I am a current MArch student and am wondering if employers at architectural firms ever ask for academic transcripts? How crucial are university grades to future careers? Please feel free to share your experience. Thanks.
grades only impact the references you get if you ask one of your profs. If you are applying to be an educator, some schools like getting transcripts with your CV.
Employers care about grades because frankly, every school may be different and who is to say what the difference between a C and a B is in different schools and with different professors...?
What they will care about is: do you have an accredditted degree, what does your portfolio look like? what level of proficiency do you have on subjects (your knowledge as is useful in practice)? what experience do you have? (design studios, what you've done in school, outside of the normal core curriculum), what work experience do you have in an office?, what have you built?, what detailing or working drawings can you show?, how articulate are you in talking about architecture as it is useful in practice?, what kinds of ideas do you have?, what awards have you gotten, what other interests do you have?, what kinds of studios did you take? (variety matters), have you passed your ARE's? Are you LEED? etc...
So *indirectly* your grade performance matters but only in so much as it is reflected in you as an individual, your knowledge and work, what you have done and can show for it...
Most of these things (including knowledge) will be assessed in an interview, and based on your resume and credentials...
If I were an employer hiring,, I would want to see their transcripts. Not that it’ll affect their chances but I just want to see what type of grades people are getting in certain classes. Just out of curiosity. It’ll be funny to hear them try to justify why they got a D or F in one class but everything else was B’s and A’s.
An interesting anecdote I once heard from one of the older guys at a firm (the semi-retired kind of older guys) was that the "A's" work for the "C's".
Meaning that the A-students tended to end up designing, but always working under the C-students who ended running the practice. He had this idea that the C-students who didn't get to design much ended up finding their way into the more business side of things and worked thier way into a principle position eventually. In the end with actually much more control over things like the direction of a firm, type of projects etc.
While not really always true, as this was his perpective on more corporate type of firms I always thought this to be an interesting position on the subject of what grades meant later on.
That been said, portfolio, personality, and past experience have always been at the top of any list of any employer I've interviewed for.
That is an apocryphal story told to make poor students feel better about themselves ;-)
Does anecdotal beat apocryphal?
For my classmates with A's back in grad school days, including myself, not a small number of them run own office. The C students dropped out of architecture, essentially. None of them are running an office. A few of them went on to be successful in other careers, but none of us A students are working for them...yet. who know, things might change. i would quite enjoy the irony of that if it did happen that way.
good grades are a result of ambition. ambitious people do well in whatever field. the non-ambitious don't. our society does not usually reward those who do not work hard...
C students end up in different positions because of their personal motivations.
For instance, most of the B and C students I know were people who were heavy partiers in school.
While other students were sacrificing their social lives to get As (this is not a 100% case but more of a gross generalization), the Bs and Cs were out doing all sorts of rotten, nasty things.
However, like any good addict knows, being a functional addict is key. You can't party if you can't stay in school. Vis-a-vis, functional addicts have a pretty good sense of what passable is and doing the passable amount in order to maintain their lifestyle.
This is why these people do good in business. It's not in terms of any philosophical or ethical mindset but in terms of self-preservation. There's a fine line here between self-medication and enjoyment. A true addict is an addict that is a noticeable addict.
It takes a lot of various learned and social skills to be an addict. If you think negotiating a contract is hard, try negotiating drug prices with an armed drug dealer in a parking lot at 3 am.
good grades are a result of ambition. ambitious people do well in whatever field. the non-ambitious don't. our society does not usually reward those who do not work hard...
I got good grades in HS because I was smart, not because I worked hard or was particularly ambitious. Because I was never challenged to work for that 'A' I picked up some really bad habits and ended up not doing so well in undergrad. I watched all the hard-working former B students surpass me in college, while I goofed off still thinking that I didn't need to study and could get by simply on my intelligence and dashing good looks like I did the first 18 years of my life.
after a couple years out of school I eventually learned that people wouldn't pay me for showing up and having a couple brilliant ideas per week - They wanted someone who gets things done.
