Unwanted Degree #1 - Architecture

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 396 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2012 - 04:10 pm:    The below is from Yahoo article "Don't Bother Earning These Five Degrees.": <<http://education.yahoo.net/articles/degrees_to_avoid.htm>> "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. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 323 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2012 - 04:18 pm:    Edited link to work. Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 485 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2012 - 04:36 pm:    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 Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 108 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2012 - 05:20 pm:    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. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 346 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 09:06 am:    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? Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 87 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 10:25 am:    Disconnect or chasm, Ken? 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. Here's my response in my blog:http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/really-who-cares-whos-a-licensed-architect/ Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 88 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 10:35 am:    Ken, more on the disconnect: 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. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 201 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 10:36 am:    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. - J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 506 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 11:09 am:    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? Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 89 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 11:32 am:    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.) J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 507 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 11:48 am:    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. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 347 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 11:50 am:    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: 1. A large trust fund 2. A rich, old relative who loves them very much 3. A rich spouse 4. A desire to work long hours and still be able to work two jobs. 5. 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. 6. 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. scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 04:42 pm:    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. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 443 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 05:27 pm:    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. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1573 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 05:54 pm:    I've had the same reaction as Dave. And what's more, the Dean of the school knows me by name. Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 101 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 06:07 pm:    " It's like being married to someone in the military without having PX priviliges." ---ROFL! thanks, Ken. I agree with Dave & Lynn. Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 09:18 am:    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. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 509 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 11:33 am:    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. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 202 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 - 09:57 am:    Coincidentally, here is Doris Kim Sung, one of my college classmates, speaking on TEDx about her latest architectural research projects: http://www.ted.com/talks/doris_kim_sung_metal_that_breathes.html - scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 - 03:21 pm:    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. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1281 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 06:23 pm:    What I found interesting about these various articles (and follow ups) was another article that talked about how valuable an architecture degree was -- but not for architecture! The team building and problem solving skills were considered useful for any number of non-architecture businesses. (see The Architect's Newspaper, December issue). I think that fits with the comments above -- architects are certainly trained to do something; buildings may not be one of them. Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 02:11 pm:    From an article posted on Yahoo: Four Foolish Majors To Avoid Opportunity Killer #4: Architecture Unemployment Rate for Recent College Graduates: 13.9 percent. http://education.yahoo.net/articles/degrees_not_to_earn.htm?kid=1NUJI spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 09:38 am:    The last two posts illustrate part of the problem. The Architects Newspaper attempts to make the point (and I agree) that architects have the skills to work across a broad range of non-architecture businesses but articles outside of architecture tend to see architectural grads as having a very narrow focus and a very narrow path to a career. Of course this will lend rise to the belief that recent grads would have a better chance in the job market (outisde of traditional architecture) if they had a title that did not sound like a transitional title. (Intern, in training, etc.) I know I am in the minority but I believe licensed architects should be called Licensed Architect and an architectural grad (from an approved program) should be called architect. The title alone will make very little difference but it is a start to giving the degree more reach and giving the graduates more options. