as a current undergrad who'll be graduating next year with a BA, I'm slowly coming to the point to decide what to do with the rest of my life. You've probably gotten the vibe by now that I'm considering an MArch but I most certainly feel that I personally do not know enough about the profession to make such a life affirming choice. I've been a lurker on these forums for awhile and it seems that rarely anybody has anything good to say about their career choice which really seems to be a big downer for the prospective student. Is there anybody on these forums who wakes up every morning and actually looks forward to going to work? Is the private industry really in such a diluted state? If so, what about the academia side of things? They say that private practice always places practicality over anything remotely new or innovative. I believe an MArch is usually only required to hold a academia position so would this be considered a decent alternative to slaving yourself to firms? Typically what does research in the architecture field revolve around in? Would it be a lot more forward thinking and exciting compared to the mundanity of the workplace? Does it usually have better design opportunities, salaries and/or working hours?
which brings me to my next point. my other concern is life/work balance.. usually do you find the time to engage in activities outside of work? if i do decide to pursue working in the private sector how many hours a week should i be expecting to work? (provided i'm somewhere in the northeast, if that even makes a difference)
oh and out of interest, if you had the opportunity to go back to the day when you decide to choose pursue architecture would you stick with it?
To go into academia is only feasible if you are a graduate of one of the handful of schools that delivers the theoretical edicts to the doting masses of academia (Harvard, etc. count on one hand).
Avoid Architecture and the typical path that it takes. It is literally one of the worst investments you can make. Oh did I say investment? that would imply a reasonable chance of a reasonable return.
If you have a rich uncle or a special contact in the corporate world who will funnel you projects for the rest of your life, then it still might be a viable path.
So, if you are about 2% of the typical population of future architects I'd say go for it.
Architects are making less and less money every year and the profession is getting squeezed from every direction including internally (AIA & NCARB).
An MArch was officially worth 35K on the open market BEFORE the economic crash. They never showed me that info in the AIA Compensation Report until I had "invested" 120k in getting an MArch. I don't have even half of that in student loans but still, my money would have been much better leveraged in just about anything, including engineering.
I have a friend who graduated from eng undergrad the same time I graduated from arch undergrad. He went to work making 57K/year and I stayed in school pumping more money down the blackhole for two additional years. Now, 8 years after we both graduated undergrad, he is making 6 figures and he's a licensed P.E. I am a licensed Architect and I'm still not even worth 55K on the open market. I will bet that if I begged, borrowed and stole right now I'd be lucky to find a drafting job for 30K.
Basically, the profession is setup to cause the younger set to be "indentured servants". This is how one of my rich uncle developer describes the current state of the profession for those under 55 years old. And, no he doesn't funnel me any projects, though I obviously wish he'd send me an RFP on a skyscraper of his or two.
Unless you want to teach full time, don't bother with the March. Assuming your Bachelor is a professional (5 year) degree, that is. You need to have a degree that at least lets you become licensed. For the colleges around here, many of the adjunct professors only have a bachelor of architecture and teach part time. The full time prof's are few and far between in architecture, and are much more research oriented.
i still enjoy the practice of architecture. I do get frustrated with the running the business part, like all the HR issues, but that would be true in any field I think. If I was a doctor I probably would still like the medicine part but hate the insurance companies and issues with the hospitals trying to run the practice.
When we hire, we pay no more for a March than a Barch. The experience and the skills of the person matter much more.
Life work balance: expect to put in 40 to 45 hours a week when you start. If you own a firm or become a manager, you will work more, probably 45 to 50 hours a week. This is a lot less than most doctors and lawyers put in. If you start your own firm, you have the ultimate control over your work / life balance. I raised kids, volunteered, went to soccer games, etc no problem while working as an architect and starting my own firm. When I started my own firm, I put in a zillion hours to get it up and running- something like 60 hours a week for a couple of years, but most of the time was in the evening working at home after my kids went to bed.
You can make a decent living, and you do not have to have a rich uncle. You need to have business sense, and excellent skills as an architect, and you need to be able to sell your services. In ANY profession, if you are an employee, your income will be more limited than if you start your own SUCCESSFUL firm. That is true in so many other professions: if you work as a professor at a university, you are going to have a limited income: what the college pays. You would have to own your intellectual property to make real money: write a book, invent a process, design a product. You WILL NOT make a fortune just starting out. You will not be an indentured servant, but you have lots and lots to learn before you can expect to get registered, manage significant projects, and earn a significant salary. That will be limited too unless you get into the ownership of a firm. There are risks to this, which is why there also need to be financial rewards.
Some great advice here. If you really love architecture from the bottom of your heart, go for it.
Architecture school was some of the best times in my life. Sadly I can't say the same about practicing. If you're one of those people who live for it, you'll be fine no matter what. If you have doubts then you'll be faced with reality when you're in your 30s and your peers in other fields are making a comfortable living while you continue to be underpaid.
I personally have other priorities in life than slaving for a firm and wasting my youth. Too many egos involved and too few returns.
this field was a natural fit for me. i enjoyed the education (BArch & MArch from first-rate schools, both valuable experiences, whatever you eventually decide to do in life--i say get the grad degree) and i enjoy the work (even when it's modest and not super-glamorous) as long as it's fundamentally design work that engages my mind. (put me in a room doing someone else's drafting or doing other mind-numbingly boring work and i will, quite seriously, start to suffocate.) i was trained as a visual artist and was never in it for the piles of money, and i do ok, though the work-to-pay ratio in this profession is seriously embarrassing. in other words, i'm pretty happy with what i do.
that said, this profession has a LOT of problems. i'll try to quickly list a few here that others may not have mentioned--again, just one person's experience.
1. identity crisis--anyone expecting to work in a 'profession' like law or medicine, where they are respected, well-compensated, and find it experientially rewarding will probably be disappointed. the amount of education, work experience required, and the obstacles that ncarb and the states put in your way (not to mention the cost of all that!) are in NO way commensurate to the opportunities that this profession offers at this time. even established architects have a really hard time getting and keeping good quality work...most work available is of the formulaic, cookie-cutter crap variety. quality work also takes time and costs money. many firms go the 'efficient' route, and cut a lot of this out --> more formulaic cookie-cutter crap.
2. the jobs that pay well are probably not what you thought you'd be doing--management, highly-skilled technical detailing, etc. if this is up your alley, great! if not, just know that enthusiastic young designers are a dime a dozen. it might be a slog for a while.
3. sexism and other forms of internal bullshit - in many circles, this is still fundamentally the construction industry.
4. the work-life balance thing is an affectation of the profession. if you do good, consistent work and know how to say no, that will take you farther than you think. there are some firms you really should stay away from. i'd say 40-50 hours a week, and be flexible at deadlines. (don't let anyone convince you EVERY day is a deadline.)
5.'work inflation' - a lot of hype goes into what is published. keep in mind that competitions are 'working for free' and are fundamentally a gamble (though a fun one at times, of course) and that a lot of the good projects you see took a lot more money & time from their architects (&their staff) than they gave back. many architects essentially work like artists.
