I don't think anybody here believes they do architecture "for the money" but being in the plus column certainly would be nice, right?
So even though it doesn't boil down directly to money it certianly is tied to it. Andd all the great warm fuzzy feelings you get from doing architecture may implode later during lifes long journey. Today you feel good, 5 years from no you might feel ok, 10 years not so well and lets face it at this point you are 30-35 with 40 more years ahead of you. I hope that the warm fuzzy feeling comes back.
I tend to believe that good things come to those who think things through not those who mindlessly drone their way through.
In other words. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.
There is a huge difference between doing it for the money and being financially responsible/ living within your means. There is also education as investment, which is essentially a gamble. The gamble can pay off depending on the level of risk and reward, both relative to your circumstances.
I think getting a Master's degree (not specifically M.Arch) is respectable and could be a valid investment. The only way it can be wrong for me is when people go into it to pad the resume or to delay going into the real world, or that lame excuse that once you leave it'll be tougher to come back. So I'm both disagreeing and agreeing with both sides of this... debate(?). Or maybe I'm just being more specific.
All the successful people I've seen with M.Arch degrees went back to school with a specific goal in mind. They didn't just go into it to get M.Arch on their resume. To teach, to research, to focus on an important topic, to be eligible to become a licensed architect, etc. Or that additional interface with talented individuals in an academic environment to stimulate partnerships and collaboration.
Wait a minute, there's something I'm missing in the 'flexibility of degrees' discussion--I'm not sure I'm following correctly.
So say you don't know in high school what you want to be, so you do 4-years of typical liberal arts (maybe an English degree?) then decide to become an architect (or anything else) and go to grad school to specialize.
Or, you know what you want to be in high school, and it's architect, so you go to 5-year B.Arch and come out into the workforce and realize you don't want to be an architect after all. So you go to grad school to learn something else.
In both scenarios you still have 2 degrees, 2 (main) career paths. How is one path more flexible than the other? If you do some other liberal arts undergrad path, you are still limited by that path unless you go to grad school for something else. So how is it any more restrictive to pick an architecture undergrad path? In fact you could argue that architecture is, as a subject, inherently more flexible than many other options anyway.
I know a LOT of struggling Mass Communications majors who didn't really know what they wanted to do when they got to college, picked Mass Comm because it seemed like it offered fun careers and options, and now 10 years later they are realizing that it is one of the most restrictive (and useless) degrees you can have.
I think really the moral of the story is that life is easiest if you can figure out what you want to do as early as possible -- but reality is that it's hard to figure out what you want to do (at any point in your life, not just in H.S.) therefore the more options available in the field, the better. So I'm with those that like the degree proliferation available to us.
I have worked at many medium and large size firms over 3 decades and I have never seen any difference between the BArch or MArch degrees in terms of promotion or any difference in pay. (The exception might be the single owner/starchitect/professor type firm, where the owner wants a replication of him/herself.)
Starting salary differences are difficult to analyze and compare because many, perhaps most, MArch's have some work experience, and that experience varies. Salaries also are widely skewed by the economy. Right now, there is a huge over-supply of architects so wages are less competitive, but a few years ago firms were hiring anything that breathed for salaries that exceeded their value. (An overpaid employee tends to find him/herself high on the layoff list, so it evens out in an unfortunate way.)
After your first hire, no one cares about your degree, they care about the value you give the firm.
That said, the BArch is a much better value financially--IF you know you want to be an architect when you start college. (A BArch at a state school is the best value of all.) Starting wages are comparable and you are earning money and gaining real life experience instead of two or three years more of student loans. You are also working toward registration, which might boost your income.
The value of a liberal arts education is personal and difficult to quantify. A student may or may not experience more ideas and cultural experiences, because some high school graduates aren't ready to appreciate those opportunities. I find that creative people usually gain a broader, global perspective either way.
BArch degrees are more economical, BA's and BS's with MArchs are more flexible and possibly more personally enriching. It depends of what you want out of your education. Really, no one else cares except for people trying to justify their own decision.
Fact check--medical and dental schools are 4 years, plus additional time for specialization. A regular law degree is three years. Masters degrees in the arts, sciences, and engineering are typically 36 hours, but they vary, and many require additional time to complete a thesis. MBA's are all over the place, from 36 hours to 59 hours. A full load in graduate school is usually 12 hours/semester.
Yeah, I don't think B Arch or M Arch makes much pay difference *to employers* in the industry (the professional degree)... It's the same... So like I said, a B Arch doesn't need to go do a post professional M Arch II to get the title... An M Arch II (post-professional research degree) is more like a specialization which will benefit you if you want to teach or do consulting etc. An M Arch doesn't necessarily make more at a firm than a B Arch.
So onthefence is correct in one respect. However, as 2step points out, the piece of paper doesn't really mean anything, it's what you do. So if the M Arch has a better portfolio than the B Arch, if they benefitted from the additional education from having better work, additional skillsets and more experience, then that counts for something...
In the end, B Arch and M Arch are both accredditted degrees. It doesn't really matter which you have, it's not the piece of paper that will determine your pay, or your career... It's not even what school you went to... It's what you do, what you've done, and what you can bring to the table... not the piece of paper... This is true from my experience in any firm... So in my mind, it doesn't matter.
Regarding tuition and debt, agreed, tuition costs are ridiculously expensive in america... It's out of hand and needs to be fixed... Not just for architecture, it's a problem across our entire system... It's making our graduates enter the work forces more and more in debt, and actually making our schools less and less competitive (since only those who can afford it would be able to go)...
The cost issue is one thing. The second issue is the quality of the education... I think the structure, the degree requirements, and the title matter not to the architecture firm employer, (employers at architecture firms understand that a B Arch is essentially the same thing as a M Arch)... But more generally outside of our micro-profession, in the greater labor market, a masters is perceived differently from a bachelors degree so it does make our graduates and our profession less marketable broadly... We also need the standard degree title in order to standardize our educational qualification in the country imho...
Great discussion! Just thought I would point out that it seems the trend that some schools are getting rid of the 5 year BArch and going with the 4 (Bachelors of Science) + 2 year MArch. The 4 year obviously not being accredited, but the 2 year MArch is. I would then figure maybe the BArch will soon be no more....?.....just a thought.
"the trend that some schools are getting rid of the 5 year BArch and going with the 4 (Bachelors of Science) + 2 year MArch" - I keep hearing this but what are the schools exactly that are doing this?
its only one more year, so I don't think it's that much of blood!
But you are right, they will try to keep students as long as possible in school in order to profit more in addition to all the profits some schools make in sports.
One of my friends who is a director at one of the school, said that school even go as far as rejecting instate students and accept more out of state students, to make money.
