Schools may or may not do enough to make students aware of the financial implications of their educational choices but a lot of students just don't want to hear it no matter how much you try to tell them about realistic starting salaries and servicing thousands of dollars of debt.

Anyway, I'm a little confused here as to why you're considering grad school (especially ivies) if you don't think the degree would somehow be useful to your career aspirations? If you just want to meet prereqs to take the ARE there are plenty of state schools.

Either way, we all do business with companies whose practices don't always square with out personal ethics. We can cut out the most egregious violators, but to go beyond that most likely would require living outside of mainstream society. If you feel these universities violate your personal ethics in a way that's intolerable you either have to find one that doesn't or else go without the university degree. Otherwise you just have to suck it up like I do every time I go to the gas station or pay my cable bill.

architecture schools are businesses, with the primary interest of making you pay as much as possible for an education. it's their job to give you enthusiastic and vague selling points. whether the tuition is worthwhile depends on who you talk to.

from my own experience, the full-scholarship-state-school friends and the fancy-ivy-league-degree friends have the exact same pay, job responsibilities and layoff rate.

i tend towards the skeptical camp, like you.

architecture schools are businesses, with the primary interest of making you pay as much as possible for an education. it's their job to give you enthusiastic and vague selling points. whether the tuition is worthwhile depends on who you talk to.

from my own experience, the full-scholarship-state-school friends and the fancy-ivy-league-degree friends have the exact same pay, job responsibilities and layoff rate.

i tend towards the skeptical camp, like you.

archiball must be destroyed...immediately

4arch -

I was thinking of persuing the degree to broaden my knowledge of the field and allow myself the opportunity to investigate points of interest I discovered through my experience. I was not prepared, however, to commit finanical suicide to meet these ends. My point was not so much to bring attention to a corrupt financial system. I was more concerned with pointing out the complacency of our esteemed academic institutions to this self-delusion and frankly I was curious if anyone else had noticed.

I am well-aware of the financial issues, but I have other reasons to do architecture that override this (and I'm sure this is true for some of the students you mentioned). Otherwise all architects would have been financially stable during their graduate years, which I'm sure is not the case.

I too have been toying with the idea of picking up a post professional degree (partially because it seemed more attactive than starting my own practice in this particular climate and partially because it is something i've regretted not doing after undergrad, when i was still naive enough to take on more student loans.) I'll still probably head back to school, but it won't be for financial reasons... like rexxer said.. there are other reasons besides financial for going back to school.

I once thought about a post-professional degree. Then the reality of paying my current student loans at $445/month sunk in. And then I got married and had kids. And I got awesome jobs with my state school degree.

The only reason to get this sort of degree is if you want to make a life in academia. And that's insane for a whole other set of reasons. If you thought it was hard to get a job in architecture in a down economy, just try getting a tenure-track professorship.

"The response I got to 'how are you going to pay this off?' was always a giggle followed by a nervous smile and then 'well I'll worry about that in three years'. "


may be they are from wall st? probably knows more about finance than any of us here^^

anyway, everyone has their intention of getting a March... u need not to worry others and let the market moderate itself...

Lookout Kid-
I am curious what the "whole other set of reasons" for making a life in academia are. I am about to get my M.Arch II with the intention of teaching design in the future. What are you concerns about design academia?

-It pays poorly unless you can achieve a tenured position.
-Adjunct positions are either loss leaders for people trying to advance their careers, or exploitative - depends on your point of view.
-Getting tenure is increasingly rare, has always been competitive and often requires great political acumen in addition to the published criteria.
-Making a life out of academia might mean moving around a lot.

houseofmud - you might also observe that an architecture education generally doesn't teach much about teaching, the MArch doesn't give you parity to most of your peers (not a PhD), nor does it prepare you to participate in the academic-administrative games that constitute university life.

But to address the original question: the cost of the degree program is high, because the cost of providing the experience is significant. The top schools travel all over the world, maintain superior workshop resources, and employ world class professionals. They also employ individuals to build the alumni community and look after students' emotional and physical well-being while they are in school.

Actually, as I recall, an economist who looked at the cost of education said that at all types of schools the amount of income generated by tuition and spent on instruction was proportional -- about 80% in each case. so at at that 5k state school, you are getting 4k worth of instruction, and at the 30k private school, that is likely to be more like 24k in instruction.

