^ You may never recover. The architectural education establishment has strong elements of a cartel while the architectural practice end has elements of a guild. The education end says "spend three years of your life with us in a very expensive city while paying us $50,000 a year and we will give you a piece of paper that lets you be an indentured servant for many more years. " And the AIA in the background, like a Greek chorus, is wailing "We are working on change".
NS, where your education failed you is of course not introducing you to heidegger
how you can you know you exist if you don't study existentialism? makes no sense at all.
i agree with volunteer's earlier statement that not thinking of the client as a moron is a start. we don't have to compete only on price, we could also compete on quality of service. except many of the people who hire architects aren't necessarily interested in a higher quality of service, so that makes competing on quality difficult.
i believe that architects will be paid more appropriately when they're seen as valuable consultants and project team members that help a business achieve the goals they set. if the architect is seen as an obstacle to a business's operation, or as someone who just picks paint colors, then there isn't going to be much perceived value.
@natematt @Richard Dawkins natematt's got the right of this—the original poster is comparing a decidedly atypical graphic designer to a much more typical architect, and that's where he's gone astray. This was my whole point, don't compare the exception in one field to the rule in another, it'll only lead to bitterness.
@ tintt there's a ton of supply of people who call themselves graphic designers (or worse, graphic artists), but if you're at a really good firm you'll have trouble finding truly qualified candidates. Without licensure or accredited degrees as a standard like architecture has, the field lacks quality control.
I know a graphic designer who makes 100k+ working from home about 30 hours a week. It has nothing to do with what you do or how "hard" it is, it's a matter of being an owner vs employee and a matter of profit vs overhead...I would say there is far more room, and far fewer barriers to entry for graphic designers which makes it a more lucrative business for entrepreneurial minded people. Architecture may have higher average pay for employees though... Architects have dug themselves into a regulatory hole that serves the older practicioners and screws the younger ones...
Shuellmi, no, Canadian undergrad and masters, licensed now too. I even taught creative drawing and design studios.
I've heard people name-drop Heidegger before, pretty-much as an attempt to sound "smart" while trying to argue that their arbitrary design ideas where not arbitrary but grounded in some "ology-ending" words. It was not part of my design philosophy curriculum and I have a rather strong distaste for philosophy in general. I don't think I'm missing out on much.
I didn't intend to be misleading with my comparison between graphic designers and architects.
Stated a little more clearly - I may have 5 years experience to his 10ish (a little less), but I have a master's degree and he's got 2 years of community college. I follow ridiculous building codes to supposedly ensure the safety of peoples' lives, while simultaneously doing my best to design a well-functioning building envelope, keeping the GCs on schedule, and hopefully keeping everyone happy and on budget. That has to be worth something.
My graphic designer brother tells other people what he wants to see. No building code, no life safety, and their production is in-house (it's all digital, actually). I know about this because we've had this conversation.
Anyway this is all missing the point. There are many, many more engineers out there than architects, and they command better pay than us. Supply and demand is clearly a red herring.
Jun 15, 15 1:16 pm ·
·
Dawkins? Didn't think my last name was Dawkins... okay....
Jun 15, 15 1:45 pm ·
·
jla-x,
I agree. I think I said it earlier. It can be one of two things.... being a business owner which you can earn substantial income if your overhead expense is low.
If you are an employee, it matters and my point on the employee track is valid. REMEMBER, employees almost never make more than the business owner makes. Why would a person be a business owner is they paid their employees more than themselves? No incentive there and outside the "licensed professions" the business owner is liable to the employees and the employees generally do not have liability.
I'm not saying anything specific about inside the "licensed professions".
Jun 15, 15 1:53 pm ·
·
bowling_ball,
What's your point? Suck it up buttercup.
Donald Trump makes more money than me and he doesn't have responsibility to the HSW any more than any property owner client and is more a matter of scale but he isn't an architect.
Bottom line:
You're missing the point on supply vs. demand issue. The thing is engineers for example is in demand much more diversely. Engineers are involved in not only buildings but other structures and works. In addition, there is also non-licensed 'engineers' involved on projects that are not related or in the purview of engineering licensing boards as long as the persons are not representing themselves as P.E. and are not engaging in the scope of disciplines that P.E.s are trained in.
