makes my academic credentials thinner than i would like cuz i didn't have time to write very many articles for peer review publications. maybe a trade-off is inevitable no matter what...