Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Hello first time forum speaker

Being a first year architecture student, naturally i am confused about...well pretty much everything. I was just wondering whether you experienced architects and seasoned architecture students out there could clear a few things up for me.

First, what will architects end up doing? I mean in my course there is a heavy emphasis on design (its worth 8 units), but also there is also a strong emphasis on architectural technologies (8 units) which is learning about structures, sustainable building design and methods of construction. I personally loath the latter, and so wasnt what i expected.

Secondly, how much do architects earn on average? I havent gotten the guts to ask my tutors or lecturers this for fear of stirring an indignant response, and then have them hate me forever.

And thirdly, will printing ever get cheaper?!?!

if anyone can provide me answers i'd be really grateful

Comments

  • edited January 1970
    Can I ask why on earth you chose architecture?............... seems to be something lacking in the advice you were given somewhere....Answer this and I will then address your questions
  • edited January 1970
    Well, basically, when i was make a decision about the degree i wanted to do, i basically went around to almost everything. In terms of stability I looked at commerce...to boring...and who wants to be an accountant anyway right? (no offence to accountants). i looked at law...but again it seemed to be sorta boring, and also my impression of it was that i would end up in a job where i might have make complex moral decisions which i might not like. i looked at medicine, and had no interest in it whatsoever. and as for engineering, i knew that my poor fundamentals in math would let me down.

    So then i decided to just stick with what my passions are...the arts. had a sniff around in regards to the BA degrees...and while it was all exciting and what not, i dont want to be doing something for 3 or 4 years and i wouldnt neccessarily get a well-paid job. But i still wanted to do it.

    so i thought a good compromise was architecture. because at my uni, they offered architecture/arts. arhitects are well respected professionals, and i can do arts and stuff. also, they dont seem to have to deal with moral issues beyond what things materials are environmentally friendly etc.

    And so when i got to the architecture desk to talk to some of the lecturers and stuff they were like "Ohh yes yes its a great degree, it offers you such flexibility, you can do arts, you do almost anything".

    And, having said that architecture isnt a bad degree, its just not what its cracked out to be. the subjects seem fun and stuff, but its poorly coordinated and the lectures and tutors think we are made of money ("oh yes, go out and buy this $160 pen set, you'll need it"..."oh go out and buy my book for $75, you'll need it.." and "oh i would like you all to present your designs on colour printed a1 sheets" (fuck you know how much that cost?!?!?!?)). And as if it wasnt bad enough that they thin your wallets, give you 5 assignments due in the same week so that you have to stay awake for 42 hours straight, the bastards just go around failing people on a whim.

    to make matters worse, we are all caught up in their internal politicking...("oh no no...architectural technologies is more important"..."no no you aesthetically illiterate barbarian, architectural design is more important), which takes time away from actually learning how to be a decent educator.

    we're not getting our money's worth, and what's the part that's bugging me the most is that i dont even KNOW if i'll get that financial stability i thought that an architecture degree would offer.

    sorry i'm rambling

    soooooooooooooooooo.... phil, if you could let me know what architecture would be like for the next 4 and a half years, that'd be great, it'd help me make a decision whether to stick around and see if it is the "spiritually rewarding" they say it is or to just cut and run
  • edited January 1970
    OK

    I will respond at the end of the week as I am leaving for Darwin shortly for work ....

    Catch you soon
  • edited January 1970
    what is architecture???!!! wow what a question.....

    If you look to the movies... we make cute timber models, drive around in sports cars, carry rolls drawings, do pretty sketches and stay up late to do presentaitons (and have hopless relationships....)

    well most of the facinating world of the architect painted in the movies is crap..... what they teach you in uni (all the design concept, design is the most important thing is the world) is crap.

    Architecture is:
    2% design
    50% administration
    40% documentation
    60% psychology and communication

    yes, it adds up to more than 100% because that is usually how much effort is required.