So what's your point? Architect and practice of Architecture is a more narrow field but you guys have alot of competition for the few projects with a decrease in demand. This profession has a decrease in demand in much of the U.S. because in general U.S. isn't really a growing country and architecture is in demand when the existing inventory of buildings is insufficient to the demand. Right now, in most of the U.S., we have sufficient inventory and unless you are in some places where there is a population growth influx and the inventory of buildings are becoming insufficient and there is a realistic expectation that the influx would continue, then architectural & building design services would be in increased demand.
Graphic design is a skill that applicable in more areas of the economy than architectural skills. Architecture skills are too specialized where graphic design is easily transferable and when working for say a marketing department of a big corporation, graphic design is critical to the success of a product and a good design = mega-$$$ in sales. bad design = big losses. So paying someone good money to have very good design talent and skills and on the job training, working closely with the other people. Money isn't about HSW. People invest money in people to earn more money if they can financially justify the cost when the labor investment in the market of the business would pay itself and then some in an acceptable rate of return. Your value in the company is linked to how much money you can make the company money. The more you make the company's income grow, the more you are valued. That is how business works. Plain and obvious. It doesn't matter if you are overly educated because those that are most educated tends to be the least creative and innovative because you get indoctrinated with academic myths of what can or can't be done so long. Those less educated often are less inhibited by academia doctrine to think outside the box. Only if academia helped students to think outside the box and be creative. It isn't to imply that a person who undergoes alot of academia can't be creative. That gets a little off on a tangent. The bottom line is creativity, innovation, "outside the box" thinking that generates sales and income for a business is more valued because frankly put the goal of any investor or business owner is to grow their wealth. The more an employee grows the wealth of their employer, the more the employee is valued so it is not too uncommon to pay that valued person more money.
Salary is based on value perceived. It related to other discussions points. Just as it is to a client.
HA, sorry about the name. That combo was stuck in my head for some reason, I should've scrolled back up and double-checked. bowling ball, I'd just be careful with comparisons in general. There's a reason for everything, so I'd focus more of finding demonstrable reasons to to get paid more, value that you or we are adding, rather than trying to say "hey, I'm worth at least as much as him!" regardless of who the other person is. It's too easy to minimize the ways they have value (or overlook special circumstances) and focus only on your own value.
Jun 15, 15 2:44 pm ·
·
Rationalist,
Good points. Reality is always more complex and intricate than we can abstract. Right down to it, when it comes to employer/employee relationship, there is little words needed. Employees actions demonstrates their worth in the context of the employer's business environment, market, etc.
For us who are not in the employer-employee relationship but in a consultant-client relationship with a new client, you need to express the worth because the client doesn't know you from any other competitor and only your demonstrated popularity / name recognition is going to put you at a higher initial value perceived.
You can not rationally expect people that doesn't know you from any other person to hold you to any value. Value grows if the client is a repeat client but the nature of our profession is repeat client is not very common and often if they aren't coming back for your services then you either A) Did very well and your project still meets their needs or B) You did very poorly.
Repeat clients usually is for something commercial in nature for a growing business or for a commercial project and then their home or something of the sort. Homes are usually done only once and maybe a repeat in 20-30+ years. In the commercial front, it might be, design one store and they expand and need another store in a nearby town for example. So in that sense, if you have repeat clients, it is good and value for services and commanding more can occur if the market environment allows.
Nobody is going to hold any credence to statements like "hey, I'm worth at least as much as him/her" (because in our own eyes, we are worth infinitely. We pride ourselves as GODS because of our ego and we think no one is as good as our self. That "artiste" manner of holier than thou attitude creeps inside ourselves. However, other people don't and won't see other people like that. They may see themselves that way but everyone else is valued less.
You think human nature would ever change? It hasn't for 2 million years... expect it to change in 30-50 years... I think not.
2. 6-8 years of school does not equal a professional architect with experience-based knowledge.
Architecture education spends the majority of its time diddling around with aimless design exercises like attempting to birth a relevant architectural form from the texts of Heidegger. The result is a masterclass of indentured internship slaves who can't detail a garden shed."
and please tell me I'm wrong. This should be deeply disturbing. If its not, and because we live in a society where the lowest common denominator now rules, I guess I'm not surprised.
Geezertect said, "Add to the 100,000 licensed architects the number of people (designers, consultants, interior designers, etc.) who are basically practicing architecture without a license, and you have a pretty saturated market."