6. teaching is fun, and extremely rewarding. downside = academic politics.
pick the people you choose to work with carefully, love the work, and you'll be fine. otherwise, something else may appeal to you more. good luck!
i got the impression that you were less familiar with the profession than i think some of the other people thought... i'd recommend this book
i read it when i was already well down this path, but it was pretty accurate and realistic
i think a lot of us make it out to seem like a terrible lifestyle, either the money, or the hours, or the boring jobs. but it's not really all bad. it's a career with a wide variety of opportunities and niches. and really it's a job, you've got to take the obligations with the rewards.
Postal: That book talks about the profession with kiddie gloves. It is less than useful.
If you want a REAL understanding, expose, empirically factual book check out Dana Cuff's empirically researched, authoritative book titled, "Architecture: The Story of Practice".
Cuff takes the gloves off and lets the dirt fly.
Also, equally as indispensable is obtaining copy of the latest AIA Compensation Report. Its kind of top secret but where there is a will, there is a way in the age of the internet.
Don't buy the book postal linked above...its a misleading, kiddie glove treatment of the profession designed to enrich just another FAIA tool because a lot of accredited arch programs (like the undergrad one I attended) make it a required "textbook" in accredited classes.
But it is not a serious book its full of marketing goopy, sappy, soft answers that ends up making a lot of vapid excuses for the profession and leaves a lot of hard questions left unanswered. Its total crap and a waste of time and money.
haha, all right. well, i certainly didn't mean to insult your intelligence winston. jiashik, you should get cuff's book like winston says. that is really the only answer. with that book and a little luck, you'll be ncarb certified in 11 years.
If you have an accredited degree I wouldn't worry about the m.arch or about teaching. There are very few full time professors.
You won't be rich, but architects make a comfortable living and are well respected by the public. If you must compare yourself to doctors and lawyers remember that most work insane hours.
After 10 years I think the average architect's salary is 70-80,000.
Not great, but pretty good. Its all in your perspective.
I work for a very large firm, large firms and those in the north east generally pay better than most.
I've heard that interns in NYC are a dime a dozen and paid about that way.
Polyhedron. I vote for you, ignored you, believed you, intrigued you.
I vote for you, ignored you, believed you, intrigued you.
I vote for you, ignored you but never received you.
Polyhedron. Things were different. Simple. Like a Jewel. We were close but die now. It has kept us away. I have given up now. It is time for some change.
I posted this in another thread but I have lost money for 2 years now. That means negative architectural income. Just remember if your on your own, you need to be capable of eating it sometimes and have other income. Its a brutal business to be in. It can be rewarding for the individual practitioner if they have the right mindset. There is no school or training that can teach you how to survive in the jungle economy.
Well normally I would recommend you take some time off from school and get some work experience so you can decide if pursuing the graduate degree is really the right decision. But since the only hope of finding a job right now is to apply for internship positions that are way below my experience and skill level I don't think I want to encourage yet another person to enter into the already crowded job pool.
thanks for all the input so far.. i've read somewhere that expected salaries for MArchs in the Northeast are on average $48,000 as of 2010. is this pure optimistic hogwash? The BLS page on architecture also seems to paint a rather bright future for the profession:
it just seems weird that everyone on the forum is complaining about having it tough but just from judging from these sources the situation doesn't look as bad as people make it out to be.. any comments on this?
$48,000 for a starting salary for an MArch seems pretty high for right now
I dont know how much i would trust that number
I am in philly, and starting salaries are not near that high
though if you have steady work in a firm with a registered architect, it should take you 3-4 years to complete your IDP. I know the horror stories of the past, but starting now, it should be really streamlined and easy to complete them and get everything "official" to sit for your exams.
I don't see how your 3-4 year rule works. A ton of people, maybe even 2 tons of people, are out of work. Those who have work, are either reduced in hours or are getting paid for 40 hours but only actually working half of that. Knocking out the IDP requirements, if you are being honest about them, would take a person in a good firm 5 or more years to get through during an economic boom time. Today we aren't even close to a boom time.
"though if you have STEADY work in a firm with a registered architect"
And your statement that those who have work are working reduced hours is not a blanket statement true for everyone. I have been working full time for the past 4 years with only a 2 month unemployment break
As is your statement about it taking 5 years during an economic boom time, as i completed mine in 3.5 years and was honest about them
Whatever. It isn't like I haven't gone through the process myself. It isn't like I watched people lie about their experiance in order to be able to take their exams.
What do I know? Right? Yeah, sure there are some people who can actually do it in 3 yeras, but this is not the norm. NOT. It may be the norm for those people who fill out their forms though.
There is no reason to assume that what you have seen means everyone does it that way
Of course some people lie about their hours, just as some architects sign off on them to get another licensed architect in their office quicker.
But i would say a main reason it takes young architects a while to get their IDP complete is laziness on their own part for not taking care of their own career. They are not vocal if their hours arent being fulfilled at their job, and they do not keep track of things accurately enough, then send in 3 years worth of hours all at once and complain that it is other people's fault when it is not accepted.
My point is that all you need to do is actually fill out your forms and you can get it done in a reasonable amount of time.
But to throw out blanket statements like that is flat out wrong and is not true for everyone
It could be the norm if architects would take responsibilty for their own careers rather than sitting around complaining about it and blaming others
I think my main point would be that an inerns first three years and maybe longer are spent primarily on CD's an other more mundane tasks, and they should be. School did not do enough to prepare you to understand how buildings work, so you need to learn this on the job and it takes a lot of hours. It is only after that point you really start to accumulate hours towards certain other IDP catagories that most firms, wouldn't likely get you based on your lack of general experiance.
But I would hate to throw out generalities and blanket statements when I know those could never be used to define your path.
Maybe a few others know of what I am referring to.
I agree that coming out of school an intern is not fully prepared, that is another discussion on how well schools prepare young architects for the real world
I just see no reason why an intern has to wait until he has spent 3 years or longer or whatever it would be before they can start accumulating their IDP hours
I'd argue that a more balanced exposure to all the categories of IDP would be more benefitial to someone with less experience, as you then see the entire process. Rather than spending 3 years on the drawing aspect and never going out into the field, seeing the actual product being produced and the knowledge that comes from working with a contractor and being on a construction site goes hand in hand with being able to perform the mundane tasks and working on CD's.
I think you actually have a much quicker learning curve if you experience everything, rather than just part of it to begin with. You will be able to produce a CD set much better if you have some experience in the field, so why hold off on that?
That would be true, if it were the way firms were set up. Again, in general terms, they are not. A few may be but the majority are not and the people who work for these firms, the other 98%, will require 5-10 years of exposure in order for them to take their exams.
Is that right? For me right and wrong are not the question here but rather how much ttime you actually need to get the actual exposure for the requisite amount of time to test.
