The gap between architecture school and the profession

It has been over four years since I started working, since the inception of my professional career, since I started working in the field I love. For me, architecture was a a small boat in a vast ocean. I couldn't have had two legs in two boats. I did not have a backup. There was no second career option. And after five years of architecture school, yes five, in India the undergrad program is five years, I understood what architecture is. It was beyond drawing fancy sketches and lines (something you only later realize is post production). You learn design, form and function, culture, history; derive your ideas from nature, music, dance; are motivated to deeply care about society, its people, learn to be sensitive towards who you are designing for, the context, understand that it isn't merely a problem-solving agenda but it could be self expression, a statement, a movement, a symbol. 

Every fresher right out of college is the most enthusiastic, energetic, ambitious person you meet. Their mind, is a reflection of architecture school and similar expectations - extending architectural principles into practice aka an architecture firm. Does that really translate to architecture practice? mostly no. So, what gets lost in translation? When you are a student, you are learning to develop critical thinking, designing with curiosity and having fun while doing so. However in practice, where money is involved, our ideas start feeling fancy, over the budget, almost impossible.

Let's put some context to it. A building is built in stages - Design phase, design development, construction development and construction administration, in that order. Depending on the organization of the firm, in a large firm you end up in a designated role. In early stages of your career, a  young professional is a draftsperson, taking direction from their seniors. If you are "designing", which is pretty much taking direction from the design director and never actually getting to contribute your own ideas (atleast for the first couple years), or if you are detailing, producing construction set , the endless jargon of fixing graphics on Revit, printing construction sets for submissions, always working towards a 'deadline' - you are siloed into doing the same, over and over again. In some firms, you may be able to jump from design to detailing to construction and see the project through. You are using the same software's you used in architecture school but now you are working on buildings that are actually going to get built but the 180 flip happens here. For most of us, we are not making Zaha Hadid style buildings. We are building what you see day-to-day on the streets, the same cookie-cutter buildings that you probably criticized in architecture school. The client already has in mind what they want. And suddenly the architect's role shifts to that of an advisor rather than a creator. 

The gap between project architects and designers is also astonishing. Project architects can be good designers but it is not always true the other way round. Designers can spend their entire life in that compartment without dipping fingers in other technical aspects, and will most certainly fail to answer how codes work or how to put a detail together. 

In America, the AIA strictly restricts the use of term 'Architect' in practice, you may not loosely call yourself an architect unless you are licensed. The licensure is another daunting task a young professional has ahead of them, six tough exams and a couple thousand work hours applied to a jurisdiction. The path of licensure is in addition to graduate school. The school itself does not prepare you to give those exams. What exactly did our schools prepare us to do? 

In 2019, out of undergrad school in India, my peers would criticize architecture school. A waste of money? A strong criticism - but maybe a true one? Does architecture school prepare you to make money? We are not taught codes, contracts, litigation, we are not taken to construction site visits. These questions do not completely void the idea of educational institution but is a criticism, to revisit the 5 year undergrad program in India. Schools overseas provide a 3+2 year hybrid plan where you enroll to an undergrad program and with outstanding grades are able to come out of college with a masters degree. Not to mention, students are often encouraged to apply for summer internships and a get a feel of the profession. In hindsight, what did I do in all those summer breaks in India? 

So after four years of being a professional, what is it that I am missing? What is this gap that I am feeling? 

When I started working, I realized I was under prepared. I had to learn from scratch. The building construction in the States is different than India. The stages of acquiring a project to delivery is a long journey. I knew how to detail in brick but not in a stud wall. I am grateful for the people I met and who have mentored me into becoming confident in my work. Maybe their patience stems from their own journey? The journey they also took while transitioning from student to a professional. Maybe this dilemma holds true for many other professional in fields other than architecture. 

Architecture has evolved from apprenticeship to a standardized curriculum in education. If we were to revisit education system, what is it that we would want to take out or add to the curriculum? What would we do to bridge the gap between our education and professional practice?