Volunteer said, "The education end says "spend three years of your life with us in a very expensive city while paying us $50,000 a year and we will give you a piece of paper that lets you be an indentured servant for many more years. " And the AIA in the background, like a Greek chorus, is wailing "We are working on change"."
It's a vicious cycle: Architects with little technical expertise defy economic logic by keeping their business afloat with work (competitions, manifestos on social media, and teaching) and labor (free interns). And the same continues. Similar problem in some law schools, where students are taught by professors who hadn't practiced for years (if at all)."
This
monosierra also said, "Architects talking to each other exclusively, doing Pinterest-worthy drawings that clients have little use for and make-believe buildings that will never get built and which contributes little to solve the many problems of our times. Condescension towards everyone outside their circle, even clients."
Basically, we need to close the architecture schools (all of them) for 10 years to bring down the supply.
The problem is that there is no collective "we". The schools won't self-liquidate on their own. The states won't shut down architecture schools at public institutions for political and financial reasons. The private schools need the cash flow like everybody else. The AIA or licensing bodies? Yeah, right.
The only thing we can do is spread the word to the kiddies coming up about just how bleak the prospects are. For the rest of us at mid-career or older, it's too late. Such is life."
empea: "Applying the supply and demand principle is way too simplistic."
While "supply and demand" may be a simple concept, it is not a "simplistic" consideration in this context. The fact of the matter is that there are too many architectural graduates chasing too few architectural jobs. There also are too many architectural firms operating relative to the demand for our profession's services. The economics of our profession will not change until those fundamental relationship changes.
Both clients and firms are operating in a rationale manner -- nobody who's paying attention will pay more than they need to pay for any service. To do otherwise is not a rationale business decision.
While bowling ball may lament the need to "reclaim our status as professionals" I doubt seriously that he would pay $25 for a haircut when he could purchase essentialy the same service down the road for $20; I doubt he would pay $5,000 more for a new car when he could purchase exactly that same car at another dealership in another part of town for much less. And, he's not going to pay extra at Lowe's for a lawnmower that he can purchase at Home Depot for $150 less. Those are rationale decisions.
Consumers - of all sorts - always will operate in their own best interests. As long as members of our profession are willing - and able - to undercut their competition to secure a commission(or job), price competition will remain the predominant order of the day. That dynamic is driven by "oversupply" relative to "demand"."
IamGray said, "Dismissing the problems as simply supply and demand issues mask some fundamental faults in the way architecture is structured and carried out as a profession.
Our clients make better money than we do, that's no surprise. But so does just about every single consultant, engineer, and planner. Not to mention in most west-european countries and certainly in N.America, so do all of the contractors and most of the trades-people.
Construction, real-estate, and development are incredibly lucrative business. Architects simply aren't doing enough to get their share of the pie.
How does that change though? I have no idea. Like I said, these problems are structural. Architecture is often treated as a passion, a leidenschaft, or something that is integral to one's identity and not as a job, a business. Architecture relies on minions of precarious white collar creatives who learned from the first day of design school that architecture is tough; that it's a gruel and if you don't do all-nighters you'll never really cut it. That's stupid and that's fucked up. And the worst part is that it's not just the principals who perpetuate these ridiculous myths, it's every single one of us."
Indeed. The #1 culprit engraining this mindset of "Architecture relies on minions of precarious white collar creatives who learned from the first day of design school that architecture is tough; that it's a gruel and if you don't do all-nighters you'll never really cut it." is primarily set in stone from day 1 by the schools.
The schools do the most damage because:
1. they form the minds of impressionable young people. The brain is still forming itself through the late 20s but the years of college are when the brain is the most impressionable.
2. They filter OUT the otherwise intelligent, disciplined, hardworking, efficient minds from admissions.
It is a saturated market, with the 100,000 licensed architects and unknown number of people (designers, consultants, interior designers, etc.) who are basically practicing architecture without a license, because over the past few decades licensed architects piece meal gave away their trade. Today a lot of what architects do is compile sets of everyone elses work. Or worse, they have given it away so that it does not need compiling.
So 26,000 new NAAB grads per year and there IS a hole to fill. It is being filled.
IamGray: "Architects simply aren't doing enough to get their share of the pie."