    In terms of pay - apart from landscape architects, we are the most highly qualified and underpaid professional. - After leaving uni you will probably start at aroudn $35K (if you are good and lucky).... after 5 -7 years be at around $60K, and finish at around $80 - $100K. (you could get in excess of $200K if you sell your soul and work for a developer)

    It is true true that architecture can lead you to many interesting places and there are many ways to get sidetracked / specialise or 'branch out"

    Personally I find it increadly challanging, stimulating and a completely diverse career - one minute you can be discussing the merits of a rounded satin stainless steel door handle compared to a square polised stainless steel one and the next masterplanning a city for 2 million people. You will meet an amazing bunch of diverse people and life will almost never be dull - more than any other career it becomes what you make of it.

    But at the heart of it all - if you don't want to end up frustrated - architecture is about people - you need to relate to clients, consultants and government reps, you will need to discuss and resolve problems, negotiate.... the best design in the world will just sit in the draw unless you can convince someone to build it - negotiate with people during the process, manage the team and the politics, and listen.

    They don't teach this at uni - maybe they should.
  • NN
    edited January 1970
    Don't know if this helps disillusioned architecture student but, I'm in 5th year, going on 6th year. I do a combined degree with Landscape architecture...and judging by what you have said...I think you really need to sit down and think to yourself what you want from your degree. It really doesn't matter what I, or anyone else, tells you because chances are you're asking questions to converts.

    As you say, you have a passion for the arts. The trick is, as pd_smith has said, it's not always going to be "sexy" architectural concepts and the pay is...undeniably less than what you could expect from a job in Accounting or Medicine, etc. However, what other professions may not offer (save for perhaps medicine) is a sense of loving what you do. You don't do architecture/landscape architecture because you want financial stability, you do it because you love it. And that's not to say that we are on the "starving" end of the pay scale. It's more to do with job satisfaction, and I'm not sure if I've misunderstood you, but if you are looking for financial stability as in "will this pay me a bucketload of cash" then you are probably in the wrong degree. But remember, like all professions, it's easy to quote things like x architect gets loads of money but remember how many other graudates/professionals who won't make that kind of money. You need to do it because you want to.

    As I've said before, you need to sit down and think about what you want from your degree. It sounds to me as if it was a bit of a last resort/"I reckon I'll do OK in this" choice. There are many hours spent over designs/plans/studies that perhaps Commerce students do not need to do, not to mention the tutors who can be...at best "eccentric". Anyway...I digress, I think you really need to take these upcoming summer holidays and think about what you want to do either through getting a job at an architecture firm or a company which is in the field of what you might do otherwise.
  • edited January 1970
    2nd yr going on 3rd here

    wat do architects end up doing? good question. because of the minimal pay + work overload, alot of people end up doing other things related to architecture, or even completely different things. i heard only about 10% architecture graduates remain architects for all their lives. others do other things such as construction management, design, etc. so yes, it would be smart to rethink what you are doing and really decide if this is what you want to do, regardless of any circumstances.

    how much do archis earn. 30k ish to start off with is what i heard -> refer to other replies, i'm not too sure on this one.

    regarding printing. yes it does get cheaper. well, it did in my case. our faculty printing system have little loopholes that can be exploited hahah. keep an eye out for them :D

    best wishes
  • edited January 1970
    In my second year at Univ NSW 4 decades ago my design teacher Noel Beazey (why do I remember him but no others?) pulled me aside and asked "Ron, just why are you doing architecture?".
    I can't remember my response (probably shallow and irrelevant) but what I do know is my gradings climed remakably thereafter with a change in attitude.

    For 4 decades I've been practicing "architecture" and been a a draftie, designer, a Project Manager, a builder, a specialied handiman, a sculptor, a surveyor on archeological digs and now a teacher/educator and many others in between. No other professional career training I know gives you this flecxibility of outlook.

    And I am happy.

