The Student Room Group

How to become an architectural technologist

Hi, this is my first thread so...

I've looked at this forum, UCAS website and prospects.ac.uk, and I think it would be very interesting to become an architectural technologist.

As far as I know, an architectural technologist deals with the technological and quantitative aspects of architecture (or is that an architectural engineer?)

So are architectural technologists actually looked down upon? I mean, the average salary of one appears to be low (32,000 pounds a year). However, salary isn't an issue for me.

Are the following degrees sufficient to become an architectural technologist? I wish to develop my quantitative knowledge and to broaden it before specialising to become one... therefore a BSc or BA in "architectural technology" is not one of my options:

1. Loughborough University - BSc Architectural Engineering and Design Management
2. Nottingham University - BEng Architectural Environmental Engineering
3. Swansea University - BEng Civil Engineering
4. Warwick Univeristy - BEng Civil Engineering
5. Cardiff University - BEng Architectural Engineering

Thanks! :biggrin:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
i think engineering is related to the practice more closly than the technogy.technology is more like a subject to make some research for it.my english is not very good...but i think we should do the things we like ,not the the good things.btw,in every feild,if you are excellent,you can make much money.
Reply 2
"but i think we should do the things we like" I would love to do building construction related work.
Reply 3
architectural technologist generally = CAD monkey.
Reply 4
universities make things so complicated by giving so many different names for closely related stuff... whats the different between Architectural Engineer/Technologist? and how different is an 'Architecture' graduate from them?
Reply 5
architectural engineer is like a small scale engineer - you won't be involved in large, civil engineering projects, its more domestic and commercial scale - not runways and bridges and skyscrapers. an architectural technologist is, in our world of giving things more important names than they actually are, code for being a CAD monkey. You just draw up, in cad, what an architect has told you to draw. or do a visualisation, that an architect has told you to design. no designing.

so, in pecking order architect > architectural engineer > architectural techonologist

civil engineer and architect are probably about equal pecking in terms of status, but obviously in their respective fields
jrhartley
architectural technologist generally = CAD monkey.


Word.
hk4free
Hi, this is my first thread so...

I've looked at this forum, UCAS website and prospects.ac.uk, and I think it would be very interesting to become an architectural technologist.

As far as I know, an architectural technologist deals with the technological and quantitative aspects of architecture (or is that an architectural engineer?)

So are architectural technologists actually looked down upon? I mean, the average salary of one appears to be low (32,000 pounds a year). However, salary isn't an issue for me.

Are the following degrees sufficient to become an architectural technologist? I wish to develop my quantitative knowledge and to broaden it before specialising to become one... therefore a BSc or BA in "architectural technology" is not one of my options:

1. Loughborough University - BSc Architectural Engineering and Design Management
2. Nottingham University - BEng Architectural Environmental Engineering
3. Swansea University - BEng Civil Engineering
4. Warwick Univeristy - BEng Civil Engineering
5. Cardiff University - BEng Architectural Engineering

Thanks! :biggrin:


you dont need a degree to become a Architectural technologist, you can just have a HNC/HND in construction or architectural technology and can still enter the profession this way.

depending on what your grades are like, how about doing structual engineering with architecture? they offer it at bath and sheffield, have a look.
Reply 8
how about architecture itself... like the institutes who DON'T require Art A-level / GCSE / IB Art?

My mum says I can do a summer at program to build up a portfolio. What exactly does the portfolio consist of? most uni's ask for "4 A4 size sheets"... are these photos, or sketches or paintings or what?? Thanks.
Reply 9
whatever you want it to be unless specified otherwise.

the way i think a portfolio should be tackled goes as follows: In your day to day life, you should be constantly making stuff/pieces of work. If you've truly got a passion for art, then you'll always be doing something art related. Eventually you'll have a nice amount of work which has got progressively better as you practice (yes some of it will be rubbish, but hopefully some of its will be great) and this way you will have sketchbooks/workbooks full of notes and ideas (which are important for some interviews but should be kept for your own knowledge more than anything)

when you get asked for a portfolio you select your best work. Something that shows you are a good artist. You might ask, how do you define a 'good artist'? In any way you want. However, depending on the place invovled, there might be a slight game to play here. As you might have to construct a portfolio aimed at what you think the uni/employer want to see. Or in other words, don't go crazy and include a load of unconventional, unnecessarily conceptual rubbish that doesn't really show any artistic tallent, if you think they just want to see sketches and paintings. Inversely don't just send a few sketches if they want to see something wierd or conceptual. You just need to show you have ability, to draw but also to think.

