Avavine, according to whom? well, according to one person who keeps seeing students graduating, M.Arch in one hand and huge loans in the other, who cannot function outside of academia. That's whom.

You've not even completed your expensive hobby so I doubt you'll understand that there is nothing a $150K program can teach that a $20K one cannot. You'll be at the same bottom level as everyone else.

Curt, you've seen straight to the core of my position.

When architecture grads from the GSD are walking out with similar debt loads as the Law School, then it's fair to say that the school is the problem. Starting M. Arch salaries are about $40k to $60k; large law firm salaries start at $160k.  Debt loads at the GSD and the Law School are roughly the same (they're both insane).

Speaking platitudes about the fact that architects are undervalued does not change  market dynamics. Architecture firms command specific fees and costs of labor (i.e. architect salaries) are determined accordingly. If clients aren't happy with price, they go to other architects who will charge less. Somehow creating a movement toward "valuing" architects doesn't change this market reality. I hate to sound cynical and stubborn, but this is the truth.

Charging students less allows them to to deal with these market realities when they enter the workforce. 

@non sequitur I may not have graduated yet, but my peers that have are not struggling as you claim they are, unless I just happen to have become good friends with "the exceptions" to your supposed observations. 

You also fail to see the non-monetary benefits of an elite education and subsequent degree, but I won't waste my time explaining those again to someone who is obviously so blinded by ROI calculations. You are the person that SeriousQuestion proposed a few posts back. Like I said - if you solely value your education for the price of a class of sketch up and other technical skills, I'd say you're a perfect candidate for ITT tech, as if technical skills is what makes an architect an architect, and as if technical skills should be the goalpost for what an education should be valued. 

If you've gleaned anything from what I've repeated over and over, it should be that the bottom level you speak of is unacceptable for anyone who graduates with an MArch, debt or no debt. 

P. S. I don't understand your need to insult me simply because I chose to attend a school you seem to despise, for whatever reason. That's quite immature to be someone who condescends to others on an Internet forum during a debate. 

@seriousquestion at least now we are talking about the issues that matter - the fact that architects are seen as a service that is easily substitutable for an inferior but cheaper option. The market is the way it is because of the way clients and society at large sees the role of the architect as disposable. Instead of firms clamoring for top design grads, top design grads are begging for unpaid internship positions. See, the fact that arch students have similar debt loads to law students isn't the problem - it's the fact that architects don't get paid what lawyers get paid. This is a bigger issue that the cost of the GSD, which is an institution that doesn't force you to apply nor attend. The market isn't a privilege, the GSD is. Whereas no student needs to go to the GSD, all students need to deal with the market. 

Architectural fees should be higher and architectural salaries should be too. We need to value the work architects are doing, especially in top firms that are producing top work. I think part of the issue is that the architecture world mimics the art industry a little too closely for comfort. 

It would be surprising to see an university such as Harvard charge 1/4 of their tuition for architecture students but keep their outrageously high prices for other majors just because they have higher entry salaries. 

With respect to how we "should" value architecture work more - you're kind ignoring econ 101 here. Basic supply and demand. Yelling at people telling them how they "undervalue" architects isn't going to do anything.

To your second point-- you're right. Harvard isn't unilaterally going to cut tuition -- it'll require the federal government to refuse to give loans to students who won't earn enough money to pay back their federal debt.

"if technical skills should be the goalpost for what an education should be valued"

Double yes... not the price tag attached to your diploma, or the implied elite social status of the school. Glad we can come to terms here.  You learned something today and it did not cost you a penny.

Your school has done wonders in convincing you that you're a special "Top Designer" simply because you've paid admission into the building and not flunked out. Just leave that baggage in the studio when you graduate.

btw, I have nothing against GSD.

Who's yelling? 

Like I've previously said, I'm not optimistic about the industry because of these economic forces. But just like how law firms and consulting firms recruit top students from top universities for their very high paying positions, design doesn't have that system - and it's a societal reflection of how architecture as an industry has failed our students and aspiring architects. 

Www.Architecture-lobby.org has a pithy explanation of this that summarizes my views on the subject. I suggest you read it. 

@nonsequitur I'm literally cringing at your self-assurance that you're right. you're so condescending that it's actually a little disturbing how someone could be so blind. 

