it has come to my attention that after a straw poll amongst a few friends at different firms, that on about 80% of projects, what your education is determines the type of project you get, with the heavy preference towards m.arch-ers.
now in no way was this scientific, but it has started some internal debating.
the choice projects in my office go to those w/ advanced degrees. i've gotten lucky on a few and have been able to tweak a few dull projects into something of interest, but routinely, the less-than desirable projects are divied amongst the b. arch-ers.
this isn't a dealbreaker for me, but a friend that keeps getting MOAB's dropped on his desk, but would never speak up as not to offend, has started to show signs of depression and frustration. i'm talking about really awful projects.
is this prevelant? is this relevant? what would an appropriate action be? anyone know of similar instances?
it's pretty disheartening to watch this guy, who's got some decent skills, get passed over for those with questionable skills and considerably less experience.
it's pretty much convinced me to get some more schoolin'
The type of degree holds little importance in my office, although the majority of us has an M.Arch. I really can't figure out how projects are assigned.
Oddly enough it is actually the opposite in my office, although my boss holds an M.Arch. However there are deeper things to consider here:
1) there is a possibility that the type of person who goes on to do advanced schooling is the type of person who also: has initiative, is rigorous, etc.
2) there is the converse possibility of the same being true with someone who threw themselves into an accelerated b.arch when young
3) you could say that those with a b.arch have generally been in practice longer therefore are more able to competently execute projects
4) you could say that those with an m.arch show more maturity in decision-making
5) you would have to look at post-prof M.Arch v. pre-prof M.Arch. -- do these people hold 2 degrees or simply one?
6) value judgments made on "worth" of assignments will likely vary significantly between employee and employer
7) promotion/advancement has been more tied to personal character & interaction with boss than either education OR dedication to/perfection of work
8) office project assignment is more often than not a strategy of time usage and staffing work flow.
IN OTHER WORDS, you have way too many variables here to even *begin* to try to draw any conclusions. Soooo I wouldn't read anything into it.
That said in my broad work experience I have more often seen M.Archers hired and then not work out (and get fired) than B.Arch, by far. I would actually have to say that B.Archers tend to fit into the design office environment better overall.
This discussion makes me glad that in Canada we've abolished the B.Arch degree. It streamlines everything with less confusion. It's more of a level playing field.
I agree with Mantary that there are way too many variables to draw conclusions.
On a similar note, there is a huge dfference between graduates that have taken their exams and gotten registered and those that are working away, putting off the exams. The registered ones get a whole lotta resect in comparison, and often get better projects.
The way I see it, is that if you have acheived a higher level of schooling, you've gotten there for a reason, cuz it's not easy, and takes a certain type of individual. The experience will come, and balance out in a couple of years. It's essentially doing more legwork up front. The longer you stay in school, you get more chances to postulate, theorize, and reflect, etc...etc.. Its this kind of thing that certain projects require, and why not go to the person with more experience in this area.
Answer: The cool projects go to the vocal Sassy "architect Types" that huff about the office complaining & making shocking statements. That way when they design another piece of developer crap the client at least has a sassy self-righteous designer to back it up at city hearings.
May 5, 08 7:53 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.
educational discrimination
it has come to my attention that after a straw poll amongst a few friends at different firms, that on about 80% of projects, what your education is determines the type of project you get, with the heavy preference towards m.arch-ers.
now in no way was this scientific, but it has started some internal debating.
the choice projects in my office go to those w/ advanced degrees. i've gotten lucky on a few and have been able to tweak a few dull projects into something of interest, but routinely, the less-than desirable projects are divied amongst the b. arch-ers.
this isn't a dealbreaker for me, but a friend that keeps getting MOAB's dropped on his desk, but would never speak up as not to offend, has started to show signs of depression and frustration. i'm talking about really awful projects.
is this prevelant? is this relevant? what would an appropriate action be? anyone know of similar instances?
it's pretty disheartening to watch this guy, who's got some decent skills, get passed over for those with questionable skills and considerably less experience.
it's pretty much convinced me to get some more schoolin'
The type of degree holds little importance in my office, although the majority of us has an M.Arch. I really can't figure out how projects are assigned.
wots a MOAB?
My. Overall. Area. Burns.
I get good projects and shitty ones alike.
yep B envd here and im not complaining, i tend to get better projects then some of the March's. but i have more experince
Oddly enough it is actually the opposite in my office, although my boss holds an M.Arch. However there are deeper things to consider here:
1) there is a possibility that the type of person who goes on to do advanced schooling is the type of person who also: has initiative, is rigorous, etc.
2) there is the converse possibility of the same being true with someone who threw themselves into an accelerated b.arch when young
3) you could say that those with a b.arch have generally been in practice longer therefore are more able to competently execute projects
4) you could say that those with an m.arch show more maturity in decision-making
5) you would have to look at post-prof M.Arch v. pre-prof M.Arch. -- do these people hold 2 degrees or simply one?
6) value judgments made on "worth" of assignments will likely vary significantly between employee and employer
7) promotion/advancement has been more tied to personal character & interaction with boss than either education OR dedication to/perfection of work
8) office project assignment is more often than not a strategy of time usage and staffing work flow.
IN OTHER WORDS, you have way too many variables here to even *begin* to try to draw any conclusions. Soooo I wouldn't read anything into it.
That said in my broad work experience I have more often seen M.Archers hired and then not work out (and get fired) than B.Arch, by far. I would actually have to say that B.Archers tend to fit into the design office environment better overall.
This discussion makes me glad that in Canada we've abolished the B.Arch degree. It streamlines everything with less confusion. It's more of a level playing field.
I agree with Mantary that there are way too many variables to draw conclusions.
On a similar note, there is a huge dfference between graduates that have taken their exams and gotten registered and those that are working away, putting off the exams. The registered ones get a whole lotta resect in comparison, and often get better projects.
The way I see it, is that if you have acheived a higher level of schooling, you've gotten there for a reason, cuz it's not easy, and takes a certain type of individual. The experience will come, and balance out in a couple of years. It's essentially doing more legwork up front. The longer you stay in school, you get more chances to postulate, theorize, and reflect, etc...etc.. Its this kind of thing that certain projects require, and why not go to the person with more experience in this area.
Answer: The cool projects go to the vocal Sassy "architect Types" that huff about the office complaining & making shocking statements. That way when they design another piece of developer crap the client at least has a sassy self-righteous designer to back it up at city hearings.
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.