    If you have half a passion for it, hang in there as the education comes after Uni!
  • edited January 1970
    There is no so much good material here I am not going to confuse you any further

    Read what these contributors have written and go from there - Passion is the thing and it applies not only to architecture. Doesn't matter what Uni entrance score you get (it is just a quota mechanism anyway) but I believe it doesn't matter especially how bright you are but how passionate it you are about whatever you choose to do in life.

    Consider a year out to find your passion if you are not sure.

    philip

    PS - Glad to see there is someone else here who went to Uni more than twenty years ago
  • edited January 1970
    could a current arch student please read this link:

    http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/Socialise.html#ideology

    and tell me if you think it is factual? :?:
  • edited January 1970
    With regards to architectural design vs architectural technologies...I came from a similar background where I thought art would be the primary factor in architecture. The simple fact of the matter is that you can draw whatever you want on paper, but if you don't know how to get it built, chances are...it won't get built.

    Lectures on structural design and engineering are particularly beneficial in the establishment of a common language between structural engineers and architects - this is an incredibly important working relationship that can either make or break a project, aesthetically or otherwise. A basic knowledge of construction methods, whilst not really the most exciting subject, further ensures that your designs can actually be built, and that they will have the material/tectonic and spatial qualities you desire to achieve your intended concept. And sustainability? There's no point designing a building if, for example, in a few years the inhabitants can't afford the cost of fully air-conditioning it. The recent Stern report highlights how important sustainability is - it's not just a buzz word a lot of people dismissed it to be. It should be a basic consideration in the design of all buildings, from simple building orientation to detailed life cycle cost analysis.

    So when reality sets in that if you want to be creative, you need to be creative with more than just lines on a page, you need to assess whether you're up to the challenge.
  • edited January 1970
    I like your reply
  • edited January 1970
    Yo guys,

    In response to Kashmir's question-

    I was at a cafe today with a mate from uni, having a chat about the insanity that was our just passed second year of architecture. After coming from a year of BA arts study (lit and politics, etc) at Melbourne, I can appreciate the sheer enormity of work demanded, the homogenous (richkid) student body and the unnecessary psychological mind games that seem to be specific to architecture studies.

    Basically I thought the article was accurate in its representation of architecture as a field which favours the rich and intellectually isolates.
    During the first year, like disillusioned archi student, I found the workload far beyond my worst expectations of what a ‘hard workload’ constituted- but unlike dis-arch-stud I liked all the subjects and loved the collaborative aspect, group projects etc. It was like boot camp, but we were all in it together.
    The studio demands left pretty much no time for anything else except for drunken weekends, so all my other "intellectual" interests went out the window. Politics, lit, art, music, sport etc I kind of shoved in the 'post uni' basket.
    I can't speak for all students but as far as my mates go, no-one has any idea about politics, or is even interested in what is going on outside out studios. There's a bit of half-hearted music culture going on, but by and large the knowledge or “intellectual capital” (as the article put it) seems solely confined to architecture.
    Meanwhile the studio system definitely favours the 'gifted' and promotes intense competition. Im naturally competitive and enjoy studios most of the time, but they can be painful, especially when your tutor seems incapable of being straightforward or speaking plainly. And when, as the article illustrated, the tutor treats your work as ‘you’. (Id say this is a general tendency of all students too, a bit rough when we’re all just developing an aesthetic.)
    I love the course because it is so demanding and full-on, but its a worry that most students seem to have little interest in architecture as a social, environmental, technical or politcal tool- aside from aesthetics.

    To dis-arch-stud, if you are only interested in architecture as a sculptural or expressive tool, perhaps you should try graphic or industrial design.

