GRADUATE education is the Detroit of higher learning. Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market (candidates for teaching positions that do not exist) and develop skills for which there is diminishing demand (research in subfields within subfields and publication in journals read by no one other than a few like-minded colleagues), all at a rapidly rising cost (sometimes well over $100,000 in student loans). — nytimes.com
24 Comments
This article isn't new - 2009 - but I think it should be required reading for every grad student in the field. I've been referring students and colleagues to it for awhile. Higher education is predicted to be the next bubble to burst, right? And this article clearly outlines many of the problems, and proposes more solutions than I've listed there, the main points (copied from the article) being:
- Abolish permanent departments, even for undergraduate education, and create problem-focused programs. These constantly evolving programs would have sunset clauses, and every seven years each one should be evaluated and either abolished, continued or significantly changed.
- Increase collaboration among institutions.
- Expand the range of professional options for graduate students. Most graduate students will never hold the kind of job for which they are being trained.
- Impose mandatory retirement and abolish tenure. Initially intended to protect academic freedom, tenure has resulted in institutions with little turnover and professors impervious to change.
What really stuck out at me in this reading though was this sentence: It is simply cheaper to provide graduate students with modest stipends and adjuncts with as little as $5,000 a course — with no benefits — than it is to hire full-time professors. I make $4,500 for the course I teach. There you go.I really hate the use of Detroit in the opening line.
Interesting article to read as a current graduate student. I currently receive something like 750$/month as a stipend but I am not doing any research or anything of value to the university. I suppose the value is in the cheap labor as they do not need to hire a full- faculty member. I don’t necessarily think that I am working really hard for meager pay and assuming huge debt. I am taking on some debt but I am learning in the process. Maybe my position as a graduate assistant isn’t similar to others but my academic work is always a priority (over the GA position) and the professor I am helping has never given me “illusory promise.” To me, the position is another level of engagement with the faculty and also other students in the college. I believe that the new relationships formed as a result of the graduate assistant position are invaluable. As we have spoken about in my professional practices course, networking is a huge part of the professional world. We have had three panels of local architects who have been through the program here and many times during the panels the discussion of networking was brought up. During the last one, a young grad even asked us (the students!) if we knew of anyone hiring or needing some extra help…I think that screams “knowing someone is the only way to get a job in this slim market.” Another grad from a different panel went as far as saying in the future knowing someone is “going to be increasingly the only way to get a job.”
Going back to a point from the article I think at this point we should be evaluating what is being taught in the schools and how much of it is worth anything, whether it be time or money. There could and should be systems in place to constantly be looking at the value of these courses and even programs. I am not saying that I have taken a bunch of worthless courses but I believe that there is a big disconnect in school from the real world to the class room. This goes back to another point in the article –“Most graduate students will never hold the kind of job for which they are being trained.” From what I can gather as a student here, we are all making these theoretical projects, many which can’t be built because the budget is sky high or consists of some futuristic materials that don’t yet exist. I am sure there are a few architects who are fortunate enough to be able to do this kind of work and then see it through, but I would guess that 95 out of 100 do not get to do that. So what about courses NOT being taught? Client interaction is something that is very important but I have had little to no exposure to client interaction. So maybe there are courses on topics that are of more value but they are just not being given…
To wrap up, I believe that there do need to be some changes in the current way things are done in graduate school but how do we kick-off these changes? Can you measure the success of the changes? Will students have to suffer as a result of trying to find the ideal program? One thing is certain, we cannot just jump ship. We just have to acknowledge flaws and trying to correct them without causing more/other issues.
I would like to point out that it is the end of the World as we know it.
How much did you pay for gas this week? How about 15 years ago? Ultimately the value of a resource; a fuel, a graduate degree, or a civilization structure (The US for example) is highly dependent on how rare or useful that resource and when it is acquired and applied.
Graduate degrees are being sold to younger generations. For earlier generations, A Graduate degree was a novel and unique achievement that garnished accolades & work. At this time a degree made getting a job far easier. This was the wave of proprietary learning, and everyone that lived to ride it or see it ridden sent their children off to get to ride that same wave. The only real problem is that parents are sending their children off to ride this wave opportunity, when the only thing left is the wake. Everything happens in cycles and this is no exception.
For a more emotional review of these cycles please see Ze Frank’s explanation of Waves
The following is the best point made in this article, and really refers to the obsolescence of the entire social organization used in failing business’ today. This point is the premise of several books from Magali Larson’s 1977 The Rise and Fall of Professionalism to Thomas Lockwood’s 2009 DesignThinking
“There can be no adequate understanding of the most important issues we face when disciplines are cloistered from one another and operate on their own premises.”
