Okay - great responses - I will consider investing in a project or doing some kind of volunteer work where I am needed. How can I help? how can I serve? I never intended the 50k to sound as a bribe or anything, just a way to get experience/education/apprenticeship - but it appears that is considered crazy by the experts in this field and is considered highly derogatory to those of you who have paid your dues and erarned various degrees of success- so I will drop it and just go about my business, volunteer my services - and stay off archinet until I can say something real. This was a too off the wall discussion and belongs somewhere else anyway. Out
While it's a much harder time than most, if you're fronting your services as developer, architect and GC that is a lot of capital the bank will recognize, you will still need the additional cash but your service go along way.
The most important thing is picking a bank, or preferably having an existing relationship with a bank.
I'm going through the process of a residential development project right now and the ONLY reason it is even remotely possible is because my family happens to have a personal and professional relationship with a small local bank. Ok maybe not the only reason but it is a significant factor, the number have to be good as well as the timing, the bank only has so much money to loan and if you come in hands open just as they've finished loaning their last penny you'll have to wait until they have some free cash.
Do your research but I say go for it, I think we need more small developers (particularly with an architectural background), these big national guys are dominating our urban landscape with crap.
There was a story my grandfather used to tell me, something how "having a little bit of money in your pocket so when you see an opportunity you can act", something like that. Something about having $25 or $50 in his pocket when he wanted to buy my grandparents house back in the 1940's. Now this may not sound like much, but for someone living through the Great Depression it was.
I think rverk's thread is important, I have no doubt if he wished he could find a position and survive on 50k a year, and gain experience in the meantime. Or sell his property, get a position that only paid 25k a year, and dip into his 50k savings when needed.
The truth is that money makes life a whole hell of a lot easier, coming from someone that has never had any.
The truth is that in free-market America, money talks. Maybe not outright buying a job, but by providing you the time and resources to find a job, a luxury that many don't have.
Ever hear of starting your own practice with that 50K. Spend a year working for yourself, hiring the spineless guy willing to pay to work in this broken profession and enjoy the challenge of running a business? Enter some viable competitions and build a strong portfolio.
This kind of idea is a direct result of inadequate business training in Architecture School. You can alway join my one man pony show to collaborate and investigate new ways to revive the industry, seriously... and I won't even take your money. You can work like a salesman works, incentive based commission structure and part owner of the firm.
Start thinking of the plethora of options you have with 50K and take a chance, be a risk taker, now is the time to do it.
In San Diego where rverk is selling, the most innovative small-building projects in the uptown and east-of-park neighborhoods are all being done by entrepreneurial small or single-building developers, many of whom are architects. The big developers generally avoid those neighborhoods, since it's all infill stuff and there's huge community opposition to large footprint projects.. yet those are the areas with the most vibrant local real estate markets.
yes.. I think there's other things one can do to help pay the bills. One acquaintance seems to have figured out how to make a decent living giving apartment building owners advice and contract design services for sustainable building improvements, including doing the cost estimation/cost-benefit assessment work for "green" improvements. His clients are mostly small apartment buildings looking to be more sustainable or to take advantage of the various credits and subsidies available for introducing energy and water efficient features. He also does energy and water audits.
dump the 50 k in the stock market.....hang tight and well in 5 years it will be worth $250.000.00 or more. In the mean time you sound like you can afford all the autocadish programs in the world, so go play and improve your skills when the economy comes around leave the 50 k alone....don't touch that stuff.....let it grow and grow and when the next recession comes around you will be in the drives seat and you can put out a proposal to some you buck or bucket....to pay you 50K for the experience of working in your office.
In regard to the comment about vinoly's training program -
First off,RVA has had the Training and research program since 2005 I believe - so what you are saying is only partialy true.
Second, RVA set up the training program for professionals who were looking to engage in a level of thinking that was on a similar foothold to that of academia, but were either too far removed to plunge themselves back into school or wanted some insight from a designer like Vinoly on taking conceptual ideas through to the built form. Most of the seminars were in the evening from 6-8 or 7-9. In order to enroll into the program, you had to apply, and about 10 or so students were taken each year - I do not believe there was any fee to apply or be in the program. It was based on the application process -essays, etc. If you worked there, you were able to attend these seminars without enrolling.
In addition, RVA also funded a person about 15K-20K to do research for one year, and let them set up shop and use all the facilities in their office. - Joe Hagerman and Michael Silver were the two most recent recipients that I know of.
Dude, instead of giving that money to someone for no real benefit, take that money and invest it. Develop a design concept of your own, perhaps energy smart etc. and market the hell out of it! Then you could sit back and watch your money roll in while all those still in the profession of architecture are left in bewilderment!
Oh and by the way, ROLL TIDE! Just kidding, WAR EAGLE!