NO, technical skills have never been and will never be the focus of an architectural education, and you claiming that it is only shows your ignorance because an architectural education should NOT be about how to use CAD and sketch up. Technical skills are only valuable because of the state of the industry undervaluing good designers and working for profit because they are at the mercy of clients. Good design has taken a downfall as outlined in my previous post's link, and now the burden lies on students - but abandoning a true architectural education for youtube- learnable sketch up tutorials will not make you a superior architect, even if we all start at the bottom together. 

We agree on one fact - that both the GSD and state schools teach us technical skills, and unfortunately the market is such that debt is an issue. But the problem lies not within the school but within the market. 

You need to cut the attitude, cherry picking, baseless assumptions and general rudeness in your posts. I've never claimed to be a top designer, and I've also never claimed that the high price tag is something to be bragged about. You're obviously not reading my previous posts and your whole condescension is really unnecessary and unappreciated. Get over yourself and have a civil discussion rather than attack me personally with erroneous statements. 

"I have nothing against the GSD" and now you're lying too? For shame. 

That website rehashes the points you're making, and again, it's totally ignoring economic realities. 

The grand recruiting system that exists in law, tech, consulting, etc. exists because those industries need worker bees and have MONEY paid from CLIENTS to expend on formal recruiting programs.

I can't tell if you're being opaque with your writing or actually believe this, but "architecture as an industry" is not failing anyone because it lacks a recruiting program or top pay. It's simply a reflection of the fact the market doesn't DEMAND architects.

the non-monetary benefits of an elite education and subsequent degree

come on now, the non-monetary benefits are that you get to waste lots of time and money.

what do you think you can do with your gsd diploma and all that education that a client would want to pay for and a person with a 2-year degree from ITT can't do?  i'm just saying, learn some software while you're doing important things at gsd, and it might not be a complete waste for you.

you said this:

my peers that have (graduated) are not struggling as you claim they are, unless I just happen to have become good friends with "the exceptions" to your supposed observations. 

and then

Instead of firms clamoring for top design grads, top design grads are begging for unpaid internship positions.

approximately 10 minutes later.  it would seem you could be experiencing either one or the other, but not both?

So much for an elite school.

$150K well spent.

Avanine, if it matters, I have read your posts. I just don't think you understand.

Avanine: "If you've gleaned anything from what I've repeated over and over, it should be that the bottom level you speak of is unacceptable for anyone who graduates with an MArch, debt or no debt. "

What does this mean? 

@SeriousQuestion that is true, the market for architects is not the market for other fields. But I would be careful of taking market forces as immutable - the demand for architects (and the consequences of low wage/poor prospects) is at the level it's at because of the way clients/developers/the world at large see the role of the architect as a disposable service. If you change the outlook, you change the demand. If people start believing that what quality designers are bringing to the table are worthy of our consideration as a society, then the demand for well-trained architects will rise. Now, I'm not necessarily calling for architects to be paid what lawyers are being paid - I think that is unrealistic. But I think we can learn from other professional disciplines in which compensation and work/investment is worthwhile, in how they advertise themselves, how they view their graduates, how they recruit, how they determine compensation, how they make distinctions based on quality of education and work rather than "well these grads all know CAD, let them draw details for 6 years".

I think there was a thread about this a while back, about why architects are paid shit, but I don't know what it was titled. I thought that the discussion was quite interesting. I'll see if I can find it for you.

@curtkram well, first of all, how exactly is wasting time / money considered a "benefit"? Also, do you happen to think all we do at the GSD is sit and talk theory? Obviously, in order to produce what we produce, we learn all the technical skills necessary for the job. Both GSD and ITT grads learn the same technical skills because those are what are required for the profession. However, we also learn how to apply these technical skills to design in a way that an ITT grad will never have the chance to do, not to mention opportunities to work with renown professors, have successful alumni networks and connections, etc. though I've already explained this multiple times in previous posts. Why don't you go and take a read?