Many Graduate programs are forced to enact to the requirements of highly respected professional associations. These highly respected professional associations are entrenched in beliefs and admitting that the things that a professional needs to know in a particular field have changed is tantamount to heresy.
The environment is changing, and if species don’t adapt they die off. This is as true to the ecological world as it is the professional world. If graduate programs continue to bend to the needs of an environment that no longer exists, they will no longer be relevant.
Currently, a graduate degree should only be pursued by people deeply passionate about the field of their interest because the competition for jobs in these fields is made scarce by a market flooded by degreed individuals. I am going to grad school.
I feel fine.
No one is forced to pursue a graduate degree. One would think that going to graduate school is a decision made very carefully by the candidate before matriculating into any program with an ultimate personal/professional goal. If someone pursues an extremely expensive graduate degree where there is likely no demand for a position to be filled afterward, perhaps it is the fault of the person pursuing the degree. That is what I dislike about this article; it assumes the fault of graduate education is on the institution and not the candidate. (Of course, unforeseen events and circumstances that remove the need for these graduates can unfortunately quickly occur--very similar to what is happening economically right now.)
As a graduate student pursuing a Master of Architecture who frequently questions my purpose and motivation in being here, I find the point about expanding the range for professional options for graduate students to be interesting. A graduate degree is mandatory for becoming an architect, but I wonder if it is actually useful for any other career. In my professional practice course, we have discussed alternative paths besides becoming a licensed architect. There have been past graduates who have come into our class and discussed their alternative paths, such as becoming real estate agents and contractors. In addition, our professors have given examples of M. Arch graduates finding alternative careers, such as becoming website designers, designing and selling shoes, and even writing books on raising rabbits. Do we need a Master of Architecture to do these things? It causes me to question why alternative careers paths are being discussed in a specialized graduate-level degree program. For this reason, I think that a Master of Architecture and other graduate programs are useful only if the candidate knows exactly what career he or she is pursuing.
On the other hand, how can someone know what a career as an architect (or another professional) is like if the only way he or she can experience that is to first go to graduate school to become one? Students can work in an office, talk to current professionals, and observe professionals working, but how will someone know if he or she can find satisfying work when they graduate if the architectural profession is undergoing radical changes to what it even means to be an architect? For this reason, I think expanding the range for professional options for graduate students to be useful.
Of course, I can’t know or convince anyone whether graduate programs are becoming more or less useful to Americans, but I strongly believe that the success of a graduate degree has a large part to do with a candidate’s ability to be self-critical in his or her goals. It is imperative to evaluate the graduate programs being offered and why it would be personally useful before investing time and money in a graduate education.
As a graduate student, I am not feeling too confident with the state of affairs of this fine country. It has become horrific how our priorities have become rearranged. Capitalism and Corporate America are the leading forces - sadly, money does buy everything, including an education that does not guarantee better opportunities, as it did a few years ago. Gas prices are at a ridiculous rate; the cost of a college education is skyrocketing even though a degree may not afford someone a better job opportunity, food costs have increased as the serving sizes have decreased, etc.
Investing in a graduate degree may not be the most financially responsible move, according to the Times. My own master's degree, which I am partially way thru obtaining, may not do myself any good. I am not sure, honestly, if I truly want to be an architect. I know I do not want to be a traditional architect; but I love designing architectural features and structures. I still yearn to be a park ranger - a vocation that I have dreamt of being since early childhood. Does this mean I am wasting my time and money trying to obtain a master's degree in architecture? I do not think so; one thing the Times seemed to forget was that traditional occupations have changed. An architect needs no longer to be a skilled craftsmen, engineer, etc, and architects do not have to practice architecture. What this means is: my master's degree will not be wasted, I can use my architectural education and experiences in another field of work thus providing a different perspective to that job than a non-architect.
What? Does this make sense? klgoffiney commented, "On the other hand, how can someone know what a career as an architect (or another professional) is like if the only way he or she can experience that is to first go to graduate school to become one?"and they are right. Can a surgeon know that they really want to be a surgeon without going to medical school or taking advanced anatomy classes? Can a lawyer truly understand the court of law and the inner workings of a courthouse without having been educated in the legal system? It is extremely difficult to fully understand how professions like an architect, a lawyer, a doctor, etc. work, traditionally and contemporarily, when an education is needed that extends beyond four undergraduate years of study.