I dont know what you mean by how firms are set up. I have worked for a 300 person firm and smaller ones as well. In all of them, if the intern speaks up (I am speaking of my personal experience), chances are, unless everyone in that firm is a jerk, they will at least try and accomodate you. Obviously some firms arent able to devote resources to make sure an intern finishes his IDP hours in the minimum amount of time possible, but I find it hard to believe that they would be so unreasonable that they would not work with their staff to help them become a more complete employee
Of course in these tough economic times, this may be harder. But if an intern makes it known that he is working to complete his IDP hours, and tracks them himself to know where he needs to improve and gain more experience, then those above him will work with him to at least give him a bit of that needed time. Perhaps its taking them along on some construction meetings, letting them sit in on a meeting with a client, etc
I think where our opinions differ is that you say its how firms are set up. I say it is the responsibility of the intern to know exactly what he needs to complete and work towards that
5 years i dont think is that bad, but it really should be a lot closer to 5 years than 10.
The key to the arch. profession is to get licensed quickly. Forget any advice your given....Take the tests as quickly as possible and do whatever it takes to get your license fast. Work experience is not going to help you on the tests...Buy the study guides, flash cards and take the exams.
It is entirelly possiblie to finish all of your ARE's within 3 years of graduation. And, you absolutly do NOT need to have your IDP finished to start. Florida and Texas will let you start taking the ARE's through their state board without having your IDP finished.
The best part is that you can take the tests through a different state board LOCALLY. The only difference is that your test results come mailed from another state.
I finished all divisions of the ARE, got licensed and have more than doubled my salary since I graduated in 2003.
Architecture is not all bad - just understand that in the 'real world' design is less than 10% of what you'll spend your time on. Searching the UL book, pestering mechanical engineers to fix their dates on their title blocks, etc. will occupy more of your time than you would suspect.
Also, be very careful who you work for. Many people I know have had their view of the profession jaded by a few bad employers.
Look at the segments of the profession where there has historically been stability: Healthcare, Higher ED, Labs.
while i have no doubt that the average time an intern takes to complete their IDP could be 10 years, I find it very hard to believe that that in large part, is not the intern's own fault.
the amount of hours required to complete the IDP requirements is roughly 3 years worth of hours. Obviously that isnt going to just be the first 3 years of work for everyone right out of school.
But for it to take over triple the amount of time? A large part of the blame for that most likely falls on the intern for not keeping their career in order. Your boss doesnt track your hours for you, you have to let them know what you still need.
If you dont speak up about it, how will they know? And why would they take more responsibility for your own career than you do?
The AIA isnt lying when they say it takes 3 years. They are just saying how many hours are required. An architect needs to take responsibility for himself and stop blaming others
"The average time for completion of IDP is 10.5 years (for those that actually finish at least)."
If you work in an architectural firm for 10.5 years and dont finish your IDP hours in that amount of time, you have absolutely no one else to blame except yourself
look, I don't want to be a jerk about this, but what's with this "spoon fed" attitude here? Where is it written that firms suffer under some affirmative obligation to organize their entire operation to accommodate your individual need to meet your IDP requirements in the minimum amount of time. It's not "their" license -- it's "your" license.
I agree with marmkid above -- most firms will try to be as accommodating as they can to help interns make progress towards licensure. But, more often than not, interns demonstrate little initiative to make that progress. When the intern doesn't care, the firm isn't likely to step in to fill the gap in ambition.
Our firm actually is quite active in encouraging, and helping, young professionals to pass the ARE. We have a good track record in that regard. But, the most enlightened, most self-motivated interns are the ones who make the quickest progress ... ala marlowe's comments above. We've had quite a few complete the ARE in less than 4-years. However, we see way too many who have no motivation in this regard at all. Those are the one's who push up the average WinstonSmith references in his post.
Is there anybody on these forums who wakes up every morning and actually looks forward to going to work?
Yes and no. Depends on what project I'm currently working, etc. Remember that most people don't like what they do to make a living. Have countless friends that make much more $$$ than I do but complain equally as much about their jobs and buy lotto tickets hoping for an easy way out.
Is the private industry really in such a diluted state?
Absolutely yes, at least right now. This economy has been especially harsh to our field. If the average job opening has 30 people applying, the average architecture opening would have over 100 people applying. There is massive, and I mean MASSIVE O-V-E-R-S-U-P-P-L-Y of professionals at all levels of the architecture industry right now.
They say that private practice always places practicality over anything remotely new or innovative.
Some old timers are stuck in their way, but my experience has shown that the contractors (and owners) are more resistant to new and innovative design/materials/construction. Oh, and these things usually cost money too, which is the #1 killer of "fun" in this profession. If every client had a limitless budget this would be the best job in the world.
usually do you find the time to engage in activities outside of work?
Over the past year-and-a-half I sure have. Reduced pay and hours leaves for a lot of free time. The alternative is that when times are good a 50 hour week isn't uncommon and at deadline/crunch time that can go much higher. For example, in 2007 I had about 500 hours of OT. That averages about 50 hrs/wk but since I did have some 40/hr weeks there is a ebb and flow that does leave some free time.
if you had the opportunity to go back to the day when you decide to choose pursue architecture would you stick with it?
That's a tough question for me because I have so many interests outside of Architecture. Since I want to go into management, in Architecture or otherwise, I'm wishing that I would've got a business degree. Given the current state of the industry I'm really wishing I had something else to fall back on. So yes, I would do something different given what I know today. Then again, economy improves and I get an awesome client/project, that answer could easily change.
Everyone always loves to beat up on the wages/salaries in this profession. That's a real issue as we are not paid a comparible salary to our engineering counterparts, when in fact the architect typically manages/runs the project. That IMO is a travesty of the profession. And, any downturn in the economy puts major downward pressure on wages. But, if you don't get yourself into crazy debt you can live a modest middle class lifestyle on an Architect's salary. Principal/Partner level people do ok, but are not typically the millionaires that interns like to make them out to be.
Now if you look at the truly wealthy and see how they made their money - most of them started a business of some sort. Missing from the list are people who start very successful Architecture firms. Truth be told, this just isn't a highly profitable profession. So, if you goal in life is to be on the Forbes richest people list, look elsewhere.
It took me 10 years to get licensed from when I set up my NCARB file and I accept complete responsibility for how long it took. Like marmkid and others are saying, I was just lazy about it - oh, and I spent three years in grad school during that time (I had a BArch so I set my file up after getting just my undergrad degree). Finally my firm had to offer to pay for the exams and study guides for a few of the experienced interns because they wanted to make us associates but the firm bylaws required us to be licensed first. We were just happily working feeling like the license wasn't hat big a deal. Now I shave it I understand how important and awesome it is.
Now if you've graduated and been doing exclusively renderings for a year or two, yeah, it's going to take longer than three years to complete your requirements. But go ahead and set up your NCARB file, tell your firm you need more exposure to other aspects of practice, request reviews with your NCARB paperwork in hand to show them you really want to get the license done, etc. be proactive and somewhat aggressive and there is no way it will take you ten years.
I have found that firms will go a little out of their way to help a motivated intern reach their IDP goals, meaning if in this bad economy, you are kind of forced to work on only one specific task just to help keep the company afloat, but make it known to those above you that you are still working towards your IDP hours and are low in certain areas, they will do what they can to help you. i.e. take you to a construction site every now and then even if you arent needed there for the project, but just to give you some exposure
If an intern doesnt track their hours and doesnt know what they still need, why would a firm bother to do their work for them?
