Here are some possible solutions to the unsustainable situation outlined in part one of this post:
Colleges and universities could stop increasing the price of tuition, or even decrease it.
- A new article with the fun title “Should Higher Education Be Free?“ suggests that this is feasible.
Parents and high schools could stop pushing all kids towards 4-year college.
- A 2011 Harvard University study, “Pathways to Prosperity,” points out that of the 47 million new job openings projected over the decade ending in 2018, about one-third will need people with bachelor’s degrees or higher, one-third will need people with associates degrees or occupational certificates, and the last one-third will go to high school grads and lower.
- “Pathways to Prosperity” also stated that “nearly 70 percent of high school graduates now go to college within two years of graduating. But… only about 4 in 10 Americans have obtained either an associate’s or bachelor’s degree by their mid-twenties. Roughly another 10 percent have earned a certificate… Only 56 percent of those enrolling in a four-year college attain a bachelor’s degree after six years…”
- So, two-thirds of the jobs out there will be for people who have less education than a bachelor’s degree. Almost half of those who enroll in a four-year-college don’t finish. This tells me that not everyone should be going to college.
- When student loans are thrown into this mix, it becomes really obvious that many kids are being guided down the wrong path.
Back to architecture: The profession of architecture could change a lot.
1. Architects could charge higher fees, and pay employees more.
Other professionals manage to do this, but architects don’t anymore. Why can’t architecture firms charge enough to keep their employees from being crushed by their student loan debt? If I look at it as a supply-and-demand issue, I have to conclude that either architects aren’t delivering what owners expect and need (there’s not much demand), or there are too many architects (there’s too much supply).
To be able to deliver what owners expect and need, and to be able to charge fair fees for these services, architects need to get more technical.
Architects should keep technical expertise in-house or under their umbrella. I am not talking about computer software; I am not talking about Reviteers. I am talking about building code expertise. I am talking about an understanding of building technology (knowledge of the technical processes and methods of assembling buildings). I am talking about comprehension of building science. (“If architects did their job there wouldn’t be any need for building science.” – Joe Lstiburek.1) I am talking about effective construction contract administration.2
A building owner has just one financial “pie” of a certain size for each project. Everyone involved in the design and construction of the building gets a piece of the pie. Architects keep giving away profitable tasks (usually just by not doing a good enough job at them, so the owner hires someone else to do that part next time) and keep receiving a smaller piece of the pie. Owners sometimes hire code consultants, and sometimes hire building envelope consultants. Sometimes contractors hire building envelope consultants. Owners often choose Design-Build, or Construction-Manager-as-General Contractor, or IPD project delivery methods, all of which give the contractor more of the pie.
Why are owners making these choices? Architects haven’t been delivering. Architects’ piece of the pie gets smaller, because they’re doing less of the essential work; they’re doing less of the technical work. That work still has to get done. If architects take back the technical work, and do it properly, architects’ piece of the pie can get bigger.
2. States could bring back the apprenticeship path to licensure.
Tuition at NAAB-accredited architecture schools often costs a lot of money. But only a small percentage of what accredited schools teach actually contributes to students’ knowledge of the instruments of service that building departments and owner-architect agreements require. Accredited schools generally place most of their focus on design and theory, and barely touch on building codes, construction documentation, and construction contract administration. They don’t teach much building technology or building science.
Tuition at technical schools and community colleges is much more affordable. Their curricula usually focus on drafting, modeling, construction detailing, building materials, and construction techniques. Basically, they focus on production, documentation, and building technology. Many firms looking for new employees are looking for production people. Building departments are looking for clear documents that include code-required details. Owners are looking for buildings that won’t leak or get moldy (we prevent these things with an understanding of building technology).
So why does an increasing number of firms refuse to hire people without professional degrees? The focus in schools offering professional degrees is design (the work that firm owners and current employees want to keep to themselves). Why not hire some people with associate’s degrees, who are trained and ready to do production, and probably understand how to draw roof and wall details much better than newly-minted BArch’s and MArch’s?
Colorado is one of a handful of states that still have the apprenticeship path to licensure (in Colorado, you don’t need any college degree – you just work for 10 years under the supervision of a licensed architect, and then you’re eligible to sit for your licensing exams). I think this is a good alternative to the professional degree path.
If a professional degree from an accredited school isn’t required for licensure, architect-hopefuls wouldn’t have to borrow huge sums of money for school. They could go to technical schools or community colleges, and then get work experience, and then get licensed.
3. NCARB could make its alternative route to certification less expensive.
NCARB requires each certification candidate to have a professional degree from an accredited school. There’s an alternate route to NCARB certification, through the Broadly Experienced Architect Program. However, a dossier review fee could be as high as $5,000 if an architect who is licensed in an NCARB member state, but who didn’t go to an accredited school, wishes to pursue NCARB certification. This makes it tough for many people who wish to get licensed in additional states.