When I was in graduate school, I believe out of 40+ students, only 7 or 8 students attended that particular school for their B.S., everybody else was out of state.
well, i guess the thread has deviated quite a bit, but you're right, you and i have a different outlooks on life. perhaps it's time for you to take a look back and take stock in your accomplishments and failures. but a year in college has no bearing on it. after 8 years in architecture, and 26 years of terrific mentoring by my family, friends, teachers, co-workers, and bosses, i can't possibly think that I would be a total failure if i took on 40k more in debt and spent 1 yr outside the workforce or working halftime. hell, with home ownership a little over a month away i'm about to throw myself into a much more punishing and unforgiving debt.
as a parent, i intend on relying on my 18 years of mentoring/parenthood and trusting my son or daughter with an investment in their education, as much as i can reasonably afford. everyone fights to give opportunities, no reason to limit them. university likewise is an investment in yourself for job opportunities AND personal growth. as such, no cost-benefit analysis could possibly carry any real weight in determining your outcome. (or the effectiveness of the education) i would imagine that if you went through school viewing it as an obligation, you would miss out on many incredible opportunities and would be not be retaining any of the value your education actually provides.
perhaps one day there will be some sort of SABRmetrics of college, but i've never been a fan of playing the game that way. hell if i'm gonna tell my kid to bunt! let 'em swing for the fences.
8 years in architecture? You mean 3 right? 5 years in school.
Not trying to nitpick but it seems like someone is padding their resume here.
You must be doing really well though for 3 years in the work force and able to put a downpayment on a home after already taking on so much personal debt from college. Or have you been lucky enough to be helped out?
I think the fallacy of such an argument is that everyone's 'reality' is in fact, considerably different.
What if you're offered significant funding to attend a school that offers the M.Arch? Would you seriously turn it down for a B.Arch that actually might cost you more in the long run?
And then of course, there's the simple fact that the M.arch is the only option in many places. Like Canada for example, or much or western Europe (which is a different system all together). Proportionally, you won't see too many students jumping the boarder to study as international students at a much higher rate. The same could potentially apply to some American students in terms of in-state / out of state tuition.
And then there are things that are simply preferences or personal matters of priority. A 20,000 USD car??? What if you're perfectly comfortable with a bike, a pair of decent walking shoes, and the occasional VVS transit ticket? That's a huge chunk of change you're not dealing with...Freeing you to spend it on whatever else you deem worthy (your ideal school potentially?).
Life isn't a balance sheet and it isn't universal. Each and every person has to weigh their own options, look at their future goals personally, proffessionally, and financialy, and make a decision that works for them. I don't think you can assume that any one choice is inherently better or worse for everyone.
You can do without one in some areas but the cities actually deemed walkable-- well, let's just say there is less than a dozen major cities (population more than 1,000,000) and probably less than one-and-a-half dozen smaller major cities (population over 40,000) deemed completely walkable by "standard."
Automotive ownership is a hidden-but-high cost in the United States.
What if you've gone to school in New York City but got a job in San Antonio?
Moving without a car is going to cost you a minimum of a few thousand dollars. Buying a car to move is going to cost you a lot.
There's also some other considerations--
Will the car (if less than new) last for at least a year or two? If not, you will get fired if you cannot show up to work on time, take too much time off for repairs or show up for work at all.
If your car is less than reliable, you could live within walking distance.
This, however, presents a whole other problem. The closer you live to a business district, the higher the cost of housing becomes.
So, that two or three hundred dollars a month you'd be saving by having a cheap or no car... is now spent on housing.
And because of the vary nature of how commercial real estate came to be in the United States (blockbusting, land grants, destruction of local farming, environmental racism), commercial real estate is always in directly near the vicinity of really bad neighborhoods or literally absolutely nothing.
While these are some things that can be overcome, there's other boundaries. People will generally not visit unfamiliar areas by foot or bike.
Well, what about the bus, mass transit or taxis? Almost none of these things exists to any appreciable or reliable capacity in a large part of the United States.
Lastly, the United States has had quite a reputation of division, segregation and control. Many things that exist today were essentially built and created out of hate. While we may not have that same attitude, these objects still hate and the laws that created these objects more or less still exist.
Even if you move to downtown and you're literally are right across the freeway from your office, elevated highways often wall off entire neighborhoods. That linear distance does not always match actual distance traveled. Being 1800 feet away can be a 2 mile trip.
And often, these sorts of physical barriers were built between poorer areas and well off areas.
As much as America was designed to be a "can do" country, those people who did specifically designed a country where others "cannot do."
For many people, there is no working at a factory or a mine or a slaughterhouse to put yourself to school. There is no "hard working jobs.' For a lot of people, there's washing dishes at Denny's, selling clothes at Old Navy and sweeping up popcorn at the movie theater.
If we weren't even taking school into consideration, these are jobs that people work 60-70 hours a week to just be able to scrape by on. Usually by doing all three at once.
And this also ties into education... universities, schools, banks et cetera have been hiding the real cost of education for a long time (the fixed costs). So, you may get a scholarship that pays your tuition. You may get a stipend for books. But a $4,000 dollar scholarship doesn't cover the $16,000 dollars a year it costs a lot of people to stay alive while being at a university.
And a lack of those material comforts causes all sorts of problems-- self abuse, abuse of others, sexual addiction, drug addiction, crime, other deviant behaviors and so on. At that point, what's really the point of bettering yourself when you're damaged goods?
Most of these hidden costs didn't even exist 20-30 years ago.
So, yes... don't knock a spreadsheet because some bullshit rant you've written immediately makes you immune to all worldly desires and immediately makes you able to overcome very real objects.
Everyone maybe different but we all live on the same very real planet that has very real zoning ordinances, very real roads, very real barriers and a very real cost of living.
What you show above is what I ask everybody do. But not to just stop at the day after graduation. Look down the road and your personal situation. I posted what I thought to be the norm or the average or best guestimate at a path. Obviously everyones situation is different but I believe a lot of people fall within a close range to my original post.
Again, I ask that students do the math and stop just following the crowd directly into a M.Arch. Get a job for 1, 2 or 3 years see what its like and determine if the M.Arch is worth it. And yes, if mom and dad or a scholorship comes up, take that gift. Again, if that is the case, then this thread is not for you.
This isn't just about individuals, but the the collective mode of thought that is taking over which says you have to have a masters degree to be an architect. Which is not true. Not at all. (although, it may be your best option because of your circumstances.) It is as wrong and as widespread as AIA = registered architect.
A master's degree is supposed to be an advanced degree. What are some of the advanced areas of study within architecture that the Master's students are exploring that provide valuable contributions to the field? (Specifically, the 4+2 grads and the post professional masters seekers.) What was your thesis? Did you have one? Or was it 2 more years of the same? Perhaps it was more intensive because your pre-professional wasn't an intensive study in the field, it is a general education degree with a major in architecture. Are those 2 years of advanced, intensive study you did to earn the masters more like what a 5 year B arch did for 4-5 years anyways? All other things equal (which is never the case, of course, just in theory) are you getting the same or less for more money and time? Is that called inflation?
