Louis Kahn on the other hand, terrible parent/husband, but his shit was top notch.

I think his shit was trailblazing, but I'd be depressed if I had to walk into the Salk Institute in San Diego to work every day, ocean view and all.

Also, the barrel vaults of the Kimball Art Museum in Forth Worth, which I think are his, make me depressed just looking at them.

Question everybody: recently (few days ago) interviewed for a job at SOM... Not a glamorous jr. Architectural position, but at least it gives me the potential of getting my foot in the door there. Would you take that position over or a more design-oriented Jr.Architectural position at a less well-known and smaller firm?

What are you - more button-down or bohemian?  From my read, you're more button-down, with some pretty strong opinions.  Welcome to THAT club.  If you can keep things in check and not tell the M.Arch. 1s that they're weird and took longer to find themselves, then SOM.  However, I will qualify that, in a way - is the smaller firm one that has been around, is likely to be around, has a diversified "typology"base, and has a pipeline of work?  OTOH, since you mentioned "foot in the door," maybe you want to be at SOM.

BB - move this to another thread.  This thread is about the Ivy League ... and political correctness surrounding gender issues.

too much play with the words SOM & GSD or IVY League... when obviously no one knows who runs things at SOM

the design partner - Craig Hartman went to Ball State College... ( do you know anyone who went to Ball State? ) and is the youngest Architect in America to receive the Maybeck award for an outstanding body of work. Not to mention what he makes as a partner at SOM - Zaha would be envious. 

Starting pay of 48,000 is not so true, although my facts only come from a small sample. I'm sure their are some people who would be getting paid that. But, most newbies out of school get paid overtime, and the salaryman I know make way over then that - some seniors clearing a cool quarter milli.

btw, the rule of thumb on taking out student loans is NEVER take out more then what your first year salary is. A 30 yr repayment does not make education affordable it makes you a slave to the US gov. 

 

When the loan isn't paid, and a lot of them are in arrears, the penalties and interest increases can move the $200,000 upwards to $400,000. At some point the bank presents the inflated bill to the.............taxpayer. Until then it is carried on the books as an asset. And why wouldn't it be since the full faith and credit of the government guarantees the loan? The banks are better off if the student does default.

VuONG - in my experience, starting pay of 48k at SOM is true (I know some starting at less) and overtime doesn't account for much more than that. 

truth is, most if not all, get scholarship for Ivies.  If you don't, you're too dumb and shouldn't be attending Ivies anyway

Go Lian...

oh....and I would never ...ever ....work at  SOM...

most likely they wouldn't hire an old man...I would have to buy the Firm.

Here's another thing, and for me the main thing  Some people don't want to go to an Ivy League school because there is an unwritten code of conduct when you're there and an unwritten code of conduct when you leave, and some people feel that's a burden.  I am not loaded with case studies, but I knew a girl, who was a minority, and got admitted to Stanford for undergrad.  She could NOT stand it.  She was obviously capable of doing the work.  She transferred to a public university in Calif. to finish up.  In terms of her career, she has done fine.  Two high school acquaintances from humble means went to both Harvard and Columbia for undergrad, and it changed them.  I can't say that, in both cases, I liked the "new" person.  Schools have personalities.  If you don't mesh with it, don't force it.

Bump 

Up to 230K now.

Only in America!

230K?

what a joke, no arch degree is worth even a  quarter of that.

Unless you're an international student or extremely wealthy, you get fantastic grants from the GSD. I'm from a middle class background and my total cost for M.Arch I will not exceed 150K. In fact, the GSD has some of the best financial aid grants out of all the Harvard graduate programs...

Just out of curiosity, assuming that you're incurring debt to pay for it, how is a $150,000 education financially feasible for an entry-level architect?

When have I made any such assertion that the price of an ivy league education is financially feasible for an architect? In previous posts I've mentioned that, yes, an ivy architectural education is prohibitively expensive, but that is the nature of ALL Ivy degrees. This is not unique to architecture degrees, and you're missing the point. The price of any masters degree from an Ivy will have approximately the same cost. This is terrible, yes, and yes it sucks, but they ARE private institutions that have the right to charge whatever they want for those accepted to those institutions.  The issue here has more to do with the pretty horrible low salary of an entry-level architect rather than the actual cost of the school. It weakens your point even more when the reality is that the GSD offers incomparable financial aid grants vs. other institutions. 

