all of us arch students in school with experience working, would like to work for new innovative firms, but why dont they want to pay?.. asking for like a couple of hundred dollars a week isn't much. so why dont they want to pay us? we are working full time? how do these employers expect us to live, especially being a full time student.
this whole interning for free is just absurd, and i think the ones doing it are really making things unfair for the rest of us.
well, i was a bit sarcastic, but the reason why they don't pay students is, well, there's always kids out there (rich ones) who are willing to bend over to experience (or just to have that name in their resume) so called "innovative" enviroment.
If nobody works for free, then those @$$wipes will start paying their interns. Blame your buddies, not the companies.
The question is often which firms are "ACtually" innovative. Firms bent on manipulating their reputations are prorbably not that innovative, but more about marketing. It's kinda of funny how many architects are easily impressed by the name on the resume, when typically you dont learn or do anything that innovative at some of the firms. They are essentially fake MC's. To be honest its seem like consultatns are often the ones figuring out the real innovation while the architect claims it as their own, at least that seems true of many of the so called "innovative"
firms.
innovative or not... we want more money god-dammit !!
when i have my own firm, it'll be rich and the interns will be the highest paid across all industries in america (making those wallstreet interns look like pussies)
As a result, we've had to hold our heads high as we take away the lessons - that are there for the taking if you keep your mind open - from places without the cachet to exploit servitude.
Life is 10% the hand you're dealt, and 90% how you play it.
you can't call it "slavery" if somebody volunteers for it -- they can walk away anytime they want -- they just choose not to because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that they receive something valuable from the experience.
I'm sick to death of young graduates taking an unpaid, or lowly paid, position with a "big name" firm and then coming here to complain about how badly they're being abused.
in such situations, you can't be a victim without your own willful participation ... in which case you're not a victim.
Working for free is against everything that this country was built upon. We are a capitalist society, everyone needs to try and take the biggest slice of the pie without considering others. And hey, even for all the rich white kids out there, daddy's wallet does run dry eventually...
WTF are you talking about fee!? You must mean next to free because free in California will get a smack from the labor dept. Free huh? Then how are all those college kids going to buy their pot?
highest paid individual can't make more than six times the lowest paid individual
I think Whole Foods had that policy. Not sure about Costco, but their CEO's salary is only in the $400k range for a very successful & large company.
The point is that having a top to bottom set pay ratio or not, companies where the employees are paid fairly, and the management isn't grossly overpaid, often tend to be very successful.
In architecture it's a bit different since so many of us want to judge a firms success by their innovation or designs which is a valid scale to judge. But what really matters is good repeat clients that keep the firm profitable and fully staffed. My hunch is that firms that take adantage of unpaid labor are also often time laying off their paid staff and have high churn rates. Business 101 is to avoid that at all costs.
i am in principle absolutely ashamed of people working for no compensation because it is representative of a terrible plague in our industry - long hours and low pay - that needs to somehow be addressed.
that said, each of us individuals does not have power to change the industry. while accepting an unpaid position will fuel and further this terrible practice, for the individual student/intern it may be very good.
if you see it as an extension of your education, you won't worry so much about not being paid. you don't worry about making money while learning in a school semester do why do you have a bad feeling about not making money while learning in a great architect's office? even if you are $80k in debt, you will make ends meet somehow, as long as you get a paid job eventually.
it is absolutely naive to be categorically opposed to unpaid internships. working for (and learning from) some of the best architects of our time could be immensely beneficial to your development as an architect.
I would be *extremely* surprised if Whole Foods had that policy. The owner is a shark of a Libertarian and he's given many an interview where he admits he's in it for the money. (Not commitment to the environment or to his employees or nothing: money.) He does well because he spotted a new angle on food supply and he's exploiting it for all it's worth. Plus he's lucky because he's created an aura where a lot of people want to work for the company because it's seen as 'environmentally friendly' or whatever. Yeesh.
Costco on the other hand has a widely known rep for paying it's employees extremely well and working hard to create a very employee-friendly environment. I remember many friends going back and back and back to try to get jobs there because the cashiers were paid near to $20/hr (with benefits) but there were never any spots open.
the problem is that the most talented have a ton of passion. Passion will get you to do stupid things, like work for free.