Just to be flippant at this point, I think it is to party and not have to enter the workforce for 2 extra years while not seeing that in the end you are going to pay dearly for this choice.
The additional two years I spent earning my Masters allowed me to focus on historic preservation. While my undergrad years exposed me to a few courses on preservation, I knew I wanted to concentrate in historic preservation, and this time allowed me to specialize in it.
Other than a theory course and a practice course, all my other Masters courses were focused on preservation, even my studios. So there is no doubt in my mind that continuing on to get a Masters and being allowed to concentrate my studies on a specif aspect within architecture was more than worth it.
A Masters shouldn't be about just more general information.
I think the problem is that there are too many variations in titles... Why can't we be like every other profession and standardize the degree titles for schools? Why is it architects also need to make things so *bloody complicated* and confusing for everybody else?
I think if we are just talking about degree titles I would:
1. Get rid of the B Sc (architecture), it confuses things... Call it a B Sc. (Environmental Design), or a BFA (Design), or something else: But "Architecture" should be *professional school only*, arts and sciences degrees should not be architecture degrees... I mean, you don't see undergraduates getting B A (Law) or B Sc (Medicine) or a B Sc (Dentistry) do you??!~ :P
2. Get rid of B Arch, make them M Arch: Make all the B Archs M Archs... You don't even need to make them do an extra year of study... Make one *consistent* professional degree, just like every other profession has... We could argue that instead we should use B Arch as the standard designation, but this won't change... M Arch is here...
3. Get rid of the M Arch II, call anything other than a professional M Arch something else: It's way too confusing if you have post-professional / non-accredditted *research* degrees with the same title as a *professional* degree... M Arch needs to be strictly a professional degree designation otherwise it doesn't mean anything... Your post professional research programs need to be called something else... MASA or MAUD or MSAAD or whatever you want, but they should not be called M Arch... And these degrees should *clearly identify* a specialization... i.e. make this the equivalent of a specialist for doctors for example...
If you do the above three things, you won't run into the squabbles between B Sc (architecture) grads vs. B Arch (professionals), and you won't have B Arch vs. M Arch, and you won't have M Arch (professionals) vs. M Arch (research degree)... And the school structure will be more consistent, our degrees would actually have some more meaning, and be more marketable IMHO, just like every other profession...
I think we should just be done with this... The M Arch does seem like where things are headed so lets just get past it, quit clinging to your B Arch program, and focus on more useful things like:
*what is the quality of our architectural education, or *how can our profession as a whole addres the challenges of the current economy, etc...
That is a scary story. So, instead of a whatever-it-costs additude toward goals as has been very popular in the last few years, young architects could benefit from a how-can-i-do-this-as-smart-as-possible additude, especially as the economy tightens? Sounds like good advice to me!
Wow. That article is heartwrenching to read. But that last bit is interesting as it touches on what I was talking about earlier...
"It's not like I ran up a gambling debt or something"
It is a gamble. It is an investment on your future. Nothing is guaranteed after you graduate. It has been historically a good and relatively safe gamble, especially if you're intelligent and/or talented - take a loan out for your higher education, spend 4 or more years in school, and come out more intelligent, with higher starting pay, more opportunities and growth. More than likely it works out, sometimes it doesn't. It shouldn't be taken for granted when it doesn't work out. But 180K in debt... That would've been tough even if the economy wasn't this way. Aren't there programs that allow you to pay loan payments as a proportion of your paycheck nowadays?
That is a horrible story. But why would you put yourself in that situation in the first place?
I knew my parents could not help me going into college that much, but they did. In order to help out too I worked at an office and stayed at home to save up money. You don't have to live on campus etc etc....blah blah college experience and shit.
Debt free I was till graduate school. Not nearly to that amount, but the thought of paying it off for next 10 years makes me go to the bathroom immediately.
Something is wrong with the system in the U.S. for sure. Financial slavery at its best!
"That is a horrible story. But why would you put yourself in that situation in the first place?"
Because you believed in the superstitious notion that all the schools teach these days regarding money:
its evil and you don't need to worry about it and don't worry the government will just magically print up more and forgive your debt if you go and work for them
All the artists and hippies and equality freaks that have undercut the profession for decades are getting what they deserve right now. Serves them right.
"Everyone maybe different but we all live on the same very real planet that has very real zoning ordinances, very real roads, very real barriers and a very real cost of living."
I agree, these are all things that one must face... however, zoning ordinances, roads, barriers, and costs of living absolutely are not universal across the world. It would perhaps appear then, that no, we're not living on the same 'very real planet' then... Or at the very least, we're experiencing that same real planet in vastly different ways.
As a born and educated Canadian now living in Europe, my reality is probably not the same as yours in the USA.
I for example, don't own a car, nor do I require one to live. Neither do my co-workers, my boss, my family, or my friends (although some of them do chose to have one). That doesn't make us particularily unique or special. In fact, for middle class people living in a medium-to-large city, that's actually quite normal.
However, there are of course additional barriers and additional cost of living considerations that are unique to our/my situation... Costs that you may or may not also face. Therefore, we have to look at our own situation, examine our own individual 'reality', and come up with a personal budget accordingly.
But really, that's all I was trying to say in the first place.
are you advocating eliminating college education? i think as a country, we should be making higher education more affordable and make it more rigorous, not eliminating it so that as a whole, people in america are a little bit less educated than the rest of the global labor pool...
the problem is the costs isn't it? and academic rigour... it's not that undergraduate and professional education is "a waste of time"... it seems to me that you are complaining based on your own personal grievances rather than looking for solutions...
just as a reference, i'm american, but i was educated in canada as a landed immigrant there... I'm hesitant to point out what my costs of schooling were relative to private schools in the states... needless to say, the *total costs* of a four year bachelors degree plus a 3.5 year master of architecture at a top school in canada costs *less than a single year of m arch* at most private american universities... furthermore, i'd be inclined to say that the *good canadian universities are as competitive or more competitive than the best schools in the states simply for the fact that they are made accessible* to all citizens, not just the wealthy priveleged who can afford to go there... you have more people competing for fewer positions, and acceptance is more dependant on performance than on willing accumulation of debt or independent wealth... we need an education system that promotes academic competitiveness, not debt accumulation...
after my undergraduate degree, when i was applying to architecture schools, i looked at the schools in the states, but didn't end up applying to any of them simply because it was ridiculously expensive... the good schools in the states were $20,000 to $30,000 (U.S.) or more PER YEAR of an M Arch... My M Arch tuition costs in Canada were $1,800 (CDN) per year... And no, I didn't leave out a zero there... I didn't want to rub this in, but I am just trying to point out the problem in the system here... Quite honestly, in Canada, the people who couldn't get into professional school in Canadian schools are the ones who would apply to U.S. schools as their backup and bite the bullet of tuition... American universities just seem RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE when you are coming from another country or state subsidized college...