P.S. My financial information isn't really something I want to divulge on a public forum, but I will say that I am not incurring any debt.

If an ivy league school charges some clueless youngster $230,000 to go to grad school and said youngster can't pay his government guaranteed loan and dies decades later still helplessly in debt the US taxpayer gets to pick up the tab doesn't he? So it is not just between the student and the ivy league school is it?

Paying 150k
Middle-class
no debt

Fishy… but I’m not here to be critical of your choices. It’s a very good education, one of the best. If you can afford it, I support your choice.

I think the point to be made is actually that it is NOT cost prohibitive. That would suggest that cost prevents people from doing it, and often it doesn’t, even when it should. If you have to take on 100k+ in debt for your architecture education, you are making a very questionable decision. It is true, their financial aid probably pays out more than any other in the country per student, but when your cost is so much that’s still not helping that much.

@volunteer you're stretching a thin argument even thinner. No.

@natematt like I said, I'm not divulging my personal financial information on a public forum. Believe me or not, it's not like I have something to gain by lying on a forum about my real life circumstance in order to win an argument. That's petty.

I think the point to be made is actually that it is NOT cost prohibitive. That would suggest that cost prevents people from doing it, and often it doesn’t, even when it should. If you have to take on 100k+ in debt for your architecture education, you are making a very questionable decision. It is true, their financial aid probably pays out more than any other in the country per student, but when your cost is so much that’s still not helping that much.

 The only thing that separates an architecture education from one in any other field is the fact that students are not being compensated with a high salary after receiving a masters. Why does it feel like I'm repeating myself... am I talking to deaf audience?

Ivy league graduates with masters degrees In most disciplines (and law degrees) are hurting right along with everyone else. ivy league law school graduates can't buy a job, nor can any other law school graduates. That is $200,000 per law school graduate down the tubes right there. What we are trying to do here is prevent anyone else from making a similar mistake in the architecture field. Are you the one whom is deaf?

@Volunteer It has been stated multiple times that the cost of an Ivy degree is expensive. That is a given, we all know that and have known that for decades. What is your point? 

Your claim that graduates are hurting along with architecture students I find to be misguided - the law industry has been struggling as of late which accounts for the higher unemployment rates of recent grads. This says more about the state of job markets than it does anything else.

Also, the fact that pretty much all of my friends who have attended prestigious institutions are now afforded unparalleled opportunities and careers in top companies in a variety of disciplines and are earning great wages in comparison to my friends who did not attend elite private institutions speaks more to the value of a degree from an elite institution than anything else. This is not to say that attending a state school will prohibit you from success because we all know that is not true, rather it is to say that attending an elite university is sometimes worth the initial investment based on the network / opportunities you are afforded in addition to the top-quality education you're receiving. To repeat, in architecture, this may not be the case, but I am saying that it is more a question of the architectural industry's paltry entry-level pay than it is about the price of the degree, which is standard / lower than many other masters degree programs. This makes the complaints about the price of this education misguided because to me, it seems that the complaints should be aimed at the industry that is providing us with such low-level compensation. Based on your last post, you are arguing that most masters degrees from expensive elite institutions are a "mistake" and not worth it, which to me is kind of off base.

Avanine-- your logic is circular: "an elite expensive degree is worth it because it's an elite expensive degree."

I also share nate's skepticism toward you labeling yourself a middle class student who will incur zero debt for his $150k M.Arch.

You are misconstruing my words. An elite expensive degree is worth it because it affords you opportunities that you can't get otherwise. I never said it was worth it because it's expensive. Many selective top firms and companies in a variety of high-earning fields recruit potential employees solely from elite institutions. The doors you can open with an elite degree in general is pretty indisputable - it's well known that you pay not only for a top quality education but also for the network that is invaluable in many fields of work.

As for me, you obviously don't know my situation and where I am getting my money from and to be clear, I never claimed to be the typical example for all middle class students; I simply stated that I am a middle class student who will occur zero debt for my $150k M.Arch degree, which is the truth, and it is partially because of the generous grant that the GSD offers. Believe it or not, I don't particularly care. Despite this, my argument still stands.

We are talking about architecture degrees. Not MBAs. 