Why do you need to work for someone if you already have the money? Do competitions, offer your services to your friends, parents or Graig's list. Study for exams. A little more motivation and thinking and self-respect and ambitions, maybe the lack of the above is why no one wants to hire you. Leadership is important, sorry to sound obnoxious but stop being a tool.
There are different design related fields like product design, web design and so on, learn those. Who cares about Revit, no one needs Cad/Revit monkey nowadays, if revit is your only asset, perhaps to do competitions is the only way to figure it out, what architecture and design is all about.
Essentially, it goes in steps-- B.Arch Professional to M.Arch to P.hd.Arch. I altered a view I had of Cooper Union for this.
The concept here is that it makes all three parties in the realm of architecture accountable.
A-- Schools: This model forces schools to teach relevant, in-demand architecture. Since this a performance-based model, it requires schools to turn a profit. No more absurd Kwinter-esque intellectual ejaculations all over the field of architecture (I suppose it is quite unfair to call out just Kwinter).
After each year of study, a portion of the profits are returned to a general fund and redistributed into students accounts (which are not accessible until they graduate).
B-- Students: Students' performance is key. Once outside the safety of the first year-and-a-half of education, they must be able to perform and do so profitably. If they fail to perform, they will be ousted.
This will also give students the opportunity to learn every facet of the business from administration, finance, sales, support and production. Each student must excel in a wide range of skills for the school to be able to constantly sell architectural services to maintain their accounts.
C-- Educators: Professors and the like will be directly responsible for the ideas that they teach as they are the only ones who will be able to stamp any work leaving the school.
Their ideas and guidance will ultimately determine solvency. They fail to teach practicality and they will be out of a job.
In this model, everyone receives credit. Everyone receives experience. And everyone can leave school almost licensed and trained in every facet of a firm.
This model would supply architecture at a discount to the other "97%" of the population who doesn't buy it.
This will ensure employers that the individuals they are hiring are thoroughly tested and have been through a realistic and practical gauntlet. This will also strip employers of the ability to abuse and take advantage of discrepancies in the educational system.
And students get the added benefit of financial footing when they graduate with a lump sum of cash for a proper relocation.
Interesting idea, will require some reflection to digest.
On the surface it doesn't seem fundamentally different to Taliesin's current setup - a working office combined with structured curriculum. You seem to place a little more emphasis on profitability..... ensuring what they're taught is relevant? In the business world anyway?
One practical issue would be location and size of schools would have to reflect local needs (which can shift).
orochi - i'm not following the money component. also, is this from 'day 1' as a young 18/19 year old entering university? 6.5 years to a phd is pretty short for any discipline...
No, I was thinking for someone who has an A.A. or a B.A. done... preferably in the Arts, Humanities or Sciences.
The money component part is that say for the B.Arch Professional portion, you're paying 7 units of money ($$$$$$$) but getting paid packing 4 units of money ($$$$). Technically, though, you aren't getting "paid" paid... but rather it sits in your student account as payment from your working "studio."
Including the pre-education requirement, It'd be 10.5 years in total from 18 to phd. But the difference between this and regular school is that you'd be graduating with 5 years of actual work experience and three degrees.
Not necessarily relevant... psycho... but what they are being taught is things they can actually sell.
The problem with Taliesin is that the curriculum is focused on the style of FLW and it's various interpretations. My idea is client driven... as in whatever the client wants with education in studio focusing around what that particular client's needs are and how to go from student to DD to CD given that particular "assignment."
There's lots of other professions, specifically in engineering and computer sciences, where the road to Masters and Doctorates actually requires the student to be working at a profit for the University.
has anyone reflected on the fact that we all essentially pay for a job? $50k is just a drop in the bucket compared to the massive debt that many architects lay out to get a legitimate 'education' (myself included).
I'd like to think that if I had fifty grand lying around I wouldn't blow it on an internship --- but I've 'wasted' more than that on my 4+3 years in the US university system, only to graduate in the midst of recession (twice! '03 and '09) with little chance at the employment I felt I was entitled to.
I feel a lot of resentment in this thread, as if everyone knows how best to use 50,000 dollars, knows how 'the system' works, and feels that paying for a position is somehow wrong. But there's no reason to accept the status quo as an unalterable constant, and if you have the resources to change the system to your liking you should absolutely take advantage of that, accept the world as it exists, realize the constraints that we all operate within, and try to carve out a career for yourself within these parameters.
Whether this means paying for a position, or moving around the world to take a job, it's all part of the game.....
I think that some of the angst exhibited here is more the result of an institutional delinquency. In most other professions you're able to take and pass any registration examinations that say you can work in the profession.
Architecture obviously isn't like that. You're more or less dependent on a generous employer for 4 years if you really hustle. Even then, there's a lot of practitioners who've never attained an accredited degree and don't see the value in it. In fact, they think recent graduates are worthless. Lots of principals that I know are not registered architects, interesting.