IMO - people typically get good grades in higher ed not because they are geniuses - they just work harder and are better at managing their time than the rest of us. While I think employers typically do not look at grades, you really need to ask yourself if you have a strong enough work ethic to do well in this profession. if your poor grades are a result of slacking off, then chances are you are going to struggle until you can turn things around.
so B or C students get stuff done....well of course... that is YOUR job. You are supposed to get stuff done. While B or C students get stuff done, A students are more ambitious as you say and will show up with some brilliant ideas on top of what you are supposed to do. So that is where the difference is. Employers will notice that and they will know if you are an average student or an above average student that was getting A's.
Grades do show your work ethics, dedication, ambitions and also intelligence. Your grades are not shown to the employer but showing all those qualities while employed will conclude that that particular employee had good grades.
I agree with jump, that anecdote is false and it only makes those C students feel better. All my former and current principals graduated in top of their class and getting some 'bronze tablets' etc.
i don't think it matters per se as it rarely comes up. however, better students do tend to have better portfolios imho, and this does help with jobs. also, if you graduate with distinction or summa cum laude or whatever, this goes on your resume and is usually more impressive than not having it. i would also include academic related extra-curricular activity here.
Those who went to private high schools and cruised by doing the minimum end up doing similar things in private universities. We all know how much can go unnoticed to the professor, the grade-giving-God. Sometimes the archetypal 'A' student doesn't shine through because of time management or a disagreeing professor. If said prof relies heavily on the final critique for measurement... then may the fastest worker/pill popper win!
Also, professors who operate on the one A, two B+, three B-, 5 C+ model should be stripped of their degrees.
sometimes that is true 5percent, but if you are a poor student in every class in your university it is probably not the teacher's at fault ;-)
Although it could be, i admit - some brilliant people out there just don't fit academic settings. still, if they really are brilliant their portfolio or other work will make that clear. you know, they'll write a best-selling novel while still a student, or whatever...
there were a bunch of OMA adds a while back and they all asked applicants have a batch of awards in their pocket if they wanted to apply. I have this idea they didn't care about the actual awards, but did care about what the awards signify about personality and mental "type".
my office gets unsolicited applications for employment pretty constantly. grades are never in the CV's of course and i really don't care about that, but there is a visceral difference in the quality of work that comes in. Most of it is mediocre. Some of it is horrible. Then every once in awhile an amazing portfolio comes across our desk and my partner and i really really wish we had enough work going on to hire the person. as in on the spot, because the work is that good. i won't say there is a correlation to the work and the grades those folks had in school, but i bet i could pick out the C students and A students from the group...
not that that actually means anything. lots of academically dis-inclined millionaires out there.
before we get all american and distrustful of education though, there are lots of very well-educated rich folk too. jack welch for example, began his career at GE with a fresh phd in engineering.
poop - i was referring to the students who used to have to work hard for those 'A's in HS. Those are the kids that typically do well in college - those just at the cusp of getting the A. the kids who are used to showing up to class with no prep and still ace the exams are the ones who are going to struggle - probably not as long as I did, though...
also - while grades in higher ed are somewhat reflective of intelligence they are mostly about motivation, organization, and background (i.e. college prep and support) - even brilliant students can end up with poor grades for a number of reasons. I think the majority of people who reach higher ed are generally above average - just not all of them are equipped with the tools to succeed in that kind of environment.
plus - a high GPA doesn't mean you're going to get a brilliant designer - just a generally smart, motivated, hard worker.
jump - most of the well-educated folk in the states are in the higher-income bracket to begin with.
Solid point jump, every school operates differently. I know of some schools that only care about memorization and see things black-and-white. They are teaching architecture like it is a role playing game. I believe you have to confront and question to be innovative.
Alas, I am glad it is the portfolio which determines success in the industry. I have been building a portfolio since birth!
i mean north america really, cuz canada was just the same. sarah palin type thinking is so common in NA it is becoming an actual problem. very possibly i read too much thomas friedman, but what he says certainly jibes with my own experience.