4. The AIA could Reposition in a different direction.
The AIA launched its “Repositioning the AIA” initiative earlier this year. The goal of the initiative is to “determine how the Institute should reposition architecture, architects, and how to reflect current client and public perceptions.”
From the strategic marketing firm working on the repositioning: “One of the great kind of a-ha moments for us was understanding that architects are no longer those who specialize in the built environment… a lot of people who now call themselves, and are trained as, architects are not building physical things anymore, you’re building design solutions that address societal problems. It’s not bricks and mortar; it’s systems, it’s constructs, but in all these things that you’re building, you’re creating something that matters.”3
If architects are “no longer those who specialize in the built environment,” who is? If we no longer specialize in the built environment, what, exactly, do we do? Why would we want our work to differ so extremely from the way our states legally define the work of an architect? Why would the AIA wish to reposition its members in such a way that not only do we no longer do the work that the states license us to do, but we do something else, something that is not regulated, and does not require licensure, and which, therefore, legally, anyone could do?
Architects should be focusing on getting better at what we are licensed to do. Once we’ve perfected that, we can add other services to our portfolios. We should not be throwing away what we are licensed to do, doing something else instead, and still trying to call ourselves architects.
Some owners who wish to build buildings think of architects as just a necessary evil. I suspect that government requirements for licensed architects to stamp and sign construction documents are the only reason that most architects who were employed during the Great Recession kept their jobs.
Design is not regulated. Architecture is not only Design. And if we start treating architecture as if it is just Design, but is the design of anything we desire (and can sell to someone), the profession will be lost, fees will go even lower, and those young architecture grads will never get out of debt.
- Read the whole Inhabitat interview with Joe Lstiburek of Building Science Corporation.
- CSI, the Construction Specifications Institute, can help with building technology education and with effective construction contract administration. CSI is working on a Building Technology Education Program, and has a well-established education track for Construction Contract Administration in its CCCA certification.
- Watch the whole Repositioning (the AIA) at Grassroots: 3/21 General Session video.
You should have printed this on asbestos– well, no, but on something non-flammable!!!!
Good show– great commentary [so true]
Ralph W. Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Architect- Specifications
I agree more states should allow the apprenticeship approach. Illinois was set to require professional degrees, but I understand it’s been postponed. What is concerning to me is the trend towards 4+2 programs. As a holder of a B.Arch I may be biased, but what benefit (besides an M and more debt) does a 4+2 program give a graduate?
Michael P Sullivan AIA CSI CCCA
Pingback: Illogical (part one) | Comments From a Spec Writer
“Architects aren’t architects anymore. You need consultants for everything. It’s the fault of the architectural discipline which has cast itself into a completely secondary thing.” Rafael Viñoly,
designer of two death-ray buildings.
“The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning, for it is by his judgement that all work done by the other arts is put to test. … Let him be educated, skilful with the pencil, instructed in geometry, … Geometry, also, is of much assistance in architecture, and in particular it teaches us the use of the rule and compasses, by which especially we acquire readiness in making plans for buildings in their grounds, and rightly apply the square, the level, and the plummet. By means of optics, again, the light in buildings can be drawn from fixed quarters of the sky.” Vitruvius, ~15 BC.
There is no doubt, the architect of today is not the architect of a hundred years ago, and certainly not a master builder. I think there is good reason for this, part of that reason being that architects have either given away the store or allowed others to take it from them. I know you are familiar with my thoughts about this, Liz, but for those who aren’t, start with “What happened to the Master Builder?” at http://bit.ly/zzegYf.
See September issue of Architect magazine, “Value Proposition” pages 40-42 and “AIA Knowledge” page 43. (http://mydigimag.rrd.com/publication/frame.php?i=173475&p=&pn=&ver=swf).
Not a pretty picture!
I guess I’m not the only person bothered by this!
That is the September 2013 issue of Architect Magazine.
Same magazine, page 39. “Nobody ever died from architecture.” That’s what I’ve been saying; the practice of architecture today is essentially design, which, as you note is not regulated.
Minnesota statutes state, “Any person shall be deemed to be practicing architecture…who holds out as being able to perform or who does perform any professional service…when such professional service requires the application of the art and science of construction based upon the principles of mathematics, aesthetics, and the physical sciences, acquired by education or training, and by experience.” I looked at other statutes, and found similar requirements.
What happened to mathematics and physical sciences? Architects have given away all the tough stuff; should we reintroduce science into architecture, or, if architects “no longer specialize in the built environment” and architecture has devolved into little more than design, should we stop licensing architects?
That’s what I’m worried about.