Call them members of the permanent intern underclass: educated members of the millennial generation who are locked out of the traditional career ladder and are having to settle for two, three and sometimes more internships after graduating college, all with no end in sight. — The New York Times
103 Comments
So people are greedy slobs that will use the intern title to get underpaid over educated workers. What a shocker. I always thought people were good. Pour me another.
Mark my words....in the near future we will need internships to work at a grocery store. Some bs organization will create a bs license in the name of a bullshit overblown public danger like falling cans of garbanzo beans and grocery store workers will need to take a class, do their internship (aka slavery) , and pay some useless org an testing fee.
This topic really angers me because I hate seeing people being taken advantage of. Assholes
It's the new economy, a race to the bottom for the 99%. Sad thing about this article is they're pushing the idea that this an acceptable lifestyle choice. Gotta love the faux-liberal corporate mouthpiece NYT.
This became the new "normal" during the great recession - now it's just normal.
It's now a normal business "best practice"
The reality is that it's not that hard to find a job if you're not being selective and extremely proactive about searching and networking.
The sad part is that I see myself adhering to the same value set as the majority of these individuals, seeking a job that will provide me the opportunity of participating in something rewarding and fulfilling.
Unfortunately, those are the jobs that are hard to find and the mediocre corporate ones leave you hollow and empty. So you are left with two options, choosing the less exciting job to survive or do amazing work and scrape by for a while.
Here's a novel idea! Don't work at a job that refuses to pay you!
Or sue them for federal employment/labor violations.
Agree. However, the problem is not only about pay. In architecture specifically the intern title itself is a career sinkhole. It puts graduates into a deep and unnecessary pit to climb out from. Its a all about perception. If grads are called interns they will be paid and treated as such.
Food for thought:
How about we all accept that the world is unfair and we are entitled to nothing, and that we are all left to fend for ourselves. For those who argue, "I have an education and a professional degree!" so does everyone else--that's the bare minimum. I am sure that among the sea of interns that end up in dead-end internships, there are the exceptional ones who climb out of the pit and into the light.
Why should we expect that because we pay our dues, and work hard, that someone is going to give us a job? There have been numerous (if not countless) articles on the poor state of internships, and no where does it mention those that make it out.
thunderclap - "paying your dues" does not mean "working unpaid, and not for university credit." it just doesn't. and if you accept that premise, you're part of the problem.
Sure. I'm with you on that. But the belief that millennials are bound to an endless cycle of internship is nothing short of media spin, and those who complain about how broken the system is are looking for a scapegoat. From the get-go, accepting an unpaid internship is already the fault of intern. And if one does accept, I imagine the most important reason is getting a foot in the door with potential to move up through the ranks; and it isn't so hard to imagine that all work done should apply to the achievement of those goals. So 1) that means menial tasks should not be the only part of the job description--to accept that is to fail immediately and 2) the point is to do everything possible to move up and out of internship.
We all know and understand that most creative fields are highly competitive, and every opportunity to stand out is one to take seriously. Employers don't need warm bodies; employers need productive people who are able to execute exemplary work. And consider that internship, by nature, is temporary and a learning/growth experience. So you go in for a short period of time, you learn something, and you get out or move up. If an intern is on a 3rd internship where coffee-wench is the job, the system's no longer at fault. Why isn't the intern able to find a "real job" after such extensive experience? He/she must have learned something of value. If not, why would one even consider settling for something like that for a third time? One's moves and risks should be calculated and made for the greatest possible outcome. No one is going to hand you anything.
^ Bullshit. You get your talking points from Karl Rove?
^ Thanks for the shortsighted, reductive, and irrelevant comment. I don't think it's productive to get into the nuances of our national economic beliefs, but suffice to say that based on your question, you and I are very much on the same page.