So from one side you spend 3 or 4 really hard years in school to be told that your worthless. Kind of a hard pill to swallow. On the other hand, employers aren't getting employees with the skills they want, so why not just train some kid that you like instead of taking a chance on some college grad you don't know. But the biggest problem is that regardless of which side of the argument you happen to be on, there's no way for new graduates to be entrepreneurs in the field of architecture, where they can find ways to do what they want and get experience without being dependent on some unknown employer.
So my question is, is this really a problem that architectural schools are incapable of solving?
wow. i've gone as far as an AA degree and have seen other colleagues with masters and doctors get the pink slip when it came down to trimming down the fat. although those kids really didn't have any good work experience and couldn't detail a simple drawing, i sometimes wonder how the hell they even got that postion in the first place. sometimes i'm gald i didn't pursue my education and just stood around collecting experience. sure everyone is a designer here but what can you really offer to the company?
"those kids really didn't have any good work experience and couldn't detail a simple drawing, i sometimes wonder how the hell they even got that postion in the first place."
A good looking portfolio with sexy 3D pictures and of course the master's degree..The problem is,the degree gets you the job but what happens after you get hired?
"what can you really offer to the company?"
As a recent graduate I feel like I have NOTHING to offer to a company except for some CAD monkeyish work. In order to get work you should show the employer that you can solve his/her problems and make his/her company produce profit and how do I do that? I have no idea..
To answer TysonC's question: Yes, schools can easily fix things by exchanging much of the "useless" theory classes and replacing them with practical knowledge (CDs, details, business, whatever).
BUT that would take the thunder out of most prof's that don't want to practice (ie they can't get enough real/decent commissions to sustain themselves).
Then the other profs that may know these things, don't want to waste their teaching time going over the mundane stuff.
My 2 cents. Let's not even get into the absurdity of licensure!
This is for the original poster, I really havent read the rest of the tread.
SO you basicly have one year paid salary and are gonna give it away? How are you gonna live? Go volunteer with AFH or some others and do pro-bono work instead. Get experience that way. What you're proposing sounds kind of ludicrous to me.
"In order to get work you should show the employer that you can solve his/her problems and make his/her company produce profit and how do I do that? I have no idea."
Sort of makes you wonder about the value of your education, doesn't it?
I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, but in what other profession would a recent graduate make such a statement?
this guy should be ashamed of himself.
my friends in wallstreet who are half as smart and have invested half the time in education as a i have are making 200k annually.
and we here with all are "knowledge" and "intellect" are willing to pay to get a job?
this attitude is depressing and i find it personally offensive.
this does indeed speak a lot about our entire educational setup. architecture school curriculum is so cut off from real world constraints in that we (as students) are completely removed from reality and the market forces outside. as a result we have young graduates with no work and no options.
architecture students must focus on courses in finance and real estate etc while in school so that when they graduate they are in a position to be self employed and/or collaborate with other professionals.
from the models of lloyd russell, jonathan segal and sebastian mariscal (all in and around san diego) - why don't you build something. it'll be a better experience/education than working for someone who would willingly let you pay them to employ you.
and it will be a good way to get your name/ideas/etc out there.
Why on earth would you pay an architecture firm for a job?? You need to understand that YOUR TIME is value to the firm. So long as you can work, the office NEEDS YOU IN ORDER TO BILL OUT TO A CLIENT.
You have to understand from the employers perspective, assuming that you are billing to a project, it is THE CLIENT that is paying your wage + overhead to the firm. This is how a service industry works. So the business model is that when you are billing to a project, every hour you work makes money for the employer, this is a service business, they are in the business of *selling your hours*. True you need to get the work done as well, but as a new grad, you will be working with another project architect or project manager, so it is their responsability to manage the workflow, and to delegate tasks to you, mentor as needed. and make sure the job gets done. Nobody would expect a new graduate to be able to "solve the problems". You will most likely out of the gate be helping out with the design, working on drawing production and picking up redlines... This is what you do and what THE CLIENT pays for, hourly...
If you are willing to give away your services for free, it is bad news for the employer as well. They cannot compete with you by billing to a client if you are paying them to work. They need to pay you in order to bill to a client. In fact, if you were to pat the employer, legally, what is the exchange of principal that is happening in that legal contract? I don't think it works. Legally, the firm needs to give you something of value for your services... Without the equal value of compensation for your services, there is no legal contract, you would have no legal obligation to do the work, and so they cannot even depend on you. In fact, if you are saying that you are paying for training, they cannot even fire you... If you are paying them, what guarantee do they have that you will for example, keep their client's interests in mind, or exercise a duty of care in your work?
There is a reason that NO REAL BUSINESS, NO SERIOUS BUSINESS PERSON WHO HAS A BUSINESS PLAN would ever depend on volunteer labor to perform their busines. The reason is they have no legal contract with you, and they cannot depend on you... Volunteer labor is not real labor, it is not worth anything, and you cannot seriously run a business on it... It is only architects that could even fathom that you can run a business with free labor... It is not a serious sustainable business plan, and in fact, it opens the office up to potential liability... Not worth it for the firm...