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1372 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:03 am:    Really don't need a new title [Licensed Architect] since RA is widely used indicating "Regstered Architect" Also, you must read the state registration laws to see who can use the word "architect" in any context. Some are quire strict on this point Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 400 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 12:14 pm:    What position(s) have the various state licensing boards taken regarding the use of the term computer or programming architect? "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 12:23 pm:    I have no opinion on the title (Licensed or Registered), either is fine with me. However I believe that the term "architect" should be allowed to architectural grads so their employment options are increased (however slightly it might be) outside of traditional architectural jobs. I realize that state regs have very strict rules about who can use the term. These are the regs that I think need to change. Many such regs might not stand up in court anyway. Some have already been overturned in court so the precedents have already been established. Licnesed/Registered Architects do not own the term even though they attempt legislate as though they do. I realize this is an old fight and it has strong opposition within the profession. I just believe that a grad who is titled an architectural intern will have a difficult time competing for jobs with engineers or construction manager grads who have titles upon garduation that do not make them appear to be incomplete with their education. Obviously any entry level grad has a great deal of training left to obtain but architecture grads are percieved (outside of the profession) to be less complete upon graduation than the typical major and that puts architecture grads at a disadvantage in the job market. Just my opinion,sorry for getting up on my soap box on this never-ending arguement. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 98 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 01:17 pm:    I might sound like a person who has been living under a rock, but when did the term "intern" become so strongly associated with unpaid work and people who haven't graduated yet? Some people even call "intern" a degrading term. (Maybe that started with Clinton.) My mom is a doctor, and I was born while she was an intern. This is after she had graduated from Columbia medical school as an M.D., and was accepted into, a residency program in pediatrics. So, as I was growing up, an "intern" was someone who had accomplished quite a bit, education-wise, but who was only starting out in her paid career, and who was still learning things on the job. Maybe the term really does have a different meaning than it used to have. And I know that in some businesses, interns are unpaid, but sometimes they're getting school credit. And sometimes they're just getting coffee for people. But being an architectural intern never felt degrading to me. I only wrapped up being an intern in 2002. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 654 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 02:26 pm:    Intern as used in architecture is different from a medical intern who, presumably, has a time limit for internship and residency - I don't think that a hospital would let you be an intern indefinitely. That’s a significant difference – you could be an architectural intern for the several decades of your entire career, with probably little push-back, at many firms. Intern in the unpaid or underpaid business sense, as I understand it, refers to a person still in college who is doing a summer or semester internship. We do that in architecture too, and that is a source of confusion. Although with the recent changes from the sequential "education – internship – examination" course to a more simultaneous course, the distinction has been blurred between student intern and early professional intern. Internship strikes me as a muddy term for what we do in architecture. Although it does sound archaic, apprenticeship may be a much more accurate term. I wonder how apprentice architect would sound to today’s youth? Probably dusty and Dickensian…. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 03:33 pm:    My concern has never been how the term intern sounds to the student/intern. It never felt degrading or offensive to me either, however I took a traditional path to my career: get a degree, intern for an architect, and so on. The issue arises when the unemployment rate for arch. grads reaches 13-14% and kids are looking for positions outside of "working for an architect". The architectural education (IMO) makes a graduate very capable of filling entry level positions at any number of areas. IE: assistant to the facilities manager at a hospital, assistant to the director of buildings and grounds at a school district or college, assistant to the director of renovation and tennant improvements at a large facility (Willis tower?) and the list could go on. My point is that when the architectural grad can not get a job in their originally chosen field and is forced (or interested)in applying for jobs outside of the "traditional path" they have to compete with graduates that have degrees in engineering or construction management or something similar. The engineer's resume says he is an engineer. The construction manager's resume says he is a construction manager. The architectural degree graduate has to compete against these individuals for these jobs with a title that makes the preparation of the architectural grad look to be incomplete when in actuality it may be more advanced. I don't care if the term intern makes the kids feel degraded. I worry that the term intern contributes to them being unemployed. It is the perception of the employer that is in question and I will acknowledge that allowing an architectural grad to use the term architect (while reserving Licensed or Registered Architect for those lawfully allowed to practice) will not in and of itself solve the problem, however I believe it has the potential to help. It could also come in handy for the 45 year old who never got licensed and now finds themselves unemployed and looking for work outside of an architect's office. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 229 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 04:21 pm:    With respect an Engineering grad refering to themselves as Engineers prior to getting their PE; I speak from experience - Altho' I'm a graduate of an engineering degree at ODU, I was chastised severely for refering to myself as an engineer without the added title of PE. I find that Engineers (PE's) are also very particular about how their term (title)is used. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 535 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 05:30 pm:    This article has been a topic of interest on various bulletins and blogs for several months now (along with the discussion of who can call themselves an "architect"). The article I find uninformed and misleading, the discussion about title I find tiresome. The fact is that the market for recent graduates of architecture has generally been limited to professional design firms of which there are a very limited number. There are exceptions; for a while in the 1980s when Bill Mitchell was teaching in Los Angeles, many of his students wound up working for computer-based animation studios. There continues to be a somewhat specialized market for architectural graduates with strong computer visualization skills in this market, but this is, again, somewhat limited. I believe that most undergraduate architectural programs represent the last true liberal arts programs in terms of requiring understanding of a wide range of disciplines (physics, math, literature, drawing, arts, social science, etc.). Other university disciplines tend to regard architecture majors as glorified drafters, but when they really get into the guts of the requirements, they are very surprised. Personnel recruiters are even more challenged because they really understand neither the requirements for the position for which they are hiring nor the expertise of those they are trying to match for the job. My favorite trivia question? Which architect is featured most often on US postage stamps (hint: it's a trick question). The answer is Thomas Jefferson. In his time, a working knowledge of architecture was part of what it meant to be an educated person. Today you can get a college degree without knowing that New York City is a port located on the East Coast. Yet a person with that abysimal level of general knowledge might beat out an architectural graduate for a position (I am assuming that the baby architect knows where New York is). As the economy grows even more rapidly toward the next bubble, recent architecture grads will find entry level jobs in design firms since they need CAD jockeys to speed production. Some of the silver foxes laid off over the last 3 years will not work again. It is an enormous indictment of the economics of architectural practice that this is the way it will happen, but that is the way it will be. The silver foxes will begin to find jobs again when firms find that they must have the "architectural" expertise and not just the CAD expertise. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 608 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 08:39 pm:    When they are not entitled to use "R.A.", "AIA" or "P.E." or other indicator of professional license or certification, many people use indicators after their names of earned degrees, such as B.A., M.A., M.S., B.Arch., M.Arch, Ph.D., etc. when they are entitled to use these. (I can understand reluctance to use "B.S.") I see many unlicensed architects use the initials "R.A." for Registered Architect. "A.I.A." is not the only identifier of "real" architects. Of all the enforcement actions reported in California by the Architects Registration Board, the most prevalent one is unauthorized use of the title "Architect." Reading the history behind the enforcement actions, there are usually egregious misrepresentations by some persons who are not only presenting themselves as an architect but are very incompetent in their actions. Parallels would not only be the medical profession but construction contractors. Fraud is a nice word for what some unlicensed contractors do. Watch "Holmes on Homes" on tv to get an idea of how bad it can get. Architects not only "make pretty" and "green" but are responsible for the design complying with building codes (THE LAW), especially fire and life safety. This is not a trivial matter of "the establishment" trying to keep out those whom it doesn't like. One solution is to put in the time and energy to pass the architectural registration exam. Another is to be satisfied with "LEED AP" or even "CSI" after one's name. And initials representing certifications, such as "CDT", "CCS", "CCCA" and "CCPR" are meaningful and respected by those who understand what they mean and the effort it takes to earn them. By the way, annually SCIP gives an award for the member with the most initials after his/her name. It's known as the "EIEIO" award ... and, of course ... the recipient is entitled to add these letters to their their pedigree. I wonder if G.O.B. (Good Ol' Boy) is legitimate. I don't think "S.O.B." and "P.D.Q." are commonly used, although they may be truthful. (What's the gender-neutral version of "S.O.B."?) "B.F.F." hasn't seemed to catch on in professional communications. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 176 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 07:54 am:    John; "P.D.Q"? I am familiar with P.D.Q. Bach, but was unaware that architects were familiar with Polynomial Differential Quadrature. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 11:46 pm:    The fact is that the market for recent graduates of architecture does not need to be limited to professional design firms. I would like to see the profession make attempts to make architecural grads more marketable outside of design firms because having higher unemployment rankings then most other professions will damage the profession in the long run by discouraging future students from entering the field. I am not sure what the solution is. I would like to help improve the options available to recent grads but I quess I don't know how. Still, sitting on our hands and waiting for the economy to recover does not feel like enough to me. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 436 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 09:16 am:    Ellis, I presume you're joking. Pretty Darn Quick (the more acceptable version) has been around much longer than I. My father, a Holocaust-survivor immigrant who earned his citizenship by enlisting in the US Army Air Force in WWII was fond of using it when letting me know I was bordering on a reprimand. