Frank Lloyd Wright was also without a degree...

The degree is just a form of qualification. For those whose work speaks louder than any piece of paper, such qualifications are not necessary. In this day in age, where everyone has multiple degrees, I'd argue it is hardly a differentiator. 

You can have no professional education in architecture and be self-educated like Tadao Ando and go on to win the Pritzker Prize also xP

Seriously.. Way too many think they've made it in this profession with a degree and look down on those who don't.  Architects need to get off their high horses and show more respect to that carpenter or construction guy who probably knows more than most.  The real test is can you build real architecture than just flaunt your degree paper and talk.

I totally agree that architects should show more respect to the carpenters and builders who know more about their work than architects do. And architects need to learn to use that knowledge to inform how we make things.

Remember Mies et al was almost 100 years ago.  The way society recognizes professionals has changed dramatically and is right now undergoing yet another major shift: programs in multi-disciplinary work are becoming more popular, which tend away from deep specialization. It's interesting to watch.

Mies also knew how to carve a headstone and calculate his own structures. He was not a builder but knew how to use them, which is more important.

to theOP,  Mies apprenticed in several offices and he did have a partial formal education as well. He was licensed as an architect in germany of course but also in the USA for at least two states.

Useful to remember that he ran (and apparently owned?) the bauhaus, and was a leading cultural figure with publications in G and so on.  On top of that the guy was one of the founders of an entire movement in architecture that we all study and copy even now.

What more do you want? He was also invited to teach at Harvard at the same time.  I suppose when the OP gets the call to do the same s/he can stand incredulous at the insanity of it all and wonder why world-class talent is asked to teach the next generation. Perhaps we should have more of that.

 Just the fact that even the new generations think, or  wonder about Mies Van der Rohe still shows an incredible respect to his talent. It's been my experience that either you like his work or hate it. 

'i understand mr. hvac guy, i know you're right about that duct layout.  but the sprinkler guy will be here in 2 weeks, and if you put your drop there, he won't be able to do his job'

^-- fictional conversation.  obviously they let the sprinkler guy in first.

it seems to me, with hindsight looking back at a black and white world, the older generation invested in the success of the younger generation back then.  you can point to people like peter behrens who helped teach mies to be as accomplished as he was, or louis sullivan who helped teach wright, or even william jenney who helped teach sullivan.  these guys learned on the job with practical experience and exposure to the profession.  there may have been an expectation back then that younger people don't have the experience that older people do, so they need a bit of help and training.  it seems more common now that older people just expect younger people to already know whatever it is they need to know to fill the narrow roll that is defined for them.  when that happens, the younger staff doesn't really have the opportunity to become better architects.

It was a long time ago Skywalker and the universe was different then.

Or maybe not.^

Construction had already begun on the Seagram Building when he received a letter from the New York State Department of Education reminding him that he did not have a license to practice architecture in the state of New York and would not be granted one until he passed an examination after showing proof of the equivalent of a high school education.

Mies Van Der Rohe: A critcal Biography

^ High school diploma required for architectural license. The universe was indeed different then.

i suppose now you have OMA -> zaha and BIG, so the idea of learning through mentorship might still be alive an well, just not as much in America. 

Professional qualification via formal university credentials is a fairly recent (probably 1920s or later) phenomenon.  Now, the disadvantage of extreme specialization (noted earlier) and the outlandish cost and dubious quality of academia probably means the pendulum will start swinging back again.  Might be a very good thing, too. 

Credentialism didn't ruin higher education until relatively recently.

geezer, I don't see this happening. If anything the trend is for more specialization (LEED, etc.) and more bureaucratic nonsense (i.e. NCARB, absurd codes, etc.) that requires more specialization.

The infiltration of the corporate into the social (government) is near complete. Building licenses here require mandatory attendance at workshops that are simply corporate product sales pitches.

As to dubious quality - we are surrounded by it yet most don't have the education / sensitivity / experience necessary to see it. Successful architects now are largely those who are adept not at designing buildings but at navigating bureaucracy with the end result being mediocrity at best. It's the paper that's important.

Miles,

It's not so much that corporations have infiltrated government, it's that technocratic managerialism has conquered the whole world and saturated every aspect of our society: corporate, governmental, educational, etc. The educrats, bureaucrats, and corporate managers all act in sync and interchangeably because they all believe the same things, have been trained to think the same way, share many common interests, and are part of the same organic power structure, not because one or another group of them has "infiltrated" or subverted any others.