No market, no demand for skills obtained, and rising costs are yielding graduate students that possess experiences and an education that can be used in fields that their degree is not in. The Times sees this as a be all end all, which is partially accurate. Although obtaining a master's degree in field one cannot find a career in can be devastating, but it can also be invigorating. It can give one an "one-up" on their competition by providing experiences that a competitor has not endured. I feel this way now in graduate school: I possess different skill sets than another graduate student whose undergraduate degree was in an architectural field.
It is rough to conceive that but it could be worse - you can be told what you have to be not what yo want to be.
It has been interesting to see how the architectural profession has adapted over the last few years when it comes to the need for Graduate degrees. As was stated earlier, no one is forced to pursue a graduate degree, however because of the change in how a post-professional degree can be obtained it is now required to be labeled as an Architect.
The articles point about expanding the range of professional options for graduate students is very important. I feel that my professional practice course has been one of the most successful courses I've taken in my collegiate career because it is doing what a specialized graduate degree should do, prepare me for the professional career that it is associated with. I applied for a Masters in Architecture because I wanted to become a licensed architect, but I did so after interning at an architectural firm and working in the field for several years. I was astounded at the number of people who were in the program and had NEVER worked in a architectural office. Why were they here? How could they possibly know this is what they wanted? Why are people considering alternative careers paths after earning a specialized graduate-level degree? As it was stated in an earlier comment, graduate programs are useful only if the candidate knows exactly what career he or she is pursuing and they should be tailored as such.
My wife and I were both accepted into an Architectural program which promised that after five and a half years, we would graduate with a degree that would allow us to move on and become registered architects. Two years in we were told that the program was being changed and that instead, we would all earn an undergraduate degree and then be forced to apply for a two year graduate program. What we were not told was that acceptance into the graduate program was not guaranteed even though we had all entered the program with the promise of a post-professional degree and on top of that there would be higher fees associated with the classes because they were considered graduate courses. During this time, the same situation was happening all over the country as programs slowly made the transition. Who was the benefiting? Surely it was being done for the benefit of the student...right? Looking back, perhaps everyone benefited. The university's didn't have to pay professors for classes that no one really wanted to take, and students would be able to look objectively at their education and consider other options besides Architect. Because of this, my wife strongly considered going back to school to get a MBA, or perhaps a Masters in Graphic Design because she saw all the things that should could do with the training she had received by going though the architectural program and because of the work experience she had gotten by working in an architectural office.
Graduate schools don't need to be abolished, and as the article points out, they need to be expanded so that there is a range of professional options for graduate students so that the student can tailor the education around what they want to get out of it. I can not help but think that if most graduate students never hold the kind of job for which they are being trained, maybe they shouldn't have been in the program in the first place.
A rift has inadvertently been created between academia and professional practice. It is a problem dealing with the lack of collaboration among academic disciplines or fields. We typically integrate with our own kind, but rarely with others of differing disciplines. The lack of collaboration with other fields generates commonplace stagnant ideas and narrow perspectives. In the professional world, interactions take place between members of differing fields all of the time. For instance, an architect frequently corresponds with contractors, engineers, consultants, government authorities, community groups, but also lenders, lawyers, scientists, insurers, etc. These correspondences require a language of communication for successful idea exchange. In many cases, it seems as though academia teaches the vocabulary and requires the student to piece together a language during the initial years of their professional practice. What if academia evolved to help provide a language between disciplines? How can a one-dimensional educational process begin to compose a rich language of collaboration that better prepares scholars for professional practice?
The university system has focused primarily on developing a scholar’s critical thinking skills while professional practice adds the requirement of an elevated articulate communication. Recently in an architectural professional practice course, three panel reviews were observed in which individuals from professional practice expressed their experiences within the architectural industry. Each panel comprised of people whom had been in the professional world for certain lengths of time. One panel comprised of people who had been in the professional for over 10 years, while the second ranged from 3-5 years, and the final, 1-2 years. The most experienced panel was confident and mindful on how they communicating answers to different individuals. They also spoke about the understanding of values, such as listening and flexibility, as part of the communication process. It was evident that the speakers devoted energy and time to the betterment of their communication and collaboration skills. During the panel discussion of individuals who recently graduated from academia and have been present in the architecture profession for 1-2 years, a young woman on the panel illustrated, “It’s tough to get used to the collaboration. It’s not all of your ideas. And people don’t always have the same ideas as you.” From her statements, we understand that her academic routine instilled into her the importance of reflection as a means of problem solving. Additionally, her impressions from the heightened level of collaboration within the professional work setting caught her by surprise.