A fair part of the population that will become architects not only can afford to pay the tuition out of pocket, they can also afford to work without much pay for a decade or two while they develop their "style" under the mentorship of a brand name architect. They see the investment as a reasonable one of the life that they get to lead. This attitude is likely to be true of the majority of architectural clients these days as well.

that said, if you can't afford it, it wouldn't be smart to pay for it. But, for those of us with limited means there are scholarships and fellowships; at least a few of them. You came close to getting one by being admitted, so try asking for one, and make it clear that you can't afford the cost without it. If they can't help you this time around, ask for advice for what kind of interim experience might help you get one in a few years.

These are my concerns as well. If I won the lottery there'd be no question. I'd pursue architecture. But since I was not born into wealth, I'm seriously looking into if it's worth it to pursue. If I can keep the loans down to 40,000 it would be ok.

I graduated with a Fine arts degree so an M.arch is necessary. I have around 16,000 debt from that undergrad. The situation isn't as dire for me because I'm in Canada where tuition is so much cheaper. It'd still leave a hefty debt though, if I were to move into a different city and had to take out loans for living costs. If I stayed with the rents in my home province it'd doable, but not that attractive an option. Tuition is $4500-6500 grand a year depending on the school. I honestly don't know how people in the US can afford $30,000 a year just for tuition alone. That's outrageous! If compensation for an architect was comparable to a doctor or lawyer my decision would definitely be easier. But that's not the case. I don't know how you guys/gals do it. Being a slave to debt for the rest of my life will definitely need a long hard look before taking something like that on.

I absolutely agree with mespellrong--I feel that the ivy leagues and their high cache brethren really cost a lot because they provide the student with a lot. I seriously feel the education i got at cornell was world-class, really, the quality of lecturer was incredible. As were the fellow students. As were the study abroad opportunities. As were the living facilities. (Studio facilities could use some help..). I paid (and now keep paying) for it because I feel that they had this university thing down pat.

Now that i'm out in the 'working world' , i see just how incredibly well prepared that education left me to present and acheive architectural ideas--and at a level that bypasses my colleagues. A KPF principal has actually told me that they prefer to hire Cornell grads because they 'come out speaking the language of architecture--you don't need to explain it, they just get it.'

The second World Architecture Festival will take place in Barcelona from 4-6 November 2009 - bigger and better than ever, now with 4 awards sections, 42 categories and 100+ building types accepted.

There are 3 new awards for 2009, Future projects, Structual Design and Interiors and Fit-Out! Download the entry guide here: http://www.worldarchitecturefestival.com/brochure_entry_download.cfm today to find out more information.

Why enter the awards?
1. Compete to win the highly prestigious ‘World Building of the Year’ and other awards - new categories mean it's bigger and better and more inclusive than ever this year
2. Exhibit alongside the world’s leading architects – every entrant will have their work displayed
3. Benefit from the personal and organisational exposure gained from presenting in front of leading architect judges as well as extensive international media coverage.
4. Become part of architectural history – every entry becomes a permanent listing on
http://www.worldbuildingsdirectory.com – a historic record of the world’s greatest architectural works
5. Unrivalled judging panel guarantees exposure to leading lights from the architecture world which this includes Kengo Kuma, Rafael Vinoly and Suha Ozkan.

Entries close 26 June 2009 - You can save €550 on festival passes during the entry period – one entry plus two tickets costs just €995, quote BLOG in all correspondence – find out more at http://www.worldarchitecturefestival.com

Thanks to everyone who responded, I was new to the discussion boards when I posted this and have since found numerous threads on the subject. Below are a few new thoughts.

In response to the posts, I do believe that the ivy's provide an excellent education, I never doubted that. What concerns me after poking around and talking to a wide array of people is how many of us (applicants) turn these schools down because of the price tag. I had perhaps naively believed the system to be a true meritocracy but after this experience, at least in the case of architecture, this seems not to be the case. I think these schools would be that much better if they were able to give a realistic amount of aid so that they could offer their resources to the best and brightest, not simply the wealthiest amoung us.

In response to a question, I was in fact offered scholarships and fellowships but the difference between state schools and the ivys was still a chasm which I am unable to cross.

So for right now I've decided to turn down some really great choices. I will be on the lookout for some new aid options and perhaps a distant, as of yet unknown wealthy uncle who is ready to kick off. I hope to reapply this fall.

cheers