You dismiss "supply and demand" as the culprit, yet you make the statement copied immediately above and then disclaim any notion of solutions to the problem.
While I would agree that our profession is heavily populated by individuals who abhor salesmanship and avoid conflict like the plague - bad behaviors both when trying to negotiate higher compensation - the ability of consumers to always find someone who will "do it cheaper" sets a real upper limit to compensation levels.
In the current environment sellers of architectural services frequently are left with the very unattractive choice between a) walking away, or b) taking the work at compensation lower than desired. By any rationale, that is a primary characteristic of a market where "supply and demand" rules the behavior of market participants.
Because there are so many of us relative to demand, architects have no market power -- there's always another professional ready to undermine those who try to hold the line on compensation. That will not change until the demand for services outstrips the available supply of service providers. I don't see that change happening anytime soon."
quizzical, the sick thing is both you and IamGray are exactly correct. Whether the balance is 40/60, 60/40 or whatever is irrelevant to the larger bleak picture.
bowling_ball said, "There are many, many more engineers out there than architects, and they command better pay than us. Supply and demand is clearly a red herring."
No, you are mistaken. You are probably mistaken because you are comparing the supply of licensed/ registered architects (indeed non-licensed architect is an oxymoron) v licensed/ registered engineers in the A/E/C industry is indeed affected by the non-licensed 'designers' lurking around every corner.
The reality is that once these non licensed 'designers' (CAD operators, really) are counted, the marketplace is indeed completely oversaturated with what the schools and the magazines refer to as "architect", not to mention the uninitiated mothers who paste their recent graduates picture on the refrigerator and call the person in the photo "architect", also not to mention all the self identified "architects" on archinect, not to mention all the "architects" archinect article staff mistakenly apply the title to.
26,900 new NAAB graduates (only qualified within the marketplace, and barely at that, to be CAD operators) PER YEAR!
BTW Yale's "Perspecta 47: Money" is extremely useful in terms of context. Helps ameliorate a bit of the vertigo and makes the nauseating experience less intense:
Some good stuff to chew on, I appreciate all of it, even if I'm still not convinced.
Supply and demand aside, a project architect should be earning more than the drywall taper on site, full stop. If you don't agree, I think you're part of the problem (I say aloud to nobody in particular...)
Yale's "Perspecta 47: Money" - "It is time to break these habits. In the contemporary world, in which economies are increasingly connected, architects must creatively harness the financial logics behind architecture in order to contribute meaningfully to the development of the built environment."
The problem lies right there.....you can't control something you don't understand.
A) Anybody who spends the time and money to get a masters degree in architecture and is not planning on an academic career is a fool. (Those planning on academic careers are beyond foolish: deluded to the point of clinically insane).
B) There are way too many people who want to do architecture competing for a small pool of work. There may be 100,000 licensed architects in the USA (citation needed), but only a very small fraction of built projects every year have an architect involved in their design at all.
C.1) And that goes for NCARB too, for creating and perpetuating a system of indentured servitude in order to protect firm profit margins at the production end.
D) You can still charge big $$$$ for high-value work. Problem is that most architects haven't the faintest idea what high-value work is.
D.1) Similarly, you can earn a high salary as an architect if you put yourself in a high-value niche. Again, most architects have no idea what that is.
bowling ball: "a project architect should be earning more than the drywall taper on site"
Says who? Where is that written?
In the context of "potential value to society" I believe an elementary school teacher should be making more than someone who operates an oil refinery. But, that's not the way it is.
We live - and work - in the real world. We really should approach our profession as though we have some meaningful concept of the reality in which we operate. Then, if we don't like that reality, we can work to change it.
But, simply spouting aspirational memes won't change anything.
gwhorton: according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012 there were 107,400 licensed architects practicing in the USA, at a median pay of $73,090.
To put that in perspective relative to our engineering brethren, the BLS reports that in 2012 there were:
Civil Engineers: . Number of Jobs Available: 272,900 . Median Pay: $79,340
Electrical Engineers: . Number of Jobs Available: 306,100 . Median Pay: $89,630
Mechanical Engineers: . Number of Jobs Available: 258,100 . Median Pay: $80,580
bowling ball: "a project architect should be earning more than the drywall taper on site"
Says who? Where is that written?
Are you kidding me? I won't even dignify that with an answer.