Please name an entry- level GSD grad who has commanded a salary premium on account of pedigree. Just one will suffice.

You may not notice it, but you've put on rose-tinted glasses because you think that your path is meritorious (I'm not saying it isn't, but a lot of people with more modest means are getting screwed).

Architects don't get paid much because the market doesn't demand architects. Graduate degrees cost a lot because they've become commodities akin to Prada handbags, and dumb students can get easy financing. To blame the employment market rather than the schools seems a bit myopic.

Well consider the engineering field where the ivy league doesn't rank in the top ten except for Cornell which is tied for tenth the place in the USNWR rankings. Several state schools such as Georgia Tech and the University of Illinois and Michigan are ranked higher. Here is a situation where the "elite" schools in the field are most definitely not the ivy league and most definitely not the most expensive schools so your whole argument falls apart.

@AvanineCommuter
I didn't mean to criticize your honesty, just question your self evaluation. Though I do think we misunderstood the 150k as the out of pocket cost to you after scholarships. I mean, with extraneous costs my education was around 170k for grad and undergrad, but I got lots of scholarships, so while I have debt it is not that significant for my current life situation.

The only thing I was really trying to get at is that people need to be aware of the circumstances at hand and make wise choices about these things, which many don't. Everyone should apply to the schools they want, but if you get admitted somewhere really expensive with no scholarships... don't go there if you're going to be stuck with crushing thirty year loans. That's reasonable right?

GO INTO REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT <PERIOD>

@Volunteer My argument doesn't fall apart just because one specialized field is an outlier. Also take notice that I am not defending nor am I justifying the cost of these expensive programs - I am merely accepting them as reality. Try again.

@SeriousQuestion, Volunteer was talking about all master degrees from elite institutions - so MBAs are included. My post was in response to his, it wasn’t about architecture degrees specifically. Notice how I actually AGREED with you, ever since the beginning of this entire thread, that the profession is broken and that is to blame. I even said that an expensive architecture degree may not be as worthy of an investment given the low return because of the entry-level salaries in comparison to other masters programs in which the entry-level salaries are more in line with expectations. I’m not sure what your issue is? We’re on the same page, except I’m not pointing the finger at the school for offering an expensive degree that 1. they have the right to decide how much to charge for it and 2. one that *you don’t have to get*, I’m pointing a finger at the industry for being *broken* (which we both agreed upon). Whereas graduates within many other fields go into an industry where salaries are acceptable for the amount of debt and work, architecture is not one of them. The only justification I give elite institutions for charging an arm and a leg is that it’s their right as a *private* institution to do as they please. If you don’t like it, they could care less. At the end of the day, they are still offering a great education in more ways than one.

“Pedigree” doesn’t account for salary premiums in the architecture field, and never did I make such a claim. It’s frustrating that you like to twist my words and posit arguments that I never made in the first place. If anything, architecture is an extreme example in which pedigree doesn’t help as much as it does in most other fields given that a lot of our evaluation for eventual employment is based on portfolio work and design skills rather than on a school’s prestige and name. How it DOES help immensely is getting your foot in a door that would otherwise be shut, as it holds true in all disciplines. This again was aimed at Volunteer, not you.

The reality of the situation is that ALL master degrees from these institutions are expensive, not just an architectural degree. It just so happens that many of these degrees prepare you for fields that don’t have shit pay.

@natematt I agree, apply to schools that you want to attend, and choose the school that fits you based on a holistic evaluation of what is important to you. If you see going to architecture school to get a degree as a purely career-centered task in which your supposed “return of investment” is purely based on money invested and salary earned, then do yourself a favor and skip all private institutions and go straight for the economic option of a state school. If that’s not a priority or concern to you because of whatever reason, then by all means consider private institutions.

Anyone who is purely concerned with money shouldn't be going into architecture. But being at least a little concerned about money is probably wise.
 

This was some hilarious shit but I don't know what is funnier... paying $150K for a M.arch or thinking an M.arch is worth $150K.

The entire field of engineering, including all the disciplines, is not "specialized". You can get a much better engineering education at some state schools at 20 to 30 percent of the cost of an ivy-league tuition. Five times the cost to obtain an inferior degree? But your poorly-ranked ivy degree is more "holistic"? Let me write that down. My wife has a graduate degree in Biotechnology from Johns Hopkins. She tells me the best schools in her field are ones on the west coast and Hopkins. But what does she know? She is obviously short in the "holistic" department.

