The farther up you look in the world of architecture, the fewer women you see. In this chart, we’ve rounded up some common and publicly available metrics behind this claim. Like thousands of aspiring architects, we’ll start at the bottom and work our way up—while also pausing on the way to consider what these measures mean. — Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture
Lian Chikako Chang, ACSA's Director of Research + Information and prolific Archinect blogger, has created a series of infographics charting the progress of women's roles in architecture. The statistics are, at a glance, both depressing and hopeful: compared to overall representation in the population, women occupy a disproportionally tiny slice of architecture's higher tiers, but the numbers do seem to be increasing over time.
Check out all the infographics in our image gallery below. Lian also posted an in-depth look at the infographics over at the ACSA blog, showing how the data was sourced and analyzed.
65 Comments
In the future, architecture school will be a series of bar graphs and pie charts.
God bless the victim culture! Yet there's much less discussion about minorities in architecture.... Gee I wonder why that is?
This infographic is more relevant:
ACSA's Atlas Project is killing it with their infographics! The information they expose, not just on gender topics but on every quantifiable aspect of school and practice, are invaluable. And they show a profession/discipline with some significant hurdles and significant changes in coming years.
To commenters who think this is about "victims" - the entire point is that American culture *is* changing, and that change is barreling down on you like that enormous stone ball chasing Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark (and if you're old enough to recognize that reference, then you're old enough to be becoming irrelevant, quickly, unless you adapt).
wait women are an enormous stone ball?
i treat everyone the same i don't need to 'adapt' to more women (or any other group that self-segregates) in the workplace
If you look around you, approx. 1/2 of the world's population is the other gender. Whether you are male or female (or somewhere in between) The movement is about Equity and not self-segregation or victims or blame. It is about ACTION, change that can improve all of our lives. Equity is not just a women's issue, everyone has a stake in it: Economic, quality of life, and the ability for more to THRIVE. Why would we be against anyone's ability to have equal access?
The movement is not just in architecture. The world is changing around us and striving for Equity is the right thing to do. Look at the UN campaign called #HeforShe, ShriverReport, Clinton Foundation, etc. Even tech companies like Google are exposing Implicit Bias and looking to change the demographics of their workforce/Talent.
Information is the start, discussion about the challenges, then followed by Action.
In the words of Emma Watson, "If not me, WHO? If not now, When?
Has anyone considered that women may generally be less interested in architecture which may explain some of of the imbalance. Men and women are more different than just having or not having boobies.
What's infuriating is that in 2014 we can't evolve enough to the point of having a real discussion about gender equity, or the lack of african americans in our profession, without resorting to hyper-idiocy, and overly simplistic white, male jargon; victims? Really? Then, pray tell, who'd be the victimizer? As for treating all people the same? Really? I bet you don't see color either.
Treating people the same, or calling rampant inequity "victimhood" in our profession is not a solution. It's more of the same, and same, ain't working.
Go ahead, be flippant, I'm sure your mom, sister, and black friends think you're a hoot.
If we can't recognize how the past informs where we are and where we need to go, then we're screwed.
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
Boobies? Really? Isn't there an IDP thread to rant on, or I can't find "architect" jobs on Monster?
Stop it jla-x.
Hypersensitive white dude with tight pants and ironic beard ^
guarantee
my point is that these charts are unscientific and overly simplified. Men and women think differently and have different strengths and weaknesses generally speaking (GENERALLY)
it is proven that women can actually see more colors than men. This is biology. I am all for equal rights and 100% in support of equal treatment in the work place but to completely ignore the possibility that men are generally more interested in architecture than women is a foolish oversight. Why so few men in the interior design school? Why a more equal distribution of male and female lawyers?
Low tolerance for the pc crowd that's too afraid to offend people to ask real questions. And yes women have boobies aka breasts and men do not but we all have nipples. Is the term boobies offensive to you? If it is you are a full of shit pc twit. Its a word to describe a wonderful thing. Nothing negative about. The term boobie or weenie. Just more fun to say than penis and breast.
Also race and gender are two different subjects. Racial inequality in the profession has a whole other set of causes than does gender.
Anyway, I think the main problem in this field is that it is dominated by people who are too full of shit and uptight to say the word boobie.
And Idp probably has more to do with this chart than crude people who say words like boobies. Lol
Dont get the Monster jobs reference? Doesn't make sense.
Well, you're bound to get one thing right about me; my whiteness.
Everything else you typed, drivel.
Specifically?
wait women are enormous stone balls and beta's white?
y'all blowin' my devolved mind today!
jla-x, women make up pretty close to half of architecture school populations. As you get into employment in the architecture profession, that number drops by almost half.