A lot of times, it seems those that complain about their IDP hours taking forever are the ones who decide to track years at a time at once and realize they havent had a balanced workload. They then complain about how their bosses only have them work on specific tasks.
Your firms' job isnt to get you licensed. But if you are reasonable with them and do your part, it wont take you forever. Why on earth architects expect others to do it for them is beyond me
Nice post, aquapura, I agree with just about all of it.
And yes, jiashik, I wake up every day happy to do the work I do. I love being an architect. Granted, my personality and worldview are such that I imagine I'd find fun and a good side in whatever job I had to wake up and do, but I do honestly feel lucky every day to be in this profession.
I definitely wake up every day happy to do this kind of work
with regards to the question about hours expected....i am in philly, work a 40 work week and not much more is expected really
occasionally with a deadline, there will be a week or so of extra time to put in, but i have rarely seen anything go over a 60 week
If this kind of work is fun for you, it definitely is the right field for you. If it's not fun, you probably shouldnt do it, as the other benefits of this career are not enough to overcome it not being fun, in my opinion. That is a huge benefit to going into this profession, that not everyone would really get (as there is no reason it should be fun for everyone)
The AIA Compensation report pegged a graduate with an MArch as being worth 34,000/year. That was BEFORE the current meltdown.
The national AIA perhaps doesn't lie TECHNICALLY, in the same way that so many lawyers don't "technically" lie. On this website, cosponsored by the AIA and linked with the AIA.org website is duplicitous in the wording, at best:
And I have caught at least one state AIA component outright lying about the 3 years. See here under "AIA CT Careers and Licensure brochure" and go to page 2:
Oh and by the way, if anyone has a little "friend" at the CT AIA who they are calling at this moment to alert them to their fraud, not to worry I have archived a copy of their little careers and licensure "brochure".
In case anyone needs to locate it post removal in the future I should still be checking this email address at [email protected] I will help you locate a copy.
Are you really that infected with a need to have a lawyer tell you what something says that you can't understand what you are reading?
*SIGH* fine, I'll so the thinking for you and spoonfeed your brain. Not that you'll be able to appreciate it but what the heck I'll try.
Path One states 5 + 3<. The 3 is the lie. Path Two states 4 + 2 + 3<. Again, the 3 is the lie.
The brochure says, including, but not necessarily limited to:
"Path One 5 + 3
Complete a professional degree in Architecture from a NAAB college program. This is usually a 5-year Bachelor of Architecture Degree. [Here comes the LIE] Then complete the Intern Development Program (IDP)...Upon completion of your degree and IDP you are qualified to take the Architectural Registration Examination."
Note: Last time I checked its not the "Architectural" Registration Examination either. That is an important distinction as the term "Architectural" is used in many states by non licensed individuals and companies all the time.
It says 4+3+2 (or 9) to qualify for the AREs if you go the Master's route. They also say you can do IDP if you go the B.Arch route in 8 years (5+3). The fact is unless you live in one of the states that allows you circumvent that clause, you'll always need an education.
Even then, education is kind of assumed here... so it is possible to do it in 3 years if you have a willing employer who is ready to work out a perfect schedule to enable you to get your license.
So, you can only point a half a finger here since there are two halves to the whole-- the Board and the Man (your boss).
Technically, I think they should be having some sort of "emergency" program going on to enable more people to take part of IDP right now. With the recession, lack of jobs and people moving out the recession... they opening up a liability to have a massive shortage of licensed professionals in a decade. That would ultimately lead to a lack of diversity in the workforce and the ability for abuse to arise from having a limited amount of licensed individuals.
Yeah, montagneux...just what the profession needs right now...MORE licensed Architects who can't find work...sheesh how freaking stupid are you people?
Are you really that infected with a need to have a lawyer tell you what something says that you can't understand what you are reading?"
wow, is there really any need to get so worked up over a simple question?
And here is the best part:
the 3 is not a lie, no matter how much you disagree with it
sigh...Why is this so hard to understand?
if you want to say they shouldnt use the term "architectural" that way, fine, i can agree with you on that if we need to get so incredibly technical about a brochure.
No offense, but i was asking you to just elaborate on your links you posted, as i dont have time to disect them beyond a quick read.
Not to spit in the face of architectural professionals everywhere...
But it doesn't seem like many of them are doing their job right. And by that I mean if you were actually doing your job right, you wouldn't be out of work.
It's almost like we need a Gordon Ramsey of architecture to start going around and screaming at people to change how they operate their firm.
That's the short of it. If the information preached by so many architects and schools was so right... perhaps there wouldn't be as big of a crisis? But that. itself, is a pretty unfair generalization since probably less than 15% of the architectural workforce could be considered 'executive level.'
I know it is a 'nother topic but there's some relation there. Part of IDP is learning that business model. And the other part of IDP is working within a well-run business who can accommodate giving someone enough work to fulfill IDP.
That was the reason I brought it up. Back on topic!
haha, oh i didnt mean to make that sound like we shouldnt discuss it here, my apologizes montagneux
I meant more that that is a big topic in itself
I agree, it is definitely related
The problem is that an intern gets his IDP experience from a firm that, many times, is not a well run business. So the intern doesnt learn the right way to run it, only the wrong way.
It is a big problem in general for architects
Regarding the orignial post, my only comments would be to do anything in your power to get licensed ASAP. If your not going to make a committment to get licensed within 3 years of graduation, then do something else as your money will be better spent.
You don't need to finish IDP before you start taking the exams. Contact Florida and Texas and take your exams through those states. Now that the tests are electronic, one could, in theory, take the California Licensing Exams at a Prometric testing center in Suburban Atlanta, GA.
After I finished my 4 year degree, I received my first arch. license 3 years and 4 months later. My salary has more than doubled since I graduated in 2003.
Be very careful who you work for. The firm iteself, and those who lead it, are ultimatly more important then the end product the firm puts out.
My personal mantra has always been to get paid well first by working for people who treat me well and then use my own money to design things I like (furniture, houses, etc.).
Don't ever work for free, do an unpaid internship or sell your own talent short.
some honest questions about the architecture profession
as a current undergrad who'll be graduating next year with a BA, I'm slowly coming to the point to decide what to do with the rest of my life. You've probably gotten the vibe by now that I'm considering an MArch but I most certainly feel that I personally do not know enough about the profession to make such a life affirming choice. I've been a lurker on these forums for awhile and it seems that rarely anybody has anything good to say about their career choice which really seems to be a big downer for the prospective student. Is there anybody on these forums who wakes up every morning and actually looks forward to going to work? Is the private industry really in such a diluted state? If so, what about the academia side of things? They say that private practice always places practicality over anything remotely new or innovative. I believe an MArch is usually only required to hold a academia position so would this be considered a decent alternative to slaving yourself to firms? Typically what does research in the architecture field revolve around in? Would it be a lot more forward thinking and exciting compared to the mundanity of the workplace? Does it usually have better design opportunities, salaries and/or working hours?
which brings me to my next point. my other concern is life/work balance.. usually do you find the time to engage in activities outside of work? if i do decide to pursue working in the private sector how many hours a week should i be expecting to work? (provided i'm somewhere in the northeast, if that even makes a difference)
oh and out of interest, if you had the opportunity to go back to the day when you decide to choose pursue architecture would you stick with it?
