this thread has gotten silly. everyone here who paid off his or her loans hates the idea of forgiving loans. everyone here who has loans wants their loans forgiven. everyone here who received a b.arch thinks the m.arch is a waste of time. everyone who got a m.arch thinks its not such a bad thing. ol' snook_dude thinks they're both a waste of time. blah, blah, blah...
the internets is full or sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I would encourage EVERYONE to listen to this from Minnesota Public Radio - Fast forward to about the 32 Minute mark and listen to the twenty-something talk about her perspectives on debt and then the response from the guest Laura Rowley on student loan debt.
Silverlake, it doesn't matter. You don't need an M.Arch to be a capital "A" architect, and frankly the thought of which is laughable.
Tadao Ando isn't that old btw.
Oh, and your capital "A" architecture concept is typical second-year arch school bullshit as well. The best architects working today aren't even in the media that often. Just ask Holz.box.
fidler you are WRONG. I have an march and think that it is unnecessary if one has a Barch. (which i don't) Also, i haven't paid off my grad loans either.
If you have no intention of ever getting a license, then no you do not need a masters degree in Architecture... in fact you could probably just go to community college for 2 years and get an associates drafting degree and be done with it. Or if you wanted to never set foot in a college, you could take drafting in high school.
However, if you are planning on getting a license, all but 5 states require a professional architecture degree (i.e. 5 year or 4 + masters) degree, and only 16 states will allow experience to replace the degree requirement. It's all spelled out on NCARB. However, I think even this might be dated, because I think that as of 2009 the only state that still does not requires the degree is Arizonia... but they don't change their clocks either, so go fig.
So depending on where you live, a masters degree may or may not be required. So there that is.
fidler you are WRONG. I have an march and think that it is unnecessary if one has a Barch. (which i don't) Also, i haven't paid off my grad loans either.
forgiving loans would be a HUGE stimulus to the economy. Those that are pissed because they've paid theirs off and think others should too shoudl consider whether everyone who owns their house outright or who got a responsible mortgage deserves a bailout equivilent to those being bailed out from ARMs and the fucked up banks that sold it to them.
Think of the professional 30-something couple who are still paying off both of their student loans that could see an immediate $800-1200 increase in their monthly income?!
At a more ideological level, education should be free. Period. Especially professions that contribute to public welfare and environment (doctors, nursing, lawyers, architects, engineers, education)
Evilplatypus, "I still dont see why no one on this board will ever denounce the MARCH. I dont have one."
I'm on board with you EP. Sure it's nice if you wanted to waste $50,000 plus to get it but you don't have any real return for a firm. They might pay you another $2.00 per hour but that's it. The 5 year Barch degree is the best one but the 4 year pre-prof will get you into a firm as well. At this point it is the individual they are looking at and what he can or can not do regardless of the education. I've worked with people with asscoiates degrees that knew more than people with the Barch or March and they were well rewarded for it. Although it is a harder/longer road to licensure.
But I may be jealous as well as I do not have the March.
is there anyone here actually saying that you need an MArch if you have a BArch?
it doesnt sound like it
can we finally drop this line that the MArch is worthless and needs to be denounced?
an MArch is needed if you dont have a BArch and you want to get licensed
unless there is someone actually arguing that you know more with an MArch than BArch, can we please stop repeating the same thing over and over again?
it is not useless, i dont see why this is so hard to understand
if you dont have a BArch and switch to architecture, why on earth would you spend over $100,000 to get a BArch when you could spend $50,000 to get an MArch?
no one who already has a bachelors degree should be made to have to go and start over just because some people are uppity about an MArch
no one is forcing you to get one, and it is clear that it doesnt do much for you except at a very few firms
why is there such a complex about it here?
well we could stop spending billions of dollars in iraq. that would be a start. of course, the country doesn't need more art historians. it doesn't need more creative writers(actually it needs more of both, but i am talking about employment needs) we need more scientists and mathmaticians etc (at least according to the government) to stave off the chinese and the indians. when in fact all we really need to do is start building televisions and coffee makers and blue jeans again. the decrease in consumer spending here has already affected those economies. seems like the only thing we can buy american is overpriced unneeded educations.
The problem is marm, and i have no problem with people who want to get a masters in arch, is that there is a group of people at NAAB who want to phase the B.arch out and force everybody to do a 4 year bachelors in an unrealated field and then spend 3 years getting an M.arch or a 6 year masters and they are winning. Its complete horseshit, but the attitude amongst some in the profession is increasingly becoming hostile towards undergraduate education in architecture. Anyone familiar with the realities of our profession realizes this is complete bull. All can imagine is they are doing this because colleges are lobbying for it, or they have the misguided notion that requiring more education will thin the herd and increase the caliber of the profession when all it will do is price it out for alot of people who can't afford 7 years of school.
