I got into the architecture profession late - over 40 - I was in a 3D environment designer in the video game industry - then got my M.arch in 2007 and have been working in architecture ever since - until I got laid off in 2008. I know most of the latest software(Revit,Max,Rhino and autocad). Recently, I have been receiving e-mail links from a former associate about age discrimination. I also received a reject notice from a firm that says "We don't feel you are a good cultural fit"
while I suppose age discrimination can exist anywhere, in my experience it's rare in this profession. there's a much greater focus on who you are, what you can contribute, and the relative attractiveness of your cost.
I actually enjoy interviewing candidates who come to architecture as a second career. I appreciate their maturity and seasoned approach to work. they generally know how to function effectively in an office - something it takes the average recent grad some years to master.
however, there's often an economic hurdle with such candidates. their salary expectations often are unrealistic relative to what they actually can contribute as entry level designers. nevertheless, if we find a way to reach common economic ground, they tend to be great employees.
In the current economy I imagine it would be next to impossible to prove age discrimination. Work has slowed to a trickle and don't take it personally when a firm needs to downsize. You were probably cut because you don't have a lot of experience, not because you are in your 40's. If anything in this profession I'd say the discrimination is directed towards the younger staff. The stereotypical image of an Architect is an older (50+) male, while the 30-something staff is supposed to be support/drafters/etc. I've heard clients ask "who is doing the designing" specifically requesting a more "experienced" person. Needless to say I was not allowed to go to future meetings with that client, although I still did a large portion of the design on that particular job. A hard reality I learned when I started in this profession in my 20's, which someone in their 40's probably wouldn't experience even though they might have the same level of experience.
Age discrimination does occur. Firms are concerned by relatively high payroll costs, and believe younger, less expensive, less senior employees can equally do those job responsibilities. In many large offices, staff is disproportionately young (under 40) with few employees over 50, much less over 60, who aren't principals. It is often most evident in the larger firms, when you see very senior (but not principal-level) older staff members with a great deal of work responsibility and authority are terminated as a cost-savings measure. As an architect gets older, he still must continually "prove his worth" to firm regarding commitment, ability to produce, to lead, etc.
A large firm here had a large age discrimination suit almost 20 years ago after it terminated a large group of associate-principal level people, who were perceived to be firm's technical and project management backbone. Same firm's messy partner-retirement experiences, related to buy-out compensation and "non-compete" clauses coupled with a mandatory but relatively young age for forced retirement, are common knowledge. That said, generally speaking, suing your ex-employer is a good way to permanently exclude yourself from future further employment in the field. Threatening to sue will ruin your chances for a good reference from that firm, which is key to finding a new job
Your history doesn't necessarily imply age discrimination. There are massive lay-offs occurring. Firms are in deep financial trouble unless their payroll fits manpower requirements and client payment receivables. Though you're older, you're still a relative "newbie", assessed by same criteria as other recents grads, yet probably expected to bring increased maturity to your work performance and attitude. CAD program knowledge is expected, not only criteria for continued employment. If your firm needed to lay-off employees, often newer, younger, less experienced staff goes first, perhaps you fit into all but the "younger" category.
Most likely, rverk, by cultural differences they mean they think you won't fit in well - maybe you're fun, and they're staid, or vice versa; maybe they dress all in black and you don't, or vice versa, maybe they're all super religious, and you're not, or vice versa, etc. One of the important aspects of an interview is to determine whether someone will fit in with the "office culture"; an office filled with people who despise one another is a terrible work incentive.
That said, I think that firm's HR person needs to reconsider their rejection letter wording. The use of the actual term "cultural fit" in a rejection letter is a dangerous one. It really seems to open the firm to questions about discrimination based on cultural differences, in other words, the use of the word "cultural" opens one to accusations of racism, ageism, etc. A phrase that focuses on your qualifications, like "your skills are not a good fit with our needs at this time" is a hell of a lot safer, even if not entirely truthful.
It seems to me we need to be very careful here about what we mean when we say "age discrimination" ...
terminating, or not hiring, somebody who is 60 because that person is costly is not necessarily age discrimination, nor are those facts alone going to support an age discrimination claim.
however, if you terminate, or don't hire, somebody who is 60 because that person is costly but you keep, or hire, somebody who's capable of doing comparable work with comparable proficiency but earning equal or less pay, then age discrimination is more likely to be supportable.
Mar 16, 09 12:04 pm ·
·
"And, in fact, in my application to the Berlage Institute Deanship, one of my proposals was not to hire any studio instructors over 35, as it was the most efficient--and ecomonic--way to ensure that teaching was integrally connected to the production--rather than consumption--of knowledge. It was deemed too radical and not accepted, but I still believe it was a good idea."