All of this ambivalent, self-defeatist attitude shown in this thread is exactly the problem. No wonder you're all happy settling for peanuts - your intellectualizing has gotten in the way of your self-respect. Fucking grow a pair, already.
I can't think of any successful person I know, in any field, who says to themself "oh well, that's just the way it is."
Architecture school is, generally speaking, worse than a waste of time these days. Takes several years beyond the tangle of knots school puts in the brain to become marketable and profitable.
The typical graduate today is lucky to be at the same level of a beginning CAD operator with 2 year degree in hand, in terms of being capable of competing in the marketplace.
I know, I've been trying to manage them for years. Their minds and egos are out of control.
And no its not the fault of the graduate.
Jun 16, 15 12:17 am ·
·
quizzical,
NCARB did a survey not that long ago and I think the numbers are about the same give or take 5% accounting for both newly licensed since the survey and those retired. There numbers would be largely valid because it would be based on the number of licensed architects on the licensing boards' roster. They can submit this without exposing identity of anyone but each board would run a database query to tally up the number of active registrants. Even if you put a 10-15% +/- to the NCARB data... it is still within reason.
bowling ball: "I can't think of any successful person I know, in any field, who says to himself "oh well, that's just the way it is."
On this we can agree.
My post to which you have such objection is not defeatist - it's a declaration that unless we truly understand - deeply - the true reality in which we operate, we cannot improve and overcome difficulty.
Leading with testosterone is not a substitute for intellect. Just try demanding $100,000 for a job paying $70,000 when the employer has no shortage of qualified candidates. You will be shown the door (perhaps politely) without delay.
I echo gwharton's comments above about establishing oneself (and one's firm) as a "high value" contributor. That's not achieved by bluster - or lame comparisons to the earnings of blue collar workers - but rather by genuine expertise.
Jun 16, 15 1:10 am ·
·
In addition, I would be careful about comparing to separate data. BLS data doesn't delineate jobs requiring license from that not requiring license. So you can't compare data like that.
You maybe better off using NCEES data for each discipline licensed. Do note: There is sometime people licensed in multiple states but it isn't that simple to roster each unique licensed engineer or architect.
As for how many jobs for Architecture.... who knows. Comparing the same statistic data would be better.
There's a reason for the 5-10 years of experience. They know enough that they are capable and won't require handholding. Basically, your best bang for your buck because you can set them loose with a client or have them draft or take on the design and the salary expectations allow you to use them with a lot of versatility without breaking the project budget. Due to this, the higher experienced staff also won't need to spend as much time redlining or correcting work, so you can spread them out a bit more.
Anyone with 10 years experience in this field has had 10 years of experiencing bullshit as well. Most of the managerial jobs that pay well are already taken in the architecture industry, and always have been. What is left is CAD monkey jobs. Half the people with 10 years experience left the industry b/c they learned what a joke the field is. It is not hard to realize that the world offers many more opportunities to make money, especially if you have half a brain and can think for yourself. If you have 10 years experience in this industry you know that the headache (selling of the soul) is not worth the $15-25 an hour.
5-10yr relevant experience is a gap around here in nyc; hard to find people with a good spread of experience (marketing through DD/CD and PM/CA). It's just enough that they'll do everything in the firm (mostly) capably and not expect partnership or go out on their own for a bit of time. I find that a lot of firms are looking for people that can take on most of the day-to-day running of a project including design and detailing with minimal hand holding.
I guess that's what happens when fresh grads spend the first few years out of school modelling in sketchup instead of taking an active role in the CD and CA phases of projects. They claim 5y+ experience yet very little of that can be transferred to real projects.
I have an idea to teach young architects about balance sheets, fees, cash flows, et al... design a game that simulates practice. More fun than a mini MBA and will probably stick better. Good idea?
Money money money
I've not read and know nothing of Heidegger... but I can detail one hell of a nice garden shed. Where did my education fail me?
^ You may never recover. The architectural education establishment has strong elements of a cartel while the architectural practice end has elements of a guild. The education end says "spend three years of your life with us in a very expensive city while paying us $50,000 a year and we will give you a piece of paper that lets you be an indentured servant for many more years. " And the AIA in the background, like a Greek chorus, is wailing "We are working on change".