I am with you ep. My 4 year undergrad in arch was plenty. Grad school was just practice and a HUGE expense. I don't regret it, but it certainly didn't make me a better architect. 7 years of architecture school is just too much.
It did, however, give me time to take additional classes, find a new career path, and never look back.
"You make no sense. Explain to me again how you provide free college education? I don't think you understand the term free yet."
Exactly.
Aside who got what degree from where, which I couldn't care less about, and aside from which president spent too much on what, which they did, and aside from who's better with their personal finances, which some certainly are: I can't get past how some here think "free from the government" works. As if debt can be "cancelled".
well, if my 60k student loan debt was cancelled, it would of course be absorbed in other places and in other ways by the government, country, etc
but if you look at it purely in a singular personal way, the debt would actually be cancelled, or at least lessened
i would still share a portion of this debt in however it is absorbed everywhere else
but it would be spread out much more, so i would barely notice it
plus, there are probably far more people without student loan debt than with, so it would essentially just be dispersed throughout everyone in the country in higher taxes or whatever is used to make up for it
so i think it wont actually be cancelled, it will just feel like it is being cancelled
that is enough for some people
how about states not requiring a master's degree at all to get a license to practice architecture (or engineering, accounting, etc)? that would've certainly stimulated my economy, by not requiring me to take on more student loans. i didn't learn anything in graduate school that would've helped me in practice anymore than what i learned in undergrad.
wow, bossman. weird statement. school isn't about practical knowledge. the system isn't designed that way. practical skills are gained during idp. school is intended to open your mind to larger ideas about design. one can rail against that system all he or she wants (as i'm sure many will after posting this), but that's the system we gots, folks.
i would say if you expected to learn practical knowledge in school, and then again in grad school, i am not sure what you were actually thinking
fidler is right
this is the system we have, and i doubt it will be going anywhere
perhaps there will be some more classes required that have to do with practical knowledge, but it will most likely never be the bulk of what you do in school
and really, dont most schools have at least some requirements for these types of classes? they are just the boring ones that most students coast through
now if this one overall master's degree were modified in a way where there was a lot of practical knowledge type classes added in those extra 1 or 2 years, that would be something worthwhile
i fear it might just be a couple added studios though, which, while fun, arent really necessary
working as soon as you can is the best experience really
whether you are in school for 5 years or 7, your summers at a minimum should be spent working in an actual firm
then maybe we wouldnt have interns who just graduated with little to no practical knowledge coming to work
" but if you look at it purely in a singular personal way, the debt would actually be cancelled, or at least lessened
i would still share a portion of this debt in however it is absorbed everywhere else
but it would be spread out much more, so i would barely notice it"
jafidler, i completely agree with you. so why is there a relationship between education and licensing? architects are required to obtain a license to practice for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the general public. since school isn't about practical knowledge, why is a certain level of schooling required to protect the health and safety of the general public?
no matter where they throw the money, be it regular stimulus checks for everyone like before, or cancelling student loan debt, it will all be the same idea
yes, the money has to come from somewhere
but will that money generate enough "more" money to get the economy in better shape
that is the question to be asked with any "stimulus" package
it needs to have an exponential effect to help create and build money elsewhere to improve the economy
if we get rid of our student loan debt, and dont ever stimulate the economy and we just sit on the savings every month, it wouldnt work
but if that eliminated student loan debt allowed those people to do something more that helps the economy, be it spending on whatever, buying a house, whatever, then it could potentially build on an exponential scale
i agree though, i dont think student loans is really the way to solve this problem
it will have to be a combination of several things
student loan forgiveness or help might be one of them
but it definitely cant be the only one
marm - the danger with aligning curriculum to licensure is that there are enough bureaucratic complexes undermining any 'real' education to basically make the licence cost your undergrad degree + exam fees.
Public schools have the same issue with FCAT testing - not only are our public schools the poorest example of investing in our future (something both 'conservative' and 'liberal' line-towers rail about yet are the first to cut that line when THEY might have to put their money one of their many mouths are), in locations where the funding only goes down do they prep for the FCAT - get the kids to get the numbers and grade the school accordingly.