This belies your notion that women are just "somehow different" (I'm waving my hands around in a sarcastic dismissive motion here) and might suggest that the discipline is in some way discouraging women from continuing in it.
Need I recount every incident in my career when contractors spent more time looking at my body than answering my questions about work onsite? Or the uncountable times - it happened again just a few weeks ago, and I'm almost 50 years old! - that I would ask a contractor a question and they would respond to the male colleague standing next to me, despite the male having significantly less seniority and knowledge than I have?
These situations wear women down, and they do not happen to men. You treat everyone equally, great, good for you. That doesn't mean sexism and racism don't exist in deeply insidious and unacceptable ways in the profession overall.
ACSA isn't commenting on the statistics, they are just reporting them, and the profession needs to decipher what they mean, whether they are a problem (in this case, IMO, they are), and how to address them.
Also: you think these charts are unscientific? Yeah, you're flat-out wrong. Go the ACSA Atlas Project website and look at their methodology. Or, you know, by all means keep pretending the thing you don't like isn't real.
I think the answer to why women leave the profession is that women are more willing to ask themselves, am I getting what I need out of this? And listen to the genuine answer.
IMO - lack of gender equity in the profession has far more to do with american societal expectations of women with families than it does with any ridiculous notion of "physiological differences between men and women." things are changing, but women in general still do most of the domestic work and kid chauffeuring - and our "always there" professional culture makes it really difficult to maintain this kind of balance.
Men are slowly starting to take on more domestic responsibilities (and we're seeing more places offer paternity leave), but it's still difficult for older kids to get themselves around due to our car-centric development patterns. A lot of things need to change.
As much as it's incorrect (for lack of a better word) it is largely evolutionary and biological.
Read Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape.
Men are genetically programmed to procreate. It is a primary biological function and the driving force of our existence. Upon occasion some of us are able to operate beyond this program, at least temporarily.
Of course the other side of this is that it works both ways.
Toaster, its both. Of course gender roles are largely cultural but not entirely. If you are denying that physical and mental differences exist than you would be laughed at by almost every anthropologist, biologist, neuroscientist, etc. It's Totally PC of you to pretend that men and women are exactly the same and there is no difference at all. Clapping from the pc crowd.... It's not true though no matter how much you say it. This does not mean that men are better or women are better. We are just GENERALLY better at different things. This is a fact and its backed up by many many experiments.
Any way all I am saying is that generally speaking men may be better at architecture. Not all men better than all women...but what if generally men tend to be more adept to architecture? What about art? Why are most famous painters men? Why such am even distribution in music? Why a more even distribution in law (where the men are mostly fucking douch bag arrogant pigs compared to architects) ? Why so many female research scientists? Why so many female doctors and so few female engineers? There may be a slight biological tendency towards certain skill sets. That's all I'm saying. There are a hell of a lot of great female architects and artists, but maybe overall makes tend to possess the right combo of skills more often than women. Again, not talking about individuals here.
Is it really sexist to ask such a question? And if it is I guess I don't give a shit... ill ask anyway because its interesting...
More women have vaginas than men have testicles.
jla, maybe the gender gap in architecture exists because people like you believe it exists. so you create a self-fulfilling prophecy based on confirmation bias. you deny promotions to women because you assume they aren't as capable. you look at the male colleague instead of the more capable woman because you assume the woman is just a girl who is less capable at performing architecture-related tasks. along with that there are common off-hand comments that imply they aren't equal to their male colleagues. that creates a hostile and non-competitive environment for women to work in. so they are more or less forced out, and into careers where they might have a chance at a better future.
i think you're seeing a greater specialization of knowledge that makes teamwork more important now than ever before. if you're unable to work with women because you assume some biological difference makes them incapable of performing the same tasks you do, you won't really be able to work with them. if you're unable to see other people as your equal, regardless of gender or other biological difference, you should recognize that as your problem and try to fix it rather than dismiss it off-hand as 'PC.'
i don't see how you can really see women as less capable due to some biological thing. have you really never worked with competent women before? if so, is it because you've isolated yourself to the extent that you just don't work with other people at all? or because you self-select the groups you interact with and avoid women in general because of whatever bias it is you're stuck on?
^ I won't respond to that foolish interpretation of what I wrote. Read what I wrote before jumping to conclusions.
I'll just take one small part of your post as a way to discredit most of your argument, jla-x:
Why are most famous painters men?
Because we have had several thousand years of history in which women were considered property, not humans. A woman trying to become a famous painter throughout history up until the last century, and even through most of the last century until very late into it, were not given credibility by a society that didn't consider women's voices to be important.
