ord=Math.random()*10000000000000000; document.write('');

Feedback

Tag cloud

what's your question? be descriptive.

By: Asked

Architectural Technology & Architecture - different or just snobbery?

Hi.  I completed a 3 year architectural technology degree and gained a 2:1, which I was very happy with.  After 18 months of looking (thanks bankers) I finally found a job in an architectural practice with the aim of getting my head down and working hard.  The practice has snce employed a senior project architect and a part 2 student and I’ve noticed a snobbery which has, to be frank, really annoyed me. 

According to the senior guy ‘there is no difference between a technician and a technologist’.  Given the fact that CIAT states otherwise and that I could have settled for the HNC/D instead of the full degree and followed the technician route this seemed either ignorant or plain rude. 

To make matters worse (or my perception of it) the part 2 student didn’t know what a birdsmouth was for timber framed construction and went on to admit they had no idea what Part F of the building regs covered.  Part 1 completed and 3 years in a previous practice yet I who ‘merely studied architectural technology’ knew these simple facts but appear to be held in lower esteem than the ‘pure architecture’ colleagues. 

I’ve examined the architecture modules and compared them to architectural technology and annoyance aside it seems reasonably obvious that actually, the architectural technology degree covers a far more technical and useful range of construction related issues than the pure architecture course.  I for one did not have to photograph a chair on a beach as one architectural student informed me he’d been made to do, neither did I present a swirly line to a tutor and have to explain it away as a ‘concept building outline’ or similar.

I spent three solid years learning about building technology with no ‘arty farty’ distractions or dreamy imagination yet I’m the one who appears to be considered as being inferior due to the naming of the course I chose.  Now for the question.  Is it really fair to award RIBA part 1 exemption to ‘architecture’ students and not ‘architectural technology’ students when both could go on to do their part 2 and 3? 

I may be wrong but it does seem that actually the arc tech route is more useful in the real world…after all no-one is going to buy a building made out of angel dust and gravity is hardly likely to be a non-consideration when the client comes knocking.  Can anyone throw some light on all of this?

Many thanks. 

Add comment viewed 394 times Latest activity 7 months ago

NN comments
or Cancel
  • Tags:

5 answers

  • 0

jamesefrancis

Yes there can be snobbery but solid technical knowledge is in demand.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /><o:p></o:p>

DO NOT GET DRAWN INTO THE TRAP OF BELEAVING THERE IS A LESSER NEED FOR ARCHITECTS, TECHNICIANS OR TECHNOLOGISTS.<o:p></o:p>

All sides of the architectural sector are equally valid and the boundaries are not distinct in many good practices but there is still this friction. As a recently qualified architect who has spent the last five plus years carrying out the more technical role I will not accept either side of the sector trying to use the argument there should be greater emphasis on any role. The varying routes into the industry should not preclude Technologists and Technicians or Architects from reaching the highest levels in the industry. Ask around with local practices and you will find this is the case.<o:p></o:p>

The importance of the distinction of Technologist is that you are on a higher level of qualification than many Technicians but be aware that experience also counts and this is something that must be respected.<o:p></o:p>

Your anger is apparent but also tread carefully as you need to also be aware that there are also many people working in the industry in roles that may not reflect their training or be working on lower wages to ensure they either retain their jobs. <o:p></o:p>

You must hold tight and learn in your current practice and if you feel it is not a place where your training is respected then rightly you will be upset, however, I would advise that you try to weather this issue until the job market improves and try to build bridges to improve your current situation. Finally if you have skills you feel are not being respected ensure you are demonstrating them and being given the credit you are due.<o:p></o:p>

Good luck and I hope you can find a way to feel more comfortable in your job. (Talking things through and not letting them fester is a good idea)

NN comments
or Cancel
  • 0

anonymous

Thank you James, makes a lot of sense.  My original question was written in a brief moment of annoyance and I have found there appear to be two schools of thought.  The first are the ‘old school’ architects who appear to place themselves on a pedestal for others to admire, and the second are the more forward thinking (and usually more recently qualified) architects who appreciate the role of all – particularly the fairly new evolution of the technician into the higher qualified (not necessarily experienced) technologist path. 