Avanine - this whole justification of exorbitant prices by private schools collapses when you take into account that most students finance their PRIVATE educations with FEDERAL loans.

The other issue is that most people aren't cost-benefit robots and recognize the brand-value of Ivy degrees and understand the competitiveness of the employment market. To just say-- well, they don't HAVE to get the degree, even if they're qualified to attend the best program-- misses the mark in addressing the structural issue I'm pointing out.

The best and the brightest in the US shouldn't have to be weighing financials like they are now. Most other wealthy, developed countries subsidize educations for their smartest citizens (providing loans doesn't count).

@natematt Agreed. But is it the degree's price that is the issue or is it the industry's cultural standard of free-internships, cheaply paid slave-labor styled positions and low compensation? 

@Volunteer you're arguing strawmen arguments and misconstruing mine, which leads me to believe you are either trolling (less likely) or you have severe reading comprehension issues (more likely), because never did I claim that Ivies are more holistic and neither am I touting them to be better than state schools FOR ALL DISCIPLINES. Obviously a top ranked engineering program at a state school is a priority in terms of the holistic process of deciding which school to attend - and that factors in to the holistic process of deciding on a school, which applies to ALL STUDENTS for ALL SCHOOLS. Never did I claim otherwise - the only claim I posited was that if MONEY was an issue, don't consider private institutions because they are expensive. A top ranked engineer program at a state school is considered an ELITE program, because within the industry, their names and reputations and networks are equivalent to the Ivies and are widely known. Duh? And to be frank, you're not adding much to this discussion with your condescension and sarcastic tone. Let's keep this civil. Also P.S. John Hopkins is a private institution with expensive tuition. You're not helping your argument at all because this isn't about Ivy vs. Non-Ivy, it's about expensive private institutions (which include the Ivies) and cheaper state schools.

@Seriousquestion The only justification I've given for these prices (which I also think are ridiculous) is that private institutions maintain their right to charge whatever prices they want for the service they provide. There's really nothing we can do about it because it is within their legal boundaries. Complaining about simply makes you look bitter. Your second argument actually defeats your first one - you're suggesting that an elite degree affords you non-monetary gains, for which I posit you must pay a premium. You don't get brand value, marketability, alumni networks, and exclusive opportunities for free. You pay for them because obviously, as I've mentioned in previous posts, an elite degree affords you not only the best education, but also the best network/opportunities/competitiveness in the job market. You tried to counter that argument with salary premiums, which obviously is missing the point, but I have even claimed that architecture itself is a field in which these non-monetary benefits may not be as highly valued as they are in other fields (but still very desirable of course) because of the nature of the industry.

Right, the best and brightest should not have to be weighing financials - our government DOES subsidize education - some of our state schools provide amazing architectural education at very affordable prices. and what's more, these elite institutions, despite their exorbitant prices, give the best financial aid, and many schools have promised to provide FULL need-based grants based on demonstrated needs because they really do want the best and brightest to attend their programs. If you're under a certain income bracket, you get full tuition. I know some of my peers currently pay zero dollars for tuition right now. That's a full ride need-based scholarship because there are no merit scholarship for Ivies. 

If you want to attend an elite university, you pay the price because you're obviously getting MUCH MORE than just an education. Why are you complaining about the fact that you have to pay a lot of money for the privilege of going to an elite institution that affords you the traits you've outlined - brand value, competitive edge, marketability, alumni networks, opportunities, etc.? The thing about architecture is, that even with all this, it becomes a difficult choice because the entry-level pay is so low that you really have to then ask yourself - is it worth it for me, based on my priorities, my financial background and needs, my mindset on how to steer my education and career? If the answer is no, go to a state school. If the answer is yes, then attend. Simple. For me the problem lies less with these elite institutions (even though there are other issues with them, price included but for other reasons) but more with the undervalued work that graduates do for the low-paying architecture industry.

@Non Sequitur you must be one of those cost-benefit robots SeriousQuestion was talking about. Enjoy your ROI cost-efficient degree, and I will enjoy my expensive degree but one that is very much worth it, especially having already seen the vast professional and non-professional benefits it has afforded me even BEFORE I've obtained it.

correction* John Hopkins is not nearly as expensive as the Ivies, but it is an Elite institution with reputation that matches the Ivies. 

