Cruz Garcia and Nathalie Frankowski of WAI Think Tank have released some very troubling new data as part of their ongoing work studying structural racism in architecture. Part of their research has tracked the cost of tuition, along with other related typical expenses with student living, with the median household income in a number of cities across the US.
In Manhattan, for example, the annual tuition at Columbia GSAPP, in the M.Arch program, costs over $61k, with additional related expenses adding up to nearly $100k. Meanwhile, the median white household income is around $86k and the median Black household income is only $28k.
The "Anti-Liberation Paywall", part of their larger Manual of Anti-Racist Architectural Pedagogy, describes this problem in detail, and discusses the role of academic institutions as instruments of settler-colonial legacies, displacing infrastructures, and hegemonic ideologies...
(from A Manual of Anti-Racist Architectural Pedagogy)
Cruz Garcia & Nathalie Frankowski / WAI Think Tank
Anti-Anti-Racist Institutions
With the increased presentation of ‘decolonial’ and anti-racist agendas inside some of the historically elite universities in the United States, an anti-racist approach to architectural education must take into consideration how power is filtered, consolidated, and maintained by these institutions.
Harvard’s 40.1-billion-dollar endowment—larger than the combined GDP of Jamaica, Honduras, and Haiti—is just one of the many colossal funds of these universities. Through these endowments and ballooning tuition fees that promise to forcefully maintain the status quo through the lack of accessibility and piling student debt, these universities not only have benefited from a violent relationship with settler- colonialism, slavery, theft, but with current models of local extraction and exploitation, gentrification, and colonialism.
Can an anti-racist, anti-capitalist program be really formulated in Gentrifying institutions? Can the efforts made to address anti-Black racism done by Columbia University coexist with the expansion projects that push a gentrifying Morningside Heights area into a threatened Harlem? Is it possible to disentangle the obscene endowment of the same university that surpasses the 10.9 billion (or $10,900,000,000 to really grasp the magnitude of this venture bounty) or Princeton (25.9 billion) from its connections to slavery as many of the first university presidents and professors owned slaves?
Could Harvard University —among other Ivy League Universities—offer decolonizing programs at the same time that it is accused by activists and students of holding around $60 million in Puerto Rican debt through a multibillion-dollar commitment from a hedge fund, hiding hundreds of millions in bonds from the Puerto Rican Government? Can a University with an endowment of 41.9-billion-dollar endowment argue for decoloniality and anti-racism at the same time it benefits from the money extracted by an anti-democratic ‘fiscal control board’ that threatens to cut nearly half the total budget ($450 million) of Universidad de Puerto Rico, the archipelago’s public university system? Is a radical pedagogy possible through the ‘elite’ institutions when they profit from a complex and multi-centenary colonial apparatus of laws, tariffs, and neoliberal speculation?
Anti-Liberation Paywall
As the discussion surrounding the possibility of an anti-racist architectural pedagogy unfolds, the role of academic institutions as instruments of settler-colonial legacies, displacing infrastructures, and hegemonic ideologies must not be overlooked.
The Anti-Liberation Paywall diagram displays the tuition fees and approximate total cost (including additional fees, materials, and living expenses) of some of the major private and more expensive architecture programs in the United States. Below the tuition fee and total cost data of each professionally accredited architectural program, two bars show the median income of white and black households in cities or states (depending whether the university is located in a major city or not).
As the graph shows, tuition fees are mostly either close to or below the median income of white households. On the other hand, in none of the cases the tuition was below the median income of Black households, and in some cases like in St. Louis with Washington University and in Manhattan with Columbia University the tuition fees almost doubled and the total cost tripled the median income of Black households. Although the graph highlights just white and Black households, in many cases Latina and indigenous households would sometimes have even lower income than Black households. What was consistent among all the graphs is that white households and black households were consistently at the top and bottom tiers respectively, regardless of city or state.
In some examples of what can be considered double theft, Cornell and MIT (not in the chart) are not only private universities with exorbitant tuition fees, but they are also Land-Grant institutions that—as la paperson argues in ‘Land. And the University Is Settler Colonial’—are explicitly Settler-Colonial. Passed as part of the Morrill Act of 1962, Land-Grant Universities are the product of stolen land that “was (and is) the literal capital used to buy and build”, turning the traditional model of Land as campuses to Land as Capital.