To go into academia is only feasible if you are a graduate of one of the handful of schools that delivers the theoretical edicts to the doting masses of academia (Harvard, etc. count on one hand).
Avoid Architecture and the typical path that it takes. It is literally one of the worst investments you can make. Oh did I say investment? that would imply a reasonable chance of a reasonable return.
If you have a rich uncle or a special contact in the corporate world who will funnel you projects for the rest of your life, then it still might be a viable path.
So, if you are about 2% of the typical population of future architects I'd say go for it.
Architects are making less and less money every year and the profession is getting squeezed from every direction including internally (AIA & NCARB).
An MArch was officially worth 35K on the open market BEFORE the economic crash. They never showed me that info in the AIA Compensation Report until I had "invested" 120k in getting an MArch. I don't have even half of that in student loans but still, my money would have been much better leveraged in just about anything, including engineering.
I have a friend who graduated from eng undergrad the same time I graduated from arch undergrad. He went to work making 57K/year and I stayed in school pumping more money down the blackhole for two additional years. Now, 8 years after we both graduated undergrad, he is making 6 figures and he's a licensed P.E. I am a licensed Architect and I'm still not even worth 55K on the open market. I will bet that if I begged, borrowed and stole right now I'd be lucky to find a drafting job for 30K.
Basically, the profession is setup to cause the younger set to be "indentured servants". This is how one of my rich uncle developer describes the current state of the profession for those under 55 years old. And, no he doesn't funnel me any projects, though I obviously wish he'd send me an RFP on a skyscraper of his or two.
Unless you want to teach full time, don't bother with the March. Assuming your Bachelor is a professional (5 year) degree, that is. You need to have a degree that at least lets you become licensed. For the colleges around here, many of the adjunct professors only have a bachelor of architecture and teach part time. The full time prof's are few and far between in architecture, and are much more research oriented.
i still enjoy the practice of architecture. I do get frustrated with the running the business part, like all the HR issues, but that would be true in any field I think. If I was a doctor I probably would still like the medicine part but hate the insurance companies and issues with the hospitals trying to run the practice.
When we hire, we pay no more for a March than a Barch. The experience and the skills of the person matter much more.
Life work balance: expect to put in 40 to 45 hours a week when you start. If you own a firm or become a manager, you will work more, probably 45 to 50 hours a week. This is a lot less than most doctors and lawyers put in. If you start your own firm, you have the ultimate control over your work / life balance. I raised kids, volunteered, went to soccer games, etc no problem while working as an architect and starting my own firm. When I started my own firm, I put in a zillion hours to get it up and running- something like 60 hours a week for a couple of years, but most of the time was in the evening working at home after my kids went to bed.
You can make a decent living, and you do not have to have a rich uncle. You need to have business sense, and excellent skills as an architect, and you need to be able to sell your services. In ANY profession, if you are an employee, your income will be more limited than if you start your own SUCCESSFUL firm. That is true in so many other professions: if you work as a professor at a university, you are going to have a limited income: what the college pays. You would have to own your intellectual property to make real money: write a book, invent a process, design a product. You WILL NOT make a fortune just starting out. You will not be an indentured servant, but you have lots and lots to learn before you can expect to get registered, manage significant projects, and earn a significant salary. That will be limited too unless you get into the ownership of a firm. There are risks to this, which is why there also need to be financial rewards.
Some great advice here. If you really love architecture from the bottom of your heart, go for it.
Architecture school was some of the best times in my life. Sadly I can't say the same about practicing. If you're one of those people who live for it, you'll be fine no matter what. If you have doubts then you'll be faced with reality when you're in your 30s and your peers in other fields are making a comfortable living while you continue to be underpaid.
I personally have other priorities in life than slaving for a firm and wasting my youth. Too many egos involved and too few returns.
this field was a natural fit for me. i enjoyed the education (BArch & MArch from first-rate schools, both valuable experiences, whatever you eventually decide to do in life--i say get the grad degree) and i enjoy the work (even when it's modest and not super-glamorous) as long as it's fundamentally design work that engages my mind. (put me in a room doing someone else's drafting or doing other mind-numbingly boring work and i will, quite seriously, start to suffocate.) i was trained as a visual artist and was never in it for the piles of money, and i do ok, though the work-to-pay ratio in this profession is seriously embarrassing. in other words, i'm pretty happy with what i do.
that said, this profession has a LOT of problems. i'll try to quickly list a few here that others may not have mentioned--again, just one person's experience.
1. identity crisis--anyone expecting to work in a 'profession' like law or medicine, where they are respected, well-compensated, and find it experientially rewarding will probably be disappointed. the amount of education, work experience required, and the obstacles that ncarb and the states put in your way (not to mention the cost of all that!) are in NO way commensurate to the opportunities that this profession offers at this time. even established architects have a really hard time getting and keeping good quality work...most work available is of the formulaic, cookie-cutter crap variety. quality work also takes time and costs money. many firms go the 'efficient' route, and cut a lot of this out --> more formulaic cookie-cutter crap.
2. the jobs that pay well are probably not what you thought you'd be doing--management, highly-skilled technical detailing, etc. if this is up your alley, great! if not, just know that enthusiastic young designers are a dime a dozen. it might be a slog for a while.
3. sexism and other forms of internal bullshit - in many circles, this is still fundamentally the construction industry.
4. the work-life balance thing is an affectation of the profession. if you do good, consistent work and know how to say no, that will take you farther than you think. there are some firms you really should stay away from. i'd say 40-50 hours a week, and be flexible at deadlines. (don't let anyone convince you EVERY day is a deadline.)
5.'work inflation' - a lot of hype goes into what is published. keep in mind that competitions are 'working for free' and are fundamentally a gamble (though a fun one at times, of course) and that a lot of the good projects you see took a lot more money & time from their architects (&their staff) than they gave back. many architects essentially work like artists.
6. teaching is fun, and extremely rewarding. downside = academic politics.
pick the people you choose to work with carefully, love the work, and you'll be fine. otherwise, something else may appeal to you more. good luck!
i got the impression that you were less familiar with the profession than i think some of the other people thought... i'd recommend this book
i read it when i was already well down this path, but it was pretty accurate and realistic
i think a lot of us make it out to seem like a terrible lifestyle, either the money, or the hours, or the boring jobs. but it's not really all bad. it's a career with a wide variety of opportunities and niches. and really it's a job, you've got to take the obligations with the rewards.
Postal: That book talks about the profession with kiddie gloves. It is less than useful.
If you want a REAL understanding, expose, empirically factual book check out Dana Cuff's empirically researched, authoritative book titled, "Architecture: The Story of Practice".