Well maybe not always the case... For MBA's for example, I think the american schools would tend to attract the best students from canada... but for Medical school, Dentistry, Engineering, Architecture, Computer Science... I think the good schools in Canada are on par with the best in the States and maybe more competitive since they cost so much less... Just as I think some of the state schools in the US are more competitive than private universities...
I'm not talking down at provate american schools, the best schools in the States are probably better than Canadian schools... American schools have the best universities in the world and some of the best educators, the most money invested in the world in universities are in American universities... American private universities most definitely have alot more money than Canadian schools, but quite frankly, but it is the system that is messed up... It is a system where the *applicants (and therefore graduates)* are measured more by how much debt they can afford rather than primarily on their academic merit... And in the end, it's not how many elite starchitects teaching at your school that defines your education, it's how rigorous your students are, and how dedicated your tenured faculty are... Just my 2 cents...
"are you advocating eliminating college education? i think as a country, we should be making higher education more affordable and make it more rigorous, not eliminating it so that as a whole, people in america are a little bit less educated than the rest of the global labor pool..."
Have you been to Germany? You think a 30 year old living at home is bad in America? I've know 40 year old Germans stilll living at home who have masters and doctorates. This is not to bash Germans.
Maybe I'm grasping at straws here but once everybody has a bachelors, who then removes our garbage, cleans or septic tanks, so on and so forth. Answer? College educated garbage men and college educated septic tank cleaners. LEts not even get into window washers here.
Am I advocating eliminating higher education? No. But not all fields require higher education and some fields do not reguire higher higher education meaning the M.Arch. ANd yes I understand some people have a 4 year lib degree and then decided they spent dads money unwisely. Throwing good money after bad doesn't fix it.
brink,
we would have to change our tax laws to only pay what canadians pay and I don't feel like paying for everybody elses college tuition. Thanks but no.
Okay fine, then don't complain then... From the sound of it, it's *not your problem* that the next generation of graduates cannot join the profession unless they are independently wealthy or ravaged by debt...
You are also exaggerating immensely here... Nobody here needs a bachelors degree to remove garbage, clean septic tanks, etc... On the other hand *maybe our B Eng graduates from US schools might engineer or R&D more efficient waste removal and recycling technologies and programs that make us more efficient, and more competitive in a global marketplace for resources and energy... So yeah, we WILL fall behind if we don't make education rigorous and competitive while countries like China are investing heavily in R&D and college education... Sellable technology is worth something and generates jobs...
/endrant
Sorry don't want to take this thread on a political tangent...
Sorry onthefence: didn't mean to be sarcastic or antagonistic...
In Canada, not everybody goes to college... My point is not that everybody in Canada goes to college, but that most people *can* afford it if they have an ambition to and can get into the school... The limitation is on the number of places, so it is competitive, rather than there being an insurmountable $wealth$ barrier...
I would say that in Canada people who collect garabage don't go to college for the same reason that they don't here: they can make more money than an architect without spending the money and they probably don't have the interest or ambition to study architecture... If you'd like to be a garbage collector, you can do it, and make plenty of money doing it....
But in Canada the difference is: "alot of money" means less than $2,000 Canadian a year in tuition or maybe up to $4,600 per year in tuition at the most expensive school, vs. between $20,000 U.S. to $36,000 a year U.S. in tuition... Both are alot of money, it's just relative based on what people perceive as the expected cost of that education *should be*... If you don't think those tuition figures for a private university in the States is ridiculous, then go ahead and send your kids there...
All I am saying and every body here KNOWS it. You are not required nor do you actually need 7 years of higher education to perform architectural services from lets say basic level to lower high level. If there were such scales. Sure a person with a masters may be benificial to some firms, but certainly not all nor should we be striving to fill each seat in a firm with a guy with a masters. Clients might see that and realize that the prices at that firm will be way to high. You need draftsmen, projecy managers, senior architects as well as businessmen. Alll do not need an M.Arch
In other words, limit the number of seats at the school, and let people compete for those seats rather than making an innumerable number of seats and making them ridiculously expensive.
"In Canada, not everybody goes to college... My point is not that everybody in Canada goes to college, but that most people *can* afford it if they have an ambition to and can get into the school... The limitation is on the number of places, so it is competitive, rather than there being an insurmountable $wealth$ barrier..."
I was just typing the same thing.........I totally agree!
Every idiot here falls for the propaganda that college (huge debt) will make your lives easier, but that is far from the truth. Now you have every idiot going to college earning Barch, B.S. March. etc. etc. and making these degrees worthless even for the talent that hold those degrees.
Its not just Canada, its most of countries like that where the value of the degree is based on talent and not money. In the U.S. its the other way around. I'm not saying that there is no talent, the talent is there, but its dwarfed by the lack of talent with degrees.
"In other words, limit the number of seats at the school, and let people compete for those seats rather than making an innumerable number of seats and making them ridiculously expensive"
Its one or the other bRink.
I.e. society is going to have to come to grips with the reality that not everyone is actually equal in the end.
Sure "all men are CREATED equal" but this has obviously been taken out of context in contemporary society to justify lifting up the lazy, retarded liar at the expense of the industrious, honest genius.
Things will only keep worsening as long as this retardiculous zeitgeist concerning everybody being equal is permanently laid to rest (like six feet under).
WinstonSmith: the point is let the separation come from how rigorous and competitive a program is, rather than how rich or indebted a person is... This would actually produce a stronger labor pool through competition... I really wish more Republicans would go live in other countries and be open to solutions and recognize where the problems with our system are: in education, in health care, and in banking- the wreckless lending practices, think sensibly instead of primarily viewing through a lense of political fear mongering and ideologically driven motivations related to "what's in it for me"... The problem of indebtedness and financial wrecklessness in our country is a political and ideological game rather than smart investment... It makes us less competitive and economically poorer... We are in a competitive market but there are some aspects of governance where the market is actually skewed against competitiveness in a global labor pool, where we are promoting indebtedness and financial brokenness rather than success... Why make illogical ideological politics the focus over what works?! If more Americans would quit political gaming and open their eyes to how other countries are doing things, they might be more aware of just how we could make our systems better...
/endrant this is taking this off topic... Lets save it for another thread..
Barch vs. March and reality
I don't think anybody here believes they do architecture "for the money" but being in the plus column certainly would be nice, right?
So even though it doesn't boil down directly to money it certianly is tied to it. Andd all the great warm fuzzy feelings you get from doing architecture may implode later during lifes long journey. Today you feel good, 5 years from no you might feel ok, 10 years not so well and lets face it at this point you are 30-35 with 40 more years ahead of you. I hope that the warm fuzzy feeling comes back.
I tend to believe that good things come to those who think things through not those who mindlessly drone their way through.
In other words. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.
There is a huge difference between doing it for the money and being financially responsible/ living within your means. There is also education as investment, which is essentially a gamble. The gamble can pay off depending on the level of risk and reward, both relative to your circumstances.