The resulting data evidences how, regardless of symbolic decolonial or anti-racist gestures, these elite universities remain behind Anti-Liberation Paywalls that oftentimes extend their voracious tentacles to local gentrification conquests and in global settler-colonial expeditions. By relying on the legitimization of these institutions, focusing on diplomas and careers connected to these behemoths of cultural and financial capital, the world of architectural pedagogy reinforces their absolute power.
The illusion of Global Liberation
These universities often claim (with a pinch of truth in it) that they provide in their expensive halls space for the most diverse student bodies. However, an additional chart displays how for many countries in the world (Puerto Rico, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Nigeria, and China just to name a few) the median household income is exponentially inferior to the tuition fees of many of these universities. As in the case of the median Black, Latina, or indigenous household, it would be highly improbable for a median household on most parts of the world to be able to pay full tuition in any of these universities.
An Anti-racist pedagogy across the world is only possible by eliminating the anti-liberation paywall and with it bring down class barriers, and hegemonic structures. In order to create truly accessible and radically inclusive learning environments we need to be ready to reform institutions that allow for change. Other worlds are possible, other universities are possible.
Let's pause and be clear-
This is not an architectural education problem. This is a problem of higher education being at large and the consequence of intentional and continued disinvestment from higher education.
So when people say, "meh, it's gonna happen, "they (the signified they) should go somewhere else," it's increasingly difficult to go somewhere else. Incidentally this is exactly why you apply to one of *those schools* because they have deeper funding pools than other institutions.
But bear in mind you're also saying "meh, secondary education is for people who can afford it," neglecting to keep in mind that we place so much value on education as a means to advance one's position (status, class?) in life, that is simply reinforcing an already present glass ceiling in place (there are other complex and troubling points around this, but I won't dwell).
You're also supporting a homogenization of thinking, problem solving and interpretation. Only certain segments that can afford an education should get an education, and we will craft our education towards those segments to control the feedback loop, and learning occurs in the negative feedback loop.
So please, when you think about this topic, don't think about just architecture - this about the price of education across the board.
All 8 Comments
wouldn't it be more useful to compare tuition to the income of graduates from each program?
if minority graduates incomes compare favorably to the general community, that would indicate some degree of success by institutions at addressing the deficiencies common to our society. this data provides no information at all about the efficacy of the universities, it just illustrates a society-level problem which isn't at all unique to architecture programs.
and as for the affordability barrier it is necessary to compare to actual price paid by students in each demographic. list price is an imaginary number - actual cost is the potential barrier.
maybe, but then what's the point? we could compare the price of housing or healthcare to local incomes in so many communities and likewise see an unfavorable ratio impeding human well-being. this is the tautology of low-income: everything important is unaffordable.
Have to factor in availability of scholarships and financial aid. My parents worked hard to put me and my sister through school and we were denied financial aid...though we sure could have used it. I'm sure the field is leveled by that somewhat...(actually I know so). As you can see from the data the tuition eats up 2/3rds + of even the white incomes...what are you left to live off exactly? The biggest takeaway is that cost/benefit of half these schools is obscene for architecture. Go study in Europe...
My parents always "joked" they could have just one of them working and then we might have qualified for financial aid...ha ha ha. The American Dream people.
So they are complaining that they are in a far better position financially then most people? While I agree the system is broken, there is the availability of Community College, and other methods to acquire education.
a graph of endowments and gdp from their instagram page
Systemic racism is a fact of life. It's also true that not seeing a person like you in a position of power has a negative effect on one's self esteem, adding to this phenomenon. That's why Obama and hopefully Harris will slowly change that math, I just don't think it helps to conflate white people or an institution moving into a minority neighborhood with the colonization of Africa by Europeans. That's too simplistic.
I am 100% behind opening architecture up to look more like America, but don't assume that the cultural output of a white male dominated history makes it illegitimate or corrupt. Even if the majority of architects have been white males, don't do yourself the disservice by not studying their work just because they had the fortune of having the landscape all to themselves. Culture certainly plays a big role in the arts, but as a designer, I can tell you it's first and foremost a human product, assuming your primary goal is to please your fellow human being.
Why in the heck would a poor family living in the Bronx send their kids to Columbia Architecture School anyways? Architecture is a profession for the wealthy as we all know. This study just proves that.
Why? Republicans are promising stronger bootstraps.