Academia must then become a redefined experience with the integration of cross disciplinary collaboration as a key fundamental in the educational curriculum. In the article, the author states, “It is possible to imagine a broad range of topics around which such zones of inquiry could be organized: Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water.“ Perhaps the hierarchy of categories requires further exploration, definition, and or/refinement. I am not completely sold on all categories of topics that the author proposes as it seems difficult that all departments could fit neatly within the construct. Nevertheless, the concept has the potential to engage and inform problems outside of the safe disciplinary bubble that our ideas manifest and are developed in. With the potential for insight, understanding, and feedback, integrated disciplinary academics has the potential for the development of ideas that may never have been realized. There is much discipline specific knowledge that, if shared and collaborated among disciplines, has the potential to create innovative and interesting ideas.
The limiting modes of academic interdisciplinary learning that education has tried to provide have formed a growing gap between academia and the professional world. The importance of thought development and interdisciplinary skills should not be divorced from cross discipline collaboration, but married for the potential generation of fresh ideas. Additionally, integrating the ideas of thought and cross disciplinary skills can provide a means to develop a vocabulary while learning to speak a communicable language between disciplines. This approach more closely mimics a professional setting in which scholars strive to become an integral part of. Developing this interdisciplinary language early will better prepare students for the professional world and allow them to “hit the ground running” once transplanted.
‘Through selective admissions, carefully designed curricula,and rigorous graduation standards, schools guide the formation of their professional progeny. Professional schools play a key role in developing the shared worldview that characterizes a professional community’- Architecture Students Handbook of Professional Practice.
True. But it’s easier said than done.
Mark C. Taylor brings to the table very interesting and current dilemmas (not much has changed since 2009) of the graduate program structure. Before we all dive into the solutions involving restructuring the system to cut costs, one may ask why does one choose to invest $100,000 for education in architecture in the first place?
The existence of exorbitant fees could probably linger on given the variables and processes of education. Now, let’s look at high fees and it’s implications from another perspective. Architecture courses deliver very little or no substantial information to help students understand that there is a lot more to learning than aspects of design, which is normally his or her predominant driving force. Most concerning, is that most of them, ignorant of basic economics, do not calculate the loan structure and it’s break-even period. Nor does the curriculum provide the student with information on the economic viability of the investment that one puts towards his or her education. This pertains to both, the undergraduate and the graduate program. It is extremely important for one to know the relationship of investment and payback of the endeavor. Ideally, it is quintessential for one to know timeframe related to when one breaks even to actually begin to build his/her future. Given the relatively low pay scales in addition to the rapid inflation rate of basic living cost, the pay back, in most cases, is a distant future.
The $100,000 student loans for architects does not make much sense if one intends to lead his life as an eternal and loyal employee. Of course, there is this precious and often everlasting knowledge one gets to keep. Would you take that as a the fair compromise? However, there is always that silver lining of a flourishing independent career in the near future that one hopes for. But, how many actually achieve that goal successfully?
Mark’s suggestions now starts making sense. Cutting down education costs will be able to help solve one of the root problems and thus, help lower the payback time for most loans.
The author’s overall stance towards American higher education for the 21st century brings new light to the way we need to think about the future of education. Mark’s essay points towards a more current approach regarding restructuring our educational system.
‘Like all professionals, architects have substantial voices in establishing their own destiny.’ If this statement made in Handbook is true, then it is about time we need to look and call for positive change.
As a current graduate student pursuing a Masters of Architecture degree at the same university that I acquired my undergraduate degree (in the same field), I cannot help but feel disillusioned. As an undergraduate student, pursuing what a majority would consider a highly valuable degree based on cost, I always felt the College’s faculty and the system that was in place put the importance on the graduate and fourth-year students. Upon graduation, I realized the professors were less worried about the student’s work, so long as they could just push an underachieving student off onto another professor. Unfortunately, at some point, there is no faculty member to accept the burden, and the underachieving student was handed a diploma with the rest of his or her peers. Currently, I have a Bachelors of Science from a specific university, along with a few other individuals who, to my strong belief, reduce the integrity of the meaning of such a degree. What exactly was I paying for during those four years of my undergraduate studies? The amount of time and effort put into studio work through late nights and early mornings has essentially become a over strenuous endeavor with little incentive.