If this was purely a boring profession, no one would work unpaid.
The bigger problem is that things rarely add up later on - working for that stararchitect might help your personal design development, but it won't help you earn a better living.
Sadly, passion has to be enough to sustain those persons that choose to pursue that path (assume they aren't rich, which, if they are, the chances of more monetary success increase exponentially).
The article does talk about stock options...but Costco CEO James Sinegal gets similar options. That IMO is an entirely different topic.
Again, the bottom line is that a well paid staff is a happy and more productive staff. Great designers can be shitty managers, and unpaid internships are a prime example.
as a director in a medium-size firm, i often work for "free".
a few points:
1) working as an intern at a particular firm for the particular experience, without pay if necessary, is a choice. it is not slavery. it may well perpetuate a certain practice, but it does not effect the general economy of architecture, because most people work not for a particular experience, but for a living wage. all this indignant protesting seems irrelevant.
2) it is convenient to assume that "innovative" firms are nothing more than marketing exercises, but the evidence of networks and lineages (OMA -> MVRDV -> BIG ->etc) suggests that one type of exchange (giving up pay for experience and a network) can in fact be effective and a smart business or professional decision.
3) "Working for free is against everything that this country was built upon". actually, not very true. first, the USA was not established as a capitalist society, it emerged into being one. at the foundation of the USA (18th c) it was a conventional practice that for the profession of architecture, "interns" were effectively 'indentured' or 'articled', which means they were sent to work with an architect, for free or maybe for room and board, in order to gain the experiences necessary to become an architect. this was seen as the "paying your dues" for the "privilege" of being an architect. we could always return to this more "noble" attitude of the architect.
if we do assume the USA is nothing more than a capitalist society, then i can think of nothing more truly capitalistic than a market-place mentality that says if you can get people to work for you for free, than do so. actually, we should say, that the offices that employ un-paid interns are the epitome and apex of such a society. congratulations to them.
4) as i said, we often work for 'free' in our office. this is that we often undertake open competitions, where the only fee comes if we are selected or awarded a prize. this is a commercial decision - that some competitions are 'worth' the very high risk of not being paid anything for the effort, but that the effort re-pays through the experience and the knowledge gained. we support this way of working with other projects or other revenue sources like lectures and teaching. again, this is a choice and a business decision.
no one in our offices is paid less than the median wage for their experience, including interns. most are paid more. but again, that is our decision as an office. i have no moral disquiet about any of my colleagues choosing to operate with un-paid interns.
I agree with most of what dlb says. Because of the principles that our country have grown upon, thing such as this can transpire. I would like to add to that though that this is our choice as individuals. As a collective whole, the continued acceptance of a job that doesnt pay by some of us does seem to have an impact in the succession of this phenomena. But, as an individual, such a decision might provide far greater benefits than what the $15/hr or whatever it would be may provide (for the record, I'm not one of those people, and would never accept a job for no pay). Its all about your position of power though; as a college graduate, you obviously have no leverage, the employers often do whatever they want (pay you whatever, make you do the worst work or whatever they fell like, dispose of you at their convenience, etc, etc.). Architecture careers are long, and there is no reason to believe that one can't build a portfolio, and they go to those high design, or "innovative" (I dont like that term....thats another issue) firms when they have more leverage, or control of their responsibilities and compensation in the firm.
Finally, I would like to add that in comparison to the engineers, and the contractors, and just about everybody else who we work around, the architecture industry seems not to want to support labor unions. Issues such as this are the reason that labor unions exist, to negotiate fair pay and benefits for employees, and to ensure level and fair workplaces. Sanctions such as the AIA obviously has the power and influence to interest employers to move in such a direction, but clearly choose not to (probably is a lot of political bullshit behind the reasons why). What that said...what you do, and your destiny as an architect, as said above is going to be based on how you play your own cards (at this point its almost pointless to try to peek over into someone else's hand).
"at the foundation of the USA (18th c) it was a conventional practice that for the profession of architecture, "interns" were effectively 'indentured' or 'articled', which means they were sent to work with an architect, for free or maybe for room and board, in order to gain the experiences necessary to become an architect. this was seen as the "paying your dues" for the "privilege" of being an architect. we could always return to this more "noble" attitude of the architect."
dlb: first of all, people (or should I say men) studying architecture during the 1700s were operating in an entirely different world than now. Those who went to college were likely from wealthy families who could afford to educate them, and therefore, financially support them.