--Alejandro Zaero Polo, 2007.
I'm getting really tired of academics spouting off about architectural pedagogy who have no real training in education. Just because you went to school doesn't mean you actually understand what it takes to teach something. It's like my brother-in-law who thinks he knows everything about architecture because he lives in a house.
sorry if I didn't explain myself. AZP's statement strikes me as lazy - I understand where he is coming from (sure, there is an argument to be made that academia has become too much about "consumption"), but if you actually knew how to develop and implement or reform school-wide curricula, it wouldn't matter what age your studio instructors are. That statement is just trying to be provocative - and it only works if you know nothing about education theory.
I think it works both ways. Arch is one of the older professions, in my opinion, with considerable credibility coming with a few gray hairs and the war stories that go with 'em. Project designers or managers without the aura of experience don't show as well when presented to rooms filled with male 55 yr old developers.
This being said, such people cost more money. So firms need a balance, and need to pay attention to their age/experience pyramids. You can't get the same work done with $200/hr bill rate senior designer as you can with an $87/hr bill rate right out of school designer/rhinojock.
This is a really big issue in the profession. The fact that you have to have gray hair before anybody even considers you a real architect is total bs. That even 40 and 50 year olds are considered "kids" or "up and comers" in this profession is pretty ridiculous.
And when some firms hit tough times, the younger design staff are the first to go with their small salaries, while the older partners who have become great at paperwork maintain their income. Not much you can do about it unless the AIA wants to do some guilt tripping.
@Rand: "And when some firms hit tough times, the younger design staff are the first to go with their small salaries, while the older partners who have become great at paperwork maintain their income."
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it -- and is often the view held by those fairly young. However, another view -- and probably the more realistic view in reasonably well managed firms -- is that in most cases seniority also provides a certain degree of proven expertise and established client relationships that would be very hard (and expensive) to replicate when the economy turns around. While you may not care for this perspective, the reality is that younger staff is more interchangeable and easier to replace.
I fully understand from that perspective. But that idea of easy interchangeability is part of the discrimination towards youth. It is the same type of attitude you are seeing with most firms only wanting to hire interns with at least 2 years under their belt so that they do not have to take the responsibility of training someone in the profession but still pay them intern rates. I've worked with some firms that have a poor balance or distribution of age, usually a higher amount of upper management, and the designs and clients suffer. But I will also admit to my naivete and angst. I also feel not as many people should be graduated from architecture schools during this time since it floods the new graduate pool with incompetence that middle and upper positions of the firm have to deal with, adding to the negative outlook of us youngsters.
Have you asked yourself if you really have what the firm needs? In this profession, its hard to think any firm wouldn't hire a mature candidate who has the skills and experience they need all because of his age.
Too many people seem to use age as an excuse for not getting hired or being axed. I mean, why would an employee choose a young, inexperienced and incompetent new comer over a mature candidate who has the skills, talent, experience
@accesskb
because the young, inexperienced, and incompetent new comer has the skills and creativity relevant to tomorrow and not yesterday. Your older more "mature" candidate cost more, skills are likely not up to par unless it comes to client relations and paperwork, and their experience can become a mental crutch since they are stuck in their ways. I get to see what the majority of these more mature candidates you may have in mind have produced, and as a result our environments are usually utter crap or irrelevant. Employers do not often hire based on design ability, but if they either like you as a person or if you can use a computer better than they can. People in their late twenties to late thirties are some of the best designers you can have.
ironically i find young architects are much less flexible and creative than older ones. the idea that young people got all the goods is some kind of myth that is not borne out by experience, at least not so far...
it seems to be mostly about experience and less about age.
personally i think personality is most important hiring criteria, all things being equal otherwise...
Rand: Like you mentioned, creativity and skills relevant to tomorrow are often what employers look for. Being mature doesn't mean one can't have such skills. The OP seems to have a background from 3D environment design... I'd think he'd be creative and well skilled than most arch grads.. or maybe not.
If you are looking "cold call", for an architectural job and you are 40+, I wish you the very best of luck.
A younger applicant in a traditional male profession, will be hired especially if she is cute.
If the younger applicant something in 20+ yrs., they can be over-worked and kept in the dark for a longer period of time, someone in their 40's will be wise to the employer profit game.
Yes, there most certainly is age-discrimination in Architecture! If you have a mid-life career change, please do not let it be Architecture, unless you are very, very financially secure.
Yes, there most certainly is age-discrimination in Architecture! If you have a mid-life career change, please do not let it be Architecture, unless you are very, very financially secure.