Any real office will have a budget set aside for whatever work they need done. Even if they have no projects to bill employees out to, and even if the employee is doing administrative work, or say marketing work, trying to bring in new work... Say doing graphics or 3D rendering or whatever, a physical model... These things are all budgeted for in the company's costs of doing work: they allocate a certain amount of money each year for marketing purposes. This is of value, in fact, the graphical skills you provide them are usually things that they cannot do themselves, so you are providing a skilled labor, your graphic design talents. Why would you pay them to do this?? You can get paid say on Craigs List for doing that type of work... You are not even learning anything probably doing that, it is something you already know how to do, and you are simply selling your services.
If, on the other hand, as it seems with Vinoly's office or Renzo Piano, there is actually an education component to it, if there is coursework and training components unrelated to the billable work, that may be different. But for the hours you are billing out to a client, or for services you are providing for the company, you should be paid. A real company cannot be a serious business by billing out for services they are getting for free, it's just not sustainable, and in no other service industry would anybody who knows how to run a business try to do that.
Regarding the original poster, if you have 2 years experience working in Revit, absolutely you have value. If you say you will PAY THEM to work, your value actually decreases, they WILL NEVER pay for you... YOU ARE DEVALUING YOUR OWN WORK BY WORKING FOR FREE, NEVER MIND PAYING THEM... Why would you do that?? It doesn't really benefit you at all... Regarding your Revit experience, you should however be honest with yourself and the employer. Do you really know your stuff? Is there additional training you need?
The "recent experience" is not a real requirement for getting that job... It is an excuse... The truth is that there is really another reason that they can't, or won't hire you... The reality is, it's a really tough job market out there, not just for you, but for everybody else... In good times, having two years experience is enough... The economy won't be like this forever. I would just suck it up and do your best, nobody said this was supposed to be easy... Do a job outside of architecture if you need to make ends meet... Do what you have to to get through it, have some faith in yourself... Just don't sell yourself short, work hard and hit the pavement and just do your best!
The funny thing here that one one has touch upon is, sure you can go forward with the plan. You pay to work. That’s fine. But what happens after you complete the year? do you sell another house? Perhaps sell your liver to work an extra month? Regard of the time you spend there, you don’t really learn much in the first year of employment. You’ll get toss with work that no one wants to do such as bathroom details or tracing people for sections. What kind of work experience is that? Maybe they send you to the corner making pretty little models and all you do is glue gun the green trees on the site model. So when the time comes for them to kick you out or give the pink slip because you’re still worthless, you apply to other employers and then tell you the same thing: you have no work experience. Then the cycle continues. Then you can come back to this post and we all can laugh about it over some cold ones.
If you've got enough money to live for a while without a job, don't pay for a job - just enter competitions all day. Live as frugally as you can and put money into your work - you're obviously not the only person who's in the job market with "no recent experience", and I imagine that when the economy picks back up again, hiring managers are going to be less concerned with "who has the best recent experience" and more concerned with "out of all these people who don't have recent formal experience in a firm, who's done the best job of self-motivating, filling their time with architecture, and demonstrating their personal commitment to the field by stickin' it out through the hard times?"
Obviously a resume gap is still a resume gap, and it's not ideal - but you can make the best of it by letting it demonstrate that you are capable of operating independently.
If I were a hiring manager [which I have never been] choosing between a candidate who paid for an internship and a candidate who entered competitions while unemployed, I would look at the one who paid for an internship and think "This person always needs to be told what to do and how to do it" - so if they're looking for a mindless CAD automaton, they might go for the one who paid for a job - but if they're looking for someone to contribute creatively to the firm's work, my guess is that they'll go for the one who's shown a desire to DO ARCHITECTURE, rather than to BE AN ARCHITECT.
Okay Okay - I get it - Offer withdrawn - I will enter competitions, volunteer - re-work my portfolio - do whatever it takes. The general consensus is that working for free and or paying to work undermines the profession. I agree - it does, and I would no want to known for that. Jeez - I am just looking for a break, okay - At any rate, if I can't make my own breaks, then I am just a Peter Keating. Obama has done his best on the employment issue - the problem is too big and we are on our own to make our own breaks.
Buy a job
And people fleeing california in general.
Okay - great responses - I will consider investing in a project or doing some kind of volunteer work where I am needed. How can I help? how can I serve? I never intended the 50k to sound as a bribe or anything, just a way to get experience/education/apprenticeship - but it appears that is considered crazy by the experts in this field and is considered highly derogatory to those of you who have paid your dues and erarned various degrees of success- so I will drop it and just go about my business, volunteer my services - and stay off archinet until I can say something real. This was a too off the wall discussion and belongs somewhere else anyway. Out
Trace, Urbanist
While it's a much harder time than most, if you're fronting your services as developer, architect and GC that is a lot of capital the bank will recognize, you will still need the additional cash but your service go along way.