Secondly, anyone who thinks that it is acceptable to pay interns nothing is a complete ass. What other industry out there requires so much education and licensure, but doesn't pay its interns? I can think of no other, but please enlighten me if you can. People have bills and rent to pay and they need to be able to feed themselves. If their full time job isn't paying them, then how do you expect them to afford these things? Not everyone is lucky enough to have a trust fund.
lol, I just noticed that I stated that I agree with dlb above...that couldnt be further from the truth....I meant to say I disagree with most of what he says.
dlb: I dont disagree with the reality of the situation, as stated by yourself. Yes we are in a capitalist society, and yes it is very much an individuals decision to accept such terms. But I do respectfully, and totally disagree with your premise that somehow providing such a service to an employer (in any capacity) is somehow a privilege, and therefore doesnt necessitate pay.
Unfortunately, attitudes such as the ones given by dlb, are the reason that the little players will continue to get shafted, and the big players will continue to get bigger.
Issues as such only convince me more to make sure I go out and vote this November. Hope others will consider doing the same.
Even though they are still in school, a lot of internships in the political/governmental realm (CATO Institute, Brookings Institute, other various internships on the Hill) are unpaid. Like others have said, this practice still occurs b/c people are still willing to take these positions. Yes, its unethical, but its still going to happen until everyone gets on board with not accepting such positions.
I guess they did not teach reading comprehension in your high schools, +2 , Kalyani and ryanJ.
dlb did not say he supports unpaid interns, in fact he stated they always pay at or above median wages. He was debating points, and putting things in historic perspective. As for the 18th century comparison, he stated facts, and said we COULD return to that model, he did not say that he WANTS to return to that model.
So think about this- which is better-
1) you go to architecture school for 6 years, and are unpaid for 6 years. The cost, is around $240,000, including room and board. Perhaps you are bright, and get a scholarship that cuts your debt to $60,000 or so. Your family helps you out, you take out loans, you work at starbucks on the weekend. After you graduate, you work for 3 years, take your licensing test, and become a registered architect.
2) you intern with an architecture firm for 6 years, and are umpaid, except for room and board and a small stipend for expenses. The cost is $0. Perhaps you are bright, and the employer pays you a small amount instead of having you work for free. Your family helps you out a bit, and you work at starbucks on the weekend. After the internship, you take your licensing tes, and become a registered architect.
Actually, the 18th century way allowed people of all economic backgruonds to become an architect. It is much harder for someone of limited means to become an architect today than it was 100 years ago.
And hey, I am not saying this is the way things should be. "I'm jus' sayin......."
archie: What are you "just sayin"??? Are you being paid to represent dlb? If not, I would suggest that you keep your thoughts to yourself, or at the very least provide a prospective of your own... Very brave of you to take shots at someone over the internet, I suppose your high school taught you how to hide behind a monitor.
By the way, its no longer the 18th century, and I dont remember this thread being about employment rights from 200 years ago. Anyway, youre not getting licensed in this country today without a b.arch or m.arch, so your entire statement is completely pointless.
ha ha, +2, I guess you prove my point about reading comprehension!
So saying that it is harder to bcome an architect today for someone of limited means is not a new point? You actually can get registered in some states without a b.arch or m.arch by the way. Gosh, I didn't realize threads had to stick strictly to topic, and could not grow from the original point. Perhaps you didn't realize that what I was trying to show is that you "pay" in some way, either by paying for college and those 5 or 6 years of "free" labor at college, or thru the old fashioned way, an internship.
I wasn't taking a shot, "just sayin" that you didn't really read what DB said. You said " attitudes such as the ones given by dlb, are the reason that the little players will continue to get shafted, and the big players will continue to get bigger." What attitude would that be--- his stated 'opinion' that his firm pays higher than median wages because they think it is the correct decision? Or his opnion that if some other firm doesn't want to pay, and there are willing interns lined up who will work for free, it is none of his business, it is between willing parties, and he sees no problem with it?