Not any more - at least I paid my tuition off in cash
I switched careers from video games to architecture at 55 - I was warned not to do it - but went ahead anyway - my professors said I was brave - I am able to survive as a BIM modeler
short of a career breakthrough(2%), my career prospects are very bleak at best - truncated
in my 5 years since graduation, architecture make no apologies for it's discrimination career changers over 40 - it's too bad - the people I work for have done well by me - the only thing I can do is complaint to my congresswoman(Jackie Speer) - this is wrong - but it will get even worse if Romney gets in.
I shouldn't have to dye my hair and lie on applications - but my hand is forced and I will continue to do so - fight fire with fire - I will not just give in and retire -
Old and in the way, that's what I heard them say
They used to heed the words he said, but that was yesterday
Gold will turn to gray and youth will fade away
They'll never care about you, call you old and in the way
Once I hear tell, he was happy
He had his share of friends and good times
Now, those friends have all passed on
He don't have a place called home
Looking back to a better day, feeling old and in the way
When just a boy, he left his home
Thought he'd have the world on a string
Now the years have come and gone
Through the streets he walks alone
Like the old dog gone astray, he's just old and in the way
Engineering, contracting, real estate developing? Blizzard Entertainment? Get licensed move to a small city and open your own practice with another person and prosper? Move into a half way house and carve your name into one of the rafters?
Yes that is the most sensible thing - however - I can't - too much debt for one(yes that was my fault + I take full responsibility) my creditors and the IRS are a little less than enthusiastic about my "second career" even though I have played major roles on the design of several built projects in San Francisco - I have survived 5 years and am in the health of a 30 year old(due to 30 years of caloric reduction, 35 miles/week running including running up 5 flights of stairs at Bart stations and no red meat) what I failed to account for was the recession/depression that nuked out my finances - No excuse? right? I agree - but How do I pay back debts that accrued as a result of 15 months unemployment 09' 10'? working at Home Depot won't work - I tried that in 09' - I just have to keep going - I agree with you 100% - But I just can't - if I become successful?
somehow I deluded myself and now I must find some way to delude myself to success
My thoughts are to run your own business and be your own boss work hard to get work instead of getting rejected for the most atrocious reasons. I'm still in school but i am now getting ready or peparing myself for the worst now xD.....
Be your own boss = terrible advice. If everyone is their own boss, who will work for them? Architecture is very much a collaboration, and a lot of the time those who do become their own boss take on the burden of the business side and lose the opportunity to design.
Well i stand corrected what i was trying to get at is that he would'nt have to be treated like this if he were his own boss, but if that meant the fun would be taken out i guess it would be useless.
The most devastating trend is the age discrimination against older architects in that 40 something and older range. These are people who have a License as an Architect. So the exploitation years of the internship are behind them. They have only mid management jobs typically and are paid a bit better than the Interns. The concept the firms have is that they only need a limited number of experienced people. So it is logical to keep the less costly interns and weed out the 40 somethings. This is logical for the firms ownership.
Unfortunately it destroys the 40 somethings. Nobody will hire them at the rate they were paid. They are expected to start at intern wages and prove themselves all over again. It is devastating to the families they support, the children they wanted to send to college. And, it is even worse for those in their 50's nobody will hire them at all. Not enough milking time left in them. They are told to "Go hunt Your Own Food" as if the License is all these never in their lives paid enough people, can start their own company.
The Economic justification of all this arises from the ruthless exploitation allowed by owners of the Interns. The owners know that very very few will have careers beyond age 50. They dupe Interns into believing that they have a bright future. They will not. Unless they have the money in the family somewhere to walk away and start their own firm, they are wasting their lives on an empty promise. The current state is a scam and Interns coming out of the Universities are the exploited victims. These Interns will work very hard for a long time just to get the IDP completed take the ARE and get the License. That isn't the beginning for them that they dreamed about, it's more frequently the end game.
terry - i wish i could agree that it's simply age discrimination that you're describing. it's not (purely speaking) imho. what we are seeing, though, is a significant transformation in how projects are being delivered, produced and i do think you're correct that many 40-59 year olds are going to be on the chopping block as a result (and i'm 42 by the way. but i have owned my own firm for 7+ years).
