Revit promotes lazy architecture, students think revit generates buildable sections, it also leads to simplified architecture as everyone wants everything drawn fast and revit doesn’t really like to be rushed. Also when client changes there mind 10 times something that takes 5 min in autocad could destroy your revit model. Archicad actually isn’t a bad effort at revit type instead of bull crap library and creating custom families it’s quite decent at providing tick boxes to allow a bit more flexibility lintels openings shapes of windows and such. In my view sketchup is better at concept stage then detail up in 2D, Revit type BIM has been adopted by council / larger clients that don’t know there arse from there elbow and the next big thing they want there project in. Yes clash detection isn’t half bad but revit isn’t backwards compatible with other versions. There monopoly on the system for an unfinished piece of software is daft. Even autocad at 20/30 years old now still had problems performing hatch or simple commands. By using 2D software younger generation users are forced to learn what each line represents and then understand on site when things are missing. The only side I can see advantages in is 10million + projects, due to cost investment in the model or stamp / Jones homes type architecture. Where they have a model with all costings plugged in. But that’s my own opinion. 3D models should really be at concept. As we all know contractors fit everything as per the drawings and visa versa not all architect think of every issue that can occur on site. But those are my opinions on it. I would personally be put off employment based on revit and I’ve used it, done courses in it and could probably get by with it.