If you can do this whilst sticking to guidelines (i.e UCL's task, or the one by Cardiff) then you should be ok.
Reply 10
jrhartley
architectural technologist generally = CAD monkey.



Sorry, but your a cock, and know nothing.


Your asking the wrong people here, this forum is full of pretentious Architect students that have their head in the clouds, yet don't know what the real world, or even what pratice is like.

Im in practice at the moment, I work with Architects, Technologists, Engineers. I earn more than the junior Architects, and I have my own project, yes.. the project is only worth £140,000 but the company I work for normally works on multi-million pound projects in the East Midlands area.

Architects can't work without Technologists, Technologists can work without Architects.
There is rivarily between both the professions, but its bull****. Technologists can earn the same as Architects, if not more... Same goes for Architects. It all depends what area you work in. So don't give me that bull**** that Technologists are CAD Monkeys, that my friend are Technicians.


There is a difference.

Absolute Joke!
whatever pal, i know nothing in your books. I think I might just be able to live with that assertion on your part.

as for me not knowing what the real world or practise is like - you have no idea who i am or my background, yet you're quite happy to tell it like you see it, with insults to boot! as for architects not being able to work without architectural technologists - absolute, utter, total BS - I have worked in a 40under40 practise where there's not a architectural technologist in sight, and I've worked for a self-employed sole practioner (but with projects up to £1m he's working on alone) - again - no sniff of a technologist. Its kind of hard to win anything like that unless you're an ARCHITECT - and - guess what - unless you've got your ARB you can't call yourself one. So please, pretty please, stop trying to make out that they are interchangeable titles with rivalry between. We don't train for 7+ years to get the help of someone who's spent 2 or 3 years doing the equivalent of an HND (or indeed, I've noticed, an HND - you can get them in Architectural Technology I see from fine institutions like... napier). People on this board are generally wanting to be running projects with design freedom, and to be doing that they need to be doing K100. Please don't try to muddy the water with your ill-informed, slightly bitter sounding reply. We don't spend 7 years doing this because we're all a bit thick and need that long to assimilate what people doing AT can pick up part time in 2 years, you realise? I detect you might be a little cross, probably get this a lot and feel undervalued - from the way you've gone off against all undergraduate architects as being 'pretentious', and 'head-in-the-clouds'. I think maybe if you'd spent 7 years studying something you might be entiltled to think you knew a bit more about it than someone who'd done a 2 year HND. Perhaps?

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, salaries aren't a massive status symbol or driving force behind what we are aiming for, though from the way you write it clearly means an awful lot to you and you measure importance and expertise by the monthly pay cheque. People doing architecture are generally concerned about improving the built environment, enhancing society and human interaction through their work. That's one of the reasons the course takes so long and why AT and K100 are not interchangeable qualifications.

But I'm guessing there's no real arguing with you, as you say, I know nothing, you clearly know it all.
Reply 12
^^ Haha. Well said. I think that deserves +rep.

:smile:
Reply 13
jrhartley
whatever pal, i know nothing in your books. I think I might just be able to live with that assertion on your part.

as for me not knowing what the real world or practise is like - you have no idea who i am or my background, yet you're quite happy to tell it like you see it, with insults to boot! as for architects not being able to work without architectural technologists - absolute, utter, total BS - I have worked in a 40under40 practise where there's not a architectural technologist in sight, and I've worked for a self-employed sole practioner (but with projects up to £1m he's working on alone) - again - no sniff of a technologist. Its kind of hard to win anything like that unless you're an ARCHITECT - and - guess what - unless you've got your ARB you can't call yourself one. So please, pretty please, stop trying to make out that they are interchangeable titles with rivalry between. We don't train for 7+ years to get the help of someone who's spent 2 or 3 years doing the equivalent of an HND (or indeed, I've noticed, an HND - you can get them in Architectural Technology I see from fine institutions like... napier). People on this board are generally wanting to be running projects with design freedom, and to be doing that they need to be doing K100. Please don't try to muddy the water with your ill-informed, slightly bitter sounding reply. We don't spend 7 years doing this because we're all a bit thick and need that long to assimilate what people doing AT can pick up part time in 2 years, you realise? I detect you might be a little cross, probably get this a lot and feel undervalued - from the way you've gone off against all undergraduate architects as being 'pretentious', and 'head-in-the-clouds'. I think maybe if you'd spent 7 years studying something you might be entiltled to think you knew a bit more about it than someone who'd done a 2 year HND. Perhaps?