That does not produce intelligent people. The goal of an undergraduate program is to teach students architectural thinking - it is NOT a finishing school for stamping out CAD monkeys with great filing skills. There are many options for acquiring technical skills, there are fewer options for acquiring skills of intelligence. That the licensing process now, almost uniformly, *requires* the purchase of a masters degree is a sickening example of how everything is tied into making sure both collegiate corps. and the NCARB make money - instead of providing intelligent people with the a system of credibility BASED on experience and intelligence.
A masters education should be 4 years, require at LEAST that much time in the field, or a field, and cost next to nothing. The masters degree , as said earlier, expedites nothing. It simply means you really love you some architecture - and if you do that, you could teach at an institution while obtaining that degree and exchange your time, energy and EXPERIENCED services for the credibility that institution declares you have.
i am not advocating they combine the degrees into one big program
i feel they should be seperate as they are now, and have no issue with a M.Arch existing
i also do think the cirriculum should be aligned with licensure in a way like it sounded, i think i misspoke before
an architecture cirriculum should include more "real life" type work or experiences is all i mean
having 10 history classes required is all well and good
but there should also be more than 1 professional practice course required
my point is that IF they decide to combine it all in one degree, the added on years should include more than a couple more design studios
right now, a masters program covers a lot of the same material that is covered in an undergrad program
and many times, it is basically the same classes over again, as it needs to cover everything for those students who came in with no architecture background
the point is, that if they were to combine, it cant just be tacked on to the end of the B.Arch ciriculum
it should include field experience requirements, internships, actual work experience...oh wait, why not just have people start working? and if they want a m.arch they can get it themselves?
considering how important actual work experience in a firm is to a young architect's development, i think more school being required is kind of silly
no matter what kind of "real work" class you have, it really will never match actual real work experience
they really should just leave things as they are now
professional practice course will be taught the most curmudeon of faculty members. they will spend the class talking about being sued and how if you think you are going to be the next frank lloyd wright you are sadly mistaken.
exactly
which is why things should be left the way they are now
i remember the 2 professional practice classes i was required to take for my M.Arch
they were painful, and did little to help actually prepare me for working
marm - did you read my response? I know it was lengthy - but in terms of educational format, we agree - experience is key.
Undergraduate academic experience is NOT a foundation for being a helpful holly/harry in the office - it IS a fundamental foundation for thinking like a designer.
Lets say the university setting is a given: how do you educate someone in their very early 20s to think like a designer AND like a professional designer? How do you ensure they are prepared to step into ANY office and perform as though they'd always been there?
but i dont think you can expect a student to be able to step into any office and perform as though they have always been there
and i dont think that should necessarily be the goal of architectural education
i would say, if you require an M.Arch, you are requiring 7 years of schooling it seems
that would mean, in my opinion, that that student should have real work experience during those 7 years, otherwise he is now coming into the workplace behind and is older
i feel arch education focuses on the right things, as you cant necessarily learn and experiment with design while working
you can in school
you can learn office procedures and real world stuff while interning your first year and can pick it up quickly
and you can also learn it every summer while you are in school, so when you graduate, you have almost a years worth of full time work under your belt
So basically, we are both sharing a table at the same cafe ; )
'its really a catch22 with architectural education"
Given the current model - yes. I don't think it *has* to be.
The landscape architecture department at my alma REQUIRED at least one full summer of internship experience before they would hand over the diploma - a department far less staffed, funded and with less prestige than my architectural department. Yet - they get credit for what should be a big ol DUH my department just avoided considering altogether.
It takes a lot to be a design faculty - and SO much is asked of you, to the point where it feels like a job in an architecture firm. However, that too is a problem of format, in this case, lifestyle.
Generally, i don't think you should have students younger than 20 at a university anyways, lord knows I didn't do shit worth doing until after I completely failed my first pin-up. And even then I was still mostly a wreck. Like Sophia Petrillo, I digress..