The most important thing is picking a bank, or preferably having an existing relationship with a bank.
I'm going through the process of a residential development project right now and the ONLY reason it is even remotely possible is because my family happens to have a personal and professional relationship with a small local bank. Ok maybe not the only reason but it is a significant factor, the number have to be good as well as the timing, the bank only has so much money to loan and if you come in hands open just as they've finished loaning their last penny you'll have to wait until they have some free cash.
Do your research but I say go for it, I think we need more small developers (particularly with an architectural background), these big national guys are dominating our urban landscape with crap.
There was a story my grandfather used to tell me, something how "having a little bit of money in your pocket so when you see an opportunity you can act", something like that. Something about having $25 or $50 in his pocket when he wanted to buy my grandparents house back in the 1940's. Now this may not sound like much, but for someone living through the Great Depression it was.
I think rverk's thread is important, I have no doubt if he wished he could find a position and survive on 50k a year, and gain experience in the meantime. Or sell his property, get a position that only paid 25k a year, and dip into his 50k savings when needed.
The truth is that money makes life a whole hell of a lot easier, coming from someone that has never had any.
The truth is that in free-market America, money talks. Maybe not outright buying a job, but by providing you the time and resources to find a job, a luxury that many don't have.
Ever hear of starting your own practice with that 50K. Spend a year working for yourself, hiring the spineless guy willing to pay to work in this broken profession and enjoy the challenge of running a business? Enter some viable competitions and build a strong portfolio.
This kind of idea is a direct result of inadequate business training in Architecture School. You can alway join my one man pony show to collaborate and investigate new ways to revive the industry, seriously... and I won't even take your money. You can work like a salesman works, incentive based commission structure and part owner of the firm.
Start thinking of the plethora of options you have with 50K and take a chance, be a risk taker, now is the time to do it.
absolutely, psycho-
In San Diego where rverk is selling, the most innovative small-building projects in the uptown and east-of-park neighborhoods are all being done by entrepreneurial small or single-building developers, many of whom are architects. The big developers generally avoid those neighborhoods, since it's all infill stuff and there's huge community opposition to large footprint projects.. yet those are the areas with the most vibrant local real estate markets.
vessel,
yes.. I think there's other things one can do to help pay the bills. One acquaintance seems to have figured out how to make a decent living giving apartment building owners advice and contract design services for sustainable building improvements, including doing the cost estimation/cost-benefit assessment work for "green" improvements. His clients are mostly small apartment buildings looking to be more sustainable or to take advantage of the various credits and subsidies available for introducing energy and water efficient features. He also does energy and water audits.
dump the 50 k in the stock market.....hang tight and well in 5 years it will be worth $250.000.00 or more. In the mean time you sound like you can afford all the autocadish programs in the world, so go play and improve your skills when the economy comes around leave the 50 k alone....don't touch that stuff.....let it grow and grow and when the next recession comes around you will be in the drives seat and you can put out a proposal to some you buck or bucket....to pay you 50K for the experience of working in your office.
In regard to the comment about vinoly's training program -
First off,RVA has had the Training and research program since 2005 I believe - so what you are saying is only partialy true.
Second, RVA set up the training program for professionals who were looking to engage in a level of thinking that was on a similar foothold to that of academia, but were either too far removed to plunge themselves back into school or wanted some insight from a designer like Vinoly on taking conceptual ideas through to the built form. Most of the seminars were in the evening from 6-8 or 7-9. In order to enroll into the program, you had to apply, and about 10 or so students were taken each year - I do not believe there was any fee to apply or be in the program. It was based on the application process -essays, etc. If you worked there, you were able to attend these seminars without enrolling.
In addition, RVA also funded a person about 15K-20K to do research for one year, and let them set up shop and use all the facilities in their office. - Joe Hagerman and Michael Silver were the two most recent recipients that I know of.
Check out the website.
http://www.rvatr.com/
The real question is where did you get that 50 gr?
Dude, instead of giving that money to someone for no real benefit, take that money and invest it. Develop a design concept of your own, perhaps energy smart etc. and market the hell out of it! Then you could sit back and watch your money roll in while all those still in the profession of architecture are left in bewilderment!
Oh and by the way, ROLL TIDE! Just kidding, WAR EAGLE!
"hang tight and well in 5 years it will be worth $250.000"
Haha!! Damn, by that math I should be retiring!
Why do you need to work for someone if you already have the money? Do competitions, offer your services to your friends, parents or Graig's list. Study for exams. A little more motivation and thinking and self-respect and ambitions, maybe the lack of the above is why no one wants to hire you. Leadership is important, sorry to sound obnoxious but stop being a tool.
There are different design related fields like product design, web design and so on, learn those. Who cares about Revit, no one needs Cad/Revit monkey nowadays, if revit is your only asset, perhaps to do competitions is the only way to figure it out, what architecture and design is all about.