Most firms pay for internships. It is just the starchitects who get away with not paying. It's not just architecture you know. My friends daughter is interning for free this summer with an opera star. Another is interning at a New York theater company for free. My neice is interning in Washington for a senator for free. They all seem thrilled by the opportunity.
omg, i am getting soooo sick of this intern thread. i agree with dlb's thread and remind everyone its about choice people. you wanna work for free for 6 month at foa or wherever - good on you. its your choice. in the context of studying for 6 years or so already it isn't a big hardship.
america is supposed to be the land of the free enterprise but most of you talk like a bunch of commies, denying people making their own financial decisions - thats really weird.
disinfect: who's paying your rent? who's paying for the food on your table? and p2an, it "isn't a big hardship"? really? because it would be for me....and a lot other people too i'm sure. honestly i don't understand where you people get this money from. but then again, maybe i'm just bitter that i didn't grow up having mommy and daddy pay for everything.
i'm an architecture student interning at a firm that concentrates on relief work. they rely on volunteers in some positions to remain productive and available to the families that can't always pay to have an architect design their home.
as of right now, i'm not being paid and am covering all my living costs out of my quickly diminishing savings. i think that the work the studio is doing, and my opportunity to be involved with it, is much more valuable than the stipend i could be earning elsewhere.
in this situation, i can understand the reluctance or simple inability to not pay interns: it directly affects the ability to continue to produce work. however, larger firms and "starchitects" do not share these same difficulties and should pay interns for their work, as long as it benefits the productivity of the firm.
dlb - "working for free" in that context isn't exactly working for free... you are essentially investing in social/cultural capital with the expectation that it will be beneficial financially in the future. Many students and recent grads simply do not have the resources to invest in this area and therefore must spend a lot longer and work much harder in trying to catch up with the rich kids.
This is also why people try to get into the top programs - not because they are necessarily good academically, but because they offer access to networks that would be inaccessible otherwise.
: "Doesn't it stand to reason that not paying grad interns is basically stating their architectural "education" is useless in the real world."
While to me this is a gross overstatement, there is a grain of truth in what you write. Most graduates emerging from college (in any discipline) tend to feel that they are well prepared to undertake the kinds of professional challenges one meets in the "real world" -- in some disciplines, this is more true than in others.
Regrettably, a sad fact of life in architecture is that most of our schools teach mostly what we need to know 10-15 years down the road. The academy is quite frank in admitting that they leave the bulk of the technical and business training to the firms. When you speak with faculty members at many - if not most - colleges of architecture, you find that they simply don't have much interest, or expertise, in helping to prepare students for the first 10 years of their careers.
As a result, employers are faced with the prospect of spending untold hours and dollars training individuals with M. Arch degrees how to draw and how to detail and how to deal with contractors and engineers and how to run projects. Then, about the time those emerging professionals actually have sufficient knowledge to actually make a decent contribution, they get restless and want to move on to some other firm for some 'varied experience'.
Is it any wonder that firms are reluctant to pay top dollar to emerging professionals when their investment is so insecure?
no ones asking for top dollar... or any 6 digit pay for an intern......some type of compensation should be given...
interns in other professions are making like 20 + at an hourly rate...
why are architects so damn stingy?!?!?.... and you can't tell me they have no money.. when all these new firms are dressed in the newest designer apparel and have there office in some swanky high end area...
FUSTRATED INTERN
all of us arch students in school with experience working, would like to work for new innovative firms, but why dont they want to pay?.. asking for like a couple of hundred dollars a week isn't much. so why dont they want to pay us? we are working full time? how do these employers expect us to live, especially being a full time student.
this whole interning for free is just absurd, and i think the ones doing it are really making things unfair for the rest of us.
then don't work there.
well, i was a bit sarcastic, but the reason why they don't pay students is, well, there's always kids out there (rich ones) who are willing to bend over to experience (or just to have that name in their resume) so called "innovative" enviroment.
If nobody works for free, then those @$$wipes will start paying their interns. Blame your buddies, not the companies.