    To kashmir- I think the archi system does encourage students to be docile, dependant upon tutor's (vague, obscure) demands, disinterested in politics, lit and so forth but I don’t think the answer is the Melbourne Model, which would only serve to prevent poorer kids from ever getting an architecture degree. I just think there needs to be compulsory electives in first year- cinema studies, lit, politics, sociology, compulsory work experience, and studio projects with REAL BRIEFS from first year, with emphasis on the importance of site etc from the outset.
  • edited January 1970
    This is a very interesting discussion. Having worked for a number of years in different aspects of architecture, I know I would not have survived in this field is my aim had been purely or mainly financial. However, I cannot complain, I am happy with what I do because among other things I care about ethical and political issues - these are part of architecture.

    I found the following statement written by RIBA's public Affairs. This, in my view, says a lot about this relationship and about our professional responsibility to society: "Architecture is political - because architecture really is about issues such as where we live, how our children are taught, how we are treated when we are ill or the quality of our neighbourhoods. " (http://www.riba.org/go/RIBA/News/Policy_2696.html)

    I am very interested in a comment here about the Melbourne Model and why this would further disavantage poorer students - I was going to quote it but I couldn't find it again.
    Would you like to start another discussion on this topic at: http://www.butterpaper.com/talk/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=7 ???
  • edited January 1970
    Turn it into a new topic if you like Beatriz, im entirely new to this forum business.
    It is interesting to me that the RIBA would publicly acknowledge the relevance of politics to architecture when the current course content and course structure almost obviates politics and sociology entirely. Melbourne Uni is supposed to be more 'history' and 'theory' focused than the RMIT yet in my course so far I cant recall a single reference to how my designs relate to culture and society. Aside from passive heating/cooling measures, (which are being taught separately to design and so far in a very limited way) context is only important so far as an aesthetic tool: the question being whether to complement or contrast the existing landscape, etc. The focus at uni is design- and not even functional, but 'seductive' designs. I would agree that being inventive, developing a confident aesthetic, mastering rendering skills (hand/comp) are the most important skills to learn at uni, cos arguably the rest can be attained on the job. I just think that tutors should be talking about relevant design, political and environmental issues, instead of playing the tyrant role and being deliberately unclear.

    The Melbourne Model requires the undergraduate to complete a general Arts degree before commencing a further specialised degree, ie. Architecture. Since only your first degree can be covered by HECS/ CSP, students would be required to pay full-fee to study architecture. Those unable to afford the $7000/yr tuition fees are therefore excluded. That's my understanding anyway, correct me if im wrong…
  • edited January 1970
    I don't believe for a second that architectural studies, in general, promote social/political responsibility. The RIBA statement claims that this should be the aim - which is more than any statement I have seen so far coming out the RAIA. However, as we know, words and practice are two different things.

    Going back to Gary Steven's quote, mentioned before, his study (in my view) echo what some of you have identified as issues: emphasis on the aesthetics at expense of the social and the elitism of the discipline. His book, “The Favored Circle”, provides a sound and thorough analysis of the many aspects affecting the teaching and practice of architecture - I couldn't recommend it enough.
    Another excellent book along these lines is “Architecture as Politics. The Role of Design and Planning for Peace and Sustainable Development” by Dick Urban Vestbro (2002). This is to say that, there is sufficient evidence that architecture is a social pursuit and should not relieve anyone from thinking along ethical and political lines. Unfortunately too many architects deny its nature.
  • edited January 1970
    yet in my course so far I cant recall a single reference to how my designs relate to culture and society.

    This is very, very interesting as these issues are so often championed by practicing architects in defence of there position and social conscience over “lesser” drafies, and building designers.
    Aside from passive heating/cooling measures

    In all honesty, how difficult are passive heating/cooling measures to “get your head around”… surely there have been no huge scientific or engineering advances in passive heating/cooling in the past 5-10 years. I would love you honest opinion on how long it would take to teach an intelligent person these principles and how to apply them in situ.
    context is only important so far as an aesthetic tool: the question being whether to complement or contrast the existing landscape, etc. The focus at uni is design- and not even functional, but 'seductive' designs.

