From Georgetown University, a new report was released today on unemployment amongst various recent college grads. It's still not great for architecture. Have a look.
"...Even as the housing bubble seems to be dissipating, unemployment rates for recent architecture graduates have remained high (12.8%). Graduate degrees and work experience did not shield these graduates from a sector specific shock; graduates with experience in the field have the same jobless rates as the economy overall (9.3%)."
Can someone sort out the 12.8% number for me? Because it seems a little higher than that based off what I hear of recent grads I know. 12.8% doesn't seem that bad...maybe unjust spoiled.
Why is this happening? Here in Canada, according to our government website, the demand for architects over the next few years is expected to grow slightly. Anyways. Globalization=outsourcing to cheaper and more technologically updated architects in Asia...
Unemployment numbers of architecture graduates look very uninteresting for all young people who wish to build their career in architecture. But, I am sure it won't be the case in the coming years as there are some signs of decent demand for creative architecture work from all around the world.
There are still a bunch of zero-year experience grads floating around from 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. This year's grads are competing with them as well as their peers. We tried hiring someone with 2-3 years of actual architecture experience in my area... very slim pickings. that demographic doesn't exist in high numbers.
assuming everyone is in school because they want to be a professional, i don't see how teaching them how to be a professional is a bad thing. that's like going to medical school and having them tell you "oh well you'll learn how to do the actual brain surgery in the field. right now we're just going to talk about it theoretically, and share opinions"
i find it really hard to justify "well we'll teach you basic structures here, but if you want to learn the more advanced stuff that'll be on the test you'll have to learn it on your own." i mean seriously, i can learn the basics of pretty much anything on my own by opening up a book. its the harder stuff that you need to go to school for. people are mortgaging their lives away for a piece of paper that says, "i would like to learn how to do this someday"
say what you will about standardized testing in high school, but there are some pretty crappy areas of the country concerning education. if you can't pass those tests, your really shouldn't be graduating.
I've heard arch. school's central task is to teach student to think like architects. The schools can also teach the basics of the profession, but it seems to vary so much it would be useless to go in depth into anything.
Architecture is not the same as brain surgery. Creative brain surgery is probably a bad idea. Creativity in architecture is what makes it architecture. I don't think that architecture should be subjected to the standard mold of a profession. Architecture is an art and science. It has existed for far longer as an art and science than as a profession. This desire to be a profession is the reason that there are too many people getting into the game. If it was still practiced as an art then little Timmy's mom would have made him got to dental school. The idea that it is a profession creates the idea that it is safe and stable. We would be better off without all the liability of the professional title also. Let the engineers and code people have the liability and let's focus on what we have always been good at. Get rid of the stupid regulation. Replace Idp with old school voluntary apprenticeship. That would help to also mend the relationship between generations as one of student teacher rather than boss intern.
"Let the engineers and code people have the liability" What, exactly then, would the Architect do? Oh yeah... cease to exist.
I have two architectural degrees and my master's is from a school that was strong on design theory. I drank the kool aid while I was there, but every waking second away from that hell I realize what a joke it is that I went to school for 6 years and studied design for 90% of my time there. What a fucking waste of time. Being in school for 6 years, I should be familiar with the knowledge of civil or structural engineering almost as well as an engineer or I should have walked away with an MBA. Two degrees in fucking design theory. Two degrees in cow shit.
For studying for that amount of time, I should have had classes that taught the ins and outs of the IBC and the UDC. After 6 years of schooling an architecture student should be very familiar with the codes instead of just being ready to get a job where they will start to learn about the code. Architecture school is bullshit. At least the schools I went to.
You want to take a dump on someone's chest, make a photo copy of it, create an architectural language out of it, hang it on a wall and call it art? Fine. Do it. But don't call it architecture.
You're thinking along a Utopian line of thought. The reduction in liability means the reduction of power of the architect. Architecture is also a business in addition to a design profession; that is a very integral part to the practice.
Being free to do only what you find pleasing, in this instance "Architecture", rarely leads to as good of results as those endeavors with constraints.