But I happen to accept the realities and inequalities of the world, and that if you're not going to change the way it spins, you change what you can to make it work for you. Most people will fall into the latter category. Working one unpaid internship (while not ideal and absolutely poor practice by the employer) that gets you a job later, great move...it worked out. Moving from one unpaid internship to another--or even worse, a third--probably has more behind it than the system being broken.
And I think few readers have taken into account how exactly serial interns are able to afford to do so. Trust fund? Mom and pop? Oh, poor interns...Or maybe they're not so poor after all. Everyone loves a good struggle story, but it's not newsworthy when they mention they have help.
The talking point is "blame the victim". In case you didn't know and were just parroting.
first of all, your premise that we're entitled to nothing is wrong. we are entitled to some things. for example, we're entitled to protection from the government. if we were all really left to fend for ourselves, then i could just kill you and take your stuff. it doesn't work that way. we live in a civil society with rules. one of those rules is that you have to pay people who work for you.
if there is a question of entitlement, why should employers or managers be entitled to free labor? if that's the system, then it's a broken system. and it should be fixed. since the government exists to protect the governed, shouldn't we be encouraging them to step in and fix it, so we can go back to a civil society where we can all live and work together?
i'm sure in some cases those kids are living on trust funds. are you suggesting the competitive creative jobs you mention should be limited to those born into families that can afford that? because that would be a broken system. i expect there are a lot who are pushing 30 and still living with their parents because that's the only option left to them. if you aren't born into a rich family and want a shot at success, you're going to have to go to college and rack up student loans. you can't just say 'get a job' if there aren't any jobs open, especially when those jobs are filled with people working for free, and if you're paying hundreds of dollars a month in loans, a $7/hr job isn't going to make ends meet. saying only those born wealthy should be able to compete for decent jobs is a broken system, and we shouldn't just shrug it off and say life isn't fair. we should be encouraging our government to start enforcing some of the rules it's already set, and we should encourage stiff penalties for those businesses that want to take the easy way out.
small businesses are important, and we should support them. but it's not supposed to be easy to run a business. those who aren't any good at it, and rely on circumventing labor laws to take advantage of their employees (or those who feel the need to spy on their employee's private lives) are not any good at it. call out the bad ones for what they are. tell chris christie and rush limbaugh and whoever else is running the right wing nutters to support the useful business leaders while culling the bad ones, so we can get rid of the useless lazy people. having a moron run a business from their parent's hand-outs isn't something "conservatives" should be proud of. they should be proud of those who actually do a good job.
also, dues are paid to unions or to the aia. you don't pay dues to your employer, and you don't pay dues to lazy people that want you to work for free. that's not what dues are. you get something in return for paying dues, you don't get something in return for doing lazy stupid people's jobs for free.
I agree on everything, and would like to see enforcement of labor laws, and less vague terms pertaining to interns. Employers should pay employees for their services, period.
But let's be real. No politician is going to invoke the ire of small business owners for the educated 20-somethings that do not make up the majority of voters. We are low-hanging fruit. As long as those with the greatest means can lobby, and as long as those with the means can support the politician who will benefit them the most, there will be a considerable underserved population, and vague language to support poor business practices. It would take a disaster like the recession to do something about it. I dream of an even playing field, but not all of us can be born with silver spoons. And those that are will always do better--be it politics, architecture...everything. To start at the bottom and come out on top is to be exceptional. But to have exceptional people, there have to be people who are not. An even playing field simply is not possible.
I am 110% for any sort of legislation or union that would enforce internship regulations and turn the tide in our (yes, I am an intern) favor. Am I the one to start this? No, that's not my cup of tea. Are our peers mentioned in the countless articles the ones to do it? Likely not. Are you the one to do it? If yes, you have more than all of my support. The reality is we all want the lovely things we all dream about, but when we wake up to reality, we remain sheep. So what can we, the majority who will do nothing meaningful to change this practice, do? We make do, and we make the right choices for ourselves. Or even better, play the system to get out on top.