Hey Richard, we've got some competition here for you.

AvanineCommuter, calm yourself down, you're only digging your hole deeper. Enjoy your delusions while they last. At least I'll think twice next time I see an "ivy" league graduate; do they all carry this type of baggage?

You can learn Sketchup for far less than $150K I suspect.

 "A top ranked engineer program at a state school is considered an ELITE program, because within the industry, their names and reputations and networks are equivalent to the Ivies and are widely known."

Actually  I am the one who said the better state engineering schools are elite. And, no, the reputations of these elite state engineering schools are not 'equivalent' to the ivys, which are not elite, they are much better. Reading comprehension much?

Avanine - you keep repeating that private schools are private actors and therefore are free to charge whatever they want.

You keep ignoring that private institutions receive billions of dollars of funding through federal loans (students get loans from the federal goverment, university gets $$$ when the student enrolls, doesn't matter if the student later defaults).

This public/private dichotomy you're drawing is willfully ignores the reality of the situation in American higher education.   

It's also weird how you keep arguing that the GSD provides the best financial aid (even better that public schools!) but then say that if you can't afford the GSD, you should go to public school (which you earlier admitted is not affordable).

@seriousquestion you seem to be the only one in this thread that is actually reading what I'm writing instead of resorting to snarky commentary with little substance, so I thank you for that. The other two are obviously are here just to make sarcastic comments and attack me by cherry picking my arguments instead of adding anything substantial to the debate. 

The reason why I draw the private/public line is because you're making this about architecture school and specifically the GSD, when it's, as you say, a systematic problem within our country's education system - for all disciplines. The difference I draw is that if this is the reality of our country, as problematic as it may be, it's only compounded by the fact that it's the broken architecture industry that's making graduates suffer, not the school's price of tuition, which is equal across the board for all disciplines. Graduates from other masters programs with high price tags go into fields that offer enough compensation to allow them to pay back debt. Architecture as a field doesn't provide that option. 

About financial aid: what I said still holds true but is dependent on demonstrated need: Elite institutions offer the best financial aid which is a fact. It commands a higher price tag to begin with - so if the student does not receive full tuition coverage based on demonstrated need, they pay the difference. It's not hard to understand how this works. And I never said public schools were not affordable, I don't understand how you got that from what I was saying? They are the affordable choice for many that don't receive enough aid from elite institutions to offset the price difference, but it still remains a fact that elite institutions give the best financial aid, emphasis on AID. 

@non sequitur if you think architecture school is about learning sketch up then it's obvious you're trolling. Why bother going to school at all when youtube tutorials can teach you rhino, sketch up and CAD for free? Look at that, zero dollars invested and now you're an architect!

Well, that escalated quickly.

Zero dollars is better than $150K when the end results are, more often than not, the same.

@nonsequitur I actually laughed out loud at that! Keep telling yourself that, I'm sure soon there'll be a day when the free youtube academy starts producing pritzker winners. 

Glad I can help.

Enjoy paying 5 times what your degree is worth.

Someone just had to resurrect this pointless thread with the same tired arguments. Too much sermonizing online that leads nowhere. 

Bugs - it raises consciousness of a systemic problem. 

@nonsequitur According to you, Mr. who are you again? The technical skills I have picked up definitely doesn't require 150K to learn, but obviously I didn't attend the GSD just to take lessons in sketch up. 

Avanine - Okay, you keep saying that the industry makes students suffer-- but the industry is beholden to the market. There isn't demand for architects so I'm confused about why you expect them to get paid more. At the end of the day, CLIENTS aren't clamoring to pay architects tons of money. 

sounds to me like you went to gsd because you wanted to waste time an money

hopefully after all that, you at least learned sketchup

@seriousquestion That to me is the issue - that architects are not valued enough for the time, work, and energy that is put into becoming an architect in the first place. This is what we should be talking about, not the price of tuition at the GSD - because the systematic problem of expensive education is not unique to architecture as a field and putting the blame on the GSD is short sighted in terms of the overall issues in architecture. Expensive private elite institutions are an issue, yes, but it is a general issue that isn't unique to architecture. That was my point since the beginning. 

@curtlram I don't see my investment as a waste. I don't see why you would either.