Maybe the issue really is the university - anyone get an education at a private institution with a better grasp on how to integrate with the profession?
maybe outside internships should be required to get your degree
now figuring out whether it should expand beyond a regular arch office, or a construction office or whatever, would be the hard part
instead of trying to integrate real work experience into the school education, just make it a requirement to have an outside internship
of course someone will say it is unfair to require students to work outside of actual school work
but it could be somewhere to start to help fix this problem
i was describing the pro practice class i endured. well if one reads the posts here about what an education should be and then look at these layoff threads and threads about "informational interviews" ie interviews for jobs that don't exist. The apologist firm owners who talk about bottom lines, trainablity, serving clients etc. (which is what this consists of for the most part...) one has to wonder why the hell you need a degree at all. a freaking certificate from cad school and a button down shirt without too many wrinkles. That should serve you just fine. Of course, the string of architects that have been churned through the meatgrinder of mediocrity and have set up shop are the "mentors" for the fresh faced deeply in debt march holder who willingly abandon any philosophical principles in lieu of a paycheck. Because an advanced degree shouldn't teach you to design. It should teach you a principle of design. But its hard to take a stand or believe in anything. How can one defend one's principles while being graduated into the grammatical clusterfuck of today's architectural profession. Why is this scenario any better than it was when draftsmen just learned to be architects by doing it. Some worked for McKim, Mead and White while others worked for hacks. Some of these workers toiled away for their entire working lives in anonymity and had no regrets. Others became outstanding practioners. Some became famous; some rich. It isn't any different now except for that monthly statement from the department of education.
Some perspective--If the proposal was to provide free advanced education for everyone in the future but those of us with old loans had to keep paying them, how would you feel? That's probably how most people without loans feel about your proposal. A bit conflicted.
The problem with your proposal is that it is all about money. It is a redistribution of working taxpayers' money to you. You already have your education, so the debt relief doesn't do us any good in any way, except that theoretically you would use those funds to stimulate the economy. Hey, give ME some money and I'll show you some stimulation! Everybody's hand is out. Sooner or later someone has to pay. That someone is the worker (taxpayer) who we all are or want to be.
My mean, stingy parents always told me that life's not fair. Dang it, they were right.
We really need to educate our young people better about money, professions, etc. so they have realistic expectations and can make informed decisions before spending five years in college and coming out with a boatload of debt and a degree in philosophy, ceramics, marine biology, or--anything but law.
"How can one defend one's principles while being graduated into the grammatical clusterfuck of today's architectural profession."
My dearly, and raspberrily, bereted Vado : its not ALWAYS a fight.
It seems as if there is a MAJOR cultural misapprehension that the degree, which can only testify that you have the intellectual passion to have at least been exposed to some technical skills, designates some level professional worth.
And obviously, it doesn't.
"of course someone will say it is unfair to require students to work outside of actual school work"
I bring past example in response to this. You buy a contract with the university, and thusly a college, you are bound to that contract if you want to bind them to evaluating you for the diploma. Don't like the methods? Find someone else with a prestigious certificate to pay.
Dropping the MArch requirement for architectural licensure as a way to reduce educational expenses may be all well and good for our industry, but there is a much bigger issue with educational costs in the US that needs to be addressed.
Wage stagnation, skyrocketing tuitions, and the expectation of ever-increasing levels of higher ed as the price of entry to many professions have combined to force nearly all students who don't receive either scholarships or major parental assistance into taking on crushing levels of student loan debt. For a while this situation was somewhat sustainable, at least for some professions, based on the expectation of high enough salaries after graduation to be able to pay off the debt without unreasonable hardship.
Even as recently as a year ago, that calculus may have still worked out well for some grads, but in today's economy I'm not sure there's any industry where it would work well. Even in industries that have had traditionally high starting salaries, it's still hard to cut it. We might be on the verge of an education meltdown if we can't get these debt levels down.
I also see a healthcare meltdown on the horizon, but that's for a different thread.
since school isn't about practical knowledge, why is a certain level of schooling required to protect the health and safety of the general public?
touche.
but i would also say that society as whole is not ready to accept that the definition of an architect is merely one who protects the health and safety of the general public. perhaps i am idealistic or have a higher opinion of civilization than what is reality, but i do believe an architect's ability to design matters, and that is why the education of an architect also matters.
Cancel Student Loan Debt to Stimulate the Economy
this thread has gotten silly. everyone here who paid off his or her loans hates the idea of forgiving loans. everyone here who has loans wants their loans forgiven. everyone here who received a b.arch thinks the m.arch is a waste of time. everyone who got a m.arch thinks its not such a bad thing. ol' snook_dude thinks they're both a waste of time. blah, blah, blah...
the internets is full or sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I would encourage EVERYONE to listen to this from Minnesota Public Radio - Fast forward to about the 32 Minute mark and listen to the twenty-something talk about her perspectives on debt and then the response from the guest Laura Rowley on student loan debt.
Silverlake, it doesn't matter. You don't need an M.Arch to be a capital "A" architect, and frankly the thought of which is laughable.
Tadao Ando isn't that old btw.