In reviewing resumes and interviewing the last ten years I haven't seen anyone list a GPA less than a 3.3/4.0 - I have always assumed the higher grade "achievers" were bragging and the lower ones didn't want to mention it - either way, a GPA has never entered in our criteria when making a decision.
On the other hand, a well-known local or national scholarship or academic award will catch my eye and be discussed in an interview.
i always sort of thought that if you put your gpa on your resume it was because you didn't have much else to fall back on (ie you had good grades, thankfully! because you need that to help you look not as mediocre as you are)?
it always shocked/pissed me off while TAing (for grad students) that people would argue about points on homework assignments and grade grovel. and i'm not talking about students who were on the verge of failing, this always happened in the B+/A- range. aren't you over it by now? don't you realize that it's about learning content and not being quantitatively number one? plus, don't you have better things to do than worry about this stuff?
"don't you realize that it's about learning content and not being quantitatively number one? plus, don't you have better things to do than worry about this stuff?"
so how do you prove that you learned something?
When I TA's I loved hearing stories from the B or C student that exact statement. They always argued "Well but 'he' doesn't have a social life" or some stupid shit like that. They always loved looking for excuses why their C is the same as somebodys A or something.
If you are just as good as the A student, then prove it. If you are getting C's and not only studio but theory, structures, and you think you are just as good as the other and think that it's all about "learning content and not quantitatively number one" then how do you show that. You show it with dedication, hard work, intelligence and a grade shows that.
Mar 5, 10 7:17 pm ·
·
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.
Academic Grades and Career
I am a current MArch student and am wondering if employers at architectural firms ever ask for academic transcripts? How crucial are university grades to future careers? Please feel free to share your experience. Thanks.
not important to job directly unless intending to pursue things further in academia.
indirectly, the awards and so on that come from the same work that leads to good grades can be significant. in that sense yes grades matter.
I have never heard of grades being a determining factor in being hired.
A friend of mine who had a miserable thesis was hired right out of school to do renderings for some of the best firms in the city.
Like they say: C's get degrees.
thats why hes doing renderings!!
grades only impact the references you get if you ask one of your profs. If you are applying to be an educator, some schools like getting transcripts with your CV.
Maybe emplyoers understand what was or was not taught in school. Therefor, why should they care.
Employers care about grades because frankly, every school may be different and who is to say what the difference between a C and a B is in different schools and with different professors...?
What they will care about is: do you have an accredditted degree, what does your portfolio look like? what level of proficiency do you have on subjects (your knowledge as is useful in practice)? what experience do you have? (design studios, what you've done in school, outside of the normal core curriculum), what work experience do you have in an office?, what have you built?, what detailing or working drawings can you show?, how articulate are you in talking about architecture as it is useful in practice?, what kinds of ideas do you have?, what awards have you gotten, what other interests do you have?, what kinds of studios did you take? (variety matters), have you passed your ARE's? Are you LEED? etc...
So *indirectly* your grade performance matters but only in so much as it is reflected in you as an individual, your knowledge and work, what you have done and can show for it...
Most of these things (including knowledge) will be assessed in an interview, and based on your resume and credentials...
Sorry... I meant to say "Employers *don't* care about grades... because every school and professor is different"...
It would be basically impossible to judge what a C in one school means compared to a B in another school... Or an A vs. B in another school...
If I were an employer hiring,, I would want to see their transcripts. Not that it’ll affect their chances but I just want to see what type of grades people are getting in certain classes. Just out of curiosity. It’ll be funny to hear them try to justify why they got a D or F in one class but everything else was B’s and A’s.
An interesting anecdote I once heard from one of the older guys at a firm (the semi-retired kind of older guys) was that the "A's" work for the "C's".
Meaning that the A-students tended to end up designing, but always working under the C-students who ended running the practice. He had this idea that the C-students who didn't get to design much ended up finding their way into the more business side of things and worked thier way into a principle position eventually. In the end with actually much more control over things like the direction of a firm, type of projects etc.