Government regulation aside, one seriously cannot consider a third un(der)paid menial internship the magic bean that blossoms into a fruitful career. A serial intern is certainly no way to live, so why choose to live it? Choose to live with it and be happy (unlikely); choose to make the best of the experience and do everything possible to move up (difficult); choose to leave entirely (difficult).
On paying dues: I would also reconsider what the AIA actually does for architects. Typical contracts that are outdated and out of touch with the way the recession has changed client/architect/contractor relationships are the best they can offer. And if anyone is most fit and ready to band together and lobby for architects and an overhaul of internship regulation, it's them. So what are we paying our dues for there? It must be the annual Beaux-Arts Ball.
But let's be real. No politician is going to invoke the ire of small business owners for the educated 20-somethings that do not make up the majority of voters.
That's not how things work. Politicians couldn't give a rat's ass about voters, all they care about is cash, most of which comes from large corporate sources and is used to fund campaigns built on lies and attacking opponents. The stooges installed in this process work for the donors, not the people. If you can't afford to buy legislation you're screwed.
thunderclap, Miles Jaffe, Hp87
The AIA is proposing The National Design Services Act. The AIA has no lobbying power, they expect architects to lobby for the act, which fails to do anything about this situation.
The proposal seems to ask the government to provide financial assistance to designers volunteering in their local community. So outside of IDP, interns can now look forward to filling their weekends with more unpaid design service.
The only thing the AIA could do to alleviate the situation is put pressure on NCARB to do something about the IDP system, which mandates a three year internship (if one happens to get the exact hours they need).
Not everyone working as a free intern comes from money, most I know had to save while at a paying internship. Hp87 is right, there are two options and if one wants a rose, they shouldn't complain about thorns.
IDP is the dumbest system. How can any logical person think that IDP would provide a fair and fruitful path. IDP is nothing more than a burden on all. We did fine before it. Just should go back to original system. Problem with dumb laws is that they are harder to get rid of then to adopt in the first place.
i don't think the internship in the fashion or journalism or the movie industry (what they're talking about in the article) is the same thing as IDP. if anything, that might make things worse. having real-life experience instead of just academic experience before you get licensed is a good thing.
if an employer wanted to pay you when you first get out of school, then they would pay you. as it is, employers don't want to pay their employees, and apparently they don't have to pay their employees. what do you think would be different if they got rid of IDP, or even if they reformed it?
curtkram,
If IDP was done away with, then architects wouldn't have to spend +3 years of their lives in an internship (one can't be their own employer until they have gone through IDP). How would this make things worse?
unless education has changed dramatically, you spend your studio time talking about arbitrary form generating junk and coloring pictures. as an architect, you really do have at least a little bit of responsibility to protect public health and safety. school does not prepare you for that. even if you can pass the ARE right out of school, you do need some real-world experience before you start taking on that responsibility.
how would you get clients with no experience? and do you really think you know enough about the practice of architecture that you could run your own firm and be responsible for codes and coordination and all that without any practical experience? i wouldn't mind fixing education in such a way as to make that real-world experience less necessary, but as it is if architects were lowering their fees to compete with kids who have never even opened a code book, things would be much worse.
curtkram,
Your description of education sounds more like a description of every internship I've experienced.
Do you really think IDP provides a practical experience (or clients? lol). Employers have no obligation to provide interns with "real-world" experience.
Why would architects have to lower their fees against people with less experience? Doesn't that scenario negate everything you've just said about the necessity for experience?
The education process s/b changed to reflect the realities of the studio at the office.
construction, codes - putting a damn building together isn't that what architects do?
Nobody gives a rats ass about phenomenological morphosis diagrams and grasshopper generated 3D forms that show the "randomness of the urban energy fields"
Donatello, i was able to gain at least some valuable experience everywhere i've worked, though i've mostly worked at smaller firms. i have never worked for a starchitect.
if, when you're hired, your employer agrees to help you with IDP, then i think they are obligated to help you. if not, and you agree to a job where you're just coloring pictures, then it is what it is.