Cuff takes the gloves off and lets the dirt fly.
Also, equally as indispensable is obtaining copy of the latest AIA Compensation Report. Its kind of top secret but where there is a will, there is a way in the age of the internet.
Don't buy the book postal linked above...its a misleading, kiddie glove treatment of the profession designed to enrich just another FAIA tool because a lot of accredited arch programs (like the undergrad one I attended) make it a required "textbook" in accredited classes.
But it is not a serious book its full of marketing goopy, sappy, soft answers that ends up making a lot of vapid excuses for the profession and leaves a lot of hard questions left unanswered. Its total crap and a waste of time and money.
And that book is also insulting to my intelligence now that I've completed a 12 year odyssey to become NCARB Certified.
It should insult anyone else's intelligence too, if they have half a brain and more than a year or two of experience.
haha, all right. well, i certainly didn't mean to insult your intelligence winston. jiashik, you should get cuff's book like winston says. that is really the only answer. with that book and a little luck, you'll be ncarb certified in 11 years.
If you have an accredited degree I wouldn't worry about the m.arch or about teaching. There are very few full time professors.
You won't be rich, but architects make a comfortable living and are well respected by the public. If you must compare yourself to doctors and lawyers remember that most work insane hours.
After 10 years I think the average architect's salary is 70-80,000.
Not great, but pretty good. Its all in your perspective.
I work for a very large firm, large firms and those in the north east generally pay better than most.
I've heard that interns in NYC are a dime a dozen and paid about that way.
Polyhedron. I vote for you, ignored you, believed you, intrigued you.
I vote for you, ignored you, believed you, intrigued you.
I vote for you, ignored you but never received you.
Polyhedron. Things were different. Simple. Like a Jewel. We were close but die now. It has kept us away. I have given up now. It is time for some change.
polyhedron
I posted this in another thread but I have lost money for 2 years now. That means negative architectural income. Just remember if your on your own, you need to be capable of eating it sometimes and have other income. Its a brutal business to be in. It can be rewarding for the individual practitioner if they have the right mindset. There is no school or training that can teach you how to survive in the jungle economy.
Well normally I would recommend you take some time off from school and get some work experience so you can decide if pursuing the graduate degree is really the right decision. But since the only hope of finding a job right now is to apply for internship positions that are way below my experience and skill level I don't think I want to encourage yet another person to enter into the already crowded job pool.
thanks for all the input so far.. i've read somewhere that expected salaries for MArchs in the Northeast are on average $48,000 as of 2010. is this pure optimistic hogwash? The BLS page on architecture also seems to paint a rather bright future for the profession:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm
it just seems weird that everyone on the forum is complaining about having it tough but just from judging from these sources the situation doesn't look as bad as people make it out to be.. any comments on this?
oh, and by "expected salaries" i mean starting salaries
$48,000 for a starting salary for an MArch seems pretty high for right now
I dont know how much i would trust that number
I am in philly, and starting salaries are not near that high
though if you have steady work in a firm with a registered architect, it should take you 3-4 years to complete your IDP. I know the horror stories of the past, but starting now, it should be really streamlined and easy to complete them and get everything "official" to sit for your exams.
I don't see how your 3-4 year rule works. A ton of people, maybe even 2 tons of people, are out of work. Those who have work, are either reduced in hours or are getting paid for 40 hours but only actually working half of that. Knocking out the IDP requirements, if you are being honest about them, would take a person in a good firm 5 or more years to get through during an economic boom time. Today we aren't even close to a boom time.
JMHO.
"though if you have STEADY work in a firm with a registered architect"
And your statement that those who have work are working reduced hours is not a blanket statement true for everyone. I have been working full time for the past 4 years with only a 2 month unemployment break
As is your statement about it taking 5 years during an economic boom time, as i completed mine in 3.5 years and was honest about them
pfft.
Whatever. It isn't like I haven't gone through the process myself. It isn't like I watched people lie about their experiance in order to be able to take their exams.
What do I know? Right? Yeah, sure there are some people who can actually do it in 3 yeras, but this is not the norm. NOT. It may be the norm for those people who fill out their forms though.
There is no reason to assume that what you have seen means everyone does it that way
Of course some people lie about their hours, just as some architects sign off on them to get another licensed architect in their office quicker.
But i would say a main reason it takes young architects a while to get their IDP complete is laziness on their own part for not taking care of their own career. They are not vocal if their hours arent being fulfilled at their job, and they do not keep track of things accurately enough, then send in 3 years worth of hours all at once and complain that it is other people's fault when it is not accepted.
My point is that all you need to do is actually fill out your forms and you can get it done in a reasonable amount of time.
But to throw out blanket statements like that is flat out wrong and is not true for everyone
It could be the norm if architects would take responsibilty for their own careers rather than sitting around complaining about it and blaming others
I think my main point would be that an inerns first three years and maybe longer are spent primarily on CD's an other more mundane tasks, and they should be. School did not do enough to prepare you to understand how buildings work, so you need to learn this on the job and it takes a lot of hours. It is only after that point you really start to accumulate hours towards certain other IDP catagories that most firms, wouldn't likely get you based on your lack of general experiance.
But I would hate to throw out generalities and blanket statements when I know those could never be used to define your path.
Maybe a few others know of what I am referring to.
I agree that coming out of school an intern is not fully prepared, that is another discussion on how well schools prepare young architects for the real world
I just see no reason why an intern has to wait until he has spent 3 years or longer or whatever it would be before they can start accumulating their IDP hours
I'd argue that a more balanced exposure to all the categories of IDP would be more benefitial to someone with less experience, as you then see the entire process. Rather than spending 3 years on the drawing aspect and never going out into the field, seeing the actual product being produced and the knowledge that comes from working with a contractor and being on a construction site goes hand in hand with being able to perform the mundane tasks and working on CD's.
I think you actually have a much quicker learning curve if you experience everything, rather than just part of it to begin with. You will be able to produce a CD set much better if you have some experience in the field, so why hold off on that?
That would be true, if it were the way firms were set up. Again, in general terms, they are not. A few may be but the majority are not and the people who work for these firms, the other 98%, will require 5-10 years of exposure in order for them to take their exams.
Is that right? For me right and wrong are not the question here but rather how much ttime you actually need to get the actual exposure for the requisite amount of time to test.
5 - 10 years? Is this the ARE you're referring to? If so, i thought it was only 3-4 years of internship before you're allowed to take it.
I dont know what you mean by how firms are set up. I have worked for a 300 person firm and smaller ones as well. In all of them, if the intern speaks up (I am speaking of my personal experience), chances are, unless everyone in that firm is a jerk, they will at least try and accomodate you. Obviously some firms arent able to devote resources to make sure an intern finishes his IDP hours in the minimum amount of time possible, but I find it hard to believe that they would be so unreasonable that they would not work with their staff to help them become a more complete employee
Of course in these tough economic times, this may be harder. But if an intern makes it known that he is working to complete his IDP hours, and tracks them himself to know where he needs to improve and gain more experience, then those above him will work with him to at least give him a bit of that needed time. Perhaps its taking them along on some construction meetings, letting them sit in on a meeting with a client, etc
I think where our opinions differ is that you say its how firms are set up. I say it is the responsibility of the intern to know exactly what he needs to complete and work towards that
5 years i dont think is that bad, but it really should be a lot closer to 5 years than 10.