While not really always true, as this was his perpective on more corporate type of firms I always thought this to be an interesting position on the subject of what grades meant later on.
That been said, portfolio, personality, and past experience have always been at the top of any list of any employer I've interviewed for.
That is an apocryphal story told to make poor students feel better about themselves ;-)
Does anecdotal beat apocryphal?
For my classmates with A's back in grad school days, including myself, not a small number of them run own office. The C students dropped out of architecture, essentially. None of them are running an office. A few of them went on to be successful in other careers, but none of us A students are working for them...yet. who know, things might change. i would quite enjoy the irony of that if it did happen that way.
good grades are a result of ambition. ambitious people do well in whatever field. the non-ambitious don't. our society does not usually reward those who do not work hard...
D is for Diploma.
That anecdote has a grain of truth.
C students end up in different positions because of their personal motivations.
For instance, most of the B and C students I know were people who were heavy partiers in school.
While other students were sacrificing their social lives to get As (this is not a 100% case but more of a gross generalization), the Bs and Cs were out doing all sorts of rotten, nasty things.
However, like any good addict knows, being a functional addict is key. You can't party if you can't stay in school. Vis-a-vis, functional addicts have a pretty good sense of what passable is and doing the passable amount in order to maintain their lifestyle.
This is why these people do good in business. It's not in terms of any philosophical or ethical mindset but in terms of self-preservation. There's a fine line here between self-medication and enjoyment. A true addict is an addict that is a noticeable addict.
It takes a lot of various learned and social skills to be an addict. If you think negotiating a contract is hard, try negotiating drug prices with an armed drug dealer in a parking lot at 3 am.
It's all about who you know, how well you can render, and if you know revit.
no no, isn't about revit at all. it is about whether you were good enough to get a job with goldman sachs.
I got good grades in HS because I was smart, not because I worked hard or was particularly ambitious. Because I was never challenged to work for that 'A' I picked up some really bad habits and ended up not doing so well in undergrad. I watched all the hard-working former B students surpass me in college, while I goofed off still thinking that I didn't need to study and could get by simply on my intelligence and dashing good looks like I did the first 18 years of my life.
after a couple years out of school I eventually learned that people wouldn't pay me for showing up and having a couple brilliant ideas per week - They wanted someone who gets things done.
IMO - people typically get good grades in higher ed not because they are geniuses - they just work harder and are better at managing their time than the rest of us. While I think employers typically do not look at grades, you really need to ask yourself if you have a strong enough work ethic to do well in this profession. if your poor grades are a result of slacking off, then chances are you are going to struggle until you can turn things around.
toasteroven,
so B or C students get stuff done....well of course... that is YOUR job. You are supposed to get stuff done. While B or C students get stuff done, A students are more ambitious as you say and will show up with some brilliant ideas on top of what you are supposed to do. So that is where the difference is. Employers will notice that and they will know if you are an average student or an above average student that was getting A's.
Grades do show your work ethics, dedication, ambitions and also intelligence. Your grades are not shown to the employer but showing all those qualities while employed will conclude that that particular employee had good grades.
I agree with jump, that anecdote is false and it only makes those C students feel better. All my former and current principals graduated in top of their class and getting some 'bronze tablets' etc.
i don't think it matters per se as it rarely comes up. however, better students do tend to have better portfolios imho, and this does help with jobs. also, if you graduate with distinction or summa cum laude or whatever, this goes on your resume and is usually more impressive than not having it. i would also include academic related extra-curricular activity here.
its your personality that will get you far not grades.
Those who went to private high schools and cruised by doing the minimum end up doing similar things in private universities. We all know how much can go unnoticed to the professor, the grade-giving-God. Sometimes the archetypal 'A' student doesn't shine through because of time management or a disagreeing professor. If said prof relies heavily on the final critique for measurement... then may the fastest worker/pill popper win!