Oh, and your capital "A" architecture concept is typical second-year arch school bullshit as well. The best architects working today aren't even in the media that often. Just ask Holz.box.
i am still baffled at this thought that you need an M.Arch
i am almost 30 and no one has ever asked or cared about where i went to school or what my degree is
and i have never heard of anyone caring either
where does this actually happen?
or is this one of those architecture myths, like we dont get paid any money type of thing
fidler you are WRONG. I have an march and think that it is unnecessary if one has a Barch. (which i don't) Also, i haven't paid off my grad loans either.
If you have no intention of ever getting a license, then no you do not need a masters degree in Architecture... in fact you could probably just go to community college for 2 years and get an associates drafting degree and be done with it. Or if you wanted to never set foot in a college, you could take drafting in high school.
However, if you are planning on getting a license, all but 5 states require a professional architecture degree (i.e. 5 year or 4 + masters) degree, and only 16 states will allow experience to replace the degree requirement. It's all spelled out on NCARB. However, I think even this might be dated, because I think that as of 2009 the only state that still does not requires the degree is Arizonia... but they don't change their clocks either, so go fig.
So depending on where you live, a masters degree may or may not be required. So there that is.
thats the issue. a march does nothing to expedite getting a license.
get a general contractor license instead. take a class, take the 3 hour test.
well, vado, then that's just self-loathing. :)
just setting the record straight...this thread needs booze.
forgiving loans would be a HUGE stimulus to the economy. Those that are pissed because they've paid theirs off and think others should too shoudl consider whether everyone who owns their house outright or who got a responsible mortgage deserves a bailout equivilent to those being bailed out from ARMs and the fucked up banks that sold it to them.
Think of the professional 30-something couple who are still paying off both of their student loans that could see an immediate $800-1200 increase in their monthly income?!
At a more ideological level, education should be free. Period. Especially professions that contribute to public welfare and environment (doctors, nursing, lawyers, architects, engineers, education)
you commies really ought to go back to commieland!!!
All I have to say is I have a 4 yr barch and a license and no debt and Ive been out drinking and living it up, downturn be dammed. Suck it.
Evilplatypus, "I still dont see why no one on this board will ever denounce the MARCH. I dont have one."
I'm on board with you EP. Sure it's nice if you wanted to waste $50,000 plus to get it but you don't have any real return for a firm. They might pay you another $2.00 per hour but that's it. The 5 year Barch degree is the best one but the 4 year pre-prof will get you into a firm as well. At this point it is the individual they are looking at and what he can or can not do regardless of the education. I've worked with people with asscoiates degrees that knew more than people with the Barch or March and they were well rewarded for it. Although it is a harder/longer road to licensure.
But I may be jealous as well as I do not have the March.
db "At a more ideological level, education should be free."
You make no sense. Explain to me again how you provide free college education?
I don't think you understand the term free yet.
is there anyone here actually saying that you need an MArch if you have a BArch?
it doesnt sound like it
can we finally drop this line that the MArch is worthless and needs to be denounced?
an MArch is needed if you dont have a BArch and you want to get licensed
unless there is someone actually arguing that you know more with an MArch than BArch, can we please stop repeating the same thing over and over again?
it is not useless, i dont see why this is so hard to understand
if you dont have a BArch and switch to architecture, why on earth would you spend over $100,000 to get a BArch when you could spend $50,000 to get an MArch?
no one who already has a bachelors degree should be made to have to go and start over just because some people are uppity about an MArch
no one is forcing you to get one, and it is clear that it doesnt do much for you except at a very few firms
why is there such a complex about it here?
well we could stop spending billions of dollars in iraq. that would be a start. of course, the country doesn't need more art historians. it doesn't need more creative writers(actually it needs more of both, but i am talking about employment needs) we need more scientists and mathmaticians etc (at least according to the government) to stave off the chinese and the indians. when in fact all we really need to do is start building televisions and coffee makers and blue jeans again. the decrease in consumer spending here has already affected those economies. seems like the only thing we can buy american is overpriced unneeded educations.
hey man, that philosophy minor i got during my undergrad days was very very needed education!
i'm sure you were able to bore a lot of chicks at parties with that mess.
unfortunately no, but thanks to people i met in those classes, i was always, how you say, connected
The problem is marm, and i have no problem with people who want to get a masters in arch, is that there is a group of people at NAAB who want to phase the B.arch out and force everybody to do a 4 year bachelors in an unrealated field and then spend 3 years getting an M.arch or a 6 year masters and they are winning. Its complete horseshit, but the attitude amongst some in the profession is increasingly becoming hostile towards undergraduate education in architecture. Anyone familiar with the realities of our profession realizes this is complete bull. All can imagine is they are doing this because colleges are lobbying for it, or they have the misguided notion that requiring more education will thin the herd and increase the caliber of the profession when all it will do is price it out for alot of people who can't afford 7 years of school.
