I need a tip related to internship or job

[Anonymous]

I am apologizing for writing at this forum, maybe this is not the right place. If it isn`t please move it to the right one.

About a month ago i got a degree at the University of Architecture and Civil Engineering in Serbia. While studing, i adored the norwegian group Snohetta architecture, they were my exemplar of modern architecture.
Some year ago there was a lecture at my university regarding some Norwegian architecture, and all back then to present days i am just amazed with the architecture of your country. Such a freedom in shapes and moves. Some pilot building made by a norwagein in Dubai, (white curved lines on the desert sand) also amazed me. Therefor i was, and still am determined to check some of that northern architectural move, that is to work in it.

Well, after all this fairy tale words, here is what i have wanted to ask you: Last week a firm from Oslo sended me a request for an internship (3 to 6 months). At the end they told me that this internship will not going to be paid. Is this a common thing about internships in Norway? I have expected at least some minimum wage, enough for food and a rented room. I don`t know what to do now.

If you have any tip for me please, send it. Btw i have sended over 60 requests for internship or job. to some Oslo arhitectural firms i have found on the net, and at least 30 of them sended me a negative reply. This all looks like a nightmare, if you can give me any kind of help, please do.

If you have spare time, check some projects of mine:
http://www.filefront.com/15564335/projects.rar/

They are not something special, i have still a long way of learning.


Thanks a lot for the all the help and advices.

[Anonymous]

Just my personal thoughts on the matter, but when I was the design partner at a medium/ large firm I always insisted that all student interns (is there another kind?) be paid. It didn't matter if they received class credit or it was a summer "job", my thought was that no one should work for free. I think that it damages the profession.

That being said, all situations are unique and in these difficult economic times, you have to do what is right for you.

[Anonymous]

Dwight:

My experience has been a little different then yours. Many of the interns we hired turned out to be some of our best employees. Others of course were not terribly productive.

My philosophy is that if an employee has a good attitude and is willing to work they can make a positive contribution. This is assuming the firm is large enough to accommodate an "intern".

IMHO if a good person is not productive, I think it is more of a management issue than a employee skill issue.

[Erika Epstein]

I believe Architecture is the only profession that gets away with not paying interns.

Perhaps we should have our 'professional' ranking taken away.

[Anonymous]

I came across the site "architects who eat their young" a little while ago - have a look, and name + shame if necessary
While I would agree that inexperienced interns would take a couple of years to fly there is a place for everyone and the employer's challenge is to find that place for the intern. I was one once - we all were I assume.
It is scandalous not to pay.
I remember my first arch job after university - when I already had experience - being paid less than a 'tube' driver (london underground train) ... and friends going off to become 'management consultants' and 'investment bankers' starting on literally 3x as much before a bonus. btw - these were people who had graduated in chemical engineering and other non-business fields
I don't know much about US arch education but the UK/Europe needs a massive overhaul. That is where I place most of the blame. A few years ago I worked 'on the other side' for a developer - for 9 months - and in that time I learned more about architecture, business and handling clients than all the years of arch school put together. It was no accident that I immediately went on to form my own business.
Architecture education needs to remember that it is producing not just 'professionals' but entrepreneurs, managers and business people in general.
We are responsible for a lot of a lot of people's money - but we seem to be earning less and less of it as the years go by ??

[Anonymous]

I have never had trouble finding productive work for interns to do.

There are lots of tedious, repetitive tasks which can be quickly taught. I have also had good luck finding and using special talents. I've worked with interns who have turned out to have exceptional talents in GDL, writing, researching and so on. The trick is getting to know their abilities and being able to give a clear spec for the end result. At their rates of pay they can be slow as long as they are moving in the right direction.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Dwight wrote:
.........

In my experience, it seems quite reasonable to offer unpaid internships because you are taking in an enthusiastic person who is completely unproven and inexperienced in a real office environment and letting them see what the working life will be like without a great expectation of productivity,

.........

Dwight, I get what you're saying; and to double down on what Amonle said just prior, I believe the real culprit in this current predicament (if we can call it that) are Architecture schools, which annually ship out totally unprepared wet-behind-ears and completely clueless (about the profession as a business practice and the craft), beyond producing flashy presentation boards and unbuildable pie-in-the-sky concept designs, and give them a completely unmerited stamp of a approval in the form of their degrees. And then whichever firm hires them, has to spend the first 3-8 months of their tenure actually giving them the training that the school should have.
More on this a little later.

But what you're advocating is that if someone is willing to work for free, and are enthusiastic enough, then the firm should by all means 'hire' them for free - especially seeing as the cost to the firm is nothing (not really, but what have you). What that neglects to consider is that firms then scale their pay-rates using this unpaid internships as an actual metric even as you consider employees upwards who have actual experience and deserve more - or alternatively use it to as a starting point for incoming employees.

Unpaid internships are a holdover from the days when University education in architecture was either non-existent or not as mandatory or popular as today, and when "apprenticeships", - wherein one actually had to pay the architect for the opportunity to train under him - where the common path through which one gained not just experience and the necessary knowledge, but their actual licenses to practice architecture.
In fact this form of training/registration still exists in parts of the world like Japan.

But for the most part, in most other parts of the world, architecture and architectural training specifically, has changed to the tune of not just factoring in a university education, but also demanding it as part of the path to licensure - certainly here in North America where it is almost impossible if not extremely difficult to take licensing exams without a professional degree (B.Arch or M.Arch).