The question is often which firms are "ACtually" innovative. Firms bent on manipulating their reputations are prorbably not that innovative, but more about marketing. It's kinda of funny how many architects are easily impressed by the name on the resume, when typically you dont learn or do anything that innovative at some of the firms. They are essentially fake MC's. To be honest its seem like consultatns are often the ones figuring out the real innovation while the architect claims it as their own, at least that seems true of many of the so called "innovative"
firms.
innovative or not... we want more money god-dammit !!
when i have my own firm, it'll be rich and the interns will be the highest paid across all industries in america (making those wallstreet interns look like pussies)
Don't ever intern for free.
slavery is alive and well in 2008 and people often submit to it of their own will and not just because they are rich white kids?
Most of us couldn't play that game.
As a result, we've had to hold our heads high as we take away the lessons - that are there for the taking if you keep your mind open - from places without the cachet to exploit servitude.
Life is 10% the hand you're dealt, and 90% how you play it.
I agree with fulcrum. You need to have respect for time. Its not about being angry. Its about saying no.
to drugs
"slavery" is not voluntary
for unpaid interns it sort of is.
you can't call it "slavery" if somebody volunteers for it -- they can walk away anytime they want -- they just choose not to because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that they receive something valuable from the experience.
I'm sick to death of young graduates taking an unpaid, or lowly paid, position with a "big name" firm and then coming here to complain about how badly they're being abused.
in such situations, you can't be a victim without your own willful participation ... in which case you're not a victim.
OP..... do you deserve to be paid?
Working for free is against everything that this country was built upon. We are a capitalist society, everyone needs to try and take the biggest slice of the pie without considering others. And hey, even for all the rich white kids out there, daddy's wallet does run dry eventually...
richard rogers claims that his firm has a policy that the highest paid individual can't make more than six times the lowest paid individual.
: while that's an interesting concept, in practice it's totally useless - especially if the firm's not abusing its interns.
we pay our interns competitive wages - the ratio from top to bottom is 4:1 at our firm.
WTF are you talking about fee!? You must mean next to free because free in California will get a smack from the labor dept. Free huh? Then how are all those college kids going to buy their pot?
"free" happens in california, even though it's illegal. it's even advertized (as someone has pointed out recently on an ARE forum):
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/egr/680787035.html
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/egr/707820027.html
of course they're breaking this law:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_MinimumWage.htm
I think Whole Foods had that policy. Not sure about Costco, but their CEO's salary is only in the $400k range for a very successful & large company.
The point is that having a top to bottom set pay ratio or not, companies where the employees are paid fairly, and the management isn't grossly overpaid, often tend to be very successful.
In architecture it's a bit different since so many of us want to judge a firms success by their innovation or designs which is a valid scale to judge. But what really matters is good repeat clients that keep the firm profitable and fully staffed. My hunch is that firms that take adantage of unpaid labor are also often time laying off their paid staff and have high churn rates. Business 101 is to avoid that at all costs.
i'm not sure how i feel about this.
i am in principle absolutely ashamed of people working for no compensation because it is representative of a terrible plague in our industry - long hours and low pay - that needs to somehow be addressed.
that said, each of us individuals does not have power to change the industry. while accepting an unpaid position will fuel and further this terrible practice, for the individual student/intern it may be very good.
if you see it as an extension of your education, you won't worry so much about not being paid. you don't worry about making money while learning in a school semester do why do you have a bad feeling about not making money while learning in a great architect's office? even if you are $80k in debt, you will make ends meet somehow, as long as you get a paid job eventually.
it is absolutely naive to be categorically opposed to unpaid internships. working for (and learning from) some of the best architects of our time could be immensely beneficial to your development as an architect.
I would be *extremely* surprised if Whole Foods had that policy. The owner is a shark of a Libertarian and he's given many an interview where he admits he's in it for the money. (Not commitment to the environment or to his employees or nothing: money.) He does well because he spotted a new angle on food supply and he's exploiting it for all it's worth. Plus he's lucky because he's created an aura where a lot of people want to work for the company because it's seen as 'environmentally friendly' or whatever. Yeesh.
Costco on the other hand has a widely known rep for paying it's employees extremely well and working hard to create a very employee-friendly environment. I remember many friends going back and back and back to try to get jobs there because the cashiers were paid near to $20/hr (with benefits) but there were never any spots open.
anyway, side topic...
the problem is that the most talented have a ton of passion. Passion will get you to do stupid things, like work for free.
If this was purely a boring profession, no one would work unpaid.