    Is the importance of a small environmental footprint much of a concern or looked upon favourably by your lecturers? More so, is it ever championed over aesthetic?
    I would agree that being inventive, developing a confident aesthetic, mastering rendering skills (hand/comp) are the most important skills to learn at uni, cos arguably the rest can be attained on the job.

    Amen…
    I just think that tutors should be talking about relevant design, political and environmental issues, instead of playing the tyrant role and being deliberately unclear.

    Have you considered the possibility they are trying to keep the “shroud of mystery” around architecture when in fact if they were to speak plainly the honest truth is all architecture boils down to is a set of taught/osmosisized design rules and a tendency to cannibalise and regurgitate principals and design aesthetics which are hundreds of years old, and really very very simple to understand and "interpret". I honestly believe (as Dr.Garry does) it’s the students physical/vocal “sell” of their work and self belief/confidence that is misinterpreted as “talent’. Ice to the Eskimos.
    Since only your first degree can be covered by HECS/ CSP, students would be required to pay full-fee to study architecture. Those unable to afford the $7000/yr tuition fees are therefore excluded. That's my understanding anyway, correct me if im wrong…

    I believe lower income families are just not as exposed to architecture as moneyed families. It is a noble pursuit no doubt, but if you had a marginalised upbringing I doubt you would find yourself in the position/environment (physical, mentally and peers) to have the “architectural epiphany” required to want become an architect.
  • edited January 1970
    Oh come on, as if university, after 1 or 3 or 5 years teaches you anything but the basic vibe of architecture!

    Its such a huge academic area, and an even bigger practical area, that universities have to do their best (or worst) to try and fit as much of it, and hopefully as wide a scope of it, into a course as possible.

    And i think that there is a certain realisation after graduating that you've managed to pick up some 'tools' along the way. I know i had some god aaaaawful tutors and lecturers and had many a fight during mine and others presentations. That doesn't mean, however, that I learnt nothing from them. The ability to argue a point of view and clarify your intentions is of huge benefit to an architect, let alone in real life, and was a bonus of a lively course.

    Aside from that, YOU actually have to go out and seek the information and knowledge that you lack. It is not an architecture course's place to teach about politics, aside from, perhaps, some form of contextual issues. It's not an architecture course's place to teach about music, or art or deisgn or fashion or globilisation or the environment or whatever, but these are fantastic things to be knowledgeable about if you want to be a decent architect (or make witty and informed cocktail party chat).
    In all honesty, how difficult are passive heating/cooling measures to “get your head around”… surely there have been no huge scientific or engineering advances in passive heating/cooling in the past 5-10 years. I would love you honest opinion on how long it would take to teach an intelligent person these principles and how to apply them in situ.

    I'm not entiiiirely sure what the point of this line of argument was, kashmir, but if its so easy, then why doesn't everyone do it? If its so easy to get across and explain the benefits of, then why isnt everyone doing it? Could it be that architects are smart enough to go 'oh yeah, ok, good idea. lets use it'? And i wouldn't suggest that it is a stale area either. There are ways of implementation and areas of concern that have yet to be addressed. Its just another important element of what we do, and it should be taught.
    context is only important so far as an aesthetic tool: the question being whether to complement or contrast the existing landscape, etc. The focus at uni is design- and not even functional, but 'seductive' designs.

    Is the importance of a small environmental footprint much of a concern or looked upon favourably by your lecturers? More so, is it ever championed over aesthetic?

    The focus at uni SHOULD be on aesthetic and crazy design and how far you can push your mind and investigate things and seducing and all of that crap. Chances are a lot of your colleagues are never going to be able to 'seduce' anybody with their real work because they won't get the chance. So A) indulge while you can and B) allow the experience to expand your horizons. Its all about looking at things - people, buildings, problems, everyday life - in a different manner, thinking about what it might be instead of what would be the easiest thing to chuck up in tilt-slab. And I know in my schooling 3 years ago we had whole units, all through the course, dedicated to environmentally sustainable design, so yes, it is championed. But dont think that the idea of context wont expand, and dont think that seductive design isnt a fantastic thing. i looove being seduced by a building. its hot.
    I would agree that being inventive, developing a confident aesthetic, mastering rendering skills (hand/comp) are the most important skills to learn at uni, cos arguably the rest can be attained on the job.