NS, where your education failed you is of course not introducing you to heidegger
how you can you know you exist if you don't study existentialism? makes no sense at all.
i agree with volunteer's earlier statement that not thinking of the client as a moron is a start. we don't have to compete only on price, we could also compete on quality of service. except many of the people who hire architects aren't necessarily interested in a higher quality of service, so that makes competing on quality difficult.
i believe that architects will be paid more appropriately when they're seen as valuable consultants and project team members that help a business achieve the goals they set. if the architect is seen as an obstacle to a business's operation, or as someone who just picks paint colors, then there isn't going to be much perceived value.
@natematt @Richard Dawkins
natematt's got the right of this—the original poster is comparing a decidedly atypical graphic designer to a much more typical architect, and that's where he's gone astray. This was my whole point, don't compare the exception in one field to the rule in another, it'll only lead to bitterness.
@ tintt
there's a ton of supply of people who call themselves graphic designers (or worse, graphic artists), but if you're at a really good firm you'll have trouble finding truly qualified candidates. Without licensure or accredited degrees as a standard like architecture has, the field lacks quality control.
^++++Volunteer
I know a graphic designer who makes 100k+ working from home about 30 hours a week. It has nothing to do with what you do or how "hard" it is, it's a matter of being an owner vs employee and a matter of profit vs overhead...I would say there is far more room, and far fewer barriers to entry for graphic designers which makes it a more lucrative business for entrepreneurial minded people. Architecture may have higher average pay for employees though... Architects have dug themselves into a regulatory hole that serves the older practicioners and screws the younger ones...
I can't believe that one could get a degree w/o having read Heidegger, did you attend U.S. schools?
not that I remember much more than his name...
Shuellmi, no, Canadian undergrad and masters, licensed now too. I even taught creative drawing and design studios.
I've heard people name-drop Heidegger before, pretty-much as an attempt to sound "smart" while trying to argue that their arbitrary design ideas where not arbitrary but grounded in some "ology-ending" words. It was not part of my design philosophy curriculum and I have a rather strong distaste for philosophy in general. I don't think I'm missing out on much.
I didn't intend to be misleading with my comparison between graphic designers and architects.
Stated a little more clearly - I may have 5 years experience to his 10ish (a little less), but I have a master's degree and he's got 2 years of community college. I follow ridiculous building codes to supposedly ensure the safety of peoples' lives, while simultaneously doing my best to design a well-functioning building envelope, keeping the GCs on schedule, and hopefully keeping everyone happy and on budget. That has to be worth something.
My graphic designer brother tells other people what he wants to see. No building code, no life safety, and their production is in-house (it's all digital, actually). I know about this because we've had this conversation.
Anyway this is all missing the point. There are many, many more engineers out there than architects, and they command better pay than us. Supply and demand is clearly a red herring.
Dawkins? Didn't think my last name was Dawkins... okay....
jla-x,
I agree. I think I said it earlier. It can be one of two things.... being a business owner which you can earn substantial income if your overhead expense is low.
If you are an employee, it matters and my point on the employee track is valid. REMEMBER, employees almost never make more than the business owner makes. Why would a person be a business owner is they paid their employees more than themselves? No incentive there and outside the "licensed professions" the business owner is liable to the employees and the employees generally do not have liability.
I'm not saying anything specific about inside the "licensed professions".
bowling_ball,
What's your point? Suck it up buttercup.
Donald Trump makes more money than me and he doesn't have responsibility to the HSW any more than any property owner client and is more a matter of scale but he isn't an architect.
Bottom line:
You're missing the point on supply vs. demand issue. The thing is engineers for example is in demand much more diversely. Engineers are involved in not only buildings but other structures and works. In addition, there is also non-licensed 'engineers' involved on projects that are not related or in the purview of engineering licensing boards as long as the persons are not representing themselves as P.E. and are not engaging in the scope of disciplines that P.E.s are trained in.
So what's your point? Architect and practice of Architecture is a more narrow field but you guys have alot of competition for the few projects with a decrease in demand. This profession has a decrease in demand in much of the U.S. because in general U.S. isn't really a growing country and architecture is in demand when the existing inventory of buildings is insufficient to the demand. Right now, in most of the U.S., we have sufficient inventory and unless you are in some places where there is a population growth influx and the inventory of buildings are becoming insufficient and there is a realistic expectation that the influx would continue, then architectural & building design services would be in increased demand.