As for the discrepancy - I apologize, I made a mistake, thank you for the correction. The second line should read "Instead of firms clamoring for top design grads, top design grads are begging for underpaid entry positions". Internships are for people still in school - not for grads - so that was an error on my part. But to be clear, both statements are still true: We have to beg for underpaid entry positions upon graduating just like every other architecture grad student, whether they are from ITT or GSD. The difference is that elite school grads continuously end up taking those slots - look at any top firm and you'll see a huge swath of them are from elite institutions - GSD, GSAPP, YSoA, UMich, etc. This says more about the industry than it does about the quality of education at these schools - which was my original argument that I've been repeating over and over. So my peers have been seeing success, despite the despicable state of the industry, which is either attributable to the quality of their education OR to the networking / competitive edge the elite institution affords us.

To be clear, we're conflating two arguments now: the main one is based on the OP - that the GSD's tuition is not worth the price given the state of the industry. I agreed with this in multiple posts - elite private schools are expensive and that's the unfortunate reality of our situation, but they are also expensive with reason - for many non-monetary benefits that in most fields are worth the extra incurred initial cost of investing in a degree. I've also stated that this may NOT be the case in architecture for various reasons I've already explained, but this says more about the state of the industry than it does about the quality of the education the GSD.

The other argument is that you and Non Sequitur are positing that technical skills define the quality and value of an architectural education and that to me is completely false. I'm a little surprised that that is even a question.

In terms of practical application of education to work, the GSD is expensive for what it provides you, and this has been agreed upon by all of us I think, but that is a symptom of the industry and not of the quality of the education, which was my original point that even though its unfortunate, we should be focusing on the systematic issue of underpaid architects rather than expensive tuition. The reason why this debate has been drawn out is because we are discussing multiple issues - the high price of tuition at private universities, which is an issue in its own right - the benefits of an education at an elite university, both in general for all disciplines and in regards to architecture specifically, and also the state of the industry.

@Donna Sink I'm basically saying that I don't think the amount of compensation for an M.Arch degree is acceptable - that in today's climate, whether or not you went to a private or a public institution, a good design school or a bad design school, etc. doesn't even matter anymore - your starting pay is meager and isn't a good reflection of the quality of your education nor the design work that is produced. 

@Non Sequitur, actually, I think it's you who do not understand. Your arguments have been facile and you haven't refuted any point I've made thus far. The productive conversation here is coming from SeriousQuestion. All you've done is make snarky, rude, and insulting commentary without actually refuting my arguments with evidence or logic from your perspective. It's quite tiring to hear from a troll who offers nothing to the debate.

May I open this discussion up to not just the GSD but grad school in general? I've been in the industry for a few years (beating a few GSD grads for jobs ;)) and currently applying to grad school. Not trying to continue the circlejerk, but I have not especially been too impressed with student work at many schools. IE:

1. UPenn

2. Princeton

3. UTSOA

I am impressed with a lot of GSD student work but not applying because I don't want to go in debt $$$ and honestly doubt that I could get in.  James Leng (GSD '13) has amazing work in my opinion.  And most of my favorite architects are GSD alum (J. Gang, ect, ect.).  My final undergrad studio involved GSD faculty and I've spent some time in Gund Hall.  Back to the debt thing, I want to be free to move across the world at whim/start a practice and holding  $150K in debt (or any debt) for that matter, would inhibit that.  

I find myself in a strange place.  Having spent time in the industry, I feel disgruntled at what seems to be an anemic professional practice.  I've worked at locally "award-winning" firms and received offers from international firms that do work that excites me but only offer a pittance.  Pertaining to compensation, as brought up earlier, can it be broken into industry sticking to unpaid internships... I haven't seen any as of late (maybe I'm not looking).  I have been well compensated while working and I've only had to laugh at are the offers from avente gaurd firms.  I don't want to over-generalize though.  I hope to work for a firm or two that I would be excited to go to work for everyday.     

But back to looking for a grad school, I feel disgruntled at pedantic studying of melting plastic and cutting foam.  I understand that there needs to be a place to test the concept cars of architecture but I'd like it if they had wheels and the potential to function, even the slightest hint.  Am I wrong...  are there US schools that offer a place to develop interesting ways of practicing architecture instead of the overwrought formalistic agendas??? I have to go back because I have pre-professional degree and don't think I can make it 10 years or so working in the industry to get a license. I've looked at the "technical" schools like Cincinnati's DAAP but the student work had a jar of sepia spill all over uninspiring stuff.  I don't want to sound overly harsh, I am no future-architecture-god, just trying to figure out how I can occupy the grey area between industry and academia.  I would prefer to be a Francis Kere as opposed to a Pritzker-winning-design-brand-Hadid.        