    And I would agree that being inventive, mastering drafting and representational skills and getting a clearer idea of building and practice would be the most important things to learn at uni. Your aesthetic will come. Do not think for a second that 95% of employers out there give an ass about your 'aesthetic'. Unless you plan on starting your own firm straight out of uni, dont even worry about your 'aesthetic' because no-one will see it for quite a while. Be more concerned with gathering all the info and influence possible. The rest (i assume you mean building knowledge and contracts etc etc) CAN be learned on the job, and will be, but its always nice to know where its all coming from.
    I just think that tutors should be talking about relevant design, political and environmental issues, instead of playing the tyrant role and being deliberately unclear.

    Have you considered the possibility they are trying to keep the “shroud of mystery” around architecture when in fact if they were to speak plainly the honest truth is all architecture boils down to is a set of taught/osmosisized design rules and a tendency to cannibalise and regurgitate principals and design aesthetics which are hundreds of years old, and really very very simple to understand and "interpret". I honestly believe (as Dr.Garry does) it’s the students physical/vocal “sell” of their work and self belief/confidence that is misinterpreted as “talent’. Ice to the Eskimos. .

    I have tutored somewhat in the past, and will continue to in the future, because its so very much fun. Sometimes the 'tyrant' role is necessary. Not in a rude or abusive way, but as a tool to push a student who you believe does or might have some more in them. And being 'deliberately unclear' allows you to interpret for yourself. Anytime i give design help or try to nudge a student down a particular path, it is always qualified with a kind of '...but remember, its your project' discliamer. And in between talking about 'relevant design' i talk about aaaall kinds of bullshit. I am of the belief that architecture feeds off everything, so you have to think about everything.

    Kash, get off your cranky-horse. There is only a 'shroud of mystery' over architecture like there is a 'shroud of mystery' over poetry or literature or independent cinema. Everything regurtitates, or interprates. Everything. But it also evolves. and it expands. and different lives take a different perspective. Thats not a new idea. And even if you and Dr G believe that it is the personality of the student/architect that 'sells' the project, then that might be true - its certainly true for real estate agents and politicians and the guy who sold you new bmw and the person who convinced you to give to charity or the pop star who smiled and made you buy their last album. I would never 'buy' a project from someone who couldn't sell it. But other times good design shines through, anyway. Also, isn't 'shroud of mystery' a harry potter novel? If not, it should be.

    Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I love this shit. It is a most enjoyable distraction from electrical plans and bench-tops.
  • edited January 1970
    yo ppl. well Kashmir seems to be suggesting that our tutors are involved in some dark conspiracy to delay the revelation that architecture is not a complex, creative, exciting field, but ....a mere trade! actually i think they are just a tad egotistical, maybe a tiny touch sadistic (tiny touch) and mostly well meaning though with limited time and too many students. I really shouldn't be bagging them out as my most recent tutor was very forthcoming with information, time and very interested in how architecture related to other arts and visually with the landscape. He did press the point that architecture is mainly about THE SELL, which i kind of scoffed at, at the time, but i am beginning to realise is pretty darn true...
  • edited January 1970
    @ dav_

    you didn't touch on the socio-economic strata of the arch student body when you were at school. I would be most interested to hear from you on this topic.

    I'm not entiiiirely sure what the point of this line of argument was, kashmir, but if its so easy, then why doesn't everyone do it?