Graphic design is a skill that applicable in more areas of the economy than architectural skills. Architecture skills are too specialized where graphic design is easily transferable and when working for say a marketing department of a big corporation, graphic design is critical to the success of a product and a good design = mega-$$$ in sales. bad design = big losses. So paying someone good money to have very good design talent and skills and on the job training, working closely with the other people. Money isn't about HSW. People invest money in people to earn more money if they can financially justify the cost when the labor investment in the market of the business would pay itself and then some in an acceptable rate of return. Your value in the company is linked to how much money you can make the company money. The more you make the company's income grow, the more you are valued. That is how business works. Plain and obvious. It doesn't matter if you are overly educated because those that are most educated tends to be the least creative and innovative because you get indoctrinated with academic myths of what can or can't be done so long. Those less educated often are less inhibited by academia doctrine to think outside the box. Only if academia helped students to think outside the box and be creative. It isn't to imply that a person who undergoes alot of academia can't be creative. That gets a little off on a tangent. The bottom line is creativity, innovation, "outside the box" thinking that generates sales and income for a business is more valued because frankly put the goal of any investor or business owner is to grow their wealth. The more an employee grows the wealth of their employer, the more the employee is valued so it is not too uncommon to pay that valued person more money.
Salary is based on value perceived. It related to other discussions points. Just as it is to a client.
HA, sorry about the name. That combo was stuck in my head for some reason, I should've scrolled back up and double-checked.
bowling ball, I'd just be careful with comparisons in general. There's a reason for everything, so I'd focus more of finding demonstrable reasons to to get paid more, value that you or we are adding, rather than trying to say "hey, I'm worth at least as much as him!" regardless of who the other person is. It's too easy to minimize the ways they have value (or overlook special circumstances) and focus only on your own value.
Rationalist,
Good points. Reality is always more complex and intricate than we can abstract. Right down to it, when it comes to employer/employee relationship, there is little words needed. Employees actions demonstrates their worth in the context of the employer's business environment, market, etc.
For us who are not in the employer-employee relationship but in a consultant-client relationship with a new client, you need to express the worth because the client doesn't know you from any other competitor and only your demonstrated popularity / name recognition is going to put you at a higher initial value perceived.
You can not rationally expect people that doesn't know you from any other person to hold you to any value. Value grows if the client is a repeat client but the nature of our profession is repeat client is not very common and often if they aren't coming back for your services then you either A) Did very well and your project still meets their needs or B) You did very poorly.
Repeat clients usually is for something commercial in nature for a growing business or for a commercial project and then their home or something of the sort. Homes are usually done only once and maybe a repeat in 20-30+ years. In the commercial front, it might be, design one store and they expand and need another store in a nearby town for example. So in that sense, if you have repeat clients, it is good and value for services and commanding more can occur if the market environment allows.
Nobody is going to hold any credence to statements like "hey, I'm worth at least as much as him/her" (because in our own eyes, we are worth infinitely. We pride ourselves as GODS because of our ego and we think no one is as good as our self. That "artiste" manner of holier than thou attitude creeps inside ourselves. However, other people don't and won't see other people like that. They may see themselves that way but everyone else is valued less.
You think human nature would ever change? It hasn't for 2 million years... expect it to change in 30-50 years... I think not.
Stephanie Braconnier said, "
2. 6-8 years of school does not equal a professional architect with experience-based knowledge.
Architecture education spends the majority of its time diddling around with aimless design exercises like attempting to birth a relevant architectural form from the texts of Heidegger. The result is a masterclass of indentured internship slaves who can't detail a garden shed."
This.
26,900+ degreed individuals are graduated by NAAB per year!!! And this number doesn't even include the pre-professional degrees. Check out http://www.naab.org/documents/streamfile.aspx?name=2012+Report+on+Accreditation_final.pdf&path=Public+Documents%5CAccreditation%5CNAAB+Report+on+Accreditation%5C
and please tell me I'm wrong. This should be deeply disturbing. If its not, and because we live in a society where the lowest common denominator now rules, I guess I'm not surprised.
Geezertect said, "Add to the 100,000 licensed architects the number of people (designers, consultants, interior designers, etc.) who are basically practicing architecture without a license, and you have a pretty saturated market."
