I've read the post on "value of an education in architecture –– honestly", and it is an insightful discussion. Allow me to take a few points from @GaryPolk, that an architecture degree teaches you:
Technical skill, as in "how to draw and annotate detailed drawings, compile sheets, understand construction phasing, etc."
Aesthetic skill, in that it would "transform you into a critic of fashion, of graphic design, of every single icon and logo you lay your eyes on, of every book cover, of every painting and sculpture, and quite literally of everything made by man. Architects everywhere are grand designers."
Other than that, there was also criticism from the other side, such as the claim from @curtkram that an architectural degree is "pretty much worthless." At the same time, nobody can ignore the deluge of criticism (and complaints) about the salary that architecture degrees command in the labour market, especially in contrast to other professions such as engineering, medicine, and law, though I have to admit that comparison with medicine and law seems a little farfetched at times.
My objective in starting this new thread is to get a holistic account of an architecture education (at undergraduate and/or graduate level). So I will classify my questions about the content and skill of an architecture education into 4 categories:
Transferability: are the skills learnt in architecture school transferable to other jobs? For instance, can you switch careers from building things to a career in finance? (I may be wrong, but I heard that engineering degrees have great applicability to many different fields).
If so, what are these skills?
If not, then is architecture a 'dead-end'?
Applicability: are the skills learnt in architecture school applicable for the modern workplace? Or are they somewhat out-dated, or maybe ahead of their time?
Satisfaction: how fun and enjoyable was an architecture degree (I know it varies, but in general)?
Progression: how long an experience must you have to start your own firm?
What do you think?
bugsmetoo
Sep 4, 14 7:55 pm
Engineers, doctors, and lawyers are paid to solve problems, applying their years of expertise and legal qualifications to a task only permitted for the small group of licensed individuals. Why do architects not sell themselves as problem-solvers? People pay for issues to be fixed, from a quick plumbing leak to oil changes and now even a better design of some sort, whether it be a house or business website or internal marketing plan. How much they are willing to pay varies with perceived quality and competence, which is to say a lot more money if the real results meet or surpass expectations without going over the budget.
Pushing the artist aspect won't get far. A parametric edifice alone, no matter how the diagrams or naive ideals indicate, won't rejuvenate a city in decay due to various social problems ignored. Nor do they remedy sprawling suburban development. How many such bold structures do you think are in demand today? And how many of them are not conquered by Hadid or someone else who carries worldwide renown?
Engineering degrees are favorable because of how practical their education is. Strong logic and rationale, a fair grasp of programming in general, and an understanding of how things work internally. They're employable because logic and clear thinking, programming in a digital future, and tinkering knowledge are skills everyone should need in the workplace sooner or later. You can't say all of those attributes apply to every architecture graduate, maybe at most two out of the three (certainly more can be listed but let's stick with three for now). Certainly blanket statements made but in general, the engineering education is one that can design regardless of aesthetics and also be a supporting cast responsible for realization of ideas into things.
Just read the two main points you extracted: technical skill, as in knowing how to draw lines, not managing a business or the construction phase. Aesthetic, as in having a keen eye for criticism (not necessarily skill to create) that frankly other designers in Interior, Industrial, Graphic, and related fields also share. Not an unique view at all except for the abstract and theoretical that has limited applications outside of a portfolio or thesis. That certainly leads to issues with salary when none of the demands of a functional business are taught. What do you need to charge? How much? How long should one work? Long hours are expected occasionally but a shitty workplace is one that puts in too many hours for too little pay. Many people do not listen to academics, or eggheads as the common insult, because of the ivory tower isolated mentality. With limited tenure tracks and even worse treatment towards disposable adjunct, how does one survive the world out there?
Studying architecture for the sake of architecture is a middle/upper-class dream. The skills that should develop (structures, logical foresight, planning, technical documentation, phase management, business relations) should translate just fine in many sectors like construction or design or government gigs like city planning. Even outside of the field where managerial skills and technical expertise are in demand (i.e. most major companies). But all it seems to demand today is mastering software for rendering and getting the flashiest portfolio out there so one can slave over at a starchitect firm before entering their early-thirties crisis. You'll hear cries of passion but that doesn't pay the bills. Nor does it elicit any more money from others. It's wrong to correlate passion with a picturesque image of any profession.
Every profession has a set of self-compromises to be made. The sooner architecture figures that out, the better off professionals and future students will be.
aricgitomer
Dec 29, 17 10:18 pm
Here are some examples from around the world as to how you will be introduced to architecture!
Dont worry, it only takes a few years to overwrite it all.