right now, i think the sweet spot for getting the most productivity for projects up to 15M is someone who's got 7-10 years experience, knows how to put buildings together fairly well, and is revit proficient. as a single person, they can do a lot. a whole lot. a whole, whole lot in one place. the kinds of expertise that someone who's 40-50 something has still retains some value, but it's different. generally, they're better at managing large projects (25M+) but less active in terms of the actual production. so, the key weakness in that equation is that there's less absolute 'need' for them if work at that scale dries up. which it has in many firms. but i don't see it as age discrimination as much as it is a mismatch in skillsets for what the market needs. and, quite frankly, it is a mismatch in terms of the general salary requirements people at that stage need/want (typically). a lot of firm owners probably think they can get a 7-10 + a fresh intern for the same price as a 20+ manager. they'll lean on the 7-10 to manage and produce, with help from the intern. except they have one extra body to help out with other work as it comes up in the office. and a much less disruptive situation if they need to cut a chunk of that salary loose down the line.
i don't like it, but it's a new reality. and we're not the only profession with the same issues - in the legal world, it's there. same with middle management everywhere. the only thing i can recommend to people is to network - always - no matter what level your at, with the goal to bring in projects. whether that's to yourself on the side or to the firm you're working for, the ability to generate work will never, ever be an obsolete skillset...
I am over 50 with 4 years experience in architecture(use to work in video game industry) and am still working in architecture - I use Revit, and can put a building together and I am am cheap too -
It's skillset and cost - I can't afford the rent in SF where I work - thats my problem - I don't make what the programmers at Zynga and Google make(80 - 120k) - but I am still working in architecture at an age where if I had been in architecture 30 years ago, I would be flushed out now - - it;s skills/cost and physical condition( I run 35 miles/week) not age per se - and our careers and how we progress in light of challenges(fair and unfair) is our responsibilities -
Now I need to to get back to becoming fully proficient with Revit 13.5. and Python
I think Greg walker nailed it. Though I personally am not in that 7-10 years of experience range, i will be soon, and am getting into that zone of production/management area. I have friends already in that zone who are producing as much work as they did when they were interns, along with now managing consultants, every day client interfacing AND intern development.
I am not one of those idiots who hasn't yet realized the tremendous value of experience in this field... To me, it seems like experience plus ambition (or just staying fresh, on edge, un lazy?) can paper over a lot of other deficiencies, because the bottom line is you have to work a long time before you've handled all the situations on might expect to handle on any given day...
That being said, being one of those mid level manager type guys... relative to a 50 year old with 20 years of experience..... im incredibly cheap and can produce tangible value on a day to day basis for my firm. Be it through production, development, or i hate to say it... willingness and ability to work...
Yes, age discrimination does exist, often masked by language that may not overtly appear discriminatory. However, it is clear that the real reasons for rejecting a candidate are their age and gender. Being over 50 and a woman can put one at a significant disadvantage, no matter how good you are in your field...
Aug 1, 24 5:01 am ·
·
curtkram
you posted twelve (12) years too late. i feel like certain political figures have shown us that too old is in fact too old.
Firms want to hire whomever they wish, prefer people in their 20's, 30s and low 40s - It's unfair - They have ways around it - and who is going to snitch to an employment lawyer, much less press charges with at best a 2% chance to prevail in court and end up in permanent financial ruin from legal fees? In my 14 years of experience, I've experienced possible patterns of age discrimination - I just go get another job
Best bet is to stay in physical shape and stay on top of the architectural technology - don't get old and be successful
That's what I thought you meant. Wasn't sure though.
I'm curious about one thing though.
Where did you get the 2% figure for winning an age discrimination case?
I ask because I've had to sue a past employers twice. Each time I won and the employer had to pay court costs and lawyer fees. I have no idea if my experiences would be considered the norm though.
Aug 2, 24 12:42 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
we have one 50+ person who is intermediate arch (on their best day, which are few)... yet considers themselves senior. Makes it super painful to red line their shit because they think their "life exp" is sufficient to get by as opposed to knowing how things work in the professional world.
I always think of a job interview as a meeting where I interview them as much as they interview me. What are they really looking for and can I be of any assistance to them? If you can get them to open up and begin talking about the areas that need improvement and you can respond with similar situations in the past that you helped to resolve you are ahead in the interview . They did not call you in looking for reasons to reject you and that includes ageism.
age discrimination in architecture
I got into the architecture profession late - over 40 - I was in a 3D environment designer in the video game industry - then got my M.arch in 2007 and have been working in architecture ever since - until I got laid off in 2008. I know most of the latest software(Revit,Max,Rhino and autocad). Recently, I have been receiving e-mail links from a former associate about age discrimination. I also received a reject notice from a firm that says "We don't feel you are a good cultural fit"
while I suppose age discrimination can exist anywhere, in my experience it's rare in this profession. there's a much greater focus on who you are, what you can contribute, and the relative attractiveness of your cost.