how exactly is wasting time / money considered a "benefit"?

because it's fun.  at least if you do it right.  i suppose if you're wasting your time and money and not having fun, you may end up living a life with lots of regret.

so the successful people (top design grads) you know who have graduated from gsd are underpaid interns?  doesn't sound that successful.  i can see how you blame the industry rather than gsd, but if you set aside the blame it would start to seem evident that what gsd produces is underpaid interns right?

i am not seeing a huge swath of grads from elite institutions beating out prospects from non-elite institutions.  my anecdotal experience would be that people tend to hire from those schools in the area they practice, so if you're close to harvard, you'll see more harvard grads.  if you're close to michigan, you'll see more michigan grads.  maybe that's not typical though.

technical skills may not define the quality or value of a school, but they are something that prospective employers are looking for.  i'm just saying, after you get all theoried out from your elite professors, those technical skills might give you something that would help you get hired by the sort of people that hire architects.

opportunities to work with renown professors, have successful alumni networks and connections, etc. though I've already explained this multiple times in previous posts.

so is this why you're paying more for an 'elite' education?  is it working for you?  i thought you basically said that your top design peers were fighting for scraps?  something is going wrong.  it might not be "the industry."  what you value as a student, or what your professors value as professors, may not be the same thing that's valued by people who hire architects.

as NS said, $150k well spent, right?

@Donna Sink I agree with you, but I don't think Ivy grads are necessarily skilled only in conceptual thinking and design with zero practical abilities. There will be exceptions, but I feel like the quality of work produced at many top schools require at least a good fundamental grasp of many billable technical skills - digital drafting, modeling, physical modeling, laser cutting, 3D printing, adobe suite, etc. The main missing portion of the education would be actual practical skills in terms of *practice* like you said - drawing construction documents, detailing joints, etc. but that comes with internships and work experience as many of my peers have done.

I do agree it is a balance - which is something that can be found at top schools that cannot be found at ITT tech - which is why I found curtkram and non sequitur's argument to be bunk.

As for networking, I also agree - that is one of the hallmarks of attending an Ivy, regardless of discipline. It isn't required for success, but it's a major selling point of the "brand" of an elite institution.

@curtkram I don't think you understood what I wrote.

My peers who have seen success after graduation are full time employees at top firms. Like I said pretty clearly, they are not interns... that was a mistake on my part. My point was that they are still underpaid for the work they are producing and that is a product of the industry's valuation (or lack thereof) of that work because of a wider systemic problem with how architects are valued. Also, just to be more specific, not all my friends are GSD grads. I also have friends at other top schools that are seeing success - YSoA, GSAPP, etc.

You're right about regional hiring pools, which is the network that I mentioned. Elite institutions have enormous networks, especially international ones, and GSD is no exception. 

I also agree with practical skill vs. theory. My point is that we don't simply sit around and talk all day. We do learn practical skills and we produce quality work. It is a false dichotomy to say technical schools ONLY teach technical skills and Ivy schools ONLY teach theory. Balance is important, as @Donna Sink put it.

You've misunderstood my post. Every architecture grad is fighting for shitty-paying jobs. That is my point. It isn't *only top grads* that are fighting for jobs, *all* grads are fighting for jobs. I've also made the point that architecture is a field in which an elite moniker is probably the least influential in comparison to fields such as banking, consulting, business, law, medicine, etc.

Do many or any really accumulate this much debt? Don't the parents usually pay the tuition, and when they don't or can't aren't there plenty of scholarships to lower the cost? That at least is how I remember it from when I went to graduate school. 

Don't forget you are only young once and attending a great graduate program puts you in an environment where you will learn a great deal through exposure to the top people in the field and you will also make contacts that you will have for the rest of your life (the most valuable part of graduate school many including I would argue). And don't forget this is a few years before you have to join the real world and should make it a priority to have FUN.  

Avanine, you've failed to realize that you are not "elite" simply because you attend an "elite" school. Get rid of that chip. It's like someone claiming they are smarter than others simply because they bought the latest Iphone. Things don't work that way.

@Non sequitur - quote me, please, where I've said I am elite. You can't. I haven't.