With the semester coming to an end and the new graduate system in place, it is required to take classes for one of the summer sessions in between the two years of graduate studies in the Architecture program. With a diminishing class size in the graduate program, there is no chance of options for courses to take during the summer semester. Instead, each graduate student must take a studio workshop integrated with a “design-build” program that has occurred over the last 4+ semesters. Just from ordinary daily observation, the students working in the “design-build” program have not been pushed to wrap up the program. As a graduate student looking to work on a project over the summer that I can put into my portfolio, it is hard not to feel as if I have been brought in to mop up someone else’s mess. As a studio, the graduate program brought the issue up to specific faculty in the program who are in control of scheduling courses. I believe that the faculty should have some responsibility in rising up to meet the demand warranted by the graduate students. I do not want to pay money to the university in order to get a Masters degree and spend a summer in an underutilized role. If this is what higher-education has dwindled down to, is there really a need for the university anymore? The politics within the university completely destroy the educational purposes that resulted in the creation of such academia purposes in the first place. When student voices go unheard, the faculty need to step out of their tenured-protected positions and wright the ship.
Graduate School trains us to become something we are unlikely to become. Within the architecture department, we are trained to become designers and that becomes the main focus of our study. This is an important aspect of our education, however, more than likely when we enter the work force we will mostly be working on the technical details. Through our class panel discussions, we learned how relationships with clients and marketing are integral parts of the profession. Where are we taught either of these? No courses are offered unless we branch out ourselves into the courses offered through the business college. One quote in particular stuck out to me from our class panel discussions, “Your whole day is solving problems.” Where and when will we become equipped to handle the problems that arise every day? Is this something that can be taught or will we just have to learn as we continue in our career?
Collaboration between institutions is mentioned but what about collaboration across disciplines? I do not agree that the departments should be dissolved. The separate departments allow for a specific education type, i.e. architecture, and feels like a comfortable way to represent yourself. The departments should stay separated with more collaboration between them. In reality, architecture works with construction management and interior design, to name a few other disciplines. At school, architecture only works within its own studio and rarely branches out. How is this preparing us for our future?
I don’t think the University model can be radically changed overnight or that it should be. But steps can be implemented to bring about the desired changes. Collaboration and a broader education for all can benefit the students.
What do you want to be when you grow up? This is one of the most basic questions that we have faced since childhood. After 37 years on earth and 15 years as a teacher I still think about it today. I have wanted to be many things as a child, a few among them were: fireman, astronaut, truck driver, musician, and architect. I have had the pleasure of attempting the last two on the list but after reading the article several times, I am having a hard time picturing where I currently fit into one of the author’s 12 zones of inquiry as listed below:
“2. Abolish permanent departments, even for undergraduate education, and create problem-focused programs. These constantly evolving programs would have sunset clauses, and every seven years each one should be evaluated and either abolished, continued or significantly changed. It is possible to imagine a broad range of topics around which such zones of inquiry could be organized: Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water”
The idea that universities should abolish all graduate and undergraduate departments and replace them with these zones of inquiry is absurd. The author has left out important categories that are important for a large portion of the population. For example, where does art and music fit into this system? Are we saying that this is unimportant to the 6 billion people on the planet or is this category just overlooked? I agree with the author that departments within the university should be more collaborative across the board, but to totally abolish them seems a bit extreme.
My professional practice class is preparing us to go out into the world with the idea that there is more than just the traditional role of architect awaiting us. We have had several panels of practicing architects come to talk with us on this very subject. One panelist said that no matter what path you take in life it is important to be passionate about it! I think the author has forgotten that point in his article. Most students who pursue graduate degrees are there because they have a passion for knowledge. Yes my graduate degree is preparing me for a career in the architectural field, but most importantly it has given me valuable skills in problem solving, time management, and self motivation. Will I ever have a career as a traditional architect? No one can predict what the future. The best I can do is learn all I can while in school, make contacts for the future, and carve a niche for myself doing something I am passionate about. What else matters?
I agree with some of the points made by Mr. Taylor, but I find that in general, the article seems to oversimplify many complex situations. He makes umbrella assumptions, that all higher education programs are still focused on a traditional dissertations, lack any interest in collaboration, and that, “most students will never hold the kind of job for which they are being trained.” I find this difficult to accept as a student finishing my Masters of Architecture where I have experienced just the opposite. He also resorts to using buzz words, i.e. Detroit and Wall Street, which seem to add relatively limited value to the article. To state that, “Graduate education is the Detroit of higher learning…producing a product for which there is no market,” seems incredibly naive.