IDP should provide you practical experience. that's why they break it down into categories, so you get broad exposure to what an architect does. but then, that's kind of the point of this discussion right? the people currently running things and making those decisions are often too stupid to fulfill the role they they need to fulfill in their companies.
if we lower the barrier to entry, there will be more architects, because it would be easier to become an architect and people like you would try to be competitive. if we increase the supply of architects while maintaining the current demand, that will drive prices down. if you're not going to try to compete for already scare projects by lowering you price, how are you going to compete? your experience?
Curtkram, that's completely protectionist. First Creating unnecessary barriers to entry for the purpose of limiting and stifling competition is a violation of economic liberty. Second, it does nothing at all to protect the profession because all it does is stifle entrepreneurship which over time leads to dead business models that cannot adapt quick enough to changing times. The only people it helps are run of the mill architects that rely on the stamp alone to make a buck. I say fuck em. I learned 1% doing internship of what I learned starting a business. No one is gonna give an inexperienced grad 100 million bucks to design a condo tower. Just ridiculous. If we did away with Idp new comments would be doing small projects that are exempt from stamp req anyway for years before anyone gave them a large project. No difference.
New commers. ^ stupid auto spell. Lol
^ Except that recent grads have not been properly trained by the educational system and lack the necessary knowledge and experience to work in the profession straight out of school. In other words, if the education was worth what one paid for it you wouldn't "need" IDP.
the purpose isn't to stifle competition, it's to provide broad real-life experience so that people who aspire to become architects can become competent architects instead of just regurgitating the arbitrary form-generating bullshit they learn in school. if you're going to do something other than practice architecture, you don't need to go through the hoops of getting a license anyway. go be a entrepreneur, or a painter, or whatever it is you think you want to do. if you plan on actually designing real buildings with intent of having them built, i think it would better for you to get some experience first.
the big failures at the moment in IDP, as far as i can tell, is that employers are not providing their interns that broad experience they need to fulfill the category requirements and that they aren't paying their staff adequately. that's not entirely IDP's fault. the "entrepreneurs" who have decided to limit the experience of their younger staff and not pay reasonable wages to their employees bear some of that fault.
anyway, if you think you can offer some sort of reasonable and valid ideas of how to improve IDP in such a way that people who become architects are competent enough to meet minimum acceptable standards, go here at 2:30 this afternoon (i'm central time)
http://www.ncarb.org/~/link.aspx?_id=14E731719A954A6FABFEA6C0B1E067BA&_z=z
curtkram, Miles,
Your pretense of knowing each architecture program is astounding. If education is really as horrid as you have stated, then why are you so worried about removing IDP? If it is true that those educated today are not properly trained to build architecture, then you should have no competition to worry about.
Doesn't the title of intern indicate that one is in the IDP program? If not, wouldn't one coloring drawings simply be called a renderer/visualizer? Many out there are interested in practicing architecture, but there is no guarantee that employers will provide experience required in IDP; jla-x is right, that sounds a lot more like protectionism than progressing the profession.
A professional degree qualifies one to practice architecture, IDP is a hoop as you stated; there is no way to improve it without getting rid of it. Law is the only reason we "need" IDP to be called an architect.
^ minimum competence can be reached in other ways besides Idp. Most people would gain experience through work before going off on own with or without Idp. The shortcomings of the education system are real but also a bit exaggerated. In my program we learned a lot more than form generating. We had 3 years required structures, building systems, etc. also, if the degree is not preparing people for the profession than it should no longer be sold as a professional degree. That's false advertisement IMO. I'm not saying that every grad should be granted immediate licensure, but they should be granted the informal title of architect after a few years of work exp. under an architect or on ones own and the exams then they could get the RA title and the privileges that come with it. The rigidity of Idp is too limiting. Other more dangerous professions like nursing, law, etc...take far less time between graduation and licensure. No way you can argue that a nurse poses less danger and holds less liability than an architect. One mistake can cause immediate death. One mistake from a lawyer and your freedom can be taken away. Architecture has its dangers but not near that of some other professions.