Unfortunately the clowns who set this system up, didn't bother to ensure that the university education that was being dished out in universities actually prepares the graduates for the profession in a real and practical way, and most firms know this, so when a recent graduate applies for a job, the unspoken understanding is that they will have to undergo some considerable training and re-education to get them up to speed. This allows them then to justify unpaid internships, since no one wants to train someone else for free.
All probably because the same clowns who set up the system - also teach at these same schools and universities and there just might be a need to justify all that "theory" and "concept" that they dish out at these 'accredited' schools.

But consider the professional equivalent. Doing a full-service project for a developer or a client for free, just to either prove yourself as a firm or get a foot in the door of the profession. No architect worth his or her salt with all their training and credentials would accept to do anything of this sort, so why is it any more right when we do it to our "young"?

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Dwight wrote:
.........

...........an enthusiastic person who is completely unproven and inexperienced in a real office environment and letting them see what the working life will be like without a great expectation of productivity, and:

- has no useful building code knowledge
- might have a weak command of language
– might have a disruptive sense of entitlement, not a humble, grovelling sense of gratitude.
- might not understand construction documents, our basic language and profit-maker.
and:
- can be a complete idiot.

.........

In the example you gave from your past, (and really the same type example that a lot of firms would give to justify these internships) it sounds like the problem was/is not with the incompetent intern who can't help their limited skills or lack of abilities, but rather the fault lies with the vetting process that leads hiring of someone so utterly unqualified who then has to attempt to carry the workload of a skilled individual.

So a firm is too cheap to actually hire someone qualified, so they hire someone utterly unqualified and then use that inexperience and lack of qualifications as justification for not actually paying them? How does that make sense? (this isn't a shot at you in particular, but rather generally directed at the top brass people in firms everywhere who make these kinds of decisions. )

At the end of the day, the firm still pays for - regardless of an actual paycheque and whether it be through the time and wasted man-hours necessary to clean up after this person's lack of skills and knowledge.
So why not just pay them, do it the right way, vet them properly, consider it an investment (if not in your firm, then in the profession in general) and as a extra effort, liaise with Architecture schools and demand a better quality of graduates - better prepared for the professional world.

I think Architecture schools should follow Waterloo university's model (in Ontario) wherein the students alternate their academic semesters with a co-op work semester away from school where they gain actual (paid) experience with participating firms who then also get the added benefit of having a talented and well experienced pool of graduates to pick from once they graduate, and also once having established links with them and ensuring their quality personally. It's a win-win situation for both school (which has an enviable reputation for graduating the best prepared candidates for the profession), and for the firms (who don't have to look very far, or at all, for prepared new employees. It's a model that in itself is modeled after what they do in the medical profession with medical residencies and medical interns gaining actual experience in hospitals while learning about their craft before getting out there in the real world. And it certainly works for them.

We on the other hand seem to enjoy modeling our profession on misery and martyrdom, for goodness knows, what reason.

[Dwight]

Bricklyne wrote:
But what you're advocating is that if someone is willing to work for free, and are enthusiastic enough, then the firm should by all means 'hire' them for free.

It would be wrong to conclude that. My view is that workers should be paid for the value of their contribution.

Interns are allowed to hang around and do what they can with a mind to always having a learning experience and not necessarily work product. Our gift to them is the time we take to explain what we are doing in the real world situation and to give them the chance to see us sucking-up to rich people for money and how similar it is to sucking-up to professors for good grades.

The intern-abuse attitude I resent is represented by Matthew's posting where interns are used as robotic monkeys:

Matthew wrote:
There are lots of tedious, repetitive tasks which can be quickly taught.

Potentially: no pay AND no learning.

[Dwight]

I think THAT particular idiot got hired because he had artistic sketches AND had long hair like the boss. [This was the rage-aholic boss that i went to "Dealing with Difficult People" school for.]

We DID manage to politely move the long-haired idiot on to a new victim with a great reference letter: the kind of place where they drank red wine, ate soft cheeses, wore their berets askew and argued all afternoon about "la façade!!!"

[IE: a kind of place already profoundly lacking in productivity but maximizing its art.]

And we wonder why British Columbia is overwhelmed with leaky condos.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Dwight wrote:
......
It would be wrong to conclude that. My view is that workers should be paid for the value of their contribution.

Interns are allowed to hang around and do what they can with a mind to always having a learning experience and not necessarily work product. Our gift to them is the time we take to explain what we are doing in the real world situation and to give them the chance to see us sucking-up to rich people for money and how similar it is to sucking-up to professors for good grades.

I didn't see your response before I posted the second post. In any event, I have not so fond memories from my early work experience of getting "gifts" from one of my first employers. As part of his reasoning and explaining why we were not getting our paychecks on time for the umpteenth time in a row, his quote was something to the effect: "Consider this (the difficulties and tribulations of not getting paid on time or for some time) a gift and a learning experience for further along in your careers when you have to face difficult financial circumstances."

Of course that "gift" would have been easier to take down were it not for the fact that the office was working on three separate $20 million and above, projects and for clients who were not inclined to be late with their payments.
Suffice it to say, the only gift we took from there or lesson we learnt was that badly managed/run firms and their problems have a tendency of trickling down and hurting those least responsible (for the mismanagement) in the firm.

I'm digressing, but the point I was alluding to is this notion that that particular employer was insinuating with his quip, and one which is prevalent in the profession as a whole and that is that almost pointless suffering and yes, martyrdom, are inalienable and inseparable parts of this profession, and that as a young person entering into the profession, you should just learn to su ck it up and accept it as part of your career. Inevitable, in fact.
Because, after all, people (clients, developers, engineers, contractors, peers,) will be walking all over you all through your career - like a good doormat.

I just happen to think it's a silly attitude to engender and promote and one that is not entirely unrelated to the fact that we are now the worst-hit profession in this (and every) recession. And that we seem never to learn from any of them.

The first to suffer, the last to recover.