I actually enjoy interviewing candidates who come to architecture as a second career. I appreciate their maturity and seasoned approach to work. they generally know how to function effectively in an office - something it takes the average recent grad some years to master.
however, there's often an economic hurdle with such candidates. their salary expectations often are unrealistic relative to what they actually can contribute as entry level designers. nevertheless, if we find a way to reach common economic ground, they tend to be great employees.
the only discrimination i have encountered is the trades/office experience b.s.
it is what it is......
In the current economy I imagine it would be next to impossible to prove age discrimination. Work has slowed to a trickle and don't take it personally when a firm needs to downsize. You were probably cut because you don't have a lot of experience, not because you are in your 40's. If anything in this profession I'd say the discrimination is directed towards the younger staff. The stereotypical image of an Architect is an older (50+) male, while the 30-something staff is supposed to be support/drafters/etc. I've heard clients ask "who is doing the designing" specifically requesting a more "experienced" person. Needless to say I was not allowed to go to future meetings with that client, although I still did a large portion of the design on that particular job. A hard reality I learned when I started in this profession in my 20's, which someone in their 40's probably wouldn't experience even though they might have the same level of experience.
Age discrimination does occur. Firms are concerned by relatively high payroll costs, and believe younger, less expensive, less senior employees can equally do those job responsibilities. In many large offices, staff is disproportionately young (under 40) with few employees over 50, much less over 60, who aren't principals. It is often most evident in the larger firms, when you see very senior (but not principal-level) older staff members with a great deal of work responsibility and authority are terminated as a cost-savings measure. As an architect gets older, he still must continually "prove his worth" to firm regarding commitment, ability to produce, to lead, etc.
A large firm here had a large age discrimination suit almost 20 years ago after it terminated a large group of associate-principal level people, who were perceived to be firm's technical and project management backbone. Same firm's messy partner-retirement experiences, related to buy-out compensation and "non-compete" clauses coupled with a mandatory but relatively young age for forced retirement, are common knowledge. That said, generally speaking, suing your ex-employer is a good way to permanently exclude yourself from future further employment in the field. Threatening to sue will ruin your chances for a good reference from that firm, which is key to finding a new job
Your history doesn't necessarily imply age discrimination. There are massive lay-offs occurring. Firms are in deep financial trouble unless their payroll fits manpower requirements and client payment receivables. Though you're older, you're still a relative "newbie", assessed by same criteria as other recents grads, yet probably expected to bring increased maturity to your work performance and attitude. CAD program knowledge is expected, not only criteria for continued employment. If your firm needed to lay-off employees, often newer, younger, less experienced staff goes first, perhaps you fit into all but the "younger" category.
Most likely, rverk, by cultural differences they mean they think you won't fit in well - maybe you're fun, and they're staid, or vice versa; maybe they dress all in black and you don't, or vice versa, maybe they're all super religious, and you're not, or vice versa, etc. One of the important aspects of an interview is to determine whether someone will fit in with the "office culture"; an office filled with people who despise one another is a terrible work incentive.
That said, I think that firm's HR person needs to reconsider their rejection letter wording. The use of the actual term "cultural fit" in a rejection letter is a dangerous one. It really seems to open the firm to questions about discrimination based on cultural differences, in other words, the use of the word "cultural" opens one to accusations of racism, ageism, etc. A phrase that focuses on your qualifications, like "your skills are not a good fit with our needs at this time" is a hell of a lot safer, even if not entirely truthful.
It seems to me we need to be very careful here about what we mean when we say "age discrimination" ...
terminating, or not hiring, somebody who is 60 because that person is costly is not necessarily age discrimination, nor are those facts alone going to support an age discrimination claim.
however, if you terminate, or don't hire, somebody who is 60 because that person is costly but you keep, or hire, somebody who's capable of doing comparable work with comparable proficiency but earning equal or less pay, then age discrimination is more likely to be supportable.
"And, in fact, in my application to the Berlage Institute Deanship, one of my proposals was not to hire any studio instructors over 35, as it was the most efficient--and ecomonic--way to ensure that teaching was integrally connected to the production--rather than consumption--of knowledge. It was deemed too radical and not accepted, but I still believe it was a good idea."
--Alejandro Zaero Polo, 2007.
I'm getting really tired of academics spouting off about architectural pedagogy who have no real training in education. Just because you went to school doesn't mean you actually understand what it takes to teach something. It's like my brother-in-law who thinks he knows everything about architecture because he lives in a house.
sorry if I didn't explain myself. AZP's statement strikes me as lazy - I understand where he is coming from (sure, there is an argument to be made that academia has become too much about "consumption"), but if you actually knew how to develop and implement or reform school-wide curricula, it wouldn't matter what age your studio instructors are. That statement is just trying to be provocative - and it only works if you know nothing about education theory.
ok - back to the topic... age discrimination...