I think getting a Master's degree (not specifically M.Arch) is respectable and could be a valid investment. The only way it can be wrong for me is when people go into it to pad the resume or to delay going into the real world, or that lame excuse that once you leave it'll be tougher to come back. So I'm both disagreeing and agreeing with both sides of this... debate(?). Or maybe I'm just being more specific.
All the successful people I've seen with M.Arch degrees went back to school with a specific goal in mind. They didn't just go into it to get M.Arch on their resume. To teach, to research, to focus on an important topic, to be eligible to become a licensed architect, etc. Or that additional interface with talented individuals in an academic environment to stimulate partnerships and collaboration.
Wait a minute, there's something I'm missing in the 'flexibility of degrees' discussion--I'm not sure I'm following correctly.
So say you don't know in high school what you want to be, so you do 4-years of typical liberal arts (maybe an English degree?) then decide to become an architect (or anything else) and go to grad school to specialize.
Or, you know what you want to be in high school, and it's architect, so you go to 5-year B.Arch and come out into the workforce and realize you don't want to be an architect after all. So you go to grad school to learn something else.
In both scenarios you still have 2 degrees, 2 (main) career paths. How is one path more flexible than the other? If you do some other liberal arts undergrad path, you are still limited by that path unless you go to grad school for something else. So how is it any more restrictive to pick an architecture undergrad path? In fact you could argue that architecture is, as a subject, inherently more flexible than many other options anyway.
I know a LOT of struggling Mass Communications majors who didn't really know what they wanted to do when they got to college, picked Mass Comm because it seemed like it offered fun careers and options, and now 10 years later they are realizing that it is one of the most restrictive (and useless) degrees you can have.
I think really the moral of the story is that life is easiest if you can figure out what you want to do as early as possible -- but reality is that it's hard to figure out what you want to do (at any point in your life, not just in H.S.) therefore the more options available in the field, the better. So I'm with those that like the degree proliferation available to us.
I do agree with the others who think the B.Arch should be renamed an M.Arch though, as I've said on other threads.
I have worked at many medium and large size firms over 3 decades and I have never seen any difference between the BArch or MArch degrees in terms of promotion or any difference in pay. (The exception might be the single owner/starchitect/professor type firm, where the owner wants a replication of him/herself.)
Starting salary differences are difficult to analyze and compare because many, perhaps most, MArch's have some work experience, and that experience varies. Salaries also are widely skewed by the economy. Right now, there is a huge over-supply of architects so wages are less competitive, but a few years ago firms were hiring anything that breathed for salaries that exceeded their value. (An overpaid employee tends to find him/herself high on the layoff list, so it evens out in an unfortunate way.)
After your first hire, no one cares about your degree, they care about the value you give the firm.
That said, the BArch is a much better value financially--IF you know you want to be an architect when you start college. (A BArch at a state school is the best value of all.) Starting wages are comparable and you are earning money and gaining real life experience instead of two or three years more of student loans. You are also working toward registration, which might boost your income.
The value of a liberal arts education is personal and difficult to quantify. A student may or may not experience more ideas and cultural experiences, because some high school graduates aren't ready to appreciate those opportunities. I find that creative people usually gain a broader, global perspective either way.
BArch degrees are more economical, BA's and BS's with MArchs are more flexible and possibly more personally enriching. It depends of what you want out of your education. Really, no one else cares except for people trying to justify their own decision.
Fact check--medical and dental schools are 4 years, plus additional time for specialization. A regular law degree is three years. Masters degrees in the arts, sciences, and engineering are typically 36 hours, but they vary, and many require additional time to complete a thesis. MBA's are all over the place, from 36 hours to 59 hours. A full load in graduate school is usually 12 hours/semester.
Yeah, I don't think B Arch or M Arch makes much pay difference *to employers* in the industry (the professional degree)... It's the same... So like I said, a B Arch doesn't need to go do a post professional M Arch II to get the title... An M Arch II (post-professional research degree) is more like a specialization which will benefit you if you want to teach or do consulting etc. An M Arch doesn't necessarily make more at a firm than a B Arch.
So onthefence is correct in one respect. However, as 2step points out, the piece of paper doesn't really mean anything, it's what you do. So if the M Arch has a better portfolio than the B Arch, if they benefitted from the additional education from having better work, additional skillsets and more experience, then that counts for something...
In the end, B Arch and M Arch are both accredditted degrees. It doesn't really matter which you have, it's not the piece of paper that will determine your pay, or your career... It's not even what school you went to... It's what you do, what you've done, and what you can bring to the table... not the piece of paper... This is true from my experience in any firm... So in my mind, it doesn't matter.
Regarding tuition and debt, agreed, tuition costs are ridiculously expensive in america... It's out of hand and needs to be fixed... Not just for architecture, it's a problem across our entire system... It's making our graduates enter the work forces more and more in debt, and actually making our schools less and less competitive (since only those who can afford it would be able to go)...
The cost issue is one thing. The second issue is the quality of the education... I think the structure, the degree requirements, and the title matter not to the architecture firm employer, (employers at architecture firms understand that a B Arch is essentially the same thing as a M Arch)... But more generally outside of our micro-profession, in the greater labor market, a masters is perceived differently from a bachelors degree so it does make our graduates and our profession less marketable broadly... We also need the standard degree title in order to standardize our educational qualification in the country imho...
Hi all!
Great discussion! Just thought I would point out that it seems the trend that some schools are getting rid of the 5 year BArch and going with the 4 (Bachelors of Science) + 2 year MArch. The 4 year obviously not being accredited, but the 2 year MArch is. I would then figure maybe the BArch will soon be no more....?.....just a thought.
"the trend that some schools are getting rid of the 5 year BArch and going with the 4 (Bachelors of Science) + 2 year MArch" - I keep hearing this but what are the schools exactly that are doing this?
Yes schools want that last bit of blood to ensure their success.
its only one more year, so I don't think it's that much of blood!
But you are right, they will try to keep students as long as possible in school in order to profit more in addition to all the profits some schools make in sports.
One of my friends who is a director at one of the school, said that school even go as far as rejecting instate students and accept more out of state students, to make money.
When I was in graduate school, I believe out of 40+ students, only 7 or 8 students attended that particular school for their B.S., everybody else was out of state.
In this thread: unsubstantiated facts.