Also, the "chip" on the shoulder is usually referring to a feelings of inferiority, not superiority. If anything, you're the one with the chip that you can't seem to get rid of, but can't really justify either.

and you claiming that my degree and education is bought instead of earned is both baseless and insulting. 

How about actually refuting my arguments instead of attacking me personally? Your schtick is getting boring.

@Non Sequitur what a convenient excuse for ignorance. I bet it smarts to not have any, enjoy that chip on your shoulder, Mr. Enlightened Soul.

i'm missing your point

a university that costs more isn't going to do a better job of preparing you to be a better architect, and it isn't going to get you a better job.  it will, however, cost more.

the difference between your school and any other school is simply that your school costs more.  so NS seems to be suggesting that isn't worth it.  your harvard debate skillz seems to be telling him he doesn't understand and then talking past him as if you weren't paying attention.

you aren't going into debt for your education, so either you already have that $150k, or someone else is paying the $150k.  it starts to make sense how your choice to go gsd makes sense if someone else is paying for it, though if you are losing the opportunity costs of putting that $150k somewhere more lucrative, it might be a questionable decision again.

either way, the university you chose has no bearing on the low pay architects receive after graduation. 

i suppose some confusion entered the conversation when you said this

If you want to attend an elite university, you pay the price because you're obviously getting MUCH MORE than just an education

you're obviously not.  you're still fighting for low paid entry level positions, and often losing those positions to students who didn't blow as much money as you did.  given the choice, i think there is little question that spending that money on hookers and cocaine would have been more worthwhile, if it was your money to spend.  but then, many of us here have the hindsight you haven't had a chance to develop yet.  some things only come with experience.

also, regarding this:

a product of the industry's valuation (or lack thereof) of that work because of a wider systemic problem with how architects are valued.

you may be inflating the value your peers are able to provide.  probably because you're inflating the value of your education, which isn't actually worth all that much.

a university that costs more isn't going to do a better job of preparing you to be a better architect, and it isn't going to get you a better job.  it will, however, cost more.

I agree and disagree. Firstly, elite universities provide a different education than technical universities. Secondly, it isn't because of the price that they train you to be a better architect - the price is inherent in all disciplines, not just architecture. Thirdly, it may not help you get a better job (but oftentimes it does), and that is attributable not to the lack of quality within those institutions but rather to the issue of what the industry is requiring of entry-level autoCAD monkeys.

The difference between your school and any other school is simply that your school costs more. 

 That's not true, at all. GSAPP / YSoA / GSD / Sci-Arc / USC, basically all private universities etc. all cost a lot of money. They also all teach different design pedagogy and prepare you to think and design in certain ways, something that ITT tech will never train you to do - this is what Donna Sink was getting at - that elite schools within architecture has a strong focus on design and theory, which technical schools don't have. For you to suggest that the only difference between architecture programs is their price is ridiculous. 

so NS seems to be suggesting that isn't worth it. 

I have pretty much AGREED with this fact since the very beginning, except for different reasons and depending on various circumstances. This is what I mean by you misunderstanding my posts. I have admitted that within architecture, school brand and pedigree does not have the same clout that it does within other fields, so it is not necessarily the best investment of money. However, that does not diminish the quality of education and the other non-monetary benefits that come along with an elite education, which I have previously discussed. In fields such as law, consulting, investment banking, etc. - school brand and recognition matter almost more than what you actually know and learn. This isn't the case for architecture and we have all agreed on this - but this isn't because of the price of tuition, it's because of the architecture INDUSTRY. I'm merely saying that it's the profession that is broken in its valuation of what architecture should be and compounding the *completely separate issue* of expensive tuition for private schools, regardless of discipline. It is the realities of the market that is making the statement "GSD tuition may not be worth the monetary investment"  true. THIS is the part that you are misunderstanding and have been misunderstanding since the beginning. Also, I have made the argument that depending on your priorities, both financial, educational, etc., that the non-monetary benefits of an elite education could make the investment worthwhile despite the high price tag. That could lead to a completely separate discussion altogether, which is perhaps why you're confused and misconstruing my posts.

you aren't going into debt for your education, so either you already have that $150k, or someone else is paying the $150k.  it starts to make sense how your choice to go gsd makes sense if someone else is paying for it, though if you are losing the opportunity costs of putting that $150k somewhere more lucrative, it might be a questionable decision again. 