I do understand that there is an increasing issue in the rising cost of higher education and student debt in relation to the market’s ability to support living wage compensation. For me in architecture, this is very much the case. Without much outside financial assistance from family or scholarships, I have amassed a fair amount of debt acquiring what many would consider a relatively small amount of marketable skills. I have, however, been able to develop, what I feel to be, a good understanding of myself and honed skills such as observing, thinking, and critical reflection. I believe these are skills that, although hard to put on paper, often make a higher level of education something of merit. At this point, I have been able to acquire a job in the field, and feel confident that my ability to think will keep me flexible in finding creative ways to find work in the future. That said, I have borrowed the rule of thumb from M. Scott Ball in Good Deeds, Good Design, “if it looks like it could use the help of an architect, then it is probably architecture.” This allows me to do most things and not worry about being “true to the profession.”
In relation to architecture more specifically, I do feel that the profession and the university need to work to establish what they are, or at least sub-categorize the profession a little more at the graduate level. Entering into a graduate program, I would like to think that most students have given some consideration to what areas they are interested in and thus have an understanding of a more narrowed topic that they would like to explore. Based on the strengths of their faculty, universities should have their primary areas reduced to some subcategories of architecture. Students then entering into a graduate program can base their school selection on the universities ability to support them in as they move through an educational exploration of a given topic. Ultimately, this pursuit increases knowledge in a specific topic, but more importantly, develops the skills I mentioned above – observing, thinking, and critical reflection.
So to bring this back to the article, I believe that Mr. Taylor is correct in his call for higher education’s need for restructuring. I just thing that this restructuring needs to be focused on a smaller scale understanding of a wide range of student interest, and less on a coverall approach that can be reduced to “six major steps,” and zones of study, “Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water,” that are broad beyond definition.
As with most opinion based articles, this one takes a stance that has some idea so ‘out there’ that it would take decades before the bureaucratic big-wigs would ever allow it to be instituted into our post-graduate degree systems. However, there was a point in the article that could be toned down and implemented into several architectural schools; an idea that I have brought up several times throughout my six year academic career only to be looked at like a crazy man. The idea of collaborating across departments is something that would benefit all students involved, while possibly decreasing the amount of professors needed.
My university offers degree programs in architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning all within the same building. We actually all started off in a combined class during the first year of undergrad, and that was about the extent of the collaboration. I have not had one single project at my university that I was able to partner with an LA or urban planning major to construct a more complete and real-world project. Instead, we are expected to design the entire landscape around our buildings having had absolutely no experience or training in that field. If we were given the opportunity for collaboration, not only would I have learned more about other similar fields of study, but I would have been able to pass along my knowledge of architecture. Everyone wins in this situation, and it wouldn’t even cost anything extra. A few weeks ago three architects who started their own firm came in and talked to one of my classes about their careers and their firm. Each individual has a specific role at the firm, similar to a different field of study within architecture as a whole. If this is how firms are based, then why don’t we base our academic systems the same?
I think that someday there will be a place for the cross-collaboration among all fields of study in which the entire academic system will benefit, but to make a step towards that someone has to realize the potential that is right in front of us.
I am currently attending Graduate School and am pursuing a Masters degree in Architecture. Throughout my short existence I have been taught that “education makes the world go round.” My family is composed of a majority of teachers ranging from Special Education, Speech, Elementary Education, State Administrative jobs, and even the Dean of Education in a University. Needless to say, I have heard many of the “problems” and how to solve them for nearly every Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Fourth of July. I feel as though the problems listed have been in existence for many years, so they are not exactly new ideas to solve. Politics, Economics, and the struggle for power are inherent in most systems, which brings about the need for change but also the fight to keep it constant and unchanging.
In an attempt to make my undergraduate and graduate college career not seem like a waste of time, money, and effort, I would like to first of all mention that my university of choice is consistently ranked at a national level, whether it be for individual department recognitions, our extraordinary faculty, its best value in education, or its excellence for Sustainability in Design. Regarding Mark C. Taylor’s quote: “Unfortunately this mass-production university model has led to separation where there ought to be collaboration and to ever-increasing specialization.” I believe that the University I attend has seen the potential of breaking away from the normal “inward-thinking-model” used by many universities and has undergone many changes since I have been there. The Administration of both the University and my department has assisted the students in becoming the “leaders of tomorrow.”