The average time for completion of IDP is 10.5 years (for those that actually finish at least).
The AIA lies and says it takes 3.
This is the foremost, independent, authoritative source of information on IDP duration around:
http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/Stairway_to_Architecture/Welcome.html
The key to the arch. profession is to get licensed quickly. Forget any advice your given....Take the tests as quickly as possible and do whatever it takes to get your license fast. Work experience is not going to help you on the tests...Buy the study guides, flash cards and take the exams.
It is entirelly possiblie to finish all of your ARE's within 3 years of graduation. And, you absolutly do NOT need to have your IDP finished to start. Florida and Texas will let you start taking the ARE's through their state board without having your IDP finished.
The best part is that you can take the tests through a different state board LOCALLY. The only difference is that your test results come mailed from another state.
I finished all divisions of the ARE, got licensed and have more than doubled my salary since I graduated in 2003.
Architecture is not all bad - just understand that in the 'real world' design is less than 10% of what you'll spend your time on. Searching the UL book, pestering mechanical engineers to fix their dates on their title blocks, etc. will occupy more of your time than you would suspect.
Also, be very careful who you work for. Many people I know have had their view of the profession jaded by a few bad employers.
Look at the segments of the profession where there has historically been stability: Healthcare, Higher ED, Labs.
while i have no doubt that the average time an intern takes to complete their IDP could be 10 years, I find it very hard to believe that that in large part, is not the intern's own fault.
the amount of hours required to complete the IDP requirements is roughly 3 years worth of hours. Obviously that isnt going to just be the first 3 years of work for everyone right out of school.
But for it to take over triple the amount of time? A large part of the blame for that most likely falls on the intern for not keeping their career in order. Your boss doesnt track your hours for you, you have to let them know what you still need.
If you dont speak up about it, how will they know? And why would they take more responsibility for your own career than you do?
The AIA isnt lying when they say it takes 3 years. They are just saying how many hours are required. An architect needs to take responsibility for himself and stop blaming others
"The average time for completion of IDP is 10.5 years (for those that actually finish at least)."
If you work in an architectural firm for 10.5 years and dont finish your IDP hours in that amount of time, you have absolutely no one else to blame except yourself
look, I don't want to be a jerk about this, but what's with this "spoon fed" attitude here? Where is it written that firms suffer under some affirmative obligation to organize their entire operation to accommodate your individual need to meet your IDP requirements in the minimum amount of time. It's not "their" license -- it's "your" license.
I agree with marmkid above -- most firms will try to be as accommodating as they can to help interns make progress towards licensure. But, more often than not, interns demonstrate little initiative to make that progress. When the intern doesn't care, the firm isn't likely to step in to fill the gap in ambition.
Our firm actually is quite active in encouraging, and helping, young professionals to pass the ARE. We have a good track record in that regard. But, the most enlightened, most self-motivated interns are the ones who make the quickest progress ... ala marlowe's comments above. We've had quite a few complete the ARE in less than 4-years. However, we see way too many who have no motivation in this regard at all. Those are the one's who push up the average WinstonSmith references in his post.
Yes and no. Depends on what project I'm currently working, etc. Remember that most people don't like what they do to make a living. Have countless friends that make much more $$$ than I do but complain equally as much about their jobs and buy lotto tickets hoping for an easy way out.
Is the private industry really in such a diluted state?
Absolutely yes, at least right now. This economy has been especially harsh to our field. If the average job opening has 30 people applying, the average architecture opening would have over 100 people applying. There is massive, and I mean MASSIVE O-V-E-R-S-U-P-P-L-Y of professionals at all levels of the architecture industry right now.
They say that private practice always places practicality over anything remotely new or innovative.
Some old timers are stuck in their way, but my experience has shown that the contractors (and owners) are more resistant to new and innovative design/materials/construction. Oh, and these things usually cost money too, which is the #1 killer of "fun" in this profession. If every client had a limitless budget this would be the best job in the world.
usually do you find the time to engage in activities outside of work?
Over the past year-and-a-half I sure have. Reduced pay and hours leaves for a lot of free time. The alternative is that when times are good a 50 hour week isn't uncommon and at deadline/crunch time that can go much higher. For example, in 2007 I had about 500 hours of OT. That averages about 50 hrs/wk but since I did have some 40/hr weeks there is a ebb and flow that does leave some free time.
if you had the opportunity to go back to the day when you decide to choose pursue architecture would you stick with it?
That's a tough question for me because I have so many interests outside of Architecture. Since I want to go into management, in Architecture or otherwise, I'm wishing that I would've got a business degree. Given the current state of the industry I'm really wishing I had something else to fall back on. So yes, I would do something different given what I know today. Then again, economy improves and I get an awesome client/project, that answer could easily change.
Everyone always loves to beat up on the wages/salaries in this profession. That's a real issue as we are not paid a comparible salary to our engineering counterparts, when in fact the architect typically manages/runs the project. That IMO is a travesty of the profession. And, any downturn in the economy puts major downward pressure on wages. But, if you don't get yourself into crazy debt you can live a modest middle class lifestyle on an Architect's salary. Principal/Partner level people do ok, but are not typically the millionaires that interns like to make them out to be.
Now if you look at the truly wealthy and see how they made their money - most of them started a business of some sort. Missing from the list are people who start very successful Architecture firms. Truth be told, this just isn't a highly profitable profession. So, if you goal in life is to be on the Forbes richest people list, look elsewhere.
It took me 10 years to get licensed from when I set up my NCARB file and I accept complete responsibility for how long it took. Like marmkid and others are saying, I was just lazy about it - oh, and I spent three years in grad school during that time (I had a BArch so I set my file up after getting just my undergrad degree). Finally my firm had to offer to pay for the exams and study guides for a few of the experienced interns because they wanted to make us associates but the firm bylaws required us to be licensed first. We were just happily working feeling like the license wasn't hat big a deal. Now I shave it I understand how important and awesome it is.
Now if you've graduated and been doing exclusively renderings for a year or two, yeah, it's going to take longer than three years to complete your requirements. But go ahead and set up your NCARB file, tell your firm you need more exposure to other aspects of practice, request reviews with your NCARB paperwork in hand to show them you really want to get the license done, etc. be proactive and somewhat aggressive and there is no way it will take you ten years.
I have found that firms will go a little out of their way to help a motivated intern reach their IDP goals, meaning if in this bad economy, you are kind of forced to work on only one specific task just to help keep the company afloat, but make it known to those above you that you are still working towards your IDP hours and are low in certain areas, they will do what they can to help you. i.e. take you to a construction site every now and then even if you arent needed there for the project, but just to give you some exposure
If an intern doesnt track their hours and doesnt know what they still need, why would a firm bother to do their work for them?