Funny enough, I did research back in 2016 about this exact issue. That Architecture was still a white profession, and 80% of the top firms all have caucasian owners or those in higher positions. The field caters to the rich who can afford to not work, and focus on studying while others have to work 40 hours, get loans, and do their studio work. \
Also, do poorer neighborhoods really need architects to fix them with their glazing details and color palette selections? What we need is POLICY planner with strong socio economic education to handle and ameliorate these neighborhoods.
Let's pause and be clear-
This is not an architectural education problem. This is a problem of higher education being at large and the consequence of intentional and continued disinvestment from higher education.
So when people say, "meh, it's gonna happen, "they (the signified they) should go somewhere else," it's increasingly difficult to go somewhere else. Incidentally this is exactly why you apply to one of *those schools* because they have deeper funding pools than other institutions.
But bear in mind you're also saying "meh, secondary education is for people who can afford it," neglecting to keep in mind that we place so much value on education as a means to advance one's position (status, class?) in life, that is simply reinforcing an already present glass ceiling in place (there are other complex and troubling points around this, but I won't dwell).
You're also supporting a homogenization of thinking, problem solving and interpretation. Only certain segments that can afford an education should get an education, and we will craft our education towards those segments to control the feedback loop, and learning occurs in the negative feedback loop.
So please, when you think about this topic, don't think about just architecture - this about the price of education across the board.
Needs more thumbs.
This is an issue that will always happen where money and power is involved.Elements of exclusivity emerge muddled with social biases.
Public education in the form of subsidized state schools should resolve this impass;Unfortunately the staff and faculty who provide an architectural education in public higher education institutions are products of a failed architectural pipeline;some of them are graduates of elite schools;Therefore have no incentive to alter demographics among licensed architects and architecture schools to reflect underlying social dynamics.
The medical schools used a practical alternative and it is working;if a demanding profession like medicine can do it so can architecture;but sacrifices have to be made.For instance medical schools that failed to reflect underlying social demographics were threatened with de-accreditation and it worked wonders;The argument that altering recruitment policies will attract unqualified students doesn't hold since all graduates of the program are subjected to the same licensing requirements.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/...
Architecture schools should follow the same route. licensure requirements should be wrested from individual architects(who can practice biased hiring)to a regulated body of state funded internship and licensing pipeline whose sole purpose would be to shepherd students reflective of society into the profession; with goals to meet state standards and cultivate social aspirations;
Architecture is a "Social sport" that everyone plays directly or indirectly.
I've been looking for some credible data on how economic background /class affects candidates ability to stay in the licensure pipeline, so this article caught my eye. However, this analysis really falls short. There are a lot of well-meaning students, professionals, and advocates trying to bring attention to this issue, and that is admirable, but a good intention paired with poor use of data doesn't result in interventions that work. The organizers of this "study" wanted to demonstrate that structural racism is affecting the situation in a specific way. In this case the study is treating race of a student as always correlating with household income levels. However if we are to take this question and possible solutions seriously, there would have to be separate and joint analysis of race and economics on architecture school affordability and access. To be clear, I am in no way questioning the sincerity of the researchers and their passion for this subject, but understanding a problem of this complexity and explaining that to the public requires a more rigorous approach.
Some issues I'm seeing in this analysis, beyond the excellent point brought up by mark miller and midlander above:
1. "Median household income" covers all households, and doesn't provide any context as to number of people in the household or their age. Age distribution and family structure trends in different demographic groups can affect these medians. Household income is also not a good proxy for household assets or personal assets. Tuition payments of this size are not "cashflow" purchases funded by income as it comes in - Federal loans for graduate students have very high interest rates(and limited amounts), so many choose private lenders who can offer a better deal based on their own assets or those of a cosigner. The same principal school loan can be manageable or financially devastating. Comparing total tuition for the graduate programs to median household assets or individual assets or interest rate eligibility would be much more informative.
2. Almost no students at any of these schools actually pay full tuition. Usually the average tuition paid by students is publicly available, but it may not be for all schools and all programs. Schools with large endowments are generally more generous with grants and scholarships, but that's not always the case. For instance (just giving an example not included in the article), U Miami has an expensive list price for graduate school, but is also known to be very generous with scholarships. It could be that some schools that are on the chart are offering students discounts more often and are perhaps being unfairly maligned by the researchers. Hard to say, if only the full list tuition was being used as a means for comparison.
3. Many private architecture schools don't actually pull students from in-state or from the local area, and are not required to. A large proportion of students at these schools are international students. The relationship between the incomes of various demographics in the same state as the school and tuition affordability for students accepted to that school isn't very strong.
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.