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, salaries aren't a massive status symbol or driving force behind what we are aiming for, though from the way you write it clearly means an awful lot to you and you measure importance and expertise by the monthly pay cheque. People doing architecture are generally concerned about improving the built environment, enhancing society and human interaction through their work. That's one of the reasons the course takes so long and why AT and K100 are not interchangeable qualifications.

But I'm guessing there's no real arguing with you, as you say, I know nothing, you clearly know it all.




Same to you, basically.. I don't want to get in a slanging match with you, in-fact I respect the way you've replied. Maybe this morning when I replied to your message, I wasn't in the best of moods. But.....

How do you think it makes this guy feel? He's researched into a profession, that he would like to participate in, and some-one of a similar profession (who believes themselves to be superior to said profession) disrespects the profession. I mean, yes people are entitled to their opinion, but at least show some respect, thats why I reacted like i did.

Anyway, back on topic for this guy's thread......
Reply 14
jrhartley
whatever pal, i know nothing in your books. I think I might just be able to live with that assertion on your part.

as for me not knowing what the real world or practise is like - you have no idea who i am or my background, yet you're quite happy to tell it like you see it, with insults to boot! as for architects not being able to work without architectural technologists - absolute, utter, total BS - I have worked in a 40under40 practise where there's not a architectural technologist in sight, and I've worked for a self-employed sole practioner (but with projects up to £1m he's working on alone) - again - no sniff of a technologist. Its kind of hard to win anything like that unless you're an ARCHITECT - and - guess what - unless you've got your ARB you can't call yourself one. So please, pretty please, stop trying to make out that they are interchangeable titles with rivalry between. We don't train for 7+ years to get the help of someone who's spent 2 or 3 years doing the equivalent of an HND (or indeed, I've noticed, an HND - you can get them in Architectural Technology I see from fine institutions like... napier). People on this board are generally wanting to be running projects with design freedom, and to be doing that they need to be doing K100. Please don't try to muddy the water with your ill-informed, slightly bitter sounding reply. We don't spend 7 years doing this because we're all a bit thick and need that long to assimilate what people doing AT can pick up part time in 2 years, you realise? I detect you might be a little cross, probably get this a lot and feel undervalued - from the way you've gone off against all undergraduate architects as being 'pretentious', and 'head-in-the-clouds'. I think maybe if you'd spent 7 years studying something you might be entiltled to think you knew a bit more about it than someone who'd done a 2 year HND. Perhaps?

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, salaries aren't a massive status symbol or driving force behind what we are aiming for, though from the way you write it clearly means an awful lot to you and you measure importance and expertise by the monthly pay cheque. People doing architecture are generally concerned about improving the built environment, enhancing society and human interaction through their work. That's one of the reasons the course takes so long and why AT and K100 are not interchangeable qualifications.

But I'm guessing there's no real arguing with you, as you say, I know nothing, you clearly know it all.


haha nice one JrHartley! Dav got OWNED.

I've done a lot of of my own research on AT and K100 now... the average salaries for AT is around 28,000 pounds a year and the average for an architect is 56,000 pounds a year!!!

Also, I looked to architectural technology because I thought that having not taken art would greatly hinder my chances in architecture... turns out a lot of universities only want a portfolio (I draw a lot in my free time..) and the entry standards for architectural technology are just too low for me, not trying to be a snob but I don't want to do a 3 year degree (by the word degree we refer to something prestigious) on something with entry requirements as low as D's and E's for A-level!
Reply 15
Ok, heres someone else who is thinking of applying for a course along these lines so let me set a few things straight first.

1. I have no problem with being a "CAD Monkey"
2. Average salary of £28-32000 a year - thats more than enough to satisfy me
3. I have 3 B's at A level in Bio, Psychology and english and a C AS level chem so any other sort of engineering or architecture course seems out of the question for me sadly unless I did a foundation year.