    This was a question open to discussion, not a line of argument. I waaas eluding to the fact all the raw data on considerations such as material's thermal mass, local weather/solar patterns etc are all readily available. I was asking how long it would take to teach an intelligent person these principles and how to apply them in situ..

    from a quick google of the topic it looks to be quite a simple set of protocols to work with and anyone with wit and intent could easily get very good results. Agreed?

    all these pages are essentially covering the same ground so I don't think I'm missing a huge wedge of information which is reserved for architects.

    http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/yourhome/technical/fs10.htm
    http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Cooling/passive_cooling.htm
    http://www.urbanecology.org.au/topics/passiveheating.html
    http://www.arch.hku.hk/research/BEER/passcool/cool.html
    http://oikos.com/esb/51/passivecooling.html
    If its so easy to get across and explain the benefits of, then why isn't everyone doing it?

    lack of awareness would be at the top of my list with perceived financial constraints coming a close second.
    And even if you and Dr G believe that it is the personality of the student/architect that 'sells' the project

    during your time at uni what would you identify as the quantifying factor/s of a "top student".. what was the homogeneous trait or ability that elevated them from the rest?
    I love this shit. It is a most enjoyable distraction from electrical plans and bench-tops.

    thanks for taking the time to jump in!! 8)
  • edited January 1970
    Socio-economics - yeah i reckon they were mostly reasonably well-off and mostly went to private schools. But didn't all live in architect-designed houses.

    Sustainable design - i can only assume that the answer you are looking for is something along the lines of 'yes' or 'not too long'. Not really a discussion. Suffice to say that easy to access and easy to teach as it is, its still not done, even if it is a very good idea. Maybe you're trying to say that it is a defining factor in being an architect and if anyone can do it then architects are redundant. In that case, I would answer with 'no'.

    Top students - the ones who didnt live and breath architecture school. The ones who went and caught films and theatre and music and who could have lively discussion and throw a sketch on the wall and make you feel the space they were describing and could argue a point. They were the top students. The ones who drew a pretty picture that kind of looked like something from a book, well i'm sure they did ok too, but who cares.

    :D
  • edited January 1970
    Sustainable design - i can only assume that the answer you are looking for is something along the lines of 'yes' or 'not too long'. Not really a discussion. Suffice to say that easy to access and easy to teach as it is, its still not done, even if it is a very good idea. Maybe you're trying to say that it is a defining factor in being an architect and if anyone can do it then architects are redundant. In that case, I would answer with 'no'.

    not picking a fight over this at all dav... just wanted to know if there is more info.. interested.. hippy.gif
  • edited January 1970
    Why would kashmir stir up a 'fight' over one particular topic when it's easier to just continuously derogate the worth of an entire profession? Besides...what do architects know anyway, right kashmir? :roll:
  • edited January 1970
    .......mmmmmmmmmm another saucer of millk please
  • edited January 1970
    kashmir wrote:
    I believe lower income families are just not as exposed to architecture as moneyed families. It is a noble pursuit no doubt, but if you had a marginalised upbringing I doubt you would find yourself in the position/environment (physical, mentally and peers) to have the “architectural epiphany” required to want become an architect.

    What a load of b*** s***! How can you even think that! No wonder the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer... if the world is ever going to become a place where people can live equally we all need to stop thinking in such a close minded way... People from many different backgrounds are inspired by different things and have different talents - but naturally they wont get anywhere if the people at the top (i.e those deciding the future of the tertiary education system) put limits in place (ie no longer offer subsidised places for studying professional degrees) which prevent those talented people from ever making anything of themselves...

    The real shame is that a lot of the people in positions of power probably think like you...
  • edited January 1970
    I AGREE with you… of course everyone deserves a fair go, but if your dad is a boiler maker and your mum works at Safeway and you love Eminem I doubt you will be into architecture. Moneyed families can AFFORD architecture... moneyed families live and work in architecture... the kids are EXPOSED and made aware of architecture. These EXISTS an invisible and unmentioned class "cut-off" point within architecture, and the way the course is constructed REINFORCES this social cut-off..

    read this: http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/Socialise.html
  • edited January 1970
    Interesting... yes that webpage makes some good and accurate observations of how our society and the architectural education system is currently operating... but I do not neccessarily think this means that this is the only way it can operate.