a professional degree does not qualify one to practice architecture. at least not in my jurisdiction, or in other jurisdictions i've worked in. i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say here.
the difference between someone who is an architect and someone who is not is that the architect has a rubber stamp (or seal) and number provided by their state licensing board to say they meet the minimum requirements to practice architecture. That's probably a little different in other countries. it's a government created professional credential to show you meet the technical competence they require to protect public health and safety. the government decided this credential should be necessary after buildings were built that fell down or burned down and caused harm to the population they were charged with protecting. there isn't anything romantic about it, and it's not a title granted to reflect your education.
maybe there are other ways to gain that technical competence. in some states, other avenues are allowed. however, by and large it has been generally accepted that a degree alone is not enough to gain that minimum competence. knowing each architecture program has nothing to do with a bureaucracy trying to develop a system that creates, and then assesses, the technical competence of aspiring architects. maybe you're different and special, i don't know. however, no state is going to develop a special assessment procedure for you because your school is special.
your comment on the title of "intern" is not a new concern and is certainly valid. what an intern architect does is very different from what a fashion magazine intern does. a big part of that is that an intern-architect is going to be exposed to all of the different things an architect tends to be responsible for. if what you're doing is limited to architectural visualization, then feel free to take the title of 'visualizer.' however, if you want to be an architect you really should have experience in the real-life design and construction of a building, including understanding how to review shop drawings and read consultant's drawings and all that stuff. it's not that you have to do all that stuff before you get licensed, but you need to be exposed to it. going to a structures class is an important foundation to help you understand that stuff, but it's different.
changing your title from "intern" to "architect" so you can say you've already gone through the technical assessment an architect has gone through is not the right solution.
One mistake from a lawyer and your freedom can be taken away.
lol. lawyers don't do much other than push money around. doctors, who would generally be required to oversee nursing action if someone's life is danger, require real-life experience.
curtkram,
Exactly, in the United States an architect is a "government created profession.". My argument is that one cannot legal call themselves an architect because AIA/NCARB forces one to go through IDP and I am failing to find objective justification for IDP. Can you honestly read this report and still tell me IDP is a good system?
Currently employers have no obligation/guarantee/benefit in providing interns "experience in the real-life design and construction of a building". How are you proposing that someone seeking IDP experience as an intern is guaranteed relevant experience and not relegated to a visualizer?
*report
The bar to architect has risen to a new level that is very difficult if not impossible for most graduates to ever achieve - IDP is a long row of hurdles that must be overtaken - I am relegated to the role of BIM modeler/render Monkey - It is the path to more of the same and is not the path to architect - a few of my classmates are now architects their employers supported their "IDP careers" - none of my employers over the last 5 years supported my "IDP career" because "we need you to do Revit modeling and rendering" -
I forgot to mention - that after 5 years of Revit modeling, I am not able to get a better job - why" because most employers want to see demonstrated IDP progress - 5 years of progressive experience includes architect track IDP. If you are not supported for IDP, then what? should I just go back to the video game industry? industrial design? - it seems like 5 years exp. is the up or out point.
donatello, that report is not advocating getting rid of internships. quite the contrary, i think it does a pretty good job of spelling out the reasons an internship are necessary.
i have nothing against reforming IDP. i would strongly support any system that creates better architects. the author suggest reconsidering the categories. I don't see anything wrong with that. When the report was written, back when i was in IDP, the paperwork was a huge pain in the ass and cumbersome. hopefully the 6-month rule helped that out, even if only a little bit. of course NCARBs fees are still to high. I don't agree with the author when she suggests we should have unregulated internships. if you're a cad monkey or a bimwit or otherwise in a position where you are unable to access the breadth of what an architect does, then you won't be able learn about what an architect does and you won't be able to learn how to exercise the professional judgement that comes with having a license.