I was at uni last year doing Radiography, figured id made a really bad choice and so I left to explore my options. My family have a good background in engineering and construction and Ive always had an interest in it myself along with art and design. Ive done previous work experience at at metalwork firm doing CAD related work and enjoyed doing it so it seems logical for me to take this forward.

So basically, Im asking all you architecture students out there just for a bit of general information of what your courses are like, what would I expect to be doing as an architectural technologist, what do you like and dislike about the industry etc etc. Any constructive advice would be much appreciated and im sure it would help the OP aswell :smile:

(didnt mean to hijack the thread OP but it beats making another one thats along the exact same lines)
Reply 16
Sorry, but your a cock, and know nothing.


Hilarious...brilliant! Great thread I was totally engrossed. I'm thinking about studying architectual technology at leeds met. I wanted a course with higher points but have finally decided to stick with this, I understand that the majority of the course is to do with using CAD which is no problem with me but I was wondering if Sketchup would be used. Anyone else study architecture or AT at leeds met here? Also would you all recommend getting to know how to use CAD thoroughly before starting the course in september?
Reply 17
Haha you're all mad!

I am in my 3rd year of Architectural Technology (on a sandwich course so I am working). I can only comment about my course in Nottingham Trent and to be honest I wouldn't change it for the world. I like art and still would like to be an architect as they have a lot of respect in the real working world, they also have very demanding jobs and a long way to go.

From my point of view I love my course because we don't just do CAD, although we are CAD monkeys lol. In fact we learn about building services and we've been away with the university learning about levelling and surveying etc, to be honest we do a little bit of everything at uni and we have lectures with architects and engineers and civils etc. It's good because you get to learn a bit of it all.

Then what I've done for my placement is go to a construction company because they have leads in all aspects too. Therefore I get experience with all of these people and get to work with them all and decide what I want to do. I'll graduate as an AT but I doubt I will spend everyday as a CAD monkey, I might be a design manager/director and because I know a little bit about a variety of stuff, they like it. Whatever you chose to do at uni can always change later anyway, its all about experience. I'd recommend a course that does a few different things, as it opens options for when you leave. However, it is harder for an AT to become an architect, but we can still be involved in the design and managing it? We can also suggest things to architects depending on the drawings and details. The problem with architects is that they don't have experience on site and so their choice of materials/construction is not always the best, there needs to be a middle man/woman which is the conclusion here.

There are also architects that do drawings and either person can work alone without the other, but good luck getting jobs without wanting to work in a team!

And yes, I would recommend learning some CAD first. I didn't know any of it or anything in construction and to be honest they don't expect you to know too much anyway, but if you want a top grade then yeah learn it. Other good advice:

- You are likely to use Google sketchup as its a quick 3D tool and looks good in your portfolio.
- You will learn Revit, and if you don't you need to as the whole construction industry is going into 3D and Revit is the lead.
- Portfolio's should contain the best work you have that represents a variety of skills, photographs and visuals work well.
- My university works on LIVE projects which employers like a lot
- Stay open minded, an average person has about 3 major life careers - do what you enjoy but experience everything else too
- No body expects you to know it all, so leave your nerves behind
- General knowledge and facts about projects/buildings/famous things/designers impress people!

Good luck all

:smile:
Reply 18
Original post by Cassie_
The problem with architects is that they don't have experience on site and so their choice of materials/construction is not always the best


That's supposed to be our speciality. Oh well, I guess it's time we all kicked the bucket.
Hi,
I'm a current student of Architectural Technology in Ireland, As sated in one of the earlier a posts, 3D and building information modelling is the way the industry is going, basically an Architectural Technologist, is a person highly trained in communicating technically an architects ideas, be it from design ideas, to more technical stuff, you will learn working drawings, working detailing, model making, planning, how to damp proof a building, eliminating cold-bridging, how a adapt construction techniques to make a design possible to build, learn and keep up to date with current building regs, learn about different materials and how to apply them to a architects design, yes it does help to be artist or have very technical mind, at the end of the day you must work very hard, and work long hours to get a decent degree, it demands just as much work as a an Architectural degree, and yes in this current economic climate you do need a degree, can't see how you would get employment with anything less, unless your very lucky :smile: hope that helps you.

For those who think an AT is a cad monkey, Autocad is only a tool, it's only as good as the person using it. just like a pencil is to paper, when an Architect is working out his/her concepts.

Quick Reply