While my undergraduate career was full of great learning experiences, I do believe that the Graduate Program has not been as helpful as I would have hoped for. It seems as though my undergraduate curriculum had more choices in terms of inter-departmental and cross-disciplinary experiences, yet the Graduate Program thus far has offered a meager choice of knowledgeable pursuits. There have been multiple discussions between several of our students and the faculty regarding the curriculum choices, but little assistance has been offered in an attempt to ‘further our knowledge.’ With the increasingly difficult theories involving fresh water, oil, sustainable and renewable energy, and social and political revolutions, the need for cross-disciplinary courses is becoming necessary for the profession of Architecture. The issues of sustainability in particular are becoming increasingly global and attention needs to be paid in offering courses which make us even more aware of its importance.
In addition to class work, there is also the Graduate Assistantship I hold at the University. I am the Graduate Assist to the Associate Dean of the College of Architecture and Planning. One of his many jobs in the college is to attend to the college’s First Year curriculum, which in turn makes me the assistant to all of the First year classes taught by the faculty members. While the pay is small for the amount of time I spend assisting my professors, I have had an excellent experience which will hopefully lead to others down the road. I can still appreciate the necessary evil it has for the university hiring system. But as a Graduate student, I want a faculty member who has practiced and knows what they are doing…not a student without the experience or wisdom gained by a life’s worth of training.
My position as a Graduate Assistant has allowed me to network with various faculty, the students who I am assisting, and the other Graduate assistants who offer their insight during critiques and class time. If nothing else, my time as a Graduate Assistant has given me the opportunity to make connections with people who may be able to offer their help later in life. A comment was made in my Professional Practice class that in the future “knowing someone is going to be increasingly the only way to get a job.” While a bit ‘apocalyptic,’ it does have its own merit. The ability to get a job in this tough economy is “all about who you know and not about what you know.” Hopefully my list of “who” (and “what”) continues to grow.
“Most graduate students will never hold the kind of job for which they are being trained….The exposure to new approaches and different cultures and the consideration of real-life issues will prepare students for jobs at businesses and nonprofit organizations.”
I believe the expansion of professional options for graduate students is an important aspect of higher-level learning. Where the exact boundaries exist in an Architectural education, many can only speculate. In another of my Professional Practice classes, a guest speaker spoke of the flexibility we as architects have relating to many different professions. Throughout our education, we were stressed the importance of solving problems through a process of thinking critically. We have essentially cultivated the skills needed to “adapt to a constantly changing world,” which has become an increasingly valuable skill set. If we do choose to abandon the Architecture profession as a career choice, we will undoubtedly still have many of the necessary skills necessary to adapt and be a valuable asset to the business community, which is a nice thought to have after graduating.
the analogy that graduate education is "detroit" is quite incorrect. a very high demand exists for graduate education and universities around the country realize this is a cash cow and are continually looking to add graduate programs in fields that, in truth, require no more expansion. but, the demand is there. young people with college degrees and no professional position to use that degree can either get a job in retail or they can go to grad school and at least feel as though they are being productive and plotting out a future for themselves. so, there may be many detroits out there in the real world, the profession of architecture comes to mind, but grad education isn't one of them.
now if you want to compare it to the mortgage crisis....
The question that arises most often in my mind is “Why am I getting a graduate degree?” The answer to this question could place people on either side of the many points brought up in this article. I am currently in graduate school for my Master of Architecture and graduate school for me is just another hurdle for obtaining my license.
With my license being my end goal the degree is more important then what school I get it from making it affordable. My graduate assistantship has also been a big help on offsetting the cost. I agree that we help professors with grunt work allowing them to teach more classes and do research, but I have found the benefit of a tuition waiver and a stipend to be worth it. The assistantship is with professors who understand the class commitments making it a convenient and flexible source of income.
My biggest struggle with the graduate school is the disconnect with academia and the profession. There has been discussion in my professional practice course on alternative careers and I found that very concerning that I am developing skills that are not the demand of the profession. We are not learning the skills that we need to obtain a position in a single career, but rather we are taught abstract skills that allow us to function in a number of careers. I have talked with guest speakers who have been graduated for a few years and they are still trying to find a career path, and I believe that there is a blur in the end goal.
I think narrow scholarship is a good thing as long as the variety or choice is present. I have had much discussion on personal branding and I think narrow scholarship plays a role in developing your branding. Branding should be something that is discussed in undergraduate study with graduate school acting as an outlet for branding development.
back up to the top. there is a movement in some areas to end the tenure method. bad bad idea. on first inspection yeah sure no tenure keep people fresh etc...on closer inspection you have this...no time or incentive to do research.no protection when it comes to speech. tenure exists so that professors may explore unpopular or controversial views. if these protections end then a professor could lose his/her job over any number of views or comments or even philosophies related to the topic at hand.