    The change in fee structure does not only affect those from low income families, it also affects those from middle income families - what is proposed is that the final two years (i.e the professional training part) will be full fee paying only! Based on current fees that is around $23,000 per year compared with $7,000 per year for a commonwealth supported place...

    I come from a middle income background, am well travelled and have experienced many fine works of architecture but most certianly could not have afforded to pay $23,000 per year to gain my degree...

    Basically I just think it is a backwards step in the system! The system may already favour the rich but that does not mean that we should encourage changes that will make it even worse!
  • edited January 1970
    Why is this so? why do the universities want such a specific "type" of person? why are people that study architecture such a homogenous group? What happens in that course to make them all so similar and urge them to be assimilated?
  • edited January 1970
    kashmir wrote:
    Why is this so? why do the universities want such a specific "type" of person? why are people that study architecture such a homogenous group? What happens in that course to make them all so similar and urge them to be assimilated?

    I’d written a lengthy objection to the sweeping generalisations of kashmir’s muse, Dr Garry, the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest living architectural sociologist”…but then I realised it was much simpler to talk from my own experience as one of the ‘homogenous’ students apparently being neutered by the architectural education system.

    Experience #1: University is expensive. The only ‘type’ of students that the universities want are the students with money. This is by no means exclusive to architecture. By the very nature of university affordability (or lack thereof), particular ‘types’ of people attend.

    Experience #2: From first year through to final year, my class has consisted largely of students from a middle class socio-economic bracket. Again, more to do with the ability, either short or long term, to pay the exorbitant university fees. What cannot be ignored is that this socio-economic bracket is incredibly broad, as are the range of backgrounds of all the students. This includes those from ‘privileged’ backgrounds (egg artistic families generally, or the often quoted offspring of an architect), and those from the remaining varieties of backgrounds possible. These varied backgrounds result in varied approaches, priorities and aesthetics.

    Experience #3: Lecturers would probably prefer a homogenous group of students. Comparing 100 similar building designs would be much simpler than comparing 100 vastly varying designs. Lecturers are, believe it or not, people. They too have their on approaches, priorities and aesthetics, and often mark students accordingly. So be it. Most clients will have their own agenda too.

    Experience #4: Vague briefs, intensive competition between colleagues and the currency of ‘all-nighters’ are not exclusive to the architectural education process. Confusing briefs are quite common in architectural practice, intense competition is inherent in a consumer-focused society, and the expectations to put in extra hours as required are implicit in a profession dominated by perfectionists.

    Experience #5: University is the place to be creative, idealistic and, quite often, unrealistic. The reality of architectural practice, particularly in Australia, is that the market demands ‘sameness’. A homogenous market with homogenous demands will inevitably result in homogenous buildings. The market is rarely willing to take risks, and many in the architecture industry are forced to comply. This is not so much a reflection of architects, architecture students or architectural education, as it is a reflection of a materialistic society driven by the bottom dollar.

    Experience #6: Those who proclaim themselves to be the “world’s greatest” in any field…very rarely are. As in the case of Dr Garry, his theories are interesting but should not be mistaken for fact.
  • edited 4:05AM
    i thought dr garry was no longer with us....shame really
  • edited 4:05AM
    disillusioned
    get out now while you still can. leave this game to those of us who enjoy the quest that is architectural practice. we dont do it for the money (a bit more cash would be nice), we have a reasonable life, we try to enjoy quality in all things rather than quantity (except books i suppose), we travel with intent, try to delight in the world. you can earn as much money as you like or have an easy life but as with most things you have to make choices and live by those.
Sign In or Register to comment.