I find these remards to the point and on target. What do you think?
Modelling the profession of architecture on the medical education
model might make some kind of sense. I cannot speak for the model
of the legal profession, but I am very interested in the experience of
others in this regards. [I have had some experience with health educatonal
facilities planning at the university level throughout the USA and Canada.]
Also, the education of architects is almost completely archaic. For a
profession who is *supposed to depend on (the newest and?) most appropriate
technological means, it seems to be left in the dust of advancements in
technological knowhow. Why? For example, telecommuting as a means of
spatially distributing students and faculties both microenvironmentally and
macroenvironmentally seems to be highly taboo. Why? Facilities planning
for space and educational functions usually seem to deny the value of
in an architectural educational context. Why?
There is also another problem in architectural education. The student
evaluations of faculty seem to dictate WHAT THE FACULTY SHOULD TEACH
AND HOW THE FACULTY SHOULD TEACH THE STUDENTS. What hapenned to academic
freedom? Is not the faculty in a better position to evaluate what and how
should be taught then the students? This is tantamount to a political game
in which administrators of programs of architecture may participate---for
their own political aggrandizement. G_d help us all! Why?
I would encourage full discussion on these questions...
Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Path:
psuvm!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!bnrgate!
corpgate!nrtpa038!brtph560!news
From: Todd Sandrock <@bnr>
Subject: Thots on th' perfeshin #2
Message-ID: <1993Aug16.194953.20071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 16 Aug 93 15:52:57 GMT
Sender: news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Usenet News)
Organization: Northern Telecom Limited
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d24
References: <1993Aug13.194120.27545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 19:49:53 GMT
Lines: 188
Following are some random thoughts about why I don't like the profession.
I haven't structured these into arguments--they're just thoughts.
1. Look at the "Careers" section of any newspaper. What does the world
demand? Would you like to actually work after you've sweated blood for
that degree?
2. Architecture school are, I believe, an anachronism.
3. If you've lucked out and found that job, you can expect a low salary,
even years into your career. My wife was offered $18K CDN ($13.5K US)
after graduation by a Vancouver firm, and decided to instead work at a
drafting firm for $20K ($15K). After three years in private industry (at
three firms with some contract work thrown in) she was up to $28K ($21K).
Put this in perspective. Teaching "professionals" in Ottawa work at an
average salary of $59K ($44.3K). Ahhh, union magic. Streetcar drivers in
Toronto somehow manage to survive on $66K (just under fifty grand US).
4. As you fall under the blanket of "professional or training
professional" you'd be surprised at how labour laws apply to you.
Architects are lumped in with travelling salesmen by Ontario labour law.
Which means: No entitlement to vacation. No vacation pay. No overtime
pay. No entitlement to be paid for sick time. You aren't entitled to
these things. But the secretary and the technologists are.
Admittedly, most firms will offer some of these. But they're doing out of
the goodness of their decrepit hearts--they don't have to.
We found out about this gem the last time my wife was laid off, and the
principal of the firm forced her to pay back, in cash, holiday time she
had taken.
5. Unless you plan to never be seriously ill, or to never have kids with
crooked teeth, the endemic lack of any health insurance or dental
benefits may be a problem. I know only one person you belongs to a firm
which even allows employees to buy into a program, let alone have the
firm pay for it. And if you're working on contract, forget it.
6. The unwashed mass of Architects-in-training are a great, and cheap
resource. I remember taking a tour through a small firm in Chicago given
by a recent graduate of my school. All the A's-in-T were in the basement
looking for all the world like pieceworkers hunched over sewing machines.
And while the pieceworkers only have the threat of being exposed to
immigration authorities, the Architects-in-Training have this hanging
over their heads: That the principal of the firm will descend from the
clouds and say, "I don't think you have what it takes to be an
architect." (An Actual Quote From An Actual Architect to My Actual Wife,
see #4 above)
7. I can't remember anyone I know who works for a firm ever getting any
travel or training. These things make working interesting, and can even
help you develop as an architect and professional. But whenever the
company sends me to the States on courses relating to architecture, I
only meet other corporate or government architects.
But why would a firm train, when it can fire and rehire someone already
trained?
8. The public, and industry, when they think about it at all, have a
perception of architects as impractical, elitist, and arrogant.
9. Many architects, especially the fraticelli [architecture-as-religion
nuts] cultivate this image and wear it as a badge of honour and
transcendence. "If the public can't figure out corrugated cardboard
furniture or glass houses, it is because, pity them, they are handicapped
and need aesthetic evangelization. And WE WILL BE THOSE EVANGELISTS."
10. Tied to this is the public perception of the value-added that
architects provide. Look at what the people want. Look at their houses,
and their malls. New is good. California kitchens are good. Green Corian
countertops are good, but too expensive for me... An elegant solution to
a difficult design problem and meticulous details are all lost on the
average consumer of architectural product. Why would they pay a premium,
or anything at all for a service that they won't be able to discern
anyway?