the real problem with internships, as i see it, is that employers are not providing their junior staff experiences that they need to be exposed to, and they aren't paying living wages to their younger staff. of course, there are exceptions to that. i'm sure there are still some firms who are helping out their younger staff.
i don't have any good solutions. to start with, i'd say we should recognize that firms who rely on interns as cheap labor should be shunned. when talking about those firms in polite conversation, show pity and carry the undertone that those poor firms are on the brink of failure and aren't even able to live up the same standard as the rest of us. then maybe the inflated ego of some of the dumber leadership in our profession would place a higher priority on people instead of their greed.
curtkram,
While the author suggests reforming, I do not see a way to reform IDP without letting go of its organizational structure.
When one is a rendermonkey/bimwit/cadmonkey, they are in no position to mandate their employer provide them with "the breadth of what an architect does." This leads to junior staff not gaining experience and not making living wages; which is a position they are stuck in until they are licensed, which won't happen if they don't get the experience, which is mandated by IDP. You see the cycle? The only way to break the cycle is to get rid of IDP.
Gossip about what firms use what practices will not fix the system. Is AIA/NCARB really so powerless they cannot implement a system encouraging practices to provide quality IDP experience?
If you are a rendermonkey/bimwit/cadmonkey - the only thing that matters is speed, speed and more speed on Rhino, Revit, max, Adobe suite - " you do and do it very fast" and I will do the thinking: is what most architects tell me. I really should have stayed in the game industry as a Maya artist where I made twice as much.
This all depends on what kind of firm you work for.
I know some firms who consider applicants as interns for 0-2 years, and I have known people who have worked in firms as an intern for 2 years straight, yet they were working like any other staff upholding the same amount of responsibilities and gaining a tremendous amount of experience, and have nearly completed their IDP. There are some people who are hired as Designers, or on an Entry Level basis yet they only do menial tasks (renderings, diagramming, SOME drawing sets), and have wasted any potential of gaining IDP hours.
I have spoken to employers who have told me that they would rather hire someone who has 2 years of experience where the potential applicant has actually seen an actual project go all the way through versus someone who has 7 years of experience but has a very thin CD set (lack of full experience on a project).
At one stance, it's a titling issue; "Am I being hired as an "Intern" or "Entry Level" ?" Some firms will pay the same amount, some firms won't. Some firms will NOT consider you an intern if you have graduated, which makes it more dichotomous because how is a recent graduate suppose to get work with 0 years of experience. So you may have to apply as an intern. A vicious cycle. But you should know WHERE to apply. There are some places that I would apply for as intern, some places I would never apply as an intern, even if they gave me an internship without an interview (many starchitect firms do this). Evaluate your self, is it worth working as an intern for the experience you [don't] have, or should you aim for a higher level. Again, what type of firm you work for is KEY.
The more important stance, as others have stated, it depends on where you work. I think the best thing a recent graduate should keep in mind is having a set of values and goals in relation to how they want to practice architecture and aim for it by applying to practices that closely align with their [naive] beliefs. If they land in those said firms (either as an intern or entry level), it will either reinforce how they want to work or it will negate their previous goals to a more clear resolution of how they want to practice architecture. We really need to empower recent graduates and let them know that they have (or should have) a belief set in how they want to practice (even if they haven't practiced before), they should ASK potential employers in interviews what kind of responsibilities they will be getting them selves into. If they are not getting (or starting to get) that specified experience after a year, LEAVE (WITH A BACKUP PLAN). Recent graduates should aim for a fulfilling experience, in both the hard (construction) and soft (design / client + consultant meetings) skills, neither of those elements outweigh the other.