I may the oddball out on this particular discussion, but my graduate education (post-pro masters in architecture) was a huge help in preparing me to assume a leadership role within the profession (as localized as that may be). The opportunities were vastly different than what my professional degree could offer and the level of discourse much higher overall.
Could I have succeeded in the profession without it? Probably. In the same way? No. Was it worth the 30k I had to repay? 100%. Would it be worth 150k? Hmmm.... tougher question.
So, if this is a 'value' equation, I'll concede that it's a really difficult decision these days. That has much more to do with the spiraling costs of a degree, though, and not the curricula itself. Almost every grad degree has enough flexibility built in that you can fashion whatever path you want (and unstated question in the article: how many students at the graduate level really possess the clarity of direction and thought and how many are simply lumbering along with the herd?)
@ vado:
but doesn't the dog and pony show put on to secure that tenure ensures a certain level of political correctness from the professor? i.e. the ability to project him/herself into an agenda, and/or the ability to co-exist with a group of people he/she will be forced to spend the rest of his/her career with. tenure renders our institutions resistent to change, which is a critical issue in architecture, were industry standards are subject to paradigm shifts at least every decade. this problem is not so acute at the ivy's--where tenure is reserved mostly for contemporary superstars of the avant garde--but my undergrad state university provided me with an education that was ill equipped for profession exactly to the degree that my tenured professors were disconnected from its realities.
ditto what greg said: my graduate education was definitely valuable in allowing me to be in my current position - and move me beyond my pre-masters position. it helped that, in my case, the cost was a low hurdle.
if you forget for a moment the value of the degree as a certificate of your having completed a program and think instead of the value of having focused time during which to define yourself as an architect and dig deeper into your area of interest, it's a different equation than what i read here so often.
if, however, grad school is all about the name of the school, the name of a particular group of professors, etc, then the certificate/credentials/pedigree IS what you're about. while there may be value in this, to me this makes grad school merely an extension of undergrad: a transfer of knowledge from mentors to acolytes, without as much active searching, exploration, and self-definition on the part of the acolytes.
can only agree with Steven and previous commenters in that graduate education becomes relevant when pursued as a chance for professional and personal focus. Or as in my case, where it led me to critically review my own role and broaden my view on what the field of architecture could and should be. Even though I am hesitant to call myself an "Architect", I value the architectural degrees and various experiences that have allowed me to come to that decision.
I believe I would be far more limited in my expectations of the architectural profession had I not gone through a Master's. It gave me an opportunity to tailor my educational experiences and actively shape my own development in a way my undergraduate studies did not always allow. This is of course based on my personal experience, and I know some of my fellow undergrad students were in a much better position to steer their education right from the start, making graduate studies a painful necessity rather than a valuable opportunity.
I guess the (obvious) point is that each student is different and that the current system is extremely inconsistent, with certain graduate programs celebrating and promoting this diversity, while others aim to suffocate it in favor of self-indulgent professors or studio instructors churning out clones with nothing more than a paper degree to identify with. Mix some insane rates of tuition and absurd hype into that, and you have a profession in identity crisis, putting more value in credentials and degrees than knowledge and passion. Then again, I didn't pay a cent for any of my degrees, being from a socialist country and all... so who am I to criticize people trying to make money off of some poor schmuck who thinks they're buying a "quality education".
As a grad student with only 5 months of experience in a firm, it reminds me what I told myself from the get-go when choosing a school: it's going to be what I make of it. It's good to hear the comments on how a graduate degree has helped some of you achieve what you want in the field (or outside of it), especially because the process has been pretty "painful" for me without taking some time off first. Grad school is definitely what you put into it, and yeah, maybe this means graduate school could be a "waste" since it is so self-reliant. you could ask yourself, "why attend school when you can study your interests for free somewhere else?" But I think the cost of having the facilities, tools, and the right people around you is quite invaluable. Especially if you lack self-motivation... And not to mention, it's hard to prove to a potential employer that you took 2 years off from work to "critically explore architectural issues of interest" without that degree listed on your resume
...it's hard to prove to a potential employer that you took 2 years off from work to "critically explore architectural issues of interest" without that degree listed on your resume
This is an excellent point! Although having a portfolio of work you created during that time can help convince people (potential employers, clients, your parents...) that you weren't just slacking.
On tenure, I guess I like the idea that tenure reviews would be serious - say every 7-10 years, one gets reviewed for how one has continued their contribution to the discipline or expanded into other valuable areas. Naturally this would be just as political and prone to jury-rigging as any decision made by any university can be!
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.