This is also why we have so few famous artists of color, in the West, until very recently.
And this is why we need to skew the balance in favor of hearing those voices now, to bring some equilibrium to the world of culture.
Miles, please. The Naked Ape is about as legitimate as Ayn Rand in any serious circles of anthropology. curtkram just demolished that argument with his post: Desmond Morris makes a bunch of proclamations based on what *he* wants to be true, then a bunch of people fall into believing it because ti also confirms their biases. I mean, I read Naked Ape in college, too, but even a cursory understanding of social psychology just demolishes it.
Come on Donna, I agree completely that there has been much inequality and still is, but there is a difference between men and women. We are not all the same. Women may in fact be better than men at architecture...I really don't know. All I'm saying is that we possess different strengths and weaknesses in general. Not talking about individuals but rather general tendencies.
For instance, did you know that women can actually see more shades of red than men?
is this or is it not a Biological difference in brain ability?
Did you know that men are better at solving certain 3-d puzzles and maps whereas women are better at solving verbal puzzles?
did you know that women are better at team work? There have been experiments done where a group of women vs a group of men have to solve the same problem....the women win overwhelmingly.
Im not saying either sex is more or less capable as individuals...but if we look at the overall trends there may be certain overall tendencies between the sexes.
sorry if the science disrupts your political views but its fact. And again, I'm 100% for equal pay and equal opportunity but we have to realize that certain professions even under the most equal of circumstances (which we don't have) may naturally yield some imbalance.
As I also said, the slow path to licensure is a huge burden for minorities and women. I know people (women) first hand that have expressed this.
i see. so you're saying that we should all assume women are less capable of designing a building because of an experiment that suggests they are more capable of discerning color than men? that's why there is a gender gap?
what does that have to do with architecture? your attempt at science does not suggest women are less capable of designing buildings. it might be worth pointing out that the experiments you're referencing provide broad generalizations that really shouldn't be applied to any individual. just because most men in a given experiment group are not as good at 'teamwork' in whatever way the experiment defines teamwork does not mean all men are not good at all teamwork, thus we should not hold the stereotype that all men are bad at all teamwork. the phenomena that limits opportunity for women in this field is not related to your attempts at science.
i would add to that your tendency to advocate simplifying the architecture registration process to allow anyone that has an opinion and wants to design a doghouse to become an architect kind of makes it worse. if the barriers to entry are so low, anyone can become an architect regardless of ability. why limit women in that case? because they might see color different in certain clinical settings?
i understand women and men are different. that is not justification for assuming they are less capable of performing any task related to the field of architecture. that is not justification for treating women different in a workplace setting. it sounds like you're just trying to rationalize a more deep-seated bigotry by pretending women who want equal opportunity are just PC.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/men-women-different-brains1.htm
Curt, this is not some independent study by some pig men. It's widely accepted scientific fact that men and women have different brain structure and chemistries. Architecture comes from the brain correct? So would it be a stretch to say that a different brain structure may produce different strengths and weaknesses in relation to certain professions?
so, i read that article and still don't see how it's justification for treating women different. i recognize men and women are different. i'm very different than you, despite the fact we probably share the same gender and skin tone. that doesn't mean one of us should be denied the same opportunities as the other just by glancing at what we look like.
Donna, are you saying there aren't any differences between men and women, and that hormones, genetics, evolutionary adaptation and instinct play no part in our social interaction?
I didn't bring this up to justify suppression of women, just to point out the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Your point about women being considered property up until the last century actually reinforces this
JLA-X,
If the central premise of your argument is that the biological differences create the demographic disparity, then perhaps you should expand your intuition (as logic dictates) to other broad demographic disparities in architecture.
Less than 2% of registered architects in the US are black. So would it be safe to assume you believe that their biological differences (mental/physical or what have you) are to account for the disparity? Would you dare draw the assumption that their brains cannot spatially process nearly as well as those of other races?
Or perhaps just MAYBE there are other factors at play that would skew demographic representation?
Curt, please try a little harder to read and comprehend before responding...it's really annoying
what evidence are you providing that suggests a woman's brain is not as capable as a man's brain when designing buildings? is there something in the act or process of designing a building that a women's brain will prevent them from doing? does a women's brain just shut down when thinking about buildings for some reason? my assumption is, based on gender alone, a women can complete the same tasks as men, though sometimes they may do so in a different way. obviously different men complete those tasks in different ways as well.
i get that men and women are different. i'm not saying you're wrong on that point. however, the evidence you show does not conclude that we should limit women from getting into the field of architecture. especially if we dumb down the profession, which is a position you often advocate.