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 177 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 09:45 am:    Ken; Actually when I wrote my quip I had forgotten "Pretty Darn Quick" (and its variations). I will claim senioritus or not enough caffeine. That's it: caffeine deficiency. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1479 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 02:45 pm:    All I can add is that while young intern architects are having difficulty getting a position, this is true in many other fields as well. Everyone is facing the issue of staying in their field or trying something else. You really have to asses the impact of such a move on your career goals. I'm not sure I agree that the terminology gives someone with an architecture degree a disadvantage over other degrees. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1303 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 12:36 pm:    back when I started work (in the mid-70's) the architectural world was so bleak that the UW College of Architecture and Planning (it was called that back then) said that only 23% of their recent graduates got jobs in architecture. And, I was one of those people -- even though I didn't have an architecture degree (and still don't). We've had this discussion before; the degree may possibly get you in the door, but it won't keep you there -- only good work habits and some semblance of social skills will move you up the firm. An architectural graduate should be able to craft their resume to point out their various skills, and background experience. And, I should mention that many of the firms I'm aware of have been hiring practice specialists, many of whom are not architects at all. We've got licensed realtors in our office; marketing specialists; I've worked with former registered nurses (as part of a hospital practice) and people with construction management backgrounds. if students think the degree alone will get them in the door -- they are talking to the wrong people. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1480 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, February 22, 2013 - 01:51 pm:    Like Anne, I have no architecture degree either. Had a 30 year career at design firms in spite of that, and recently retired. Having no degree never held me back. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 564 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, February 22, 2013 - 02:02 pm:    I started in the late 60's as a junior draftsman and don't have a degree in Architecture. I am licensed in Arizona & Connecticut. The late John Dinkeloo (Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo and Associates, where I basically "grew up") always maintained that someone could go through the firm without a degree and still get licensed. I did. I started writing specs full time in the mid-1990's. Everything I know, I learned from some of the greatest and best people in the profession. Unlike John B., I'm still working. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 384 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, February 22, 2013 - 04:17 pm:    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 John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 611 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2013 - 12:06 am:    Well, there's always the lottery. 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). Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 618 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2013 - 10:53 am:    "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. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 178 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 08:48 am:    "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called Architectural Practice, would it?" “How do you make a small fortune in Architecture? Start with a large fortune” Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1307 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2013 - 01:47 pm:    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 a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 09:46 am:    Yahoo has done it again! "Five College Majors to Avoid" Hated Degree #1 Architecture. http://education.yahoo.net/articles/degrees_to_avoid_2.htm?kid=1O1RE Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1772 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 10:38 am:    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. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 11:48 am:    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. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 698 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 12:39 pm:    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. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1774 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 12:45 pm:    Peter, you're right; the situation is changing. We're hiring too, even (gasp) looking for another spec writer. I have to wonder when the data was collected. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 732 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 01:43 pm:    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. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 167 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 02:19 pm:    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. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 02:40 pm:    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. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 721 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 04:11 pm:    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 A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Allegion PLC (formerly Ingersoll Rand) St. Louis, MO Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1776 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 04:55 pm:    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. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 699 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 05:07 pm:    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. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 05:12 pm:    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. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 566 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 05:31 pm:    Wow Scott Piper, you make me really miss Ralph Liebing. He could have written this.