I think it works both ways. Arch is one of the older professions, in my opinion, with considerable credibility coming with a few gray hairs and the war stories that go with 'em. Project designers or managers without the aura of experience don't show as well when presented to rooms filled with male 55 yr old developers.
This being said, such people cost more money. So firms need a balance, and need to pay attention to their age/experience pyramids. You can't get the same work done with $200/hr bill rate senior designer as you can with an $87/hr bill rate right out of school designer/rhinojock.
Let's find out how many 50 and older Architects are still employed.
This is a really big issue in the profession. The fact that you have to have gray hair before anybody even considers you a real architect is total bs. That even 40 and 50 year olds are considered "kids" or "up and comers" in this profession is pretty ridiculous.
Yo!
And when some firms hit tough times, the younger design staff are the first to go with their small salaries, while the older partners who have become great at paperwork maintain their income. Not much you can do about it unless the AIA wants to do some guilt tripping.
@Rand: "And when some firms hit tough times, the younger design staff are the first to go with their small salaries, while the older partners who have become great at paperwork maintain their income."
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it -- and is often the view held by those fairly young. However, another view -- and probably the more realistic view in reasonably well managed firms -- is that in most cases seniority also provides a certain degree of proven expertise and established client relationships that would be very hard (and expensive) to replicate when the economy turns around. While you may not care for this perspective, the reality is that younger staff is more interchangeable and easier to replace.
Handsome -- doesn't that log you carry around on your shoulder all the time get mighty uncomfortable?
@file
I fully understand from that perspective. But that idea of easy interchangeability is part of the discrimination towards youth. It is the same type of attitude you are seeing with most firms only wanting to hire interns with at least 2 years under their belt so that they do not have to take the responsibility of training someone in the profession but still pay them intern rates. I've worked with some firms that have a poor balance or distribution of age, usually a higher amount of upper management, and the designs and clients suffer. But I will also admit to my naivete and angst. I also feel not as many people should be graduated from architecture schools during this time since it floods the new graduate pool with incompetence that middle and upper positions of the firm have to deal with, adding to the negative outlook of us youngsters.
Age discrimination is now acceptable - it's part of the increase in overall unfairness in society - the more successful you are, the more fairness.
I just deal with it - face reality - it's a waste of time to fight it
Have you asked yourself if you really have what the firm needs? In this profession, its hard to think any firm wouldn't hire a mature candidate who has the skills and experience they need all because of his age.
Too many people seem to use age as an excuse for not getting hired or being axed. I mean, why would an employee choose a young, inexperienced and incompetent new comer over a mature candidate who has the skills, talent, experience
cultural fit - or the Mature designer is slow with Revit and has poor eye hand coordination, less awareness relative to someone in their 20s and 30s.
@accesskb
because the young, inexperienced, and incompetent new comer has the skills and creativity relevant to tomorrow and not yesterday. Your older more "mature" candidate cost more, skills are likely not up to par unless it comes to client relations and paperwork, and their experience can become a mental crutch since they are stuck in their ways. I get to see what the majority of these more mature candidates you may have in mind have produced, and as a result our environments are usually utter crap or irrelevant. Employers do not often hire based on design ability, but if they either like you as a person or if you can use a computer better than they can. People in their late twenties to late thirties are some of the best designers you can have.
My first post grad job was with SOM and because I had basically zero "legacy" experience, I was able shake things up with BIM and a fresh approach
ironically i find young architects are much less flexible and creative than older ones. the idea that young people got all the goods is some kind of myth that is not borne out by experience, at least not so far...
it seems to be mostly about experience and less about age.
personally i think personality is most important hiring criteria, all things being equal otherwise...
Rand: Like you mentioned, creativity and skills relevant to tomorrow are often what employers look for. Being mature doesn't mean one can't have such skills. The OP seems to have a background from 3D environment design... I'd think he'd be creative and well skilled than most arch grads.. or maybe not.
There's too much generalization and speculation going on here anyways on both sides of the age spectrum.
If you are looking "cold call", for an architectural job and you are 40+, I wish you the very best of luck.
A younger applicant in a traditional male profession, will be hired especially if she is cute.
If the younger applicant something in 20+ yrs., they can be over-worked and kept in the dark for a longer period of time, someone in their 40's will be wise to the employer profit game.
Yes, there most certainly is age-discrimination in Architecture! If you have a mid-life career change, please do not let it be Architecture, unless you are very, very financially secure.
Yes, there most certainly is age-discrimination in Architecture! If you have a mid-life career change, please do not let it be Architecture, unless you are very, very financially secure.