In your scenario, architects would fully move into a subcontracted building decorator role, subservient to the engineers and the code officials. You seem to forget the connection to the master/builder origin, not just big "A" architecture of art/science.
The problem with architecture school's teaching 90% theory to the exclusion of structures, mech and elec., codes, etc. isn't just that the fresh graduate has to learn these aspects on his employer's time. It is that it instills an attitude of "that's beneath me, I'm an artiste". It's a big reason the rest of the building industry detests us, with good reason.
Aqua in Chicago can be argued to be one of them. The concrete slabs protruding from the glazing allow so much heat loss in the winter. I'm pretty sure there are no thermal breaks in the slabs.
Performance is important. Building science should be a much bigger part of the education. I personally was pretty obsessed with it while in school. The school I went to spent at least half of the time on things like passive building ,material science, thermodynamics etc. like I said art and science makes good architecture. By art I mean creating beautiful and meaningful space and place not being an avant grade form obsessed archibabbler. This plus performance adds value to a project. I think the zahas give the impression that design is a frivolous thing. I think design is all about making things of value. IMO this is the one thing that gives us value.
Re: "The problem with architecture school's teaching 90% theory to the exclusion of structures, mech and elec., codes, etc. isn't just that the fresh graduate has to learn these aspects on his employer's time."
While this may be true, the study of history/theory in design has allowed me to effectively leave architecture in order to pay off my architecture degree, particularly when the field appears to be struggling so. I wouldn't have been able to change gears as well as I did if I spent more time learning things that didn't provide me with a solid design education.
I will say, many students I went to school with had no idea about how to structurally put a building together, so I don't disagree with you entirely.
Jan 17, 14 1:10 pm ·
·
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.
New Report released on Unemployment rates for recent grads
From Georgetown University, a new report was released today on unemployment amongst various recent college grads. It's still not great for architecture. Have a look.
http://cew.georgetown.edu/unemployment2013/
From the press release:
"...Even as the housing bubble seems to be dissipating, unemployment rates for recent architecture graduates have remained high (12.8%). Graduate degrees and work experience did not shield these graduates from a sector specific shock; graduates with experience in the field have the same jobless rates as the economy overall (9.3%)."
Cue about a hundred Yahoo articles on what degree not to take.
Since many graduates move on to other fields, they dont count.
I'd place the number closer to 25%...
Why is this happening? Here in Canada, according to our government website, the demand for architects over the next few years is expected to grow slightly. Anyways. Globalization=outsourcing to cheaper and more technologically updated architects in Asia...
Unemployment numbers of architecture graduates look very uninteresting for all young people who wish to build their career in architecture. But, I am sure it won't be the case in the coming years as there are some signs of decent demand for creative architecture work from all around the world.
A bad career choice in the new economy.
There are still a bunch of zero-year experience grads floating around from 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. This year's grads are competing with them as well as their peers. We tried hiring someone with 2-3 years of actual architecture experience in my area... very slim pickings. that demographic doesn't exist in high numbers.
Well that's my theory anyway.
Too bad they don't get anything useful in architecture school ...
if schools taught to the test a little more in addition to the design stuff i think we'd be in a better spot.
^ LOL
High schools get lambasted for "teaching to the test", universities get lambasted for NOT "teaching to the test".
assuming everyone is in school because they want to be a professional, i don't see how teaching them how to be a professional is a bad thing. that's like going to medical school and having them tell you "oh well you'll learn how to do the actual brain surgery in the field. right now we're just going to talk about it theoretically, and share opinions"
i find it really hard to justify "well we'll teach you basic structures here, but if you want to learn the more advanced stuff that'll be on the test you'll have to learn it on your own." i mean seriously, i can learn the basics of pretty much anything on my own by opening up a book. its the harder stuff that you need to go to school for. people are mortgaging their lives away for a piece of paper that says, "i would like to learn how to do this someday"
say what you will about standardized testing in high school, but there are some pretty crappy areas of the country concerning education. if you can't pass those tests, your really shouldn't be graduating.
