Architecture degrees leap in popularity

Very please to hear about the increase in students pursuing architecture, I too will be starting a degree in Architectural Technology and do hope that technologist will be getting just as much interest as the media give to architects. afterall from conception to completion look us up www.CIAT.org.uk Technologist have also been fantastic contributors to design, sustainability issues...help with the mine field that is planning your development. Please give us a bit of the limelight thankyou KA.

It's clear that the mainstream perception of what it means to be an architect is completely out of line with the reality. There was a survey carried out a few years ago that placed 'architects' only second to a 'rock star' as the most desireable profession. Architecture schools produce good thinkers but are not yet capable of providing the technical skills required, and that includes sustainability. What's more is that we are obviously entering a downmarket economy and there will probably be too many part one's entering the workplace in the two years.

in all, i see it as a sad future if this is the case. With current trends, 50% of present part 3 students are still trying to find a job. With the rush to push assistants to be come qualified architects is flooding the profession with young people not capable of doing the job. The education system needs to be looked at in a new way, leading to atleast 10 years internship before being 'qualified' after your part 3 exams. Second, if practitioners want more technical minded students, they should employ technicians! not young assistants all wanting to design the next olympic village. Its sad when you see young architects struggle with simple design issues and running jobs, with only 2 years out from studies....

James, if architectural assistants had to complete 10 years internship there would be no architects in the world. Nobody could put up with being the under-paid CAD monkeys that they are during part 3 for so long. A lso, who do you work for? In my practice the assistants are more than capable of running jobs, give them a solid support structure and throw them in at the deep end... young minds learn quickly.

Well said Bradley!

bradley. in canada for a start, if memory serves me, they do a 5 year profession degree then 10 years internship. Running a job may be all well and good, but creating good architecture through understanding of both construction and design through modular systems, standard sizes and building methods comes from experiance. Suggesting a student with 2 years experiance that gets through our present system has a deep understanding of architecture, simply creates what we already have. Watered down design to get the job done. Architecture is more than just 'running' a job. On the pay side? the is something wrong with salaries? or maybe we have such watered down standards the majority of young architects aren't worth paying much more than a assistant these days, which aren't worth paying much more than cad monkeys as they really have no idea about good design through good construction.

all those people willing to study architecture should really think if it's worth it. It takes ages untill you get fully qualified, and wages are not so big for so much effort combined with lot's of unpayed overtime. Not an easy industry to be in.

well,the number of schools teaching architecture in India has increased from less than 20 in 1961 to almost 150 today. the annual enrollment has increased from almost 500 to over 10000-- However the opportunities seem to have not kept pace with the numbers and perhaps quality and commitment has also suffered adversely resulting in frustration of the fresh talents i strongly feel the content and technique of teaching has to be changed to respond to the challenges of rapidly developing societies

There seems to be a huge disparity between the taught subject and the reality. This gap is where an awful lot of new graduates fall and eventually stagnate. I suggest that there is a case for students to be put through a preliminary architectural technology programme (weed out those not willing to graft on basics) and then move them into an architectural degree where they can come out well rounded and useful. as James says, maybe the young assistants are just not very useful and are more of a hindrance than a help. I can see his point as whenever I have looked at a possible employee I have always looked at their immediate productive value - which will become more important into the future. There are young architects which will need time and suport before they become thoroughly useful but they are generally the types that put in that extra effort and have a steeper learning curve. They are the exception rather than the rule. Training needs to meet the demands of a working office.

The fundamental source of the problem is the government funding for universities. IF universities received a more reasonable sum of money per head then they wouldn't have to take on larger intakes purely for the tuition fees that they provide. I find my self in the unfortunate position of being a 3rd year student looking for my year out placement, I would consider myself one of the dedicated few who makes architecture their life. My year group is 106 students in size with 2 full time staff and 4 part time tutors universities are unable to provide the in depth understanding required. Whilst i make this statement, i am certain that a 10yr Internship is not the answer, and to suggest so would degrade the positive attraction architecture holds at the moment. Edward has the idea, weed us out early, a foundation course to be compulsory before starting your part 1? Most sixth form students haven't experienced architecture until starting in first year and not to sound like a arrogant prick but i know that more than a handful of students in 3rd year will never be architects as the work ethic and attitude is still not there. In my view, just because more students are applying doesn't mean more have to be accepted on to the course, tighten the intake and weed out in first year, so that the students who want to be there can get the help they need.

architectural degrees do appeal to young students in the context of creative descipline , but the current curriculum tends to continue the old system based on generous availability of resources - to let him create highly egocentric solutions to simple problems - which i think has lost relevance not only in developing countries but also in developed countries the pace of rapid economic development and extensive dispersal of opportunities is gradually evolving relatively transient societies where young brains migrate across borders with ease 'the house' and even 'the city' is fast becoming 'a house/apartment' and 'a city ' . It is more important today to devise a curriculum which can imbibe cost effective,accessible and legible spatial modules. Perhaps architectural education system needs to these emerging trends of lifestyles - with a certain degree of spatial flexibility rather than persuing the rigidity of creating egoistic architects -- their patronage is likely to get restricted i as a professional with 40 years of experience feel that education in architecture ,even at the bachelor's level should include -- urban design , transportation planning, environmental critaria, project planning /financing etc

I'm no architect but CAD monkey is a derogatory term to say the least. I work within the engineering sector and term is a pi$$ take amongst ourselves. The difference here being permanent cad monkeys (we prefer cad jockeys) earn up to £40 to £50k a year, while a contractor can earn anything from £25 to £40 per hour. We have to go through university etc and are more than capable of designing cars straight after teaching. Why do architects rate their jobs so highly? It's the civil engineers and architectural technologists who have to deal with architects designs. Millenium bridge being my case in point. Architects are designers of buildings, don't over complicate the matter.

Mr Patterson. As someone who recently qualified as an architect, but who knew nothing about architecture at college, I can say that you do indeed sound like an arrogant prick. (only sound like one I stress) Making architecture your life is not the answer, as architecture is contingent and peripheral to most peoples lives, not central to it. If you can empathise with this point of view, you'll be a better architect. A 10 yr internship is extreme, but some kind of genuinely useful internship is essential if people like Matt are going to respect what you do, and if you are to become more than a CAD 'jockey', which a well trained architect definitely is (not that I'm claiming to be one. Ask me in 10 yrs). Quite a lot of being an architect is your own attitude and being in touch with your humanity, and knowing when to admit that you are wrong, and that you don't know everything. Matt may not think much of you, but do your job right and Matt's kids may thank the nameless person who put so much thought into getting that library, that housing, that museum right. Except for the stars, it's a thankless job is you're doing it right