A lot of times, it seems those that complain about their IDP hours taking forever are the ones who decide to track years at a time at once and realize they havent had a balanced workload. They then complain about how their bosses only have them work on specific tasks.
Your firms' job isnt to get you licensed. But if you are reasonable with them and do your part, it wont take you forever. Why on earth architects expect others to do it for them is beyond me
Nice post, aquapura, I agree with just about all of it.
And yes, jiashik, I wake up every day happy to do the work I do. I love being an architect. Granted, my personality and worldview are such that I imagine I'd find fun and a good side in whatever job I had to wake up and do, but I do honestly feel lucky every day to be in this profession.
I definitely wake up every day happy to do this kind of work
with regards to the question about hours expected....i am in philly, work a 40 work week and not much more is expected really
occasionally with a deadline, there will be a week or so of extra time to put in, but i have rarely seen anything go over a 60 week
If this kind of work is fun for you, it definitely is the right field for you. If it's not fun, you probably shouldnt do it, as the other benefits of this career are not enough to overcome it not being fun, in my opinion. That is a huge benefit to going into this profession, that not everyone would really get (as there is no reason it should be fun for everyone)
Some, if not a lot of people here in our field think one of two things.
1. Finishing Idp is a race against time. The sooner the Quicker.
or
2. The 2.59 years (5400 hours) is a set in stone maximum.
Neither is correct.
The AIA Compensation report pegged a graduate with an MArch as being worth 34,000/year. That was BEFORE the current meltdown.
The national AIA perhaps doesn't lie TECHNICALLY, in the same way that so many lawyers don't "technically" lie. On this website, cosponsored by the AIA and linked with the AIA.org website is duplicitous in the wording, at best:
http://www.archcareers.org/IDP.html
"...The program is designed to take about three years..."
Check out Matt A's website for a thorough explanation. Powerful stuff:
http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/stairwaytoarchitecture/2009/12/follow-the-benjamins/
And I have caught at least one state AIA component outright lying about the 3 years. See here under "AIA CT Careers and Licensure brochure" and go to page 2:
http://www.aiact.org/userfiles/file/Careers_Licensure/Career_brochure.pdf
Call me a stick in the mud, but THAT IS LYING.
Oh and by the way, if anyone has a little "friend" at the CT AIA who they are calling at this moment to alert them to their fraud, not to worry I have archived a copy of their little careers and licensure "brochure".
In case anyone needs to locate it post removal in the future I should still be checking this email address at [email protected] I will help you locate a copy.
can you elaborate on what you think is a lie on page 2? It all seems so vague and general, i dont see what the lie is
It says 4+3+2 (or 9) to qualify for the AREs if you go the Master's route. They also say you can do IDP if you go
what on earth is there to elaborate on?
Are you really that infected with a need to have a lawyer tell you what something says that you can't understand what you are reading?
*SIGH* fine, I'll so the thinking for you and spoonfeed your brain. Not that you'll be able to appreciate it but what the heck I'll try.
Path One states 5 + 3<. The 3 is the lie. Path Two states 4 + 2 + 3<. Again, the 3 is the lie.
The brochure says, including, but not necessarily limited to:
"Path One 5 + 3
Complete a professional degree in Architecture from a NAAB college program. This is usually a 5-year Bachelor of Architecture Degree. [Here comes the LIE] Then complete the Intern Development Program (IDP)...Upon completion of your degree and IDP you are qualified to take the Architectural Registration Examination."
Note: Last time I checked its not the "Architectural" Registration Examination either. That is an important distinction as the term "Architectural" is used in many states by non licensed individuals and companies all the time.
It says 4+3+2 (or 9) to qualify for the AREs if you go the Master's route. They also say you can do IDP if you go the B.Arch route in 8 years (5+3). The fact is unless you live in one of the states that allows you circumvent that clause, you'll always need an education.
Even then, education is kind of assumed here... so it is possible to do it in 3 years if you have a willing employer who is ready to work out a perfect schedule to enable you to get your license.
So, you can only point a half a finger here since there are two halves to the whole-- the Board and the Man (your boss).
Technically, I think they should be having some sort of "emergency" program going on to enable more people to take part of IDP right now. With the recession, lack of jobs and people moving out the recession... they opening up a liability to have a massive shortage of licensed professionals in a decade. That would ultimately lead to a lack of diversity in the workforce and the ability for abuse to arise from having a limited amount of licensed individuals.
Yeah, montagneux...just what the profession needs right now...MORE licensed Architects who can't find work...sheesh how freaking stupid are you people?
"what on earth is there to elaborate on?
Are you really that infected with a need to have a lawyer tell you what something says that you can't understand what you are reading?"
wow, is there really any need to get so worked up over a simple question?
And here is the best part:
the 3 is not a lie, no matter how much you disagree with it
sigh...Why is this so hard to understand?
if you want to say they shouldnt use the term "architectural" that way, fine, i can agree with you on that if we need to get so incredibly technical about a brochure.
No offense, but i was asking you to just elaborate on your links you posted, as i dont have time to disect them beyond a quick read.
Not to spit in the face of architectural professionals everywhere...
But it doesn't seem like many of them are doing their job right. And by that I mean if you were actually doing your job right, you wouldn't be out of work.
It's almost like we need a Gordon Ramsey of architecture to start going around and screaming at people to change how they operate their firm.
That's the short of it. If the information preached by so many architects and schools was so right... perhaps there wouldn't be as big of a crisis? But that. itself, is a pretty unfair generalization since probably less than 15% of the architectural workforce could be considered 'executive level.'
ah that is a whole other topic montagneux
I bet a majority of firms would qualify for a Gordon Ramsey type show, as I think most firms are not run well as a business
I know it is a 'nother topic but there's some relation there. Part of IDP is learning that business model. And the other part of IDP is working within a well-run business who can accommodate giving someone enough work to fulfill IDP.
That was the reason I brought it up. Back on topic!
haha, oh i didnt mean to make that sound like we shouldnt discuss it here, my apologizes montagneux
I meant more that that is a big topic in itself
I agree, it is definitely related
The problem is that an intern gets his IDP experience from a firm that, many times, is not a well run business. So the intern doesnt learn the right way to run it, only the wrong way.
It is a big problem in general for architects
Regarding the orignial post, my only comments would be to do anything in your power to get licensed ASAP. If your not going to make a committment to get licensed within 3 years of graduation, then do something else as your money will be better spent.
You don't need to finish IDP before you start taking the exams. Contact Florida and Texas and take your exams through those states. Now that the tests are electronic, one could, in theory, take the California Licensing Exams at a Prometric testing center in Suburban Atlanta, GA.
After I finished my 4 year degree, I received my first arch. license 3 years and 4 months later. My salary has more than doubled since I graduated in 2003.
Be very careful who you work for. The firm iteself, and those who lead it, are ultimatly more important then the end product the firm puts out.
My personal mantra has always been to get paid well first by working for people who treat me well and then use my own money to design things I like (furniture, houses, etc.).
Don't ever work for free, do an unpaid internship or sell your own talent short.
oh, please ....
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.