Ray,
Re your comments on a "pay for apprenticeship" program for arch. graduates:
I'm sorry, I just can't agree. Maybe my perspective is different from the
average arch. student (I'm a 36-year old non-trad who worked in professional
engineering offices in the past), but if I have a set of skills that have some
market value, I deserve to be paid for their use. If unpaid/low-paid or
"paying tuition apprenticeships" become the norm, that is a tacit admission
by architectural educators that the skills they teach have NO MARKET VALUE.
I don't object to the idea of entry-level wages---that's an expression of
RELATIVE value---but they should at least be reasonable and have a reasonable
chance of being raised an an incentive to improve productivity or acquire
greater skills. What's reasonable? I'd imagine they should be on a par with
those of a graduate engineer (abt $30K? correct me if I'm wrong), as a person
with fresh out of school with a BS knows relatively little about office life,
is not totally familiar with codes and practices, and cannot stamp a drawing---
much like your average BArch. However, as the engineer gets some experience,
and then enters an EIT program and eventually gets his PE, he acquires more
market value. Well, architects do this too, but for some reason, offices feel
interns and new grads have no RIGHT to be compensated fairly for whatever
skills the person does bring---whatever they are. I've heard stories about
the "star" architects who demand that interns PAY for the priviledge of doing
scut-work, while their offices are raking in big bucks on highly visible and
highly lucrative projects. The real fools here are the people willing to
sacrifice their self worth and dignity to do so.
Sorry to ramble, but I'm adament on this.
Mark
Re your comments on a "pay for apprenticeship" program for arch. graduates:
I'm sorry, I just can't agree. Maybe my perspective is different from the
average arch. student (I'm a 36-year old non-trad who worked in professional
engineering offices in the past), but if I have a set of skills that have some
market value, I deserve to be paid for their use. If unpaid/low-paid or
"paying tuition apprenticeships" become the norm, that is a tacit admission
by architectural educators that the skills they teach have NO MARKET VALUE.
I don't object to the idea of entry-level wages---that's an expression of
RELATIVE value---but they should at least be reasonable and have a reasonable
chance of being raised an an incentive to improve productivity or acquire
greater skills. What's reasonable? I'd imagine they should be on a par with
those of a graduate engineer (abt $30K? correct me if I'm wrong), as a person
with fresh out of school with a BS knows relatively little about office life,
is not totally familiar with codes and practices, and cannot stamp a drawing---
much like your average BArch. However, as the engineer gets some experience,
and then enters an EIT program and eventually gets his PE, he acquires more
market value. Well, architects do this too, but for some reason, offices feel
interns and new grads have no RIGHT to be compensated fairly for whatever
skills the person does bring---whatever they are. I've heard stories about
the "star" architects who demand that interns PAY for the priviledge of doing
scut-work, while their offices are raking in big bucks on highly visible and
highly lucrative projects. The real fools here are the people willing to
sacrifice their self worth and dignity to do so.
Sorry to ramble, but I'm adament on this.
Mark