Show notes
How much drafting does a fully licensed architect do? What is something you learned in the industry that you hadn’t been taught in school? Are you as condescending to your employees as your redlines let on? All this and potentially other hateful questions on today’s episode as Andrew and I answer discuss the questions submitted by the listeners. Welcome to episode 108: Ask the Show – Fall Edition.
[Note: If you are reading this via email, click here to access the on-site audio player]
[hoops name="top1"]
Today’s show consists of questions that were submitted through my Instagram account – well, technically speaking, I asked people to submit questions, and we choose about 10 or so interesting ones that we thought we could effectively handle when only allotting ourselves about 5 minutes to answer. If you submitted a question and we didn’t answer it here, it’s probably because your question is either a topic that we plan on really focusing on in a later episode, was too complicated and specific to you that nobody else would really be invested in the answer, or it didn’t make sense – mostly because it wasn’t in the form of an actual question. In addition, we keep questions that were submitted for previous Ask the Show episodes and consider them as well – so some of these questions date back to episode 64.
Should we be more realistic about true practice in school or keep up the romantic ideals? jump to 3:13
Question submitted by @allisonharris – Allison Harris
Bob: If I can only choose between these two options, I would choose romantic ideals – mostly because I believe that you go to school to learn how to learn and for architects, this manifests itself in critical thinking. I know that is not the point of Allison’s question – it most likely has to do with making sure that architecture students come out of school equipped with the knowledge they need to not only be successful but to contribute in a meaningful way.
For most of the roles that are possible, as far as careers in architecture go, most people do not go into school, nor do they come out of school with any real understanding of what those roles are or the part they play in the process. Andrew and I spent some time talking about the educational process and debating the merits of having the first year of an architectural education be more of a primer that introduces architecture students to the entire gamut of what traditionally exists in our industry. This might then allow students to choose a more focused path while in undergraduate school that allows them to zero in on the things that suit their interests and skill sets rather than potentially preparing them to perform a role that they are not suited to perform.
Andrew: I think there needs to be a precise balance between the two options. After a few years in academia, I have changed my thoughts on this question, and they continue to evolve. I think the issue is that most schools seem to push to one option or the other when in my opinion, the sweet spot is in the middle ground. Architecture school is about learning how to think about architecture in a way that involves a process of critical evaluation and thought. That is a skill that you will utilize for the rest of your life in the profession. Yet, there is not enough information provided about the actual work that happens within the profession. I think some of this is just academia. Many of your professors, to be bluntly honest, may not know how the profession operates currently. Many have either been out of practice for many years or some never were in the practice at all. So the push to insert more of the “profession” into the curriculum is not always easy or possible.
I hate to ride the middle ground here, but in reality, you need to learn the process of creating and thinking about architecture and also be made aware of the possibilities and operations of the practice. It is not an easy balance. I am still trying to find that balance in all the studios I teach. Again, part of your architectural education is meant to happen while working. Now this may not be the best model any longer, but that is still how the process works. (I could talk about that for much longer)
Should architecture students go through all 6 years at once, or do 4 and then work for a few years to gain experience and then go for their masters? jump to 9:39
Question submitted by Colin Balbach [private account]
Andrew: I think the best answer is “No.” There are many reasons to put some time between the 4-year undergrad and the 2-year master's if that is your path. Now, of course, not everyone has to take that path, but if you are already in it, then you should consider putting some time between them. I think the greatest benefit here is to go out and work in the industry for a few years to possibly discover your passion or areas of interest. This will then, in turn, make you more focused during your graduate school tenure. I think you may not have enough knowledge about the profession when you complete your undergraduate degree that the exposure to all the various positions, specializations, and interests in the field.
The real trick here is not to stay too long. The longer you stay in the workforce and collect paychecks and gain responsibility, the more difficult it becomes to step away. So set yourself a plan and try your best to stick to it. The other benefit is that you can possibly save up some money to pay for the graduate degree. I know in the current economy that may be tough, but it is a possibility.
Bob: The reason I think there is some value to putting a break between getting your undergraduate and graduate degrees is that it provides you the opportunity to learn a bit more about who you are, where your interests lie, and what you are actually good at doing. This information can then be used to direct you towards a graduate degree program that possibly specializes in those things. Generally speaking, I am not a huge fan of people getting their undergrad and graduate degrees from the same place. I would much rather see someone branch out and get exposed to different ways of thinking as part of their educational process.
What key thing do you look for in potential new hires? jump to 12:22
Question submitted by Mohammed Diallo
Bob: I have answered this question in one form or another several times here on the site but I will try and give a more consolidated answer. I have already looked at your portfolio, read your resume and cover letter - these are the things that got you in the room for an interview. When I am sitting across the table from a potential new hire, at this point I am evaluating their in-person real-time communication skills. What words do they use, do they ask questions, and how engaged are they in the conversation (things like eye contact and body posture)? These are the things that let me know about general intelligence and how you might fit into the culture of the office ... with these items covered, I feel like I can teach the rest of whatever isn't currently in place.
Andrew: I think that communication is very important, as Bob has mentioned. Also, it is about attitude and how a person handles themselves during the interview. The other thing I always looked for was a sense of eagerness and excitement. Do you really want this job? Are you here because you want to be here? Lastly, in a small office, I really need to have a sense that you will fit into the office “vibe” or culture. There is a little bit about the elements that you have written in your cover letter or portfolio. The ability to write is important as you will be doing this to communicate with all the various people involved in projects.
How can a sole practitioner expand their geographic reach? jump to 17:01
Question submitted by @n3architecture – Chris Novelli
Bob: This question has been submitted a few times so we are finally going to take a crack at it. I will concede that my initial reaction to this question is "Why as a sole practitioner do you need to find work outside of your geographic area?" but there are a few reasonable answers to that question. Also, doing work remotely is harder than doing work that is not remote, and whenever I get hired to work in other areas, at least one of two things is present to make that viable.
As an architect in Dallas, Texas, my fees are lower than the architects in whatever market I am being retained and as a result, the additional expense of traveling for the necessary face-to-face meetings or job site visits still does not exclude me as a potential service provider.
The client isn't local to wherever the project is located meaning that some level of travel is required by the architect regardless of where that person sets up their shop.
The answer to this question really resides in how far is the reach you are seeking. The process of getting work in other locations can be as direct as getting involved in the community and growing your network in the area you wish to expand. If the reach is further, most of the people I know do it through social media channels and by creating digital content that allows people in the areas you wish to work to find you. This process is tedious and takes a fairly long time to develop so it can not be your main strategy for developing work.
Andrew: As a small practitioner, I understand that in many instances, your local area may not be enough work to support your office, so there is a real need to move outside your locality. The best answer I can offer here is to network. That is the simplest response. That most likely means growing your network through multiple channels into the new area you want to work in. So that may be through non-profits, volunteerism, contractors, or even other architects. The best approach that I could offer would be to become visible in that new geographic area in some way. You may be surprised at the various methods that you can get involved a
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