The bigger problem is that things rarely add up later on - working for that stararchitect might help your personal design development, but it won't help you earn a better living.
Sadly, passion has to be enough to sustain those persons that choose to pursue that path (assume they aren't rich, which, if they are, the chances of more monetary success increase exponentially).
You could always unionize Norma Rae...
Whole Foods CEO makes 14x avg annual pay.
The article does talk about stock options...but Costco CEO James Sinegal gets similar options. That IMO is an entirely different topic.
Again, the bottom line is that a well paid staff is a happy and more productive staff. Great designers can be shitty managers, and unpaid internships are a prime example.
they just canned the top guy at the office i guess they can't justify the pay ;)
makes sense to cut dead weight from the top.
a non hierarchal Union of architects hmmm.
IWW
as a director in a medium-size firm, i often work for "free".
a few points:
1) working as an intern at a particular firm for the particular experience, without pay if necessary, is a choice. it is not slavery. it may well perpetuate a certain practice, but it does not effect the general economy of architecture, because most people work not for a particular experience, but for a living wage. all this indignant protesting seems irrelevant.
2) it is convenient to assume that "innovative" firms are nothing more than marketing exercises, but the evidence of networks and lineages (OMA -> MVRDV -> BIG ->etc) suggests that one type of exchange (giving up pay for experience and a network) can in fact be effective and a smart business or professional decision.
3) "Working for free is against everything that this country was built upon". actually, not very true. first, the USA was not established as a capitalist society, it emerged into being one. at the foundation of the USA (18th c) it was a conventional practice that for the profession of architecture, "interns" were effectively 'indentured' or 'articled', which means they were sent to work with an architect, for free or maybe for room and board, in order to gain the experiences necessary to become an architect. this was seen as the "paying your dues" for the "privilege" of being an architect. we could always return to this more "noble" attitude of the architect.
if we do assume the USA is nothing more than a capitalist society, then i can think of nothing more truly capitalistic than a market-place mentality that says if you can get people to work for you for free, than do so. actually, we should say, that the offices that employ un-paid interns are the epitome and apex of such a society. congratulations to them.
4) as i said, we often work for 'free' in our office. this is that we often undertake open competitions, where the only fee comes if we are selected or awarded a prize. this is a commercial decision - that some competitions are 'worth' the very high risk of not being paid anything for the effort, but that the effort re-pays through the experience and the knowledge gained. we support this way of working with other projects or other revenue sources like lectures and teaching. again, this is a choice and a business decision.
no one in our offices is paid less than the median wage for their experience, including interns. most are paid more. but again, that is our decision as an office. i have no moral disquiet about any of my colleagues choosing to operate with un-paid interns.
dlb - u sir are an ass
the name dlb reminds me of this guy's logo.
LOL
I agree with most of what dlb says. Because of the principles that our country have grown upon, thing such as this can transpire. I would like to add to that though that this is our choice as individuals. As a collective whole, the continued acceptance of a job that doesnt pay by some of us does seem to have an impact in the succession of this phenomena. But, as an individual, such a decision might provide far greater benefits than what the $15/hr or whatever it would be may provide (for the record, I'm not one of those people, and would never accept a job for no pay). Its all about your position of power though; as a college graduate, you obviously have no leverage, the employers often do whatever they want (pay you whatever, make you do the worst work or whatever they fell like, dispose of you at their convenience, etc, etc.). Architecture careers are long, and there is no reason to believe that one can't build a portfolio, and they go to those high design, or "innovative" (I dont like that term....thats another issue) firms when they have more leverage, or control of their responsibilities and compensation in the firm.
Finally, I would like to add that in comparison to the engineers, and the contractors, and just about everybody else who we work around, the architecture industry seems not to want to support labor unions. Issues such as this are the reason that labor unions exist, to negotiate fair pay and benefits for employees, and to ensure level and fair workplaces. Sanctions such as the AIA obviously has the power and influence to interest employers to move in such a direction, but clearly choose not to (probably is a lot of political bullshit behind the reasons why). What that said...what you do, and your destiny as an architect, as said above is going to be based on how you play your own cards (at this point its almost pointless to try to peek over into someone else's hand).