I will not discuss my personal financial situation online, but let's just say that you don't know my story and the reasons I am able to attend without taking federal loans. So don't make assumptions.

either way, the university you chose has no bearing on the low pay architects receive after graduation. 

I've never said it does - in a previous post directed to SeriousQuestion, I stated that there is no salary differential, but that is besides the point. 

i suppose some confusion entered the conversation when you said this

If you want to attend an elite university, you pay the price because you're obviously getting MUCH MORE than just an education

you're obviously not.  you're still fighting for low paid entry level positions, and often losing those positions to students who didn't blow as much money as you did.  given the choice, i think there is little question that spending that money on hookers and cocaine would have been more worthwhile, if it was your money to spend.  but then, many of us here have the hindsight you haven't had a chance to develop yet.  some things only come with experience.

I've said this - not you. To quote myself: "Every architecture grad is fighting for shitty-paying jobs. That is my point. It isn't *only top grads* that are fighting for jobs, *all* grads are fighting for jobs." And this is a problem of the industry, not of the schools. This is separate from the actual difference in education you get at an elite university and a technical university (note as well that very economic state schools are not necessarily technical).

also, regarding this:

a product of the industry's valuation (or lack thereof) of that work because of a wider systemic problem with how architects are valued.

you may be inflating the value your peers are able to provide.  probably because you're inflating the value of your education, which isn't actually worth all that much.

The argument of whether or not the high price of tuition is worthwhile has been settled a long time ago - with all of us in agreement that within the architecture field, it is not easy to justify paying the money for the GSD if ROI for money is a priority. I don't understand why it's hard for you two to understand this. The other argument is about the difference in what you learn and get at an elite institution versus a technical institution - which has also been beaten to death but you haven't gotten the difference. Your assertion that the two are the same is completely off base because they offer fundamentally very different training - both offer a shared set of technical skills because that is inherent to architecture, with the technical school going deeper into it than the elite university. But elite institutions have a focus on design theory and thinking (along with many non-monetary benefits of brand prestige, networks, opportunities, etc.) that many technical institutions don't have, which is what Donna Sink was discussing - the development of not just technical skills only but how to apply them in creating quality design is that balance one should be seeking to achieve from an architectural education, not just "how do I use rhino and sketch up?" The reason why grads are competing for the same jobs is because design quality, theory, and thinking is not what entry level positions are looking for in the current architectural industry - they want worker bees and autoCAD monkeys. you could spend the first decade of your architectural career doing nothing more than detailing joints and doing construction documents. Is this what an architectural education is about? NO. Is this the current state of the valuation of an architectural education? YES. The issue isn't the price of the school, it's the price of the wage and what skills they are paying you for.

At the end of the day though, it still says something about the power of elite institutions when almost all top firms have a large population of graduates of elite institutions filling those seats, and many top firms are led by graduates of these institutions. What do you attribute their successes to if, according to you, the education from two very different types of architectural education is the same?

CD.Arch, all good points.

Avanine, in all seriousness, everyone is entry-level regardless of the pedigree of their school. There is no place for think-thanks in working offices anyways. Every project needs mill-work elevations while hardly any need parametric designs, laser-cut models or rich theory. That is the reality of the profession and you don't get to change this just because you're in a fancy-pants designer school. Do you honestly think that "Elite" designer skills are worth 6-figure entry salaries when the design portion of any project is but a fraction of the scope?

Curt hits it on the money with this: "...but then, many of us here have the hindsight you haven't had a chance to develop yet.  some things only come with experience."

@Non sequitur oh my god, are you still trying it? You really have reading comprehension issues if you think that is what I'm saying.

Yes, everyone is entry-level regardless of the pedigree of their school - because the industry demands, exactly as you say, mill-work elevations, and they don't require rich theory. I NEVER disputed this, and I have repeated multiple times that YES, this is what is happening. I know this is the reality of the profession because I have worked in firms and have seen this not only first-hand, but also through discussion of such professional expectations with working architects and principals. I have not disagreed on ANY of this with you, yet you continuously believe that I'm stating the opposite when in fact I am stating the SAME thing you are - albeit with a different take. 