I believe my particular gripe was born from one architect who appeared to gain some enjoyment in insisting that the technologist ‘is no different’ to a technician and another part 2 who seems to be a little too attracted to the title of architect with little understanding of how a technologist is trained from degree level onwards.  One particularly annoying question was ‘Did you use AutoCAD before you came to the practice?’.  I kid you not.

My experience had been that (some) architectural students believe that unless you’ve been on a ‘proper’ architectural course you must have literally spent 3-4 years playing with lego and looking at pretty pictures of buildings that are far too complicated for you to really understand. 

In contrast however I had a great discussion with a 2nd year student of architecture (not tech.) who grasped the differences in the courses perfectly.  One focuses more on design, the other more on technology.  Yes an arch. tech can design but not to the same ability (in theory) as the pure architecture student – in contrast the arch. tech student will be further ahead (in theory and at graduation without further training) in the use of iSBEM and similar having worked in greater detail on services etc. 

The two should complement each other perfectly resulting in a well balanced architectural team that can offer a fantastic service to the client – who in my limited experience cares little for titles and is far more interested in the everyday aspects of working with building professionals. 

I believe in time that those architects who either deliberately or ignorantly insist architectural technology is the poor mans alternative will either retire or be forced to drop any insecurities they themselves have for the good of the industry in the whole.  Given the recession and generally difficult climate we face the sooner this happens the better.  Heres wishing you a bright and succesful career.


NN comments
or Cancel
  • 0

needleandmortar [ Editor ]

The best architects nearly always have great engineering skills. Frank Lloyd Wright, Antoni Gaudi, to name just a couple. I’ve spent much of my life being puzzled at the way architects are trained. I’m told it’s to avoid restraining creativity but it seems to me that understanding materials and the way they fit together is critical to unleashing creativity. I’ve seen a lot of bad architecture in my lifetime which I blame on architects just not understanding the technology, resulting in hugely compromised designs very late on in their construction.


I don’t see the point of awarding RIBA part 1 exemption to ‘architecture’ students and not ‘architectural technology’ students.
NN comments
or Cancel
  • 0

jberkovitch3d [ Editor ]

Let me just clarify something;

You say this:
“I spent three solid years learning about building technology with no ‘arty farty’ distractions or dreamy imagination yet I’m the one who appears to be considered as being inferior due to the naming of the course I chose.”

In that paragraph it would appear as though you are clearly speaking in a condescending manner on one of the very foundations of Architecture and/or what Architecture students are taught, yet you are then, in the same sentence, claiming to be spoken of and looked at in a condescending manner by the Architects.

Architecture is Art.  Just as much as Architecture can be engineering, philosophy and science.

After all, how many students do you feel would be attracted to the career if there were not any “arty farty” buildings built to admire in their younger years, such as buildings built by Architects called Gehry, ranging to Stalinist Architecture?  These buildings are popular because of their beauty amongst other feats, and their beauty comes from aesthetic perfection (in ones eyes) residing on or with engineering perfection or whatever it is they admire in the building.  
Perhaps the “arty farty” stuff is closer than you previously thought when compared to technical side that you have studied if you want to be looked at in the same manner as the Architects.
I also believe a part2 student who does not know his Part F is a bit stupid and that is the fault of himself, not his school/qualification.  If you want to get ahead learn it all, including the “arty farty” part.  As i stated they are tightly knit.

Of course i am not referring to your run of the mill brick cloned council block here, but who wants to have a life of standard council block drawing? We didn’t take on a 7 year course to do that, we took it on to achieve something, perhaps a fulfilling career and lifestyle whereby beauty is achieved through a building.

The technician will always be useful, and so will the Architect.

NN comments
or Cancel

Question's Contributors

Related Questions