If I had $50,000 i know exactly what I would do.
Damm. I want to know what he is investing in. 40% return each year? Must be some ponzi scheme or something.
Evan, that website is awesome. We Americans are so dull.
This is my pay-to-play model for education.
Essentially, it goes in steps-- B.Arch Professional to M.Arch to P.hd.Arch. I altered a view I had of Cooper Union for this.
The concept here is that it makes all three parties in the realm of architecture accountable.
A-- Schools: This model forces schools to teach relevant, in-demand architecture. Since this a performance-based model, it requires schools to turn a profit. No more absurd Kwinter-esque intellectual ejaculations all over the field of architecture (I suppose it is quite unfair to call out just Kwinter).
After each year of study, a portion of the profits are returned to a general fund and redistributed into students accounts (which are not accessible until they graduate).
B-- Students: Students' performance is key. Once outside the safety of the first year-and-a-half of education, they must be able to perform and do so profitably. If they fail to perform, they will be ousted.
This will also give students the opportunity to learn every facet of the business from administration, finance, sales, support and production. Each student must excel in a wide range of skills for the school to be able to constantly sell architectural services to maintain their accounts.
C-- Educators: Professors and the like will be directly responsible for the ideas that they teach as they are the only ones who will be able to stamp any work leaving the school.
Their ideas and guidance will ultimately determine solvency. They fail to teach practicality and they will be out of a job.
In this model, everyone receives credit. Everyone receives experience. And everyone can leave school almost licensed and trained in every facet of a firm.
This model would supply architecture at a discount to the other "97%" of the population who doesn't buy it.
This will ensure employers that the individuals they are hiring are thoroughly tested and have been through a realistic and practical gauntlet. This will also strip employers of the ability to abuse and take advantage of discrepancies in the educational system.
And students get the added benefit of financial footing when they graduate with a lump sum of cash for a proper relocation.
Orochi
Interesting idea, will require some reflection to digest.
On the surface it doesn't seem fundamentally different to Taliesin's current setup - a working office combined with structured curriculum. You seem to place a little more emphasis on profitability..... ensuring what they're taught is relevant? In the business world anyway?
One practical issue would be location and size of schools would have to reflect local needs (which can shift).
orochi - i'm not following the money component. also, is this from 'day 1' as a young 18/19 year old entering university? 6.5 years to a phd is pretty short for any discipline...
No, I was thinking for someone who has an A.A. or a B.A. done... preferably in the Arts, Humanities or Sciences.
The money component part is that say for the B.Arch Professional portion, you're paying 7 units of money ($$$$$$$) but getting paid packing 4 units of money ($$$$). Technically, though, you aren't getting "paid" paid... but rather it sits in your student account as payment from your working "studio."
Including the pre-education requirement, It'd be 10.5 years in total from 18 to phd. But the difference between this and regular school is that you'd be graduating with 5 years of actual work experience and three degrees.
Not necessarily relevant... psycho... but what they are being taught is things they can actually sell.
The problem with Taliesin is that the curriculum is focused on the style of FLW and it's various interpretations. My idea is client driven... as in whatever the client wants with education in studio focusing around what that particular client's needs are and how to go from student to DD to CD given that particular "assignment."
There's lots of other professions, specifically in engineering and computer sciences, where the road to Masters and Doctorates actually requires the student to be working at a profit for the University.
has anyone reflected on the fact that we all essentially pay for a job? $50k is just a drop in the bucket compared to the massive debt that many architects lay out to get a legitimate 'education' (myself included).
I'd like to think that if I had fifty grand lying around I wouldn't blow it on an internship --- but I've 'wasted' more than that on my 4+3 years in the US university system, only to graduate in the midst of recession (twice! '03 and '09) with little chance at the employment I felt I was entitled to.
I feel a lot of resentment in this thread, as if everyone knows how best to use 50,000 dollars, knows how 'the system' works, and feels that paying for a position is somehow wrong. But there's no reason to accept the status quo as an unalterable constant, and if you have the resources to change the system to your liking you should absolutely take advantage of that, accept the world as it exists, realize the constraints that we all operate within, and try to carve out a career for yourself within these parameters.
Whether this means paying for a position, or moving around the world to take a job, it's all part of the game.....
I think that some of the angst exhibited here is more the result of an institutional delinquency. In most other professions you're able to take and pass any registration examinations that say you can work in the profession.
Architecture obviously isn't like that. You're more or less dependent on a generous employer for 4 years if you really hustle. Even then, there's a lot of practitioners who've never attained an accredited degree and don't see the value in it. In fact, they think recent graduates are worthless. Lots of principals that I know are not registered architects, interesting.