Curt!!!!!!!!! I never said that God damn your frustrating!!
Shut up!!!
Read what I wrote and then respond!!'
Curt, please try a little harder to read and comprehend before responding...it's really annoying
ok, pay attention and i'll try to keep this really simple.
this is a discussion based on recent evidence that suggests there is a gender gap in our profession.
you have presented evidence showing men and women have some sort of different brain make-up, and sometimes may perceive things in different ways.
in the context of this discussion, how is that difference in brain makeup or behavior related to the gender gap in this profession?
the implication would be that women are less represented in this profession because their brains prevent them from doing what architects do.
that's stupid. what you're saying is stupid. the research you're presenting is not stupid, but your choice to present that research in such a way as to suggest women should not be given the same treatment as men in the field of architecture is stupid. the differences in men's and women's brains cited in the articles you linked do not suggest that women are too stupid to be architects. you are drawing the wrong conclusion.
you're rationalizing bigotry.
now read what i'm writing.
there shouldn't be a sizable gender gap in architecture.
Center for ants, absolutely there are societal inequalities at play. I'm not at all denying that. Race and Sex are 2 different issues though. There is Zero biological difference between a white man and black man other than melanin levels. We have exactly the same brain, skeletal structure, etc. there is a difference between men and women however. Of course there is racism and sexism in our society. Of course it is a huge obstacle. If course it has created a huge inequality in the demographics. I do think that we should use law and education to make opportunities more accessible to all.
That is a different issue though. I simply made a point about a scientific FACT and posed the possibility that even if all things were equal in a perfect world...we would likely not see a 50-50 male female demographic in all professions. Some may be more male dominant and some may be more female dominant because we have different stregnths GENERALLY speaking.
Curt, I'm not saying that. You said that. You wanted to hear that so that you could respond to a bigoted comment that didn't exist. You extracted what you wanted to hear. Read what I said specifically and then respond. Did they test for Reading Comp on the ARE?
Women have better communication skills and holistic thinking, which means they should be kicking all your hairy asses in architecture!
Basically, my point was that equal demographics are a poor indication of equal treatment. Income, number of promotions, etc, would be a better metric.
so the articles you linked that show how brain activity for men and women is different is not directly relevant to a discussion on the cause of the gender gap in the field of architecture?
No curt. It wasn't meant to explain the gender gap totally. I said that it is probably partially responsible. I would say that IDP and the slow process towards licensure is mostly responsible. Try being an intern with a young kid. Good luck. Child care is about as expensive as the income of an intern. If internships happened at 20-25 it wouldn't be such an issue but most that I know are more like 28-35. Take a look at architecture in Europe...take a look at other professions here in the US...European men are way way more sexist "old school" than american men. Why such a more equal distribution in Spain, Netherlands? This chart is not providing any real comparisons which may reveal real correlations/explanations other that the obvious lazy conclusion that guys suck.
I'm still trying figure out how even if what jla-x notes is "fact" and there are differences between men and women, how does that figure into the simple fact that women in the profession, real and not hypothetical women, are passed over, forgotten, prevented and just generally disregarded by a profession dominated by white, male privilege?
B3tadine, absolutely agree that women face sexism. No doubt about that. My sister has told me numerous stories of other male lawyers making comments. The difference is that upon graduating she was able to take bar and get licensed. She didn't have to rely on these assholes to further her career. Within 3 years of graduating she had one of the top ten law firms in the state. They can be as sexist as they want because in that profession independence and empowerment is not in their hands. So forget about changing the minds of the ignorant majority...(yeah it helps but not much) instead empower the minority so that their career is in their hands on their terms.
jla-x
I think the problem is that what you posit shows the workplace environment as a static construct of society. If more women want to participate in the workplace, why can't our societal construct at large, or more specifically within the profession or architecture be adapted to equitably incorporate the talents of both genders.
Rather than gripe about differences and how "that's just how things are", we should follow our mandate of self-governance and adapt our society and profession towards the ideal.
In my personal experience, workplace differences in character and trait simply vary from person to person. There are men and women who are assertive and confident, men and women who are more timid. Men and women who are easy going, charming and gregarious and those who are quick tempered and difficult to work with.
Miles, I'm not saying men and women are the same. I *am*saying that Desmond Morris' reasons for why this is so have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the 47 years since his book was written. He's like astrologists by now: they painstakingly chart the star positions, maybe even correctly, but then draw astoundingly ridiculous conclusions from them based on nothing but feelings.
