The below is from Yahoo article “Don’t Bother Earning These Five Degrees.”:
"Earning a bachelor’s in architecture might impress a lot of people, but according to a 2012 study by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, “Hard Times, College Majors, Unemployment and Earnings: Not All College Degrees Are Created Equal,” it might not impress a lot of employers.
And that can be tough to take, says Lynn, since architecture is such an industry-specific major. “If there’s not a job offer waiting when you graduate, then it can be very frustrating because it can be very hard to maneuver into another career path with this degree due to its narrow focus,” says Lynn.
Perhaps that’s the reason the “Hard Times” study found a 13.9 percent unemployment rate among recent architecture grads. The study’s co-author, Dr. Anthony P. Carnevale, says this is due to the national collapse in the housing industry."
Sobering – if true. I take a dim view of polls and some studies of late.
I don’t think that’s really true. Yes, architecture is a hard sell upon graduation, but I persistently hear that something like 50% of all architectural graduates work in careers other than architecture. That is primarily because there aren’t enough jobs and/or the crappy pay, but the point remains: Architecture is not really “a narrowly focused” educational track. There are lots of professions that extract and build from elements of the architectural curriculum. For example, Hitler, or Weird Al Yankovic were both Architectural majors… LOL
I find it interesting that they say that Business Administration as a recommendation right after that. That is all we need is a bunch of PMs that don’t understand the building process running things. We have enough of that these days.
I don’t know. Maybe if more architects understood that this is a business and that making a profit is good, our industry wouldn’t be in so much trouble.
I’m more concerned about the fact that, like me, more people in our industry are opting out of getting registered and the people who are getting registered aren’t getting educated in the basics of how buildings are put together. Anyone see a disconnect here?
The entrepreneurial in architecture understand that to have their own firms they need to be licensed. Some of them seem not to actually comprehend WHY that is, though.
They’re not sure what they’re supposed to be in responsible charge of.
“Architect” magazine published another ridiculous article yesterday, one that made my husband ask if the AIA has been infiltrated, and taken over, by contractors.
It is called “Who Cares Who’s a Licensed Architect?” and was written by Aaron Betsky.
I believe the disconnect stems from the requirement (by NCARB, and most states) that registration exam candidates have accredited degrees AND the professors in those accredited degree programs are mostly unlicensed. Because very few of the actual professors can teach the technical (having not actually practiced the technical) the technical is underemphasized in accredited degree programs. People think they’ll learn it in their internships, but the ratios are shifting as older architects retire - there are too many people who need to learn about building technology, and too few mentors to help them learn.
I’m a big proponent of studying what you love and working towards a career, which is not necessarily in the same thing. An architecture degree is great preparation for life. Think about it, it’s multi-disciplinary, critical-thinking, problem-solving, all that good stuff!
My classmates from undergraduate found careers in art, architecture (and specifications), education, engineering, interior design, fashion design, infrastructure, law, medicine, politics, real estate development, transportation, and urban planning.
Wouldn’t we all be better off with educated clients? Architecture schools do us all a disservice by teaching their students that the only true path to enlightenment is as a Starchitect.
There is a very interesting sidelight to all of this; architects are expected to be in short supply in the next few years. This happens after every recession and the shortage (especially at the entry level) persists for several years after recovery really gets going. This demand leads to higher salaries which lures people back into the field and boosts the polling aimed at people entering the field. The people who enter architectural school after the peak of a recovery cycle risk graduating into a constricted job market.
There will be starchitects who make a lot of money (although fewer of them do than you might think), and many architectural graduate will truly believe that they can be and will be in this category. The reality is that many practicing architecture make a nice living doing stuff that is necessary in architectural practice. Their instructors in school would not recognize such activites as “DESIGN”, but such activities are vital to a successful practice.
I do not feel that practicing architecture means a reduced personal financial condition, but I personally believe that architects in it for the long haul get something intangible from their practice that compensates for high-end compensation. Most of the buildings that I worked on early in my career (while I was in school) have been demolished for one reason or another, but there are a pair of high rises in Atlanta in which I can say I played a small role. There is a condo on the Kona coast, enlisted housing, at Pearl Harbor, and a destination resort in Palau that I have similar feelings for as well as a host of other, mostly pedestrian, projects in various locations. I believe that I can claim that my contribution made the project better in some way. How cool is that?
Those going into any profession should not be looking for a sure thing with good compensation that they can count on for the rest of their career. They should look for something in which they can achieve success that will continue to offer growth and challenges. But… How many 20-somethings (or 18-somethings for those entering college) can really be expected to have this sort of perspective?
Really nice comment, Peter. I always say to people that architecture can be difficult to make a good living at, but that architects absolutely love their work, and that’s a pretty great thing.
I think that this short supply thing will not actually work out in favor of architects this time. I think that more and more projects in the future will be contractor-led and contractor-designed - they’ll just need someone to stamp the drawings - maybe in-house, maybe out-of-house. But in any case, fewer documents will be created by architects, so the workload will be able to be managed by fewer architects. We already have a higher percentage of contractors using BIM than the percentage of architects using BIM. (Someone contradict me, please.)
Although many people believe that contractors can design buildings, my exerience is that very few are qualified or have the temperment to take a really broad view of a “virtual” building. I will say that the largest builders are probably the exception that proves the rule. When I bought my townhouse 10 years ago as an empty lot, I had the chance to watch a large regional builder in action. If I had not been on top of things, a very significant option I took (and paid for) would have been overlooked. Correcting it toward the end of the project would have consumed most of the profit for that particular unit.
