I’m a junior in high school and for freshman and sophomore years I wanted to be an engineer (probably civil). Then I took physics, and pretty much sucked at it. I am decent at math and other sciences, but I can’t imagine ever enjoying physics, and I understand that engineering has a whole lot of it. Physics for architects isn’t as bad apparently. I have always liked the idea of doing architecture, but everyone says the money is pretty awful and the workload in college is too (but I find it hard to believe it could be worse than engineering). I have taken zero art classes in HS but when I did in middle school I did enjoy them. (I have taken a lot of pre-engineering as HS electives, one of which I am taking now and includes Arch. as a component). However, when I think of my preferred mode of creative expression I don’t think observational drawing (which is something that I have read that is important in arch. portfolios for the schools that require them), I think photography and film, both of which I have spent a lot of time with. That being said, I have come to be interested in architecture as a distinct field on my own time, especially historic buildings. I really want a job where I can actually DO stuff and am not tied to my desk.
So some questions:
Is the money in architecture really that bad? Is the workload really that bad?
If I become an architect, will I spend 5 years in school only to design bathrooms for the first ten years of my career?
(Really the most important question) Generally, who is less tied to their desk, the civil engineer or the architect? What about landscape architects? For that matter, what are pros/cons of Landscape compared to regular arch?
Which arch schools in the DI top 20 are most practically minded?
@listroider, I’m not an architect, but I’ll try to answer your questions based on my son’s experience.
Is the money in architecture really that bad? Is the workload really that bad?
Entry level salaries in architecture are around $40 to 50K +/- depending on the location and the firm. If you do well in school, make connections, land summer internships, you will make reasonably good living. As you progress in the profession, get licensed, become a partner you can make considerably more.
The heavy workload is generated by the studio. If you love studio you won’t consider it onerous. If you don’t like studio you might not want to be an architect.
If I become an architect, will I spend 5 years in school only to design bathrooms for the first ten years of my career?
Assuming that you intend to become licensed, you will participate in a mentored internship program that exposes you to the various aspects of the industry. An entry level job can entail repetitive, detailed work, but if you find architecture interesting, then you'll find the problem solving aspects of the work interesting as well.
(Really the most important question) Generally, who is less tied to their desk, the civil engineer or the architect? What about landscape architects? For that matter, what are pros/cons of Landscape compared to regular arch?
As you move up the ladder you will be involved in more non-desk work like client meetings. contractor meetings and site visits all of which can be near or far depending on where your firm is building. Architecture is a collaborative, inter-personal profession.
I'm not that familiar with the day to day of landscape architecture.
Which arch schools in the DI top 20 are most practically minded?
All BArch schools are a mix of design and structures. Art schools are obviously more design-y. Tech schools more Tech-y. The middle range of design schools have a practical core, but the focus is really on the studio.
Some other comments:
Take a close look at your finances. Do you need financial aid? Do you qualify for need-based aid?
Try to enroll in an Architecture Career Discovery program this summer. This will give you a good overview of what to expect in architecture school and will also help you build a portfolio.
Consider getting a BS or BA in architecture instead of the Bachelor of Architecture (BArch). This is a less intensive more balanced approach that allows you more time to explore other disciplines. With a BS/BA you would still need to get an MArch in order to practice architecture, which makes it a longer process than the BArch; however, you don’t want to plunge into a BArch unless you really sure architecture is for you.
Get into an art class right away – in summer school or at an art school or museum in your community. Take drawing the first semester of your senior year. Some BArch programs require a portfolio for admissions, some do not. Most BS programs do not.
Thank you. I like the idea of getting a B.S. then M.Arch. Northeastern lets you do this with a 4+1 instead of 4+2 so it’s not a longer time than a B.Arch.
Northeastern Architecture is a good program. I believe their BS in architecture takes 4.5 to 5.0 years because it includes two co0op semesters. I would consider this a good thing, but it means that the total time to get to the MArch is about 6.0 years.
There are quite a few excellent BS+MArch architecture programs all over the country. I wouldn’t eliminate any just yet because of the difference between 5.0 and 6.0 years. In the course of a long career it won’t signify. You also may want to try a different school for your graduate degree. Keep your options open.
The salary for architects is not as bad as people make it out to be. Architects have professional degrees and training that is compared to engineers, lawyers, and doctors who make much more than architects. Architects are paid decent they are just underpaid. Also, job outlook is bad for architects because of the recession a few years ago. Once the economy fully recovers, competition won’t be as bad. Architecture is not as cynical as everyone makes it out to be.