Yes, everybody is out of state these days. Hmmmm.
well, i guess the thread has deviated quite a bit, but you're right, you and i have a different outlooks on life. perhaps it's time for you to take a look back and take stock in your accomplishments and failures. but a year in college has no bearing on it. after 8 years in architecture, and 26 years of terrific mentoring by my family, friends, teachers, co-workers, and bosses, i can't possibly think that I would be a total failure if i took on 40k more in debt and spent 1 yr outside the workforce or working halftime. hell, with home ownership a little over a month away i'm about to throw myself into a much more punishing and unforgiving debt.
as a parent, i intend on relying on my 18 years of mentoring/parenthood and trusting my son or daughter with an investment in their education, as much as i can reasonably afford. everyone fights to give opportunities, no reason to limit them. university likewise is an investment in yourself for job opportunities AND personal growth. as such, no cost-benefit analysis could possibly carry any real weight in determining your outcome. (or the effectiveness of the education) i would imagine that if you went through school viewing it as an obligation, you would miss out on many incredible opportunities and would be not be retaining any of the value your education actually provides.
perhaps one day there will be some sort of SABRmetrics of college, but i've never been a fan of playing the game that way. hell if i'm gonna tell my kid to bunt! let 'em swing for the fences.
I think you just went postal.
8 years in architecture? You mean 3 right? 5 years in school.
Not trying to nitpick but it seems like someone is padding their resume here.
You must be doing really well though for 3 years in the work force and able to put a downpayment on a home after already taking on so much personal debt from college. Or have you been lucky enough to be helped out?
OMG, is that some excel?
If you can make it through a Bachelor's without debt... you'll be much better off with a masters.
If you take money for a Bachelors and a Masters... you're screwed.
I think the fallacy of such an argument is that everyone's 'reality' is in fact, considerably different.
What if you're offered significant funding to attend a school that offers the M.Arch? Would you seriously turn it down for a B.Arch that actually might cost you more in the long run?
And then of course, there's the simple fact that the M.arch is the only option in many places. Like Canada for example, or much or western Europe (which is a different system all together). Proportionally, you won't see too many students jumping the boarder to study as international students at a much higher rate. The same could potentially apply to some American students in terms of in-state / out of state tuition.
And then there are things that are simply preferences or personal matters of priority. A 20,000 USD car??? What if you're perfectly comfortable with a bike, a pair of decent walking shoes, and the occasional VVS transit ticket? That's a huge chunk of change you're not dealing with...Freeing you to spend it on whatever else you deem worthy (your ideal school potentially?).
Life isn't a balance sheet and it isn't universal. Each and every person has to weigh their own options, look at their future goals personally, proffessionally, and financialy, and make a decision that works for them. I don't think you can assume that any one choice is inherently better or worse for everyone.
A car is necessary in about 95% American cities.
You can do without one in some areas but the cities actually deemed walkable-- well, let's just say there is less than a dozen major cities (population more than 1,000,000) and probably less than one-and-a-half dozen smaller major cities (population over 40,000) deemed completely walkable by "standard."
Automotive ownership is a hidden-but-high cost in the United States.
What if you've gone to school in New York City but got a job in San Antonio?
Moving without a car is going to cost you a minimum of a few thousand dollars. Buying a car to move is going to cost you a lot.
There's also some other considerations--
Will the car (if less than new) last for at least a year or two? If not, you will get fired if you cannot show up to work on time, take too much time off for repairs or show up for work at all.
If your car is less than reliable, you could live within walking distance.
This, however, presents a whole other problem. The closer you live to a business district, the higher the cost of housing becomes.
So, that two or three hundred dollars a month you'd be saving by having a cheap or no car... is now spent on housing.
And because of the vary nature of how commercial real estate came to be in the United States (blockbusting, land grants, destruction of local farming, environmental racism), commercial real estate is always in directly near the vicinity of really bad neighborhoods or literally absolutely nothing.
While these are some things that can be overcome, there's other boundaries. People will generally not visit unfamiliar areas by foot or bike.
Well, what about the bus, mass transit or taxis? Almost none of these things exists to any appreciable or reliable capacity in a large part of the United States.
Lastly, the United States has had quite a reputation of division, segregation and control. Many things that exist today were essentially built and created out of hate. While we may not have that same attitude, these objects still hate and the laws that created these objects more or less still exist.
Even if you move to downtown and you're literally are right across the freeway from your office, elevated highways often wall off entire neighborhoods. That linear distance does not always match actual distance traveled. Being 1800 feet away can be a 2 mile trip.
And often, these sorts of physical barriers were built between poorer areas and well off areas.
As much as America was designed to be a "can do" country, those people who did specifically designed a country where others "cannot do."
For many people, there is no working at a factory or a mine or a slaughterhouse to put yourself to school. There is no "hard working jobs.' For a lot of people, there's washing dishes at Denny's, selling clothes at Old Navy and sweeping up popcorn at the movie theater.
If we weren't even taking school into consideration, these are jobs that people work 60-70 hours a week to just be able to scrape by on. Usually by doing all three at once.
And this also ties into education... universities, schools, banks et cetera have been hiding the real cost of education for a long time (the fixed costs). So, you may get a scholarship that pays your tuition. You may get a stipend for books. But a $4,000 dollar scholarship doesn't cover the $16,000 dollars a year it costs a lot of people to stay alive while being at a university.
And a lack of those material comforts causes all sorts of problems-- self abuse, abuse of others, sexual addiction, drug addiction, crime, other deviant behaviors and so on. At that point, what's really the point of bettering yourself when you're damaged goods?
Most of these hidden costs didn't even exist 20-30 years ago.
So, yes... don't knock a spreadsheet because some bullshit rant you've written immediately makes you immune to all worldly desires and immediately makes you able to overcome very real objects.
Everyone maybe different but we all live on the same very real planet that has very real zoning ordinances, very real roads, very real barriers and a very real cost of living.
I am grey,
What you show above is what I ask everybody do. But not to just stop at the day after graduation. Look down the road and your personal situation. I posted what I thought to be the norm or the average or best guestimate at a path. Obviously everyones situation is different but I believe a lot of people fall within a close range to my original post.
Again, I ask that students do the math and stop just following the crowd directly into a M.Arch. Get a job for 1, 2 or 3 years see what its like and determine if the M.Arch is worth it. And yes, if mom and dad or a scholorship comes up, take that gift. Again, if that is the case, then this thread is not for you.
Ilike the spread sheet monty.
Thanks
This isn't just about individuals, but the the collective mode of thought that is taking over which says you have to have a masters degree to be an architect. Which is not true. Not at all. (although, it may be your best option because of your circumstances.) It is as wrong and as widespread as AIA = registered architect.
A master's degree is supposed to be an advanced degree. What are some of the advanced areas of study within architecture that the Master's students are exploring that provide valuable contributions to the field? (Specifically, the 4+2 grads and the post professional masters seekers.) What was your thesis? Did you have one? Or was it 2 more years of the same? Perhaps it was more intensive because your pre-professional wasn't an intensive study in the field, it is a general education degree with a major in architecture. Are those 2 years of advanced, intensive study you did to earn the masters more like what a 5 year B arch did for 4-5 years anyways? All other things equal (which is never the case, of course, just in theory) are you getting the same or less for more money and time? Is that called inflation?
Just to be flippant at this point, I think it is to party and not have to enter the workforce for 2 extra years while not seeing that in the end you are going to pay dearly for this choice.