Good architects (not necessarily starchitects) have the ability to think comprehensively and integratively about building design. Architects are generally better than builders at this. I will be willing to bet that where projects sidestep architects, construction is less coordinated and costs more. We need to be clearer with ourselves, the public, and future design professionals about this; it is the real value that we bring to the table.
Actually I was told at an early age that success was liking what you have to do. I believed it then and still do.
Still, when guest lecturing at architectural schools, I used to advise students that they should not go into architecture unless they have one of the following:
A large trust fund
A rich, old relative who loves them very much
A rich spouse
A desire to work long hours and still be able to work two jobs.
A willingness to live in poverty while your friends who majored in engineering are able to buy the houses and cars you can only dream of.
A willingness to work in a profession with high divorce rates. Many spouses aren’t willing to put up with our hours. It’s like being married to someone in the military without having PX priviliges.
Seems to me that Architecture school is really more like art history school for buildings in many ways. While architectural students learn many good traits, and architecture may be one of the few remaining ‘renaissance’ degrees creating well-rounded graduates, it seems that the one thing that receives little to no focus is how to do Architecture. Learning design doesn’t mean anything if students don’t learn how to implement their design. The laws of physics need to be emphasized more. The ‘Basics’ should include simple concepts like how to meet Code. Simple classes should be required that focus on exterior building envelope systems and barriers (air, vapor, water, thermal) and the concept of continuity. Perhaps if LEED ever learns that sustainable design needs to be about designing buildings that are truly sustainable and not about credits, architectural schools will emphasize good design and implementation. For some reason, pretending to be ‘green’ is the only thing that anyone seems to care about anymore.
I figured I would add my two cents (I am licensed). Be honest with yourself; if you ran into someone you went to school with and they told you they worked for a contractor, or a school district or a small hospital would you think less of them? Far to many of us do disvalue “architects” who expand the reach of the profession beyond the ideological image we had as youth. I worked for an architect who routinely used the phrase “he’s not a real architect” to describe someon who did not actively practice in the traditional sense.
Architecture degrees do not have the perceived value in part because we as professions don’t see the value in the less than traditional path. How can we expect the general public or even the rest of the “built enviroment” to value our training and/or schooling if we don’t ourselves.
To turn Scott’s question around, if you ran into someone you went to architecture school with and you told them you wrote specifications for a living, would they think less of you? Or think of you as “not a real architect”?
In my experience, the answer is no, especially when I tell them some of the projects for which I’ve been the specifier. The common reaction is along the lines of “I could never do that”, in a positive sense.
I completely agree that spec writers are not devalued in the architecture profession. However I would argue that spec writing is not a non-traditional path. A specilization without a doubt, but still an integral part of a very traditional architect’s product; plans & specs.
I may be reading to much into the comments from Dave and Lynn (and if I am I aplogize)but it appears to me that when I mentioned “less than traditional path” you instantly thought of yourself as a spec writer. This is indicative of the lack of reach that I was refering to. As a profession we do not see ourselves beyond a very limited scope and this limits our value to the rest of the people in the “built enviroment”.
In the last two years I have sent two kids off to college; one engineering, one architecture. When you ask the various architecture programs; “what can my child do with this degree” they respond with several minutes of descriptions that never venture beyond a very narrow scope. Ask the same question of an engineering school and the answer is almost instanteous and universal; ANYTHING.
It was stated earlier that architecture education and training makes good problem solvers. I agree 100%. However ask people in the “build enviroment” to describe a college degree that indicates a problem solver and they will say engineer 9 out of 10 times. We have to sell ourselves on the notion that specilizing in spec writing is not the fringes of what an architect can do with their degree and/or training but rather just the tip of the iceberg.
Scott, I completely agree wth your last paragraph. I must observe, however, that the the key difference between architects and engineers is the good architects tend to be more integrative in their problem solving, considering a range of issues (materials, systems, users, etc.) while engineers tend to be more discrete, focusing relatively narrowly on their discipline for problems and solutions. Really good engineers have this aptitude as well, but I would suggest it is a more common aptitude in architect.
I realized when I was teaching at the University of Hawaii, that our program was one of the last truly “liberal arts” programs; we required our students to be able to write, draw, and calculate. We asked them to understand the “scientific method” involved in material testing and be familiar with great civilizations and the art and leterature they produced. Moreover we required our students to observe people who would use their buildings and the sites on which they would be built. You were not considered “educated” 250 years ago if you did not know about archtitecture.
Peter, I would agree with you about engineers that work within the construction plans and specs area. However in my experience engineers outside of the building arena are better problem solvers that most architects I know, myself included. I have a spouse, son, 4-5 nieces/nephews, brother in laws, friends, etc. who work in the engineering field and I would place most if not everyone of them above architects in problem solving skills. I believe this is partly because the engineers have been working across a much broader field than architects for many years. We are still primarily isolated to plans and specs. We possess good problem solving skills within our narrow scope but we do not do a good job of going outside of our comfort zone.
Doris Kim Sung is a welcome exception to this trend, very cool stuff.
The example I always liked (don’t know the original source) dealt with a ship wreck after a “three hour tour”. If there is an architect in the party they would make ingenious use of indigenous materials to make shelter and tools that allow the stranded party to live comfortably. If there is an engineer in the party they would combine bubble gum, a shoelace and a button and fix the boat so everyone could go home.