So from one side you spend 3 or 4 really hard years in school to be told that your worthless. Kind of a hard pill to swallow. On the other hand, employers aren't getting employees with the skills they want, so why not just train some kid that you like instead of taking a chance on some college grad you don't know. But the biggest problem is that regardless of which side of the argument you happen to be on, there's no way for new graduates to be entrepreneurs in the field of architecture, where they can find ways to do what they want and get experience without being dependent on some unknown employer.
So my question is, is this really a problem that architectural schools are incapable of solving?
Any thoughts?
wow. i've gone as far as an AA degree and have seen other colleagues with masters and doctors get the pink slip when it came down to trimming down the fat. although those kids really didn't have any good work experience and couldn't detail a simple drawing, i sometimes wonder how the hell they even got that postion in the first place. sometimes i'm gald i didn't pursue my education and just stood around collecting experience. sure everyone is a designer here but what can you really offer to the company?
"those kids really didn't have any good work experience and couldn't detail a simple drawing, i sometimes wonder how the hell they even got that postion in the first place."
A good looking portfolio with sexy 3D pictures and of course the master's degree..The problem is,the degree gets you the job but what happens after you get hired?
"what can you really offer to the company?"
As a recent graduate I feel like I have NOTHING to offer to a company except for some CAD monkeyish work. In order to get work you should show the employer that you can solve his/her problems and make his/her company produce profit and how do I do that? I have no idea..
To answer TysonC's question: Yes, schools can easily fix things by exchanging much of the "useless" theory classes and replacing them with practical knowledge (CDs, details, business, whatever).
BUT that would take the thunder out of most prof's that don't want to practice (ie they can't get enough real/decent commissions to sustain themselves).
Then the other profs that may know these things, don't want to waste their teaching time going over the mundane stuff.
My 2 cents. Let's not even get into the absurdity of licensure!
This is for the original poster, I really havent read the rest of the tread.
SO you basicly have one year paid salary and are gonna give it away? How are you gonna live? Go volunteer with AFH or some others and do pro-bono work instead. Get experience that way. What you're proposing sounds kind of ludicrous to me.
wow.
well, i posted my response to this on my blog... here
Sort of makes you wonder about the value of your education, doesn't it?
I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, but in what other profession would a recent graduate make such a statement?
this guy should be ashamed of himself.
my friends in wallstreet who are half as smart and have invested half the time in education as a i have are making 200k annually.
and we here with all are "knowledge" and "intellect" are willing to pay to get a job?
this attitude is depressing and i find it personally offensive.
this does indeed speak a lot about our entire educational setup. architecture school curriculum is so cut off from real world constraints in that we (as students) are completely removed from reality and the market forces outside. as a result we have young graduates with no work and no options.
architecture students must focus on courses in finance and real estate etc while in school so that when they graduate they are in a position to be self employed and/or collaborate with other professionals.
consider the case of Make Architecture PC
urbanist hit this one on the head.
from the models of lloyd russell, jonathan segal and sebastian mariscal (all in and around san diego) - why don't you build something. it'll be a better experience/education than working for someone who would willingly let you pay them to employ you.
and it will be a good way to get your name/ideas/etc out there.
Another good role model in SD would be Lloyd Russell's former colaborator, Ted Smith, who operates as Smith & Others.
Why on earth would you pay an architecture firm for a job?? You need to understand that YOUR TIME is value to the firm. So long as you can work, the office NEEDS YOU IN ORDER TO BILL OUT TO A CLIENT.
You have to understand from the employers perspective, assuming that you are billing to a project, it is THE CLIENT that is paying your wage + overhead to the firm. This is how a service industry works. So the business model is that when you are billing to a project, every hour you work makes money for the employer, this is a service business, they are in the business of *selling your hours*. True you need to get the work done as well, but as a new grad, you will be working with another project architect or project manager, so it is their responsability to manage the workflow, and to delegate tasks to you, mentor as needed. and make sure the job gets done. Nobody would expect a new graduate to be able to "solve the problems". You will most likely out of the gate be helping out with the design, working on drawing production and picking up redlines... This is what you do and what THE CLIENT pays for, hourly...
If you are willing to give away your services for free, it is bad news for the employer as well. They cannot compete with you by billing to a client if you are paying them to work. They need to pay you in order to bill to a client. In fact, if you were to pat the employer, legally, what is the exchange of principal that is happening in that legal contract? I don't think it works. Legally, the firm needs to give you something of value for your services... Without the equal value of compensation for your services, there is no legal contract, you would have no legal obligation to do the work, and so they cannot even depend on you. In fact, if you are saying that you are paying for training, they cannot even fire you... If you are paying them, what guarantee do they have that you will for example, keep their client's interests in mind, or exercise a duty of care in your work?
There is a reason that NO REAL BUSINESS, NO SERIOUS BUSINESS PERSON WHO HAS A BUSINESS PLAN would ever depend on volunteer labor to perform their busines. The reason is they have no legal contract with you, and they cannot depend on you... Volunteer labor is not real labor, it is not worth anything, and you cannot seriously run a business on it... It is only architects that could even fathom that you can run a business with free labor... It is not a serious sustainable business plan, and in fact, it opens the office up to potential liability... Not worth it for the firm...