Also, professors who operate on the one A, two B+, three B-, 5 C+ model should be stripped of their degrees.
sometimes that is true 5percent, but if you are a poor student in every class in your university it is probably not the teacher's at fault ;-)
Although it could be, i admit - some brilliant people out there just don't fit academic settings. still, if they really are brilliant their portfolio or other work will make that clear. you know, they'll write a best-selling novel while still a student, or whatever...
there were a bunch of OMA adds a while back and they all asked applicants have a batch of awards in their pocket if they wanted to apply. I have this idea they didn't care about the actual awards, but did care about what the awards signify about personality and mental "type".
my office gets unsolicited applications for employment pretty constantly. grades are never in the CV's of course and i really don't care about that, but there is a visceral difference in the quality of work that comes in. Most of it is mediocre. Some of it is horrible. Then every once in awhile an amazing portfolio comes across our desk and my partner and i really really wish we had enough work going on to hire the person. as in on the spot, because the work is that good. i won't say there is a correlation to the work and the grades those folks had in school, but i bet i could pick out the C students and A students from the group...
not that that actually means anything. lots of academically dis-inclined millionaires out there.
before we get all american and distrustful of education though, there are lots of very well-educated rich folk too. jack welch for example, began his career at GE with a fresh phd in engineering.
I worked for a D student turned principal. He didn't last though.
poop - i was referring to the students who used to have to work hard for those 'A's in HS. Those are the kids that typically do well in college - those just at the cusp of getting the A. the kids who are used to showing up to class with no prep and still ace the exams are the ones who are going to struggle - probably not as long as I did, though...
also - while grades in higher ed are somewhat reflective of intelligence they are mostly about motivation, organization, and background (i.e. college prep and support) - even brilliant students can end up with poor grades for a number of reasons. I think the majority of people who reach higher ed are generally above average - just not all of them are equipped with the tools to succeed in that kind of environment.
plus - a high GPA doesn't mean you're going to get a brilliant designer - just a generally smart, motivated, hard worker.
jump - most of the well-educated folk in the states are in the higher-income bracket to begin with.
Solid point jump, every school operates differently. I know of some schools that only care about memorization and see things black-and-white. They are teaching architecture like it is a role playing game. I believe you have to confront and question to be innovative.
Alas, I am glad it is the portfolio which determines success in the industry. I have been building a portfolio since birth!
?
The ultimate pejorative?
and a heartfelt pejorative it is citizen.
i mean north america really, cuz canada was just the same. sarah palin type thinking is so common in NA it is becoming an actual problem. very possibly i read too much thomas friedman, but what he says certainly jibes with my own experience.
In reviewing resumes and interviewing the last ten years I haven't seen anyone list a GPA less than a 3.3/4.0 - I have always assumed the higher grade "achievers" were bragging and the lower ones didn't want to mention it - either way, a GPA has never entered in our criteria when making a decision.
On the other hand, a well-known local or national scholarship or academic award will catch my eye and be discussed in an interview.
i always sort of thought that if you put your gpa on your resume it was because you didn't have much else to fall back on (ie you had good grades, thankfully! because you need that to help you look not as mediocre as you are)?
it always shocked/pissed me off while TAing (for grad students) that people would argue about points on homework assignments and grade grovel. and i'm not talking about students who were on the verge of failing, this always happened in the B+/A- range. aren't you over it by now? don't you realize that it's about learning content and not being quantitatively number one? plus, don't you have better things to do than worry about this stuff?
"plus, don't you have better things to do than worry about this stuff?"
some people simply do not. it worries me.
"don't you realize that it's about learning content and not being quantitatively number one? plus, don't you have better things to do than worry about this stuff?"
so how do you prove that you learned something?
When I TA's I loved hearing stories from the B or C student that exact statement. They always argued "Well but 'he' doesn't have a social life" or some stupid shit like that. They always loved looking for excuses why their C is the same as somebodys A or something.
If you are just as good as the A student, then prove it. If you are getting C's and not only studio but theory, structures, and you think you are just as good as the other and think that it's all about "learning content and not quantitatively number one" then how do you show that. You show it with dedication, hard work, intelligence and a grade shows that.
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.