I did recently visit an architect firm website that said they only wanted March applicants to apply for new intern positions.
How sad.
I am with you ep. My 4 year undergrad in arch was plenty. Grad school was just practice and a HUGE expense. I don't regret it, but it certainly didn't make me a better architect. 7 years of architecture school is just too much.
It did, however, give me time to take additional classes, find a new career path, and never look back.
do we know what is actually being proposed?
is it a 6 year or 7 year program?
honestly i dont see the big deal
i dont really see the point of it, but i dont see what all the outrage is about it
"You make no sense. Explain to me again how you provide free college education? I don't think you understand the term free yet."
Exactly.
Aside who got what degree from where, which I couldn't care less about, and aside from which president spent too much on what, which they did, and aside from who's better with their personal finances, which some certainly are: I can't get past how some here think "free from the government" works. As if debt can be "cancelled".
well, if my 60k student loan debt was cancelled, it would of course be absorbed in other places and in other ways by the government, country, etc
but if you look at it purely in a singular personal way, the debt would actually be cancelled, or at least lessened
i would still share a portion of this debt in however it is absorbed everywhere else
but it would be spread out much more, so i would barely notice it
plus, there are probably far more people without student loan debt than with, so it would essentially just be dispersed throughout everyone in the country in higher taxes or whatever is used to make up for it
so i think it wont actually be cancelled, it will just feel like it is being cancelled
that is enough for some people
how about states not requiring a master's degree at all to get a license to practice architecture (or engineering, accounting, etc)? that would've certainly stimulated my economy, by not requiring me to take on more student loans. i didn't learn anything in graduate school that would've helped me in practice anymore than what i learned in undergrad.
wow, bossman. weird statement. school isn't about practical knowledge. the system isn't designed that way. practical skills are gained during idp. school is intended to open your mind to larger ideas about design. one can rail against that system all he or she wants (as i'm sure many will after posting this), but that's the system we gots, folks.
i would say if you expected to learn practical knowledge in school, and then again in grad school, i am not sure what you were actually thinking
fidler is right
this is the system we have, and i doubt it will be going anywhere
perhaps there will be some more classes required that have to do with practical knowledge, but it will most likely never be the bulk of what you do in school
and really, dont most schools have at least some requirements for these types of classes? they are just the boring ones that most students coast through
now if this one overall master's degree were modified in a way where there was a lot of practical knowledge type classes added in those extra 1 or 2 years, that would be something worthwhile
i fear it might just be a couple added studios though, which, while fun, arent really necessary
working as soon as you can is the best experience really
whether you are in school for 5 years or 7, your summers at a minimum should be spent working in an actual firm
then maybe we wouldnt have interns who just graduated with little to no practical knowledge coming to work
" but if you look at it purely in a singular personal way, the debt would actually be cancelled, or at least lessened
i would still share a portion of this debt in however it is absorbed everywhere else
but it would be spread out much more, so i would barely notice it"
How ethical does that sound to you, Marmkid?
who said it was ethical?
finish reading my post
"that is enough for some people"
jafidler, i completely agree with you. so why is there a relationship between education and licensing? architects are required to obtain a license to practice for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the general public. since school isn't about practical knowledge, why is a certain level of schooling required to protect the health and safety of the general public?
there needs to be at least a baseline requirement for education
the education just needs to be more in line with licensing than it currently is
no matter where they throw the money, be it regular stimulus checks for everyone like before, or cancelling student loan debt, it will all be the same idea
yes, the money has to come from somewhere
but will that money generate enough "more" money to get the economy in better shape
that is the question to be asked with any "stimulus" package
it needs to have an exponential effect to help create and build money elsewhere to improve the economy
if we get rid of our student loan debt, and dont ever stimulate the economy and we just sit on the savings every month, it wouldnt work
but if that eliminated student loan debt allowed those people to do something more that helps the economy, be it spending on whatever, buying a house, whatever, then it could potentially build on an exponential scale
i agree though, i dont think student loans is really the way to solve this problem
it will have to be a combination of several things
student loan forgiveness or help might be one of them
but it definitely cant be the only one
marm - the danger with aligning curriculum to licensure is that there are enough bureaucratic complexes undermining any 'real' education to basically make the licence cost your undergrad degree + exam fees.