I've never posited that "elite designer skills", whatever you mean by that, are worth 6-figure entry salaries. I'm saying ALL ENTRY LEVEL SALARIES, regardless of pedigree, deserves higher pay - and, having already stated that there does not exist a pay differential between elite universities and technical universities when speaking of entry level positions, I am pointing the finger at the industry for what they value out of an architectural education that is creating this equalized playing field, which I believe is the issue at hand, not the price of tuition. If the industry determines pay based on technical skills and devalues actual quality thought and intent behind the design, which is the current industry standard, then what it means is that they are not valuing the actual architectural design but rather the modes of production that realizes these designs. This is not what architecture as a field should be about - it's not about technical labor; that is a means to an end. It is about the creative process, which entry positions do NOT engage with at all, which explains the equalized and lowly valued entry wages. This is what is taught at schools that focus on design theory and the creative process - because what they teach is focused on actual architectural thought and design instead of solely the technical skills required to create architecture, the ones that just happen to be economically and practically valued for entry level positions, not the field of architecture at large . THIS is the issue, and it's about the industry, not the price of tuition. This is not hard to understand, but apparently I'm talking with a simpleton that can't grasp basic concepts but continues to speak with condescension and erroneous rebuttals. 

Everyone has been ignoring the important concern raised in this thread. And that is entry-level lawyers making 160k a year. That is the real problem here.

avanine, he might be trying to tell you that the overly-intellectual tripe you're learning in design studio doesn't really have a place in the real world.  you're not learning to think better.  you're not learning to be a better designer.  you're not learning how to be an architect.

it's not just the entry level positions where your overpriced degree puts you on equal footing with everyone else.  it's going to follow you for the rest of your life.  you're going to have to get over the prestige of the university soon after you graduate, and approach the new learning experiences you face with humility.  you don't know how to be an architect yet.  if you're lucky, you'll learn that during your low paying entry level production tenure.

it's not the return on investment that makes harvard a bad financial decision.  it's the part where you're getting an equal or lesser education for a steeply higher price.  that certainly doesn't mean you're going to fail at life or anything.  if you were taking on debt due to the higher cost, which is not uncommon, then that might set you back.  that's not a problem you have to deal with though.  you'll just have to remember that you have to work just as hard and do just as good of a job as all the people you're working with from state schools.  of course if they have a more technical background that allows them to do their job better than you, it might be hard to catch up.

Why is that a problem, shivuy? Jealous?

Shivuy, Starting lawyers no longer make $160,000; that industry has cratered. In fact Harvard is joining several other "elite" law schools in hiring their own recent graduates at miserable salaries just so they can report tom the rating agencies such as USNWR that a high percentage of their graduates are actually employed. Not a very ethical thing for a "prestigious" and "elite" law school to do, is it?

To be fair, I do see a difference in thinking between those that graduated from GSD, YSOA etc..than those from more Practical based programs or technical colleges.  A little bit more broad and inclusive and perhaps more desire to (dare I say) push boundaries of their own thinking.  And the latter a little more focused and linear maybe, but yes more immediately useful.  The things taught in practical colleges seems to be more easily picked up than the things taught at places like GSD etc..Once you're in that practical mind set for a few years seems to be difficult to switch to other modes of thinking.  I don't know I could be wrong just my impression.  The design solutions and methods seem different.

Might not make a difference at the beginning of one's career, but on the senior, management and leadership level I think the difference becomes evident.  Whether that's good or bad it really depends on the perceiver.  I mean we need both kinds to accomplish architecture.  Maybe...just maybe the ones graduating from programs like GSD have a slim yes (not everyone can or is able to) but more propensity to push the discipline forward (perhaps not in compensation but creatively)?  I hesitate to say that. Cause it depends but in general it seems to be the case at least from my limited view and experience.

I'm not defending the prices which I think is abhorrent but the difference in thinking I see.

The idea of a Harvard Education is that everyone else who didn't go to Harvard will be your subordinate. Whether or not that is actually the case in real life, is a different story. But that's what the intention is.

wait, are you saying harvard is elitist for thinking of themselves as elitist, or are you saying bulgar is elitist for saying harvard thinks of itself as elitist?

choresi, your history suggests you're still a student too.  what kind of exposure have you had in comparing gsd project with those you're doing?  you don't think you will be capable of pushing boundaries or whatever because you go to school in canada?