The additional two years I spent earning my Masters allowed me to focus on historic preservation. While my undergrad years exposed me to a few courses on preservation, I knew I wanted to concentrate in historic preservation, and this time allowed me to specialize in it.
Other than a theory course and a practice course, all my other Masters courses were focused on preservation, even my studios. So there is no doubt in my mind that continuing on to get a Masters and being allowed to concentrate my studies on a specif aspect within architecture was more than worth it.
A Masters shouldn't be about just more general information.
bldgblock:
when you say "masters" do you mean you already did a 5 year *professional* b arch and your masters was a post-professional research degree?
or do you mean you did an unaccreddited 4 year BSc in architecture followed by a professional M Arch?
I think the problem is that there are too many variations in titles... Why can't we be like every other profession and standardize the degree titles for schools? Why is it architects also need to make things so *bloody complicated* and confusing for everybody else?
I think if we are just talking about degree titles I would:
1. Get rid of the B Sc (architecture), it confuses things... Call it a B Sc. (Environmental Design), or a BFA (Design), or something else: But "Architecture" should be *professional school only*, arts and sciences degrees should not be architecture degrees... I mean, you don't see undergraduates getting B A (Law) or B Sc (Medicine) or a B Sc (Dentistry) do you??!~ :P
2. Get rid of B Arch, make them M Arch: Make all the B Archs M Archs... You don't even need to make them do an extra year of study... Make one *consistent* professional degree, just like every other profession has... We could argue that instead we should use B Arch as the standard designation, but this won't change... M Arch is here...
3. Get rid of the M Arch II, call anything other than a professional M Arch something else: It's way too confusing if you have post-professional / non-accredditted *research* degrees with the same title as a *professional* degree... M Arch needs to be strictly a professional degree designation otherwise it doesn't mean anything... Your post professional research programs need to be called something else... MASA or MAUD or MSAAD or whatever you want, but they should not be called M Arch... And these degrees should *clearly identify* a specialization... i.e. make this the equivalent of a specialist for doctors for example...
If you do the above three things, you won't run into the squabbles between B Sc (architecture) grads vs. B Arch (professionals), and you won't have B Arch vs. M Arch, and you won't have M Arch (professionals) vs. M Arch (research degree)... And the school structure will be more consistent, our degrees would actually have some more meaning, and be more marketable IMHO, just like every other profession...
I think we should just be done with this... The M Arch does seem like where things are headed so lets just get past it, quit clinging to your B Arch program, and focus on more useful things like:
*what is the quality of our architectural education, or *how can our profession as a whole addres the challenges of the current economy, etc...
also *how should education be fixed so graduates are not all having their backs broken by debt?
That is a scary story. So, instead of a whatever-it-costs additude toward goals as has been very popular in the last few years, young architects could benefit from a how-can-i-do-this-as-smart-as-possible additude, especially as the economy tightens? Sounds like good advice to me!
bRink, sometimes I think we are all saying the same thing, and it just takes someone to elegantly and throroughly put it all together.
....so thank you!
Wow. That article is heartwrenching to read. But that last bit is interesting as it touches on what I was talking about earlier...
"It's not like I ran up a gambling debt or something"
It is a gamble. It is an investment on your future. Nothing is guaranteed after you graduate. It has been historically a good and relatively safe gamble, especially if you're intelligent and/or talented - take a loan out for your higher education, spend 4 or more years in school, and come out more intelligent, with higher starting pay, more opportunities and growth. More than likely it works out, sometimes it doesn't. It shouldn't be taken for granted when it doesn't work out. But 180K in debt... That would've been tough even if the economy wasn't this way. Aren't there programs that allow you to pay loan payments as a proportion of your paycheck nowadays?
That is a horrible story. But why would you put yourself in that situation in the first place?
I knew my parents could not help me going into college that much, but they did. In order to help out too I worked at an office and stayed at home to save up money. You don't have to live on campus etc etc....blah blah college experience and shit.
Debt free I was till graduate school. Not nearly to that amount, but the thought of paying it off for next 10 years makes me go to the bathroom immediately.
Something is wrong with the system in the U.S. for sure. Financial slavery at its best!
"That is a horrible story. But why would you put yourself in that situation in the first place?"
Because you believed in the superstitious notion that all the schools teach these days regarding money:
its evil and you don't need to worry about it and don't worry the government will just magically print up more and forgive your debt if you go and work for them
All the artists and hippies and equality freaks that have undercut the profession for decades are getting what they deserve right now. Serves them right.
You want fries with that?
brink
"also *how should education be fixed so graduates are not all having their backs broken by debt?"
Sure, lets go back to the 4 year degree only and call it a masters.
Montageux,
In response to this:
"Everyone maybe different but we all live on the same very real planet that has very real zoning ordinances, very real roads, very real barriers and a very real cost of living."
I agree, these are all things that one must face... however, zoning ordinances, roads, barriers, and costs of living absolutely are not universal across the world. It would perhaps appear then, that no, we're not living on the same 'very real planet' then... Or at the very least, we're experiencing that same real planet in vastly different ways.
As a born and educated Canadian now living in Europe, my reality is probably not the same as yours in the USA.
I for example, don't own a car, nor do I require one to live. Neither do my co-workers, my boss, my family, or my friends (although some of them do chose to have one). That doesn't make us particularily unique or special. In fact, for middle class people living in a medium-to-large city, that's actually quite normal.
However, there are of course additional barriers and additional cost of living considerations that are unique to our/my situation... Costs that you may or may not also face. Therefore, we have to look at our own situation, examine our own individual 'reality', and come up with a personal budget accordingly.
But really, that's all I was trying to say in the first place.
onthefence:
are you advocating eliminating college education? i think as a country, we should be making higher education more affordable and make it more rigorous, not eliminating it so that as a whole, people in america are a little bit less educated than the rest of the global labor pool...
the problem is the costs isn't it? and academic rigour... it's not that undergraduate and professional education is "a waste of time"... it seems to me that you are complaining based on your own personal grievances rather than looking for solutions...
just as a reference, i'm american, but i was educated in canada as a landed immigrant there... I'm hesitant to point out what my costs of schooling were relative to private schools in the states... needless to say, the *total costs* of a four year bachelors degree plus a 3.5 year master of architecture at a top school in canada costs *less than a single year of m arch* at most private american universities... furthermore, i'd be inclined to say that the *good canadian universities are as competitive or more competitive than the best schools in the states simply for the fact that they are made accessible* to all citizens, not just the wealthy priveleged who can afford to go there... you have more people competing for fewer positions, and acceptance is more dependant on performance than on willing accumulation of debt or independent wealth... we need an education system that promotes academic competitiveness, not debt accumulation...
after my undergraduate degree, when i was applying to architecture schools, i looked at the schools in the states, but didn't end up applying to any of them simply because it was ridiculously expensive... the good schools in the states were $20,000 to $30,000 (U.S.) or more PER YEAR of an M Arch... My M Arch tuition costs in Canada were $1,800 (CDN) per year... And no, I didn't leave out a zero there... I didn't want to rub this in, but I am just trying to point out the problem in the system here... Quite honestly, in Canada, the people who couldn't get into professional school in Canadian schools are the ones who would apply to U.S. schools as their backup and bite the bullet of tuition... American universities just seem RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE when you are coming from another country or state subsidized college...