The same holds true for corporate clients, who find it cheaper and more
convenient to retain AE or AEC firms than an architect and his entourage
of subconsultants.
11. Architecture has always been a generalist profession. The traditional
role has been of architects as prime consultants, and to a lesser extent,
provider of subsidiary services such as landscape and site design, and
construction management. But the times, they are a-changin'. Architects
have given away many of these subsidiary services to better qualified
specialists.
The nature of building has changed as well. Clients are demanding more
technically from their buildings. Architects are simply not competent
enough or specialised enough to understand many of the complex systems
around which contemporary buildings revolve. Moreover, as architects are
the sole client point of contact, the client often fritters away time as
the architect tries to paraphrase a problem raised by one of his/her
subconsultants. A problem which he/she may not even fully understand.
12. Nor are architects, technically competent or specialised enough to
understand their subconsultants drawings whose accuracy they are
guaranteeing, and for which they are "jointly and severally liable". Why
would you want to expose yourself to that kind of liability? Architects
do it every day.
13. Back to generalisation vs. specialisation. The increasing demands of
specialisation would not be a real problem if schools and the profession
were trying to expand the role of architects to meet these new
challenges. But these institutions seem enamoured with turning out clones
of the obsolete, 19th century ivory tower gentleman-philosopher. You have
to know everything, or you cannot call yourself an architect. And these
days you have to know more everything than you used to.
How many ways can you be an engineer? Electrical, computer, civil,
structural, mechanical, agricultural, chemical, environmental, etc....
How many ways can you be an architect?
Why can't the profession see to permitting people to call themselves
architects with a specialisation? Like Facility Management architect, or
Project Management Architect, or Modelling and Rendering Architect, or
Networking and Life Safety Systems Architect or Programming Architect.
Specialised architects would not of course be permitted to stamp a
building in its totality, but only their portion. Architects as a
collectivity would not have to painfully whittle off and give away
services they are no longer competent enough, or cannot make money at
providing. And I would not have to put up with another architect who
claims to understand my networking or semiconductor fabrication facility
design requirements.
14. Clients like me make awful and sometimes unreasonable demands. And
you are on the hook for all of it, even those issues which are the fault
of your subconsultants. And you will continue to be on the hook for it
for a long time. Little cleanup issues will keep you devoted to this
project after you're well into the next one. Legally, you're liable for a
minimum of seven years, and possibly forever depending on your
jurisdiction for latent defects which can be traced to the design or
execution.
15. You can expect professional camaraderie that runs along these lines:
The joke goes that the only thing two architects can agree on is that the
third architect is an asshole.
16. You can expect other firms to undercut any official fee schedules to
get work. Usually they'll undercut the schedule by more than you did.
17. If you're an architect and a woman, you have your own set of exciting
things to look forward too.
The system of architectural education is survival oriented, with those
[mostly old][mostly men] who were humiliated and harangued as students
now doing the haranguing and humiliating. A way of learning based on
humiliation and survival cannot lead to anything good, and results in a
record body count, both women and men. But the women have additionally to
deal with a sexually threatening environment. They have to deal with the
whole locker room mentality. The old boys school is alive and well. It
can go beyond that to rape and attempted rape in dark studios, late at
night, by someone you thought you knew. This is not politically correct
crap. This happens.
After graduation, you find yourself as an architect-in-training under a
[usually old][usually male] principal. Most firms are small to mid sized.
Most small to mid sized firms have this patriarchal structure of one or
two principals, and a staff of Architects-in-training, technologists, and
support. The staff has been listed in decreasing order of anxiety about
job security. This structure makes it easy, if the principal happens to
be a real nutbar, for him to abuse you and lord over you your own job.
And if you happen to have a kid, or a car, or a mortgage, or student
loans, or you just like eating on a regular basis, you take it.
The professional association doesn't seem to want to help either. I've
never seen in all the disciplinary hearings I've read, of an eccentric
senile principal being reprimanded for abusing his staff. But it happens.
And it is apparently sanctioned.
If you want to have a baby (as women sometimes do) that's OK. All you
have to do is resign. If you want to be an architect who doesn't have to
choose between children and a career, you work for industry or government.
18. Why do people put up with this stuff?
They really think they can make a difference
They are fanatic fraticelli
They believe the old lie: That one day they will be that principal, or
that professor, or that associate, and be rich, and famous, and, most of
all, give back to young students and architects what was heaped on
themselves.
In the end, after the death of architecture, the world will be a poorer
place. But, in the end, it will have been the profession itself and its
inability to change and care for its own that will be the cause.