Public schools have the same issue with FCAT testing - not only are our public schools the poorest example of investing in our future (something both 'conservative' and 'liberal' line-towers rail about yet are the first to cut that line when THEY might have to put their money one of their many mouths are), in locations where the funding only goes down do they prep for the FCAT - get the kids to get the numbers and grade the school accordingly.
That does not produce intelligent people. The goal of an undergraduate program is to teach students architectural thinking - it is NOT a finishing school for stamping out CAD monkeys with great filing skills. There are many options for acquiring technical skills, there are fewer options for acquiring skills of intelligence. That the licensing process now, almost uniformly, *requires* the purchase of a masters degree is a sickening example of how everything is tied into making sure both collegiate corps. and the NCARB make money - instead of providing intelligent people with the a system of credibility BASED on experience and intelligence.
A masters education should be 4 years, require at LEAST that much time in the field, or a field, and cost next to nothing. The masters degree , as said earlier, expedites nothing. It simply means you really love you some architecture - and if you do that, you could teach at an institution while obtaining that degree and exchange your time, energy and EXPERIENCED services for the credibility that institution declares you have.
i am not advocating they combine the degrees into one big program
i feel they should be seperate as they are now, and have no issue with a M.Arch existing
i also do think the cirriculum should be aligned with licensure in a way like it sounded, i think i misspoke before
an architecture cirriculum should include more "real life" type work or experiences is all i mean
having 10 history classes required is all well and good
but there should also be more than 1 professional practice course required
my point is that IF they decide to combine it all in one degree, the added on years should include more than a couple more design studios
right now, a masters program covers a lot of the same material that is covered in an undergrad program
and many times, it is basically the same classes over again, as it needs to cover everything for those students who came in with no architecture background
the point is, that if they were to combine, it cant just be tacked on to the end of the B.Arch ciriculum
it should include field experience requirements, internships, actual work experience...oh wait, why not just have people start working? and if they want a m.arch they can get it themselves?
considering how important actual work experience in a firm is to a young architect's development, i think more school being required is kind of silly
no matter what kind of "real work" class you have, it really will never match actual real work experience
they really should just leave things as they are now
professional practice course will be taught the most curmudeon of faculty members. they will spend the class talking about being sued and how if you think you are going to be the next frank lloyd wright you are sadly mistaken.
exactly
which is why things should be left the way they are now
i remember the 2 professional practice classes i was required to take for my M.Arch
they were painful, and did little to help actually prepare me for working
marm - did you read my response? I know it was lengthy - but in terms of educational format, we agree - experience is key.
Undergraduate academic experience is NOT a foundation for being a helpful holly/harry in the office - it IS a fundamental foundation for thinking like a designer.
Lets say the university setting is a given: how do you educate someone in their very early 20s to think like a designer AND like a professional designer? How do you ensure they are prepared to step into ANY office and perform as though they'd always been there?
you are right perido
we do agree on that
but i dont think you can expect a student to be able to step into any office and perform as though they have always been there
and i dont think that should necessarily be the goal of architectural education
i would say, if you require an M.Arch, you are requiring 7 years of schooling it seems
that would mean, in my opinion, that that student should have real work experience during those 7 years, otherwise he is now coming into the workplace behind and is older
i feel arch education focuses on the right things, as you cant necessarily learn and experiment with design while working
you can in school
you can learn office procedures and real world stuff while interning your first year and can pick it up quickly
and you can also learn it every summer while you are in school, so when you graduate, you have almost a years worth of full time work under your belt
its really a catch22 with architectural education
So basically, we are both sharing a table at the same cafe ; )
'its really a catch22 with architectural education"
Given the current model - yes. I don't think it *has* to be.
The landscape architecture department at my alma REQUIRED at least one full summer of internship experience before they would hand over the diploma - a department far less staffed, funded and with less prestige than my architectural department. Yet - they get credit for what should be a big ol DUH my department just avoided considering altogether.
It takes a lot to be a design faculty - and SO much is asked of you, to the point where it feels like a job in an architecture firm. However, that too is a problem of format, in this case, lifestyle.
Generally, i don't think you should have students younger than 20 at a university anyways, lord knows I didn't do shit worth doing until after I completely failed my first pin-up. And even then I was still mostly a wreck. Like Sophia Petrillo, I digress..