And, I'm saying that the reasons women haven't succeeded as well in many categories in the world doesn't have anything to do with those differences, it has to do with historic societal decisions and structures that can be changed.
As Center for Ants points out, the time for "that's just how things are" is completely over, and if you're not on board you're being left behind. Sorry to sound melodramatic about it, but as a late-adopter of all things I've finally realized I don't have time to deny how quickly things are changing anymore.
Serious question Donna: what do I need to be 'on board' with in order to not be 'left behind'?
You wrote earlier if you get the indiana jones reference that you can quickly become irrelevant unless you adapt. Again, how do I need to adapt and to what am I adapting?
if I'm working in an office I'm talking about the project with coworkers. It doesn't matter if they are women or men. All that matters is who is doing what on the project. So what if the workplace goes from 3 women per 10 employees to this magical perfectly equal ratio of 5 women per 10 employees?
as Hilary Clinton would say, 'what difference does it make'?
So FRaC, serious response: you're saying that the architecture profession is going so well, is on such solid ground, is working so perfectly in broader society and in the face of enormous technological and social upheaval that we should not waste our time looking at why roughly half of women who start in it decide not to continue?
I'm guessing you, like most architects I speak to, see room for improvement in the amount of respect, pay, and ability to make an impact our profession currently has. What if that 50% of women who leave the profession had great ideas about how to make it better, but when they met up against the old-boy, we've-always-done-it-this-way-so-why-change attitude they took those talents to other disciplines? Also, there are parallels with not just the high number of women who leave the profession but the high number *overall* of young architecture grads who dislike traditional practice and thus leave it to go do other things and what a challenge this is for the discipline (ACSA has other charts on this, I believe).
The ACSA Atlas Project is asking the profession to look at some very cold, hard facts about where we are. It's not about looking at *your* office and making sure it's a perfect Benetton ad (another reference only old timers like me are likely to get). It's about looking at our entire profession and figuring out why certain trends exist, and if they are a problem, and what we might be able to do about them if they are.
Crowds of women starting in architecture school then bailing out by the time they get into the actual working practice of the discipline should tell us that something about our discipline is unfriendly to women -and for godssake we *know* our discipline is outright hostile to ethnic minorities, we just seem to have no clue how. Charts like this lead the discussion to far more fruitful places than will a conversation by a few guys in a firm saying "Yeah, well we've a female intern picking carpets and paint colors so I don't see what all the hubbub is about".
As for what difference it makes: do you want me to post that parable about the person tossing starfish back into the ocean? I'm not saying my posting here makes a bit of difference, but the more young women hear that yes, it can be a tough haul but getting the license in the face of it all is the sweetest feeling in the world, the more likely (I hope) they are to persevere and thus change the current imbalance, and *that* would be a difference. Then maybe we could stop having to talk about it.
While Morris's conclusions are debatable, the genetic, physiological and evolutionary differences he bases them are not. I agree that the structures ingrained into global society - structures that evolved as a result of our differences - can be changed. But one of the biggest problems is that men have 20 to 40 times more testosterone than women, while women have corresponding more progesterone than men. It's like a party with only crack addicts and acid heads.
Which is a good thing. Except when it's not. Morris notes the differences between sexes and their behaviors across the animal kingdom and it is ludicrous to imagine that we are somehow different.
Let's be clear, I'm all for equality in opportunity, pay, etc., but there are times when I find your species absolutely incomprehensible (this is not one of them). Which is generally an indicator that I should shut up and find something else to do.
Not only are women different than men, they're a whole different species. Check.
LOL beta. Miles, I know what you mean, but yeah, um, we're the same species.
Remember too that Morris was writing at a time when women were expected to stay home and take care of kids and weren't allowed to have a bank account unless they had a husband. So his whole equivalence of the male hunting instinct with mens' desire to achieve in business is pure bullshit based on the socioeconomics of the times. That's changed.
The question to be asked isn't whether women are different from men but why there so many women who successfully study architecture but later leave the profession. It's not something the data presented can answer so we are left to speculate. It could be many simply find the business less enjoyable than school and leave for better opportunities, but it could also be that others in the profession treat them worse than men and push them out.
Actually, it would be more interesting to see a study of why all architecture-degree holders leave the profession, broken down by gender or race. There are plenty things to dislike about being an architect, and it may be that looking into this provides some insight to help improve the profession for all of us. Perhaps the interesting question isn't why so many women leave but why so many men stay :P
FWIW the offices I have most enjoyed working in tended to have a higher proportion of female employees. Different or not, women and men tend to appreciate similar things in work: money, engaging work, and civil coworkers/ bosses.
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.