I have more tomorrow, but have run out of time to type.
Modelling the profession of architecture on the medical education
model might make some kind of sense. I cannot speak for the model
of the legal profession, but I am very interested in the experience of
others in this regards. [I have had some experience with health educatonal
facilities planning at the university level throughout the USA and Canada.]
Also, the education of architects is almost completely archaic. For a
profession who is *supposed to depend on (the newest and?) most appropriate
technological means, it seems to be left in the dust of advancements in
technological knowhow. Why? For example, telecommuting as a means of
spatially distributing students and faculties both microenvironmentally and
macroenvironmentally seems to be highly taboo. Why? Facilities planning
for space and educational functions usually seem to deny the value of
in an architectural educational context. Why?
There is also another problem in architectural education. The student
evaluations of faculty seem to dictate WHAT THE FACULTY SHOULD TEACH
AND HOW THE FACULTY SHOULD TEACH THE STUDENTS. What hapenned to academic
freedom? Is not the faculty in a better position to evaluate what and how
should be taught then the students? This is tantamount to a political game
in which administrators of programs of architecture may participate---for
their own political aggrandizement. G_d help us all! Why?
I would encourage full discussion on these questions...
Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Path:
psuvm!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!bnrgate!
corpgate!nrtpa038!brtph560!news
From: Todd Sandrock <@bnr>
Subject: Thots on th' perfeshin #2
Message-ID: <1993Aug16.194953.20071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 16 Aug 93 15:52:57 GMT
Sender: news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Usenet News)
Organization: Northern Telecom Limited
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d24
References: <1993Aug13.194120.27545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 19:49:53 GMT
Lines: 188
Following are some random thoughts about why I don't like the profession.
I haven't structured these into arguments--they're just thoughts.
1. Look at the "Careers" section of any newspaper. What does the world
demand? Would you like to actually work after you've sweated blood for
that degree?
2. Architecture school are, I believe, an anachronism.
3. If you've lucked out and found that job, you can expect a low salary,
even years into your career. My wife was offered $18K CDN ($13.5K US)
after graduation by a Vancouver firm, and decided to instead work at a
drafting firm for $20K ($15K). After three years in private industry (at
three firms with some contract work thrown in) she was up to $28K ($21K).
Put this in perspective. Teaching "professionals" in Ottawa work at an
average salary of $59K ($44.3K). Ahhh, union magic. Streetcar drivers in
Toronto somehow manage to survive on $66K (just under fifty grand US).
4. As you fall under the blanket of "professional or training
professional" you'd be surprised at how labour laws apply to you.
Architects are lumped in with travelling salesmen by Ontario labour law.
Which means: No entitlement to vacation. No vacation pay. No overtime
pay. No entitlement to be paid for sick time. You aren't entitled to
these things. But the secretary and the technologists are.
Admittedly, most firms will offer some of these. But they're doing out of
the goodness of their decrepit hearts--they don't have to.
We found out about this gem the last time my wife was laid off, and the
principal of the firm forced her to pay back, in cash, holiday time she
had taken.
5. Unless you plan to never be seriously ill, or to never have kids with
crooked teeth, the endemic lack of any health insurance or dental
benefits may be a problem. I know only one person you belongs to a firm
which even allows employees to buy into a program, let alone have the
firm pay for it. And if you're working on contract, forget it.
6. The unwashed mass of Architects-in-training are a great, and cheap
resource. I remember taking a tour through a small firm in Chicago given
by a recent graduate of my school. All the A's-in-T were in the basement
looking for all the world like pieceworkers hunched over sewing machines.
And while the pieceworkers only have the threat of being exposed to
immigration authorities, the Architects-in-Training have this hanging
over their heads: That the principal of the firm will descend from the
clouds and say, "I don't think you have what it takes to be an
architect." (An Actual Quote From An Actual Architect to My Actual Wife,
see #4 above)
7. I can't remember anyone I know who works for a firm ever getting any
travel or training. These things make working interesting, and can even
help you develop as an architect and professional. But whenever the
company sends me to the States on courses relating to architecture, I
only meet other corporate or government architects.
But why would a firm train, when it can fire and rehire someone already
trained?
8. The public, and industry, when they think about it at all, have a
perception of architects as impractical, elitist, and arrogant.
9. Many architects, especially the fraticelli [architecture-as-religion
nuts] cultivate this image and wear it as a badge of honour and
transcendence. "If the public can't figure out corrugated cardboard
furniture or glass houses, it is because, pity them, they are handicapped
and need aesthetic evangelization. And WE WILL BE THOSE EVANGELISTS."
10. Tied to this is the public perception of the value-added that
architects provide. Look at what the people want. Look at their houses,
and their malls. New is good. California kitchens are good. Green Corian
countertops are good, but too expensive for me... An elegant solution to
a difficult design problem and meticulous details are all lost on the
average consumer of architectural product. Why would they pay a premium,
or anything at all for a service that they won't be able to discern
anyway?