The IDP sucks, but it should NOT dictate how you want to practice architecture. You should make the IDP work for you. There are many people out there who are fulfilling their IDPs and having a lot of fun at their work, and are getting paid FAIRLY – and no – they do not have trust funds.
according to Los Angeles, I have wasted my potential to gain IDP hours - even though I have produced several full project CDs - seems ruthless - this unspoken up or out policy.
time for yet another career change.
IDP doesn't dictate how one wants to practice, it only dictates when one can practice.
Just got done with the NCARB webinar curtkram suggested. I've included a screen cap with questions I asked, two of which were touched upon:
Q: If the profession is constantly changing, how is IDP structure being updated as the ARE is?
A: It is being updated.
Reaction: How can NCARB possibly update the IDP structure to keep up with changes in the AEC industry. This structure also assumes the AEC industry is working as is, a very [naive] conservative view.
Q: "What is NCARB doing to ensure employers are providing interns with quality IDP hours?
A: "You as an intern are your best resource," (along with IDP coordinator program and outreach events)
Reaction: This didn't answer the question, all it did was state that it is the interns responsibility, yet this responsibility is entirely dependent on the employer. Another instance of the IDP trap.
you are your best resource. the collateral organizations can't make a firm do anything. so, the best thing you can do in the situation you're currently in, is talk to a boss or supervisor and see if they can set aside some time to involve you in other tasks.
i'm an architect in part because the people i worked for provided me with that experience. they've all been willing to set aside at least a little time every now and then to let me visit a job site or talk about site layouts or contracts or whatever. i'm not sure i've ever been well paid, but i've always been paid enough to keep an apartment and food and whatever i really need. i would be curious to know if there are less positions like that today, or if there are less as a percentage of prospective applicants to said positions.
either way, not getting the experience isn't the right answer. finding a way to get decent experience would be better. xenakis, if you've produced full CD sets, why does that time not apply to IDP?
curtkram,
You are failing to see my issue with the IDP system. You have correctly stated that collateral organizations can't make a firm do anything. Currently, these collateral organizations have power over an aspiring architect's time/career through the IDP system, yet they can't ensure 1) employers are providing opportunities for all areas of IDP hours, 2) employers are providing quality hours. To try and regulate the AEC industry through a national system seems far reaching for an organization with so little power. So again, there is not a way for AIA/NCARB to actually regulate such a system, and therefore, there should not be such a system.
Does anyone have any objective metrics for why IDP is structured the way it is?
At the end of the day, if we are our best resource, why do we need IDP then?
Look at Hester Prynne wearing her Scarlet U(unpaid)I(intern) letters.
vado retro,
More like Logan 5, probably hard for those who are okay with Carrousel to understand.
donatello, it seems to me the part about the internship you don't like is that you have to rely on other people's help, and you can't do it yourself. because of that, it might not matter how good you are, or how hard you work. the ability to gain the required experience is often largely outside your sphere of influence, and there just might not be anything you can do about it.
it's a real problem. i think your focused on a solution that gives you more control of the situation rather than relying on other people's help. i believe that is generally a bad idea, because i think being exposed to that experience is important. from my perspective, the solution to the problem should focus on getting people to help you. it should be easier for you to find a position where people are willing and able to help you.
i'm not sure if vado's comment is in support or opposition of my thoughts on public shaming?
My goodness curkram. Are you an agent of NCARB? Help me please help me. Lol. Your solution is to turn the entrepreneurial minded into the employee minded? That's sounds like a terrible idea.
Problem with your statement is that word "help." What can we expect as far as upward mobility and fair pay if we are asking for help. How much pay should be expected if the perception is that they the employer is helping the intern. An internship during school for credit is fine, but Idp is not an internship it is a job. The failure of the system is the awkward hybrid of job and internship. How bout you graduate and your an architect and after a given period of work experience or self documented entrepreneurial experience you can become an RA. Possibly a probationary period for 3 years after registration while you are not allowed to design high risk projects like hospitals, high rise buildings, etc. I'm not anti regulation, just anti regulation that stifles people and serves no proven benefit to anyone.
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.