Any real office will have a budget set aside for whatever work they need done. Even if they have no projects to bill employees out to, and even if the employee is doing administrative work, or say marketing work, trying to bring in new work... Say doing graphics or 3D rendering or whatever, a physical model... These things are all budgeted for in the company's costs of doing work: they allocate a certain amount of money each year for marketing purposes. This is of value, in fact, the graphical skills you provide them are usually things that they cannot do themselves, so you are providing a skilled labor, your graphic design talents. Why would you pay them to do this?? You can get paid say on Craigs List for doing that type of work... You are not even learning anything probably doing that, it is something you already know how to do, and you are simply selling your services.
If, on the other hand, as it seems with Vinoly's office or Renzo Piano, there is actually an education component to it, if there is coursework and training components unrelated to the billable work, that may be different. But for the hours you are billing out to a client, or for services you are providing for the company, you should be paid. A real company cannot be a serious business by billing out for services they are getting for free, it's just not sustainable, and in no other service industry would anybody who knows how to run a business try to do that.
Regarding the original poster, if you have 2 years experience working in Revit, absolutely you have value. If you say you will PAY THEM to work, your value actually decreases, they WILL NEVER pay for you... YOU ARE DEVALUING YOUR OWN WORK BY WORKING FOR FREE, NEVER MIND PAYING THEM... Why would you do that?? It doesn't really benefit you at all... Regarding your Revit experience, you should however be honest with yourself and the employer. Do you really know your stuff? Is there additional training you need?
The "recent experience" is not a real requirement for getting that job... It is an excuse... The truth is that there is really another reason that they can't, or won't hire you... The reality is, it's a really tough job market out there, not just for you, but for everybody else... In good times, having two years experience is enough... The economy won't be like this forever. I would just suck it up and do your best, nobody said this was supposed to be easy... Do a job outside of architecture if you need to make ends meet... Do what you have to to get through it, have some faith in yourself... Just don't sell yourself short, work hard and hit the pavement and just do your best!
Best of luck...
The funny thing here that one one has touch upon is, sure you can go forward with the plan. You pay to work. That’s fine. But what happens after you complete the year? do you sell another house? Perhaps sell your liver to work an extra month? Regard of the time you spend there, you don’t really learn much in the first year of employment. You’ll get toss with work that no one wants to do such as bathroom details or tracing people for sections. What kind of work experience is that? Maybe they send you to the corner making pretty little models and all you do is glue gun the green trees on the site model. So when the time comes for them to kick you out or give the pink slip because you’re still worthless, you apply to other employers and then tell you the same thing: you have no work experience. Then the cycle continues. Then you can come back to this post and we all can laugh about it over some cold ones.
If you've got enough money to live for a while without a job, don't pay for a job - just enter competitions all day. Live as frugally as you can and put money into your work - you're obviously not the only person who's in the job market with "no recent experience", and I imagine that when the economy picks back up again, hiring managers are going to be less concerned with "who has the best recent experience" and more concerned with "out of all these people who don't have recent formal experience in a firm, who's done the best job of self-motivating, filling their time with architecture, and demonstrating their personal commitment to the field by stickin' it out through the hard times?"
Obviously a resume gap is still a resume gap, and it's not ideal - but you can make the best of it by letting it demonstrate that you are capable of operating independently.
If I were a hiring manager [which I have never been] choosing between a candidate who paid for an internship and a candidate who entered competitions while unemployed, I would look at the one who paid for an internship and think "This person always needs to be told what to do and how to do it" - so if they're looking for a mindless CAD automaton, they might go for the one who paid for a job - but if they're looking for someone to contribute creatively to the firm's work, my guess is that they'll go for the one who's shown a desire to DO ARCHITECTURE, rather than to BE AN ARCHITECT.
Okay Okay - I get it - Offer withdrawn - I will enter competitions, volunteer - re-work my portfolio - do whatever it takes. The general consensus is that working for free and or paying to work undermines the profession. I agree - it does, and I would no want to known for that. Jeez - I am just looking for a break, okay - At any rate, if I can't make my own breaks, then I am just a Peter Keating. Obama has done his best on the employment issue - the problem is too big and we are on our own to make our own breaks.
it'll be interesting to see a 'how i survived the recession' thread after this all works itself out.
meaghans
Sounds like you got it together - and have all the answers - Thanks for vectoring parts of this thread to your website. I really appreciate it -
"Floccinaucinihilipilification
it's only worth something if you care"
Meaghans says it -
Like I said it was a stupid thread and I regret starting it.
haha! i am far from having all the answers. but i love learning and trying to come up with them.
in whatever direction you wish to take it, good luck!
rethinkit,
Do you have an M.Arch or B.Arch?
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.