The same holds true for corporate clients, who find it cheaper and more
convenient to retain AE or AEC firms than an architect and his entourage
of subconsultants.
11. Architecture has always been a generalist profession. The traditional
role has been of architects as prime consultants, and to a lesser extent,
provider of subsidiary services such as landscape and site design, and
construction management. But the times, they are a-changin'. Architects
have given away many of these subsidiary services to better qualified
specialists.
The nature of building has changed as well. Clients are demanding more
technically from their buildings. Architects are simply not competent
enough or specialised enough to understand many of the complex systems
around which contemporary buildings revolve. Moreover, as architects are
the sole client point of contact, the client often fritters away time as
the architect tries to paraphrase a problem raised by one of his/her
subconsultants. A problem which he/she may not even fully understand.
12. Nor are architects, technically competent or specialised enough to
understand their subconsultants drawings whose accuracy they are
guaranteeing, and for which they are "jointly and severally liable". Why
would you want to expose yourself to that kind of liability? Architects
do it every day.
13. Back to generalisation vs. specialisation. The increasing demands of
specialisation would not be a real problem if schools and the profession
were trying to expand the role of architects to meet these new
challenges. But these institutions seem enamoured with turning out clones
of the obsolete, 19th century ivory tower gentleman-philosopher. You have
to know everything, or you cannot call yourself an architect. And these
days you have to know more everything than you used to.
How many ways can you be an engineer? Electrical, computer, civil,
structural, mechanical, agricultural, chemical, environmental, etc....
How many ways can you be an architect?
Why can't the profession see to permitting people to call themselves
architects with a specialisation? Like Facility Management architect, or
Project Management Architect, or Modelling and Rendering Architect, or
Networking and Life Safety Systems Architect or Programming Architect.
Specialised architects would not of course be permitted to stamp a
building in its totality, but only their portion. Architects as a
collectivity would not have to painfully whittle off and give away
services they are no longer competent enough, or cannot make money at
providing. And I would not have to put up with another architect who
claims to understand my networking or semiconductor fabrication facility
design requirements.
14. Clients like me make awful and sometimes unreasonable demands. And
you are on the hook for all of it, even those issues which are the fault
of your subconsultants. And you will continue to be on the hook for it
for a long time. Little cleanup issues will keep you devoted to this
project after you're well into the next one. Legally, you're liable for a
minimum of seven years, and possibly forever depending on your
jurisdiction for latent defects which can be traced to the design or
execution.
15. You can expect professional camaraderie that runs along these lines:
The joke goes that the only thing two architects can agree on is that the
third architect is an asshole.
16. You can expect other firms to undercut any official fee schedules to
get work. Usually they'll undercut the schedule by more than you did.
17. If you're an architect and a woman, you have your own set of exciting
things to look forward too.
The system of architectural education is survival oriented, with those
[mostly old][mostly men] who were humiliated and harangued as students
now doing the haranguing and humiliating. A way of learning based on
humiliation and survival cannot lead to anything good, and results in a
record body count, both women and men. But the women have additionally to
deal with a sexually threatening environment. They have to deal with the
whole locker room mentality. The old boys school is alive and well. It
can go beyond that to rape and attempted rape in dark studios, late at
night, by someone you thought you knew. This is not politically correct
crap. This happens.
After graduation, you find yourself as an architect-in-training under a
[usually old][usually male] principal. Most firms are small to mid sized.
Most small to mid sized firms have this patriarchal structure of one or
two principals, and a staff of Architects-in-training, technologists, and
support. The staff has been listed in decreasing order of anxiety about
job security. This structure makes it easy, if the principal happens to
be a real nutbar, for him to abuse you and lord over you your own job.
And if you happen to have a kid, or a car, or a mortgage, or student
loans, or you just like eating on a regular basis, you take it.
The professional association doesn't seem to want to help either. I've
never seen in all the disciplinary hearings I've read, of an eccentric
senile principal being reprimanded for abusing his staff. But it happens.
And it is apparently sanctioned.
If you want to have a baby (as women sometimes do) that's OK. All you
have to do is resign. If you want to be an architect who doesn't have to
choose between children and a career, you work for industry or government.
18. Why do people put up with this stuff?
They really think they can make a difference
They are fanatic fraticelli
They believe the old lie: That one day they will be that principal, or
that professor, or that associate, and be rich, and famous, and, most of
all, give back to young students and architects what was heaped on
themselves.
In the end, after the death of architecture, the world will be a poorer
place. But, in the end, it will have been the profession itself and its
inability to change and care for its own that will be the cause.
I have more tomorrow, but have run out of time to type.