Volunteer
Dec 30, 17 8:57 am
Architecture graduates should be liberally educated with an appreciation of architecture styles and building methods of the past which addressed the very same problems of heating, lighting, cooling, ventilation, moisture, they are concerned with. Too often graduates have only contempt for previous solutions and buildings and their siting and context, never mind they haven't developed the eye for proportion and line and fitness those buildings so often demonstrate. A client is then supposed to go to somebody like a Gehry-wannabe and ask him to design a Federal style house updated with modern conveniences and elements. That architect typically has no interest in or capability to do so and will even sneer at the client for asking.
Hi all,
I've read the post on "value of an education in architecture –– honestly", and it is an insightful discussion. Allow me to take a few points from @GaryPolk, that an architecture degree teaches you:
Other than that, there was also criticism from the other side, such as the claim from @curtkram that an architectural degree is "pretty much worthless." At the same time, nobody can ignore the deluge of criticism (and complaints) about the salary that architecture degrees command in the labour market, especially in contrast to other professions such as engineering, medicine, and law, though I have to admit that comparison with medicine and law seems a little farfetched at times.
My objective in starting this new thread is to get a holistic account of an architecture education (at undergraduate and/or graduate level). So I will classify my questions about the content and skill of an architecture education into 4 categories:
What do you think?
Engineers, doctors, and lawyers are paid to solve problems, applying their years of expertise and legal qualifications to a task only permitted for the small group of licensed individuals. Why do architects not sell themselves as problem-solvers? People pay for issues to be fixed, from a quick plumbing leak to oil changes and now even a better design of some sort, whether it be a house or business website or internal marketing plan. How much they are willing to pay varies with perceived quality and competence, which is to say a lot more money if the real results meet or surpass expectations without going over the budget.
Pushing the artist aspect won't get far. A parametric edifice alone, no matter how the diagrams or naive ideals indicate, won't rejuvenate a city in decay due to various social problems ignored. Nor do they remedy sprawling suburban development. How many such bold structures do you think are in demand today? And how many of them are not conquered by Hadid or someone else who carries worldwide renown?
Engineering degrees are favorable because of how practical their education is. Strong logic and rationale, a fair grasp of programming in general, and an understanding of how things work internally. They're employable because logic and clear thinking, programming in a digital future, and tinkering knowledge are skills everyone should need in the workplace sooner or later. You can't say all of those attributes apply to every architecture graduate, maybe at most two out of the three (certainly more can be listed but let's stick with three for now). Certainly blanket statements made but in general, the engineering education is one that can design regardless of aesthetics and also be a supporting cast responsible for realization of ideas into things.
Just read the two main points you extracted: technical skill, as in knowing how to draw lines, not managing a business or the construction phase. Aesthetic, as in having a keen eye for criticism (not necessarily skill to create) that frankly other designers in Interior, Industrial, Graphic, and related fields also share. Not an unique view at all except for the abstract and theoretical that has limited applications outside of a portfolio or thesis. That certainly leads to issues with salary when none of the demands of a functional business are taught. What do you need to charge? How much? How long should one work? Long hours are expected occasionally but a shitty workplace is one that puts in too many hours for too little pay. Many people do not listen to academics, or eggheads as the common insult, because of the ivory tower isolated mentality. With limited tenure tracks and even worse treatment towards disposable adjunct, how does one survive the world out there?
Studying architecture for the sake of architecture is a middle/upper-class dream. The skills that should develop (structures, logical foresight, planning, technical documentation, phase management, business relations) should translate just fine in many sectors like construction or design or government gigs like city planning. Even outside of the field where managerial skills and technical expertise are in demand (i.e. most major companies). But all it seems to demand today is mastering software for rendering and getting the flashiest portfolio out there so one can slave over at a starchitect firm before entering their early-thirties crisis. You'll hear cries of passion but that doesn't pay the bills. Nor does it elicit any more money from others. It's wrong to correlate passion with a picturesque image of any profession.
Every profession has a set of self-compromises to be made. The sooner architecture figures that out, the better off professionals and future students will be.
Here are some examples from around the world as to how you will be introduced to architecture!
https://www.archdaily.com/8852...
nothing
Dont worry, it only takes a few years to overwrite it all.
Architecture graduates should be liberally educated with an appreciation of architecture styles and building methods of the past which addressed the very same problems of heating, lighting, cooling, ventilation, moisture, they are concerned with. Too often graduates have only contempt for previous solutions and buildings and their siting and context, never mind they haven't developed the eye for proportion and line and fitness those buildings so often demonstrate. A client is then supposed to go to somebody like a Gehry-wannabe and ask him to design a Federal style house updated with modern conveniences and elements. That architect typically has no interest in or capability to do so and will even sneer at the client for asking.