"at the foundation of the USA (18th c) it was a conventional practice that for the profession of architecture, "interns" were effectively 'indentured' or 'articled', which means they were sent to work with an architect, for free or maybe for room and board, in order to gain the experiences necessary to become an architect. this was seen as the "paying your dues" for the "privilege" of being an architect. we could always return to this more "noble" attitude of the architect."
dlb: first of all, people (or should I say men) studying architecture during the 1700s were operating in an entirely different world than now. Those who went to college were likely from wealthy families who could afford to educate them, and therefore, financially support them.
Secondly, anyone who thinks that it is acceptable to pay interns nothing is a complete ass. What other industry out there requires so much education and licensure, but doesn't pay its interns? I can think of no other, but please enlighten me if you can. People have bills and rent to pay and they need to be able to feed themselves. If their full time job isn't paying them, then how do you expect them to afford these things? Not everyone is lucky enough to have a trust fund.
lol, I just noticed that I stated that I agree with dlb above...that couldnt be further from the truth....I meant to say I disagree with most of what he says.
dlb: I dont disagree with the reality of the situation, as stated by yourself. Yes we are in a capitalist society, and yes it is very much an individuals decision to accept such terms. But I do respectfully, and totally disagree with your premise that somehow providing such a service to an employer (in any capacity) is somehow a privilege, and therefore doesnt necessitate pay.
Unfortunately, attitudes such as the ones given by dlb, are the reason that the little players will continue to get shafted, and the big players will continue to get bigger.
Issues as such only convince me more to make sure I go out and vote this November. Hope others will consider doing the same.
Even though they are still in school, a lot of internships in the political/governmental realm (CATO Institute, Brookings Institute, other various internships on the Hill) are unpaid. Like others have said, this practice still occurs b/c people are still willing to take these positions. Yes, its unethical, but its still going to happen until everyone gets on board with not accepting such positions.
I guess they did not teach reading comprehension in your high schools, +2 , Kalyani and ryanJ.
dlb did not say he supports unpaid interns, in fact he stated they always pay at or above median wages. He was debating points, and putting things in historic perspective. As for the 18th century comparison, he stated facts, and said we COULD return to that model, he did not say that he WANTS to return to that model.
So think about this- which is better-
1) you go to architecture school for 6 years, and are unpaid for 6 years. The cost, is around $240,000, including room and board. Perhaps you are bright, and get a scholarship that cuts your debt to $60,000 or so. Your family helps you out, you take out loans, you work at starbucks on the weekend. After you graduate, you work for 3 years, take your licensing test, and become a registered architect.
2) you intern with an architecture firm for 6 years, and are umpaid, except for room and board and a small stipend for expenses. The cost is $0. Perhaps you are bright, and the employer pays you a small amount instead of having you work for free. Your family helps you out a bit, and you work at starbucks on the weekend. After the internship, you take your licensing tes, and become a registered architect.
Actually, the 18th century way allowed people of all economic backgruonds to become an architect. It is much harder for someone of limited means to become an architect today than it was 100 years ago.
And hey, I am not saying this is the way things should be. "I'm jus' sayin......."
archie: What are you "just sayin"??? Are you being paid to represent dlb? If not, I would suggest that you keep your thoughts to yourself, or at the very least provide a prospective of your own... Very brave of you to take shots at someone over the internet, I suppose your high school taught you how to hide behind a monitor.
By the way, its no longer the 18th century, and I dont remember this thread being about employment rights from 200 years ago. Anyway, youre not getting licensed in this country today without a b.arch or m.arch, so your entire statement is completely pointless.
ha ha, +2, I guess you prove my point about reading comprehension!
So saying that it is harder to bcome an architect today for someone of limited means is not a new point? You actually can get registered in some states without a b.arch or m.arch by the way. Gosh, I didn't realize threads had to stick strictly to topic, and could not grow from the original point. Perhaps you didn't realize that what I was trying to show is that you "pay" in some way, either by paying for college and those 5 or 6 years of "free" labor at college, or thru the old fashioned way, an internship.
I wasn't taking a shot, "just sayin" that you didn't really read what DB said. You said " attitudes such as the ones given by dlb, are the reason that the little players will continue to get shafted, and the big players will continue to get bigger." What attitude would that be--- his stated 'opinion' that his firm pays higher than median wages because they think it is the correct decision? Or his opnion that if some other firm doesn't want to pay, and there are willing interns lined up who will work for free, it is none of his business, it is between willing parties, and he sees no problem with it?