Maybe the issue really is the university - anyone get an education at a private institution with a better grasp on how to integrate with the profession?
ah, see i think that could be the key
maybe outside internships should be required to get your degree
now figuring out whether it should expand beyond a regular arch office, or a construction office or whatever, would be the hard part
instead of trying to integrate real work experience into the school education, just make it a requirement to have an outside internship
of course someone will say it is unfair to require students to work outside of actual school work
but it could be somewhere to start to help fix this problem
i was describing the pro practice class i endured. well if one reads the posts here about what an education should be and then look at these layoff threads and threads about "informational interviews" ie interviews for jobs that don't exist. The apologist firm owners who talk about bottom lines, trainablity, serving clients etc. (which is what this consists of for the most part...) one has to wonder why the hell you need a degree at all. a freaking certificate from cad school and a button down shirt without too many wrinkles. That should serve you just fine. Of course, the string of architects that have been churned through the meatgrinder of mediocrity and have set up shop are the "mentors" for the fresh faced deeply in debt march holder who willingly abandon any philosophical principles in lieu of a paycheck. Because an advanced degree shouldn't teach you to design. It should teach you a principle of design. But its hard to take a stand or believe in anything. How can one defend one's principles while being graduated into the grammatical clusterfuck of today's architectural profession. Why is this scenario any better than it was when draftsmen just learned to be architects by doing it. Some worked for McKim, Mead and White while others worked for hacks. Some of these workers toiled away for their entire working lives in anonymity and had no regrets. Others became outstanding practioners. Some became famous; some rich. It isn't any different now except for that monthly statement from the department of education.
Some perspective--If the proposal was to provide free advanced education for everyone in the future but those of us with old loans had to keep paying them, how would you feel? That's probably how most people without loans feel about your proposal. A bit conflicted.
The problem with your proposal is that it is all about money. It is a redistribution of working taxpayers' money to you. You already have your education, so the debt relief doesn't do us any good in any way, except that theoretically you would use those funds to stimulate the economy. Hey, give ME some money and I'll show you some stimulation! Everybody's hand is out. Sooner or later someone has to pay. That someone is the worker (taxpayer) who we all are or want to be.
My mean, stingy parents always told me that life's not fair. Dang it, they were right.
We really need to educate our young people better about money, professions, etc. so they have realistic expectations and can make informed decisions before spending five years in college and coming out with a boatload of debt and a degree in philosophy, ceramics, marine biology, or--anything but law.
... nail meets head
...in response to vado
"How can one defend one's principles while being graduated into the grammatical clusterfuck of today's architectural profession."
My dearly, and raspberrily, bereted Vado : its not ALWAYS a fight.
It seems as if there is a MAJOR cultural misapprehension that the degree, which can only testify that you have the intellectual passion to have at least been exposed to some technical skills, designates some level professional worth.
And obviously, it doesn't.
"of course someone will say it is unfair to require students to work outside of actual school work"
I bring past example in response to this. You buy a contract with the university, and thusly a college, you are bound to that contract if you want to bind them to evaluating you for the diploma. Don't like the methods? Find someone else with a prestigious certificate to pay.
i agree completely
i would have loved actually for the school to require i have work experience
i would have been much more motivated
and silly perido
havent you yet realized that EVERYTHING with architects has to be a fight?
no matter how much it doesnt effect them?
Dropping the MArch requirement for architectural licensure as a way to reduce educational expenses may be all well and good for our industry, but there is a much bigger issue with educational costs in the US that needs to be addressed.
Wage stagnation, skyrocketing tuitions, and the expectation of ever-increasing levels of higher ed as the price of entry to many professions have combined to force nearly all students who don't receive either scholarships or major parental assistance into taking on crushing levels of student loan debt. For a while this situation was somewhat sustainable, at least for some professions, based on the expectation of high enough salaries after graduation to be able to pay off the debt without unreasonable hardship.
Even as recently as a year ago, that calculus may have still worked out well for some grads, but in today's economy I'm not sure there's any industry where it would work well. Even in industries that have had traditionally high starting salaries, it's still hard to cut it. We might be on the verge of an education meltdown if we can't get these debt levels down.
I also see a healthcare meltdown on the horizon, but that's for a different thread.
touche.
but i would also say that society as whole is not ready to accept that the definition of an architect is merely one who protects the health and safety of the general public. perhaps i am idealistic or have a higher opinion of civilization than what is reality, but i do believe an architect's ability to design matters, and that is why the education of an architect also matters.
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.