Not any more - at least I paid my tuition off in cash
I switched careers from video games to architecture at 55 - I was warned not to do it - but went ahead anyway - my professors said I was brave - I am able to survive as a BIM modeler
short of a career breakthrough(2%), my career prospects are very bleak at best - truncated
in my 5 years since graduation, architecture make no apologies for it's discrimination career changers over 40 - it's too bad - the people I work for have done well by me - the only thing I can do is complaint to my congresswoman(Jackie Speer) - this is wrong - but it will get even worse if Romney gets in.
I shouldn't have to dye my hair and lie on applications - but my hand is forced and I will continue to do so - fight fire with fire - I will not just give in and retire -
Old and in the way, that's what I heard them say
They used to heed the words he said, but that was yesterday
Gold will turn to gray and youth will fade away
They'll never care about you, call you old and in the way
Once I hear tell, he was happy
He had his share of friends and good times
Now, those friends have all passed on
He don't have a place called home
Looking back to a better day, feeling old and in the way
When just a boy, he left his home
Thought he'd have the world on a string
Now the years have come and gone
Through the streets he walks alone
Like the old dog gone astray, he's just old and in the way
I admit it - I f**ked up big time - any suggestions - - any possible careers I should be looking into?
Engineering, contracting, real estate developing? Blizzard Entertainment? Get licensed move to a small city and open your own practice with another person and prosper? Move into a half way house and carve your name into one of the rafters?
Xenakis, you might consider retirement or wait till you can collect Social Security at 62 years of age.
I hope if you have children that they are grown up, it would be a difficult spot with a young family.
w.architect
Yes that is the most sensible thing - however - I can't - too much debt for one(yes that was my fault + I take full responsibility) my creditors and the IRS are a little less than enthusiastic about my "second career" even though I have played major roles on the design of several built projects in San Francisco - I have survived 5 years and am in the health of a 30 year old(due to 30 years of caloric reduction, 35 miles/week running including running up 5 flights of stairs at Bart stations and no red meat) what I failed to account for was the recession/depression that nuked out my finances - No excuse? right? I agree - but How do I pay back debts that accrued as a result of 15 months unemployment 09' 10'? working at Home Depot won't work - I tried that in 09' - I just have to keep going - I agree with you 100% - But I just can't - if I become successful?
somehow I deluded myself and now I must find some way to delude myself to success
Flee the country!
Become a banker and fleece the country!
OP......WOW.....
My thoughts are to run your own business and be your own boss work hard to get work instead of getting rejected for the most atrocious reasons. I'm still in school but i am now getting ready or peparing myself for the worst now xD.....
Be your own boss = terrible advice. If everyone is their own boss, who will work for them? Architecture is very much a collaboration, and a lot of the time those who do become their own boss take on the burden of the business side and lose the opportunity to design.
Well i stand corrected what i was trying to get at is that he would'nt have to be treated like this if he were his own boss, but if that meant the fun would be taken out i guess it would be useless.
I can pass for 15 - 20 years younger anyway - that and lying on applications - it's all fair in an unfair world
The most devastating trend is the age discrimination against older architects in that 40 something and older range. These are people who have a License as an Architect. So the exploitation years of the internship are behind them. They have only mid management jobs typically and are paid a bit better than the Interns. The concept the firms have is that they only need a limited number of experienced people. So it is logical to keep the less costly interns and weed out the 40 somethings. This is logical for the firms ownership.
Unfortunately it destroys the 40 somethings. Nobody will hire them at the rate they were paid. They are expected to start at intern wages and prove themselves all over again. It is devastating to the families they support, the children they wanted to send to college. And, it is even worse for those in their 50's nobody will hire them at all. Not enough milking time left in them. They are told to "Go hunt Your Own Food" as if the License is all these never in their lives paid enough people, can start their own company.
The Economic justification of all this arises from the ruthless exploitation allowed by owners of the Interns. The owners know that very very few will have careers beyond age 50. They dupe Interns into believing that they have a bright future. They will not. Unless they have the money in the family somewhere to walk away and start their own firm, they are wasting their lives on an empty promise. The current state is a scam and Interns coming out of the Universities are the exploited victims. These Interns will work very hard for a long time just to get the IDP completed take the ARE and get the License. That isn't the beginning for them that they dreamed about, it's more frequently the end game.