Architecture is not the same as brain surgery. Creative brain surgery is probably a bad idea. Creativity in architecture is what makes it architecture. I don't think that architecture should be subjected to the standard mold of a profession. Architecture is an art and science. It has existed for far longer as an art and science than as a profession. This desire to be a profession is the reason that there are too many people getting into the game. If it was still practiced as an art then little Timmy's mom would have made him got to dental school. The idea that it is a profession creates the idea that it is safe and stable. We would be better off without all the liability of the professional title also. Let the engineers and code people have the liability and let's focus on what we have always been good at. Get rid of the stupid regulation. Replace Idp with old school voluntary apprenticeship. That would help to also mend the relationship between generations as one of student teacher rather than boss intern.
As for school. I would agree that there should be more focus on the technicals. You need to learn your abc before writing a novel.
"Let the engineers and code people have the liability" What, exactly then, would the Architect do? Oh yeah... cease to exist.
I have two architectural degrees and my master's is from a school that was strong on design theory. I drank the kool aid while I was there, but every waking second away from that hell I realize what a joke it is that I went to school for 6 years and studied design for 90% of my time there. What a fucking waste of time. Being in school for 6 years, I should be familiar with the knowledge of civil or structural engineering almost as well as an engineer or I should have walked away with an MBA. Two degrees in fucking design theory. Two degrees in cow shit.
For studying for that amount of time, I should have had classes that taught the ins and outs of the IBC and the UDC. After 6 years of schooling an architecture student should be very familiar with the codes instead of just being ready to get a job where they will start to learn about the code. Architecture school is bullshit. At least the schools I went to.
You want to take a dump on someone's chest, make a photo copy of it, create an architectural language out of it, hang it on a wall and call it art? Fine. Do it. But don't call it architecture.
"We would be better off without all the liability of the professional title also."
No.
Architecture is a profession, end of story. It combines art and science, but science seems to be getting less and less attention. its a noted problem.
Let the engineers and code people have the liability and let's focus on what we have always been good at. ?????????
what is it that we've always been good at? coloring? archispeak?
What, exactly then, would the Architect do? Oh yeah... cease to exist.
Architecture!
Architecture is a profession, end of story. It combines art and science, but science seems to be getting less and less attention. its a noted problem.
Architecture is an art/science that has been molded into a profession.
You're thinking along a Utopian line of thought. The reduction in liability means the reduction of power of the architect. Architecture is also a business in addition to a design profession; that is a very integral part to the practice.
Being free to do only what you find pleasing, in this instance "Architecture", rarely leads to as good of results as those endeavors with constraints.
In your scenario, architects would fully move into a subcontracted building decorator role, subservient to the engineers and the code officials. You seem to forget the connection to the master/builder origin, not just big "A" architecture of art/science.
The problem with architecture school's teaching 90% theory to the exclusion of structures, mech and elec., codes, etc. isn't just that the fresh graduate has to learn these aspects on his employer's time. It is that it instills an attitude of "that's beneath me, I'm an artiste". It's a big reason the rest of the building industry detests us, with good reason.
^ Don't forget all the award-winning overly-expensive low-performance buildings that result.
Performance is important. Building science should be a much bigger part of the education. I personally was pretty obsessed with it while in school. The school I went to spent at least half of the time on things like passive building ,material science, thermodynamics etc. like I said art and science makes good architecture. By art I mean creating beautiful and meaningful space and place not being an avant grade form obsessed archibabbler. This plus performance adds value to a project. I think the zahas give the impression that design is a frivolous thing. I think design is all about making things of value. IMO this is the one thing that gives us value.
Firmness, commodity, delight. Vetruvius said it all.
^ I had a girlfriend like that.
^ LoL
funny, mine believed in commodities, being firm, but less-delightful
Re: "The problem with architecture school's teaching 90% theory to the exclusion of structures, mech and elec., codes, etc. isn't just that the fresh graduate has to learn these aspects on his employer's time."
While this may be true, the study of history/theory in design has allowed me to effectively leave architecture in order to pay off my architecture degree, particularly when the field appears to be struggling so. I wouldn't have been able to change gears as well as I did if I spent more time learning things that didn't provide me with a solid design education.
I will say, many students I went to school with had no idea about how to structurally put a building together, so I don't disagree with you entirely.
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.