I recall that when I attended the “School of Architecture and Allied Arts” at the University of Oregon back in the late 1970’s, they posted signs around the department in spring term saying “there are no architecture jobs available in Oregon, if they want you they will call YOU, so please don’t bother the firms in Portland by asking”. That was a big program and the usual graduating class was a number uncomfortably close to the number of licensed architects in Oregon.
I too do not have a professional B-ARCH. The school was so overcrowded that every year you attended you actually added another year to the time needed to graduate because you couldn’t register for classes that were intended to be taken concurrently with others. I finally switched to a BA philosophy major and moved on. I became licensed in California about ten years later, while working for SOM - they were not too worried about degrees either.
Scary statistic:
Number of new California Architect licenses:
1989 = 1339 (when I got mine)
2010 = 548
I heard about an architect who won millions in the lottery. When asked what he was going to do, he said he was going to keep on practicing architecture until it was all gone.
When I was in school, in the 5th year, I took a required class in professional practice. The professor, whom I later went to work for, told the class about a survey on income. He said that out of 46 professions, architects ranked 45. 46 was poets.
It is easy to blather on about this sort of stuff. When I went on to work in the private firm of the professor, who later became chairman of the department of architecture, he commented that it was easy to find architectural designers. It was difficult … and he valued … architects who were technically proficient. I’ve had minimal periods of unemployment because I have specialized in the “technical” side of architecture. And CSI is the context where development of “technical” architects most happens (IMHO).
“it was easy to find architectural designers. It was difficult … and he valued … architects who were technically proficient.”
Don’t most people go into architecture so they can “design” iconic buildings that show up on magazine covers? How many go into architecture with the intent of designing buildings that can be built and won’t leak? And how many schools focus on anything but the appearance of a building? Isn’t architecture school really art school, using buildings as canvas?
Why is a glass cube, or a contorted shape, or a building that intentionally instills unease considered great architecture? Most “great” architecture is designed from the outside in, and most “great” architects are master designers (whatever that is) rather than master builders. It is unusual to see a building singled out for how well it works, either in constructability or response to the occupant’s needs.
I confess, I did not go to architecture school to be a specifier. I don’t really recall why I did, though I do remember being impressed with classic architecture (I still am) and detesting “architecture” that relied on chain link fence as an interior feature and similar non-functional “design elements” of the time.
Actually, today in the San Francisco Business Journal, there was an article called “The 5 best and worst college majors to land a job in California”. Electrical Engineering was #1, but architecture was ranked #5 in the "best " category. (journalism and political science were in the “worst” category). http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/02/21/the-5-best-and-worst-college-majors-to.html Additional details: the best areas are San Jose, Fresno (?!), LA and Stockton (?); people in California on average make 13 percent more than in other parts of the country. Article is based on analysis by Bright.com
Architecture, Anthropology, Philosophy, Religion, and Arts - many of the things we need as humans to enrich our world, to set us thinking, to move us above reality. How sad.
Has Yahoo done it again or are they simply reporting the findings of a Georgetown study? Architecture has a high unemployment rate for resent grads and we should avoid the temptation to shoot the messenger when they point it out.
I don’t know the solution but our profession has issues because our graduates can not find work as readily as other (similar) professions.
That situation is changing. Every firm I know in Houston (small firms as wells as the Genslers and HOKs) is looking for people at all levels. I know that other parts of the country are getting busy as well. If you know anyone who is willing to relocate to this area, have them give me a call.
This discourages the guys in it for the money and to pick up chicks (like anyone would ever really think that for more than a week or so).
This is a cyclical business. The best time to start on an architecture degree is when the economy is down and firms are downsizing or closing. When you graduate in 5 or 6 years, business will be booming again. The worst time to start is about a year after the boom cycle has really kicked in.
Architecture firms are getting busier, but have architects seen increased salaries? Companies of all sorts hang on to the last bust as long as they can, putting off hiring until they can’t avoid it, and why not? During the “be glad you have a job” phase, they are able to dump more work onto the employees who remain, but not pay them more - or even cut their wages - until the competition for warm bodies gets fierce.
When the money starts flowing, it’s easy to hire people with less attention to how good they are, or what they will do all week. And then, when a slump hits, companies see it as an opportunity to prune the dead wood. Which leads me to ask, “If those people weren’t really necessary, why did you hire them?”
Those companies with management that continually watches the market often are the ones that best survive economic cycles. It takes more than that, though; if the only work you do is casinos, you’re in for a rough ride.
Yes they are getting busier, but do they really want knowledgeable people in the profession or are they just looking for Revit users? The trend has been less and less knowledgeable people with the actual knowledge of constructability.
I agree that the data may be lagging behind the industry but do architecture grads still have a harder time finding work than other professions.
The question is not whether the 12.8% is still valid. The important question is how do architecture grads compare to others in similar professions. If the 12.8% drops to 10.8% that is good but if similar degree graduates see their rates drop from 10.8% to 8.8% then we still have a problem. Maybe not as many kids falling victim to the problem but a problem none the less.
It’s called college education, not job training. Too many people focus on the money earned in a career vs. the cost of the college in decision making. The real ROI should include the rest of the benefit from a solid college experience - the things that enrich our humanity, to quote my distinguished colleague above.
Looking back on it through the fog of four decades, I value the liberal arts part of my college years every bit as much as I do the professional training. Being practical has its place, but I would never advise someone to avoid any career they are truly interested in just because hiring is temporarily down in that field.
George, I couldn’t agree more. (and thanks for the compliment).
Our younger son majored in philosophy and took courses in jewelry making and Chinese, just to name a few, because he thought they would enrich him. Not bragging, but he is one of the most intelligent people I know. And our society needs more people who value education, and being a learned person, and not just being a trained technician.
In a growing business, cash is tight. In an architectural practice. 2/3 of the cash goes to employee expense (taxes, insurance, vacation, and other benefits; not just salaries). When you bring a new hire in, it will be 2 to 3 months before their efforts result in a check to the firm. During this time, the new employee will draw weekly, biweekley, semimonthly, or monthly paychecks. Where does the cash come from to pay this person? There is enormous pressure to first hire the cheapest people you can get or to defer hiring at all. Unfortunately, only after the pump is past the priming stage and is producing a steady flow, can one really afford to be strategic with hiring.
I apologize for harping on this point but I am very concerned that our profession does not want to acknowledge the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Recent architecture grads APPEAR to have fewer job options coming out of school compared to similar professions. It has gotten more press recently but I remember it being the perception decades ago when I graduated as well.
This perception is an issue because it can lead to fewer and fewer STRONG candidates choosing architecture as a profession which can weaken the profession in the long run. (are we already seeing this?) I realize college is not job training and I agree that a kid should not chose a major based upon the money earned in a career. However I would wager that for most of the 12.8% of grads who couldn’t find work the money earned in a career was not the issue. The money to be earned in the next 15 days was the issue. It is not a comfortable subject I admit but it is one I would like to see our profession attempt to address.