Well maybe not always the case... For MBA's for example, I think the american schools would tend to attract the best students from canada... but for Medical school, Dentistry, Engineering, Architecture, Computer Science... I think the good schools in Canada are on par with the best in the States and maybe more competitive since they cost so much less... Just as I think some of the state schools in the US are more competitive than private universities...
I'm not talking down at provate american schools, the best schools in the States are probably better than Canadian schools... American schools have the best universities in the world and some of the best educators, the most money invested in the world in universities are in American universities... American private universities most definitely have alot more money than Canadian schools, but quite frankly, but it is the system that is messed up... It is a system where the *applicants (and therefore graduates)* are measured more by how much debt they can afford rather than primarily on their academic merit... And in the end, it's not how many elite starchitects teaching at your school that defines your education, it's how rigorous your students are, and how dedicated your tenured faculty are... Just my 2 cents...
brink,
"are you advocating eliminating college education? i think as a country, we should be making higher education more affordable and make it more rigorous, not eliminating it so that as a whole, people in america are a little bit less educated than the rest of the global labor pool..."
Have you been to Germany? You think a 30 year old living at home is bad in America? I've know 40 year old Germans stilll living at home who have masters and doctorates. This is not to bash Germans.
Maybe I'm grasping at straws here but once everybody has a bachelors, who then removes our garbage, cleans or septic tanks, so on and so forth. Answer? College educated garbage men and college educated septic tank cleaners. LEts not even get into window washers here.
Am I advocating eliminating higher education? No. But not all fields require higher education and some fields do not reguire higher higher education meaning the M.Arch. ANd yes I understand some people have a 4 year lib degree and then decided they spent dads money unwisely. Throwing good money after bad doesn't fix it.
brink,
we would have to change our tax laws to only pay what canadians pay and I don't feel like paying for everybody elses college tuition. Thanks but no.
I love Canada.
There is nothing wrong with canada. But by no means is that an endorsement either.
onthefence:
Okay fine, then don't complain then... From the sound of it, it's *not your problem* that the next generation of graduates cannot join the profession unless they are independently wealthy or ravaged by debt...
You are also exaggerating immensely here... Nobody here needs a bachelors degree to remove garbage, clean septic tanks, etc... On the other hand *maybe our B Eng graduates from US schools might engineer or R&D more efficient waste removal and recycling technologies and programs that make us more efficient, and more competitive in a global marketplace for resources and energy... So yeah, we WILL fall behind if we don't make education rigorous and competitive while countries like China are investing heavily in R&D and college education... Sellable technology is worth something and generates jobs...
/endrant
Sorry don't want to take this thread on a political tangent...
I love Denmark
Still going to need a street sweeper at the end of the day.
Do we pay him $8 per hour or $55 because he has a masters degree in civil waste management services?
Sorry onthefence: didn't mean to be sarcastic or antagonistic...
In Canada, not everybody goes to college... My point is not that everybody in Canada goes to college, but that most people *can* afford it if they have an ambition to and can get into the school... The limitation is on the number of places, so it is competitive, rather than there being an insurmountable $wealth$ barrier...
I would say that in Canada people who collect garabage don't go to college for the same reason that they don't here: they can make more money than an architect without spending the money and they probably don't have the interest or ambition to study architecture... If you'd like to be a garbage collector, you can do it, and make plenty of money doing it....
But in Canada the difference is: "alot of money" means less than $2,000 Canadian a year in tuition or maybe up to $4,600 per year in tuition at the most expensive school, vs. between $20,000 U.S. to $36,000 a year U.S. in tuition... Both are alot of money, it's just relative based on what people perceive as the expected cost of that education *should be*... If you don't think those tuition figures for a private university in the States is ridiculous, then go ahead and send your kids there...
All I am saying and every body here KNOWS it. You are not required nor do you actually need 7 years of higher education to perform architectural services from lets say basic level to lower high level. If there were such scales. Sure a person with a masters may be benificial to some firms, but certainly not all nor should we be striving to fill each seat in a firm with a guy with a masters. Clients might see that and realize that the prices at that firm will be way to high. You need draftsmen, projecy managers, senior architects as well as businessmen. Alll do not need an M.Arch
In other words, limit the number of seats at the school, and let people compete for those seats rather than making an innumerable number of seats and making them ridiculously expensive.
"In Canada, not everybody goes to college... My point is not that everybody in Canada goes to college, but that most people *can* afford it if they have an ambition to and can get into the school... The limitation is on the number of places, so it is competitive, rather than there being an insurmountable $wealth$ barrier..."
I was just typing the same thing.........I totally agree!
Every idiot here falls for the propaganda that college (huge debt) will make your lives easier, but that is far from the truth. Now you have every idiot going to college earning Barch, B.S. March. etc. etc. and making these degrees worthless even for the talent that hold those degrees.
Its not just Canada, its most of countries like that where the value of the degree is based on talent and not money. In the U.S. its the other way around. I'm not saying that there is no talent, the talent is there, but its dwarfed by the lack of talent with degrees.
"In other words, limit the number of seats at the school, and let people compete for those seats rather than making an innumerable number of seats and making them ridiculously expensive"
Its one or the other bRink.
I.e. society is going to have to come to grips with the reality that not everyone is actually equal in the end.
Sure "all men are CREATED equal" but this has obviously been taken out of context in contemporary society to justify lifting up the lazy, retarded liar at the expense of the industrious, honest genius.
Things will only keep worsening as long as this retardiculous zeitgeist concerning everybody being equal is permanently laid to rest (like six feet under).
WinstonSmith: the point is let the separation come from how rigorous and competitive a program is, rather than how rich or indebted a person is... This would actually produce a stronger labor pool through competition... I really wish more Republicans would go live in other countries and be open to solutions and recognize where the problems with our system are: in education, in health care, and in banking- the wreckless lending practices, think sensibly instead of primarily viewing through a lense of political fear mongering and ideologically driven motivations related to "what's in it for me"... The problem of indebtedness and financial wrecklessness in our country is a political and ideological game rather than smart investment... It makes us less competitive and economically poorer... We are in a competitive market but there are some aspects of governance where the market is actually skewed against competitiveness in a global labor pool, where we are promoting indebtedness and financial brokenness rather than success... Why make illogical ideological politics the focus over what works?! If more Americans would quit political gaming and open their eyes to how other countries are doing things, they might be more aware of just how we could make our systems better...
/endrant this is taking this off topic... Lets save it for another thread..
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.