Fight the age discrimination in Architecture!
terry - i wish i could agree that it's simply age discrimination that you're describing. it's not (purely speaking) imho. what we are seeing, though, is a significant transformation in how projects are being delivered, produced and i do think you're correct that many 40-59 year olds are going to be on the chopping block as a result (and i'm 42 by the way. but i have owned my own firm for 7+ years).
right now, i think the sweet spot for getting the most productivity for projects up to 15M is someone who's got 7-10 years experience, knows how to put buildings together fairly well, and is revit proficient. as a single person, they can do a lot. a whole lot. a whole, whole lot in one place. the kinds of expertise that someone who's 40-50 something has still retains some value, but it's different. generally, they're better at managing large projects (25M+) but less active in terms of the actual production. so, the key weakness in that equation is that there's less absolute 'need' for them if work at that scale dries up. which it has in many firms. but i don't see it as age discrimination as much as it is a mismatch in skillsets for what the market needs. and, quite frankly, it is a mismatch in terms of the general salary requirements people at that stage need/want (typically). a lot of firm owners probably think they can get a 7-10 + a fresh intern for the same price as a 20+ manager. they'll lean on the 7-10 to manage and produce, with help from the intern. except they have one extra body to help out with other work as it comes up in the office. and a much less disruptive situation if they need to cut a chunk of that salary loose down the line.
i don't like it, but it's a new reality. and we're not the only profession with the same issues - in the legal world, it's there. same with middle management everywhere. the only thing i can recommend to people is to network - always - no matter what level your at, with the goal to bring in projects. whether that's to yourself on the side or to the firm you're working for, the ability to generate work will never, ever be an obsolete skillset...
Gregory Walker
I am over 50 with 4 years experience in architecture(use to work in video game industry) and am still working in architecture - I use Revit, and can put a building together and I am am cheap too -
It's skillset and cost - I can't afford the rent in SF where I work - thats my problem - I don't make what the programmers at Zynga and Google make(80 - 120k) - but I am still working in architecture at an age where if I had been in architecture 30 years ago, I would be flushed out now - - it;s skills/cost and physical condition( I run 35 miles/week) not age per se - and our careers and how we progress in light of challenges(fair and unfair) is our responsibilities -
Now I need to to get back to becoming fully proficient with Revit 13.5. and Python
Terry Walker, you are spot on!
You sir, apparently talk the talk and walk the walk!
I think Greg walker nailed it. Though I personally am not in that 7-10 years of experience range, i will be soon, and am getting into that zone of production/management area. I have friends already in that zone who are producing as much work as they did when they were interns, along with now managing consultants, every day client interfacing AND intern development.
I am not one of those idiots who hasn't yet realized the tremendous value of experience in this field... To me, it seems like experience plus ambition (or just staying fresh, on edge, un lazy?) can paper over a lot of other deficiencies, because the bottom line is you have to work a long time before you've handled all the situations on might expect to handle on any given day...
That being said, being one of those mid level manager type guys... relative to a 50 year old with 20 years of experience..... im incredibly cheap and can produce tangible value on a day to day basis for my firm. Be it through production, development, or i hate to say it... willingness and ability to work...
Yes, age discrimination does exist, often masked by language that may not overtly appear discriminatory. However, it is clear that the real reasons for rejecting a candidate are their age and gender. Being over 50 and a woman can put one at a significant disadvantage, no matter how good you are in your field...
you posted twelve (12) years too late. i feel like certain political figures have shown us that too old is in fact too old.
Firms want to hire whomever they wish, prefer people in their 20's, 30s and low 40s - It's unfair - They have ways around it - and who is going to snitch to an employment lawyer, much less press charges with at best a 2% chance to prevail in court and end up in permanent financial ruin from legal fees? In my 14 years of experience, I've experienced possible patterns of age discrimination - I just go get another job
Best bet is to stay in physical shape and stay on top of the architectural technology - don't get old and be successful
I'm assuming you meant: "don't get old and make sure you become successful"
In architecture and other professions - you can be old, but you better be successful - you don’t see too many intermediate types over 50
That's what I thought you meant. Wasn't sure though.
I'm curious about one thing though.
Where did you get the 2% figure for winning an age discrimination case?
I ask because I've had to sue a past employers twice. Each time I won and the employer had to pay court costs and lawyer fees. I have no idea if my experiences would be considered the norm though.
we have one 50+ person who is intermediate arch (on their best day, which are few)... yet considers themselves senior. Makes it super painful to red line their shit because they think their "life exp" is sufficient to get by as opposed to knowing how things work in the professional world.
I always think of a job interview as a meeting where I interview them as much as they interview me. What are they really looking for and can I be of any assistance to them? If you can get them to open up and begin talking about the areas that need improvement and you can respond with similar situations in the past that you helped to resolve you are ahead in the interview . They did not call you in looking for reasons to reject you and that includes ageism.
that’s my approach and it works - when it works
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.