Most firms pay for internships. It is just the starchitects who get away with not paying. It's not just architecture you know. My friends daughter is interning for free this summer with an opera star. Another is interning at a New York theater company for free. My neice is interning in Washington for a senator for free. They all seem thrilled by the opportunity.
omg, i am getting soooo sick of this intern thread. i agree with dlb's thread and remind everyone its about choice people. you wanna work for free for 6 month at foa or wherever - good on you. its your choice. in the context of studying for 6 years or so already it isn't a big hardship.
america is supposed to be the land of the free enterprise but most of you talk like a bunch of commies, denying people making their own financial decisions - thats really weird.
+1 for dlb
i'm working unpaid this summer and its a choice I made for a number of reasons. feel free to choose, and to think.
ITS MY BODY MY CHOICE!
i guess none of you took econ 101...
i would read up on opportunity costs, and explicit vs. implicit costs.
it is painful to listen to architects talk about economics/finance/business when they really have no clue about what they are talking about.
disinfect: who's paying your rent? who's paying for the food on your table? and p2an, it "isn't a big hardship"? really? because it would be for me....and a lot other people too i'm sure. honestly i don't understand where you people get this money from. but then again, maybe i'm just bitter that i didn't grow up having mommy and daddy pay for everything.
i'm an architecture student interning at a firm that concentrates on relief work. they rely on volunteers in some positions to remain productive and available to the families that can't always pay to have an architect design their home.
as of right now, i'm not being paid and am covering all my living costs out of my quickly diminishing savings. i think that the work the studio is doing, and my opportunity to be involved with it, is much more valuable than the stipend i could be earning elsewhere.
in this situation, i can understand the reluctance or simple inability to not pay interns: it directly affects the ability to continue to produce work. however, larger firms and "starchitects" do not share these same difficulties and should pay interns for their work, as long as it benefits the productivity of the firm.
Doesn't it stand to reason that not paying grad interns is basically stating their architectural "education" is useless in the real world.
kalyani
i sell coke
i drive an enzo
what
A.R.Ch --- whats the name of the place you work? I am very interested in that sort of architecture.
dlb - "working for free" in that context isn't exactly working for free... you are essentially investing in social/cultural capital with the expectation that it will be beneficial financially in the future. Many students and recent grads simply do not have the resources to invest in this area and therefore must spend a lot longer and work much harder in trying to catch up with the rich kids.
This is also why people try to get into the top programs - not because they are necessarily good academically, but because they offer access to networks that would be inaccessible otherwise.
eighttwo: i work at the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio in Biloxi, MS (www.gccds.org)
: "Doesn't it stand to reason that not paying grad interns is basically stating their architectural "education" is useless in the real world."
While to me this is a gross overstatement, there is a grain of truth in what you write. Most graduates emerging from college (in any discipline) tend to feel that they are well prepared to undertake the kinds of professional challenges one meets in the "real world" -- in some disciplines, this is more true than in others.
Regrettably, a sad fact of life in architecture is that most of our schools teach mostly what we need to know 10-15 years down the road. The academy is quite frank in admitting that they leave the bulk of the technical and business training to the firms. When you speak with faculty members at many - if not most - colleges of architecture, you find that they simply don't have much interest, or expertise, in helping to prepare students for the first 10 years of their careers.
As a result, employers are faced with the prospect of spending untold hours and dollars training individuals with M. Arch degrees how to draw and how to detail and how to deal with contractors and engineers and how to run projects. Then, about the time those emerging professionals actually have sufficient knowledge to actually make a decent contribution, they get restless and want to move on to some other firm for some 'varied experience'.
Is it any wonder that firms are reluctant to pay top dollar to emerging professionals when their investment is so insecure?
no ones asking for top dollar... or any 6 digit pay for an intern......some type of compensation should be given...
interns in other professions are making like 20 + at an hourly rate...
why are architects so damn stingy?!?!?.... and you can't tell me they have no money.. when all these new firms are dressed in the newest designer apparel and have there office in some swanky high end area...
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.