Precisely.
Volunteer said, "The education end says "spend three years of your life with us in a very expensive city while paying us $50,000 a year and we will give you a piece of paper that lets you be an indentured servant for many more years. " And the AIA in the background, like a Greek chorus, is wailing "We are working on change"."
Yep. Nice summary.
monosierra said, "
It's a vicious cycle: Architects with little technical expertise defy economic logic by keeping their business afloat with work (competitions, manifestos on social media, and teaching) and labor (free interns). And the same continues. Similar problem in some law schools, where students are taught by professors who hadn't practiced for years (if at all)."
This
monosierra also said, "Architects talking to each other exclusively, doing Pinterest-worthy drawings that clients have little use for and make-believe buildings that will never get built and which contributes little to solve the many problems of our times. Condescension towards everyone outside their circle, even clients."
This too
geezertect said, "
Basically, we need to close the architecture schools (all of them) for 10 years to bring down the supply.
The problem is that there is no collective "we". The schools won't self-liquidate on their own. The states won't shut down architecture schools at public institutions for political and financial reasons. The private schools need the cash flow like everybody else. The AIA or licensing bodies? Yeah, right.
The only thing we can do is spread the word to the kiddies coming up about just how bleak the prospects are. For the rest of us at mid-career or older, it's too late. Such is life."
This
quizzical said, "
empea: "Applying the supply and demand principle is way too simplistic."
While "supply and demand" may be a simple concept, it is not a "simplistic" consideration in this context. The fact of the matter is that there are too many architectural graduates chasing too few architectural jobs. There also are too many architectural firms operating relative to the demand for our profession's services. The economics of our profession will not change until those fundamental relationship changes.
Both clients and firms are operating in a rationale manner -- nobody who's paying attention will pay more than they need to pay for any service. To do otherwise is not a rationale business decision.
While bowling ball may lament the need to "reclaim our status as professionals" I doubt seriously that he would pay $25 for a haircut when he could purchase essentialy the same service down the road for $20; I doubt he would pay $5,000 more for a new car when he could purchase exactly that same car at another dealership in another part of town for much less. And, he's not going to pay extra at Lowe's for a lawnmower that he can purchase at Home Depot for $150 less. Those are rationale decisions.
Consumers - of all sorts - always will operate in their own best interests. As long as members of our profession are willing - and able - to undercut their competition to secure a commission(or job), price competition will remain the predominant order of the day. That dynamic is driven by "oversupply" relative to "demand"."
THIS.
IamGray said, "Dismissing the problems as simply supply and demand issues mask some fundamental faults in the way architecture is structured and carried out as a profession.
Our clients make better money than we do, that's no surprise. But so does just about every single consultant, engineer, and planner. Not to mention in most west-european countries and certainly in N.America, so do all of the contractors and most of the trades-people.
Construction, real-estate, and development are incredibly lucrative business. Architects simply aren't doing enough to get their share of the pie.
How does that change though? I have no idea. Like I said, these problems are structural. Architecture is often treated as a passion, a leidenschaft, or something that is integral to one's identity and not as a job, a business. Architecture relies on minions of precarious white collar creatives who learned from the first day of design school that architecture is tough; that it's a gruel and if you don't do all-nighters you'll never really cut it. That's stupid and that's fucked up. And the worst part is that it's not just the principals who perpetuate these ridiculous myths, it's every single one of us."
Indeed. The #1 culprit engraining this mindset of "Architecture relies on minions of precarious white collar creatives who learned from the first day of design school that architecture is tough; that it's a gruel and if you don't do all-nighters you'll never really cut it." is primarily set in stone from day 1 by the schools.
The schools do the most damage because:
1. they form the minds of impressionable young people. The brain is still forming itself through the late 20s but the years of college are when the brain is the most impressionable.
2. They filter OUT the otherwise intelligent, disciplined, hardworking, efficient minds from admissions.
It is a saturated market, with the 100,000 licensed architects and unknown number of people (designers, consultants, interior designers, etc.) who are basically practicing architecture without a license, because over the past few decades licensed architects piece meal gave away their trade. Today a lot of what architects do is compile sets of everyone elses work. Or worse, they have given it away so that it does not need compiling.
So 26,000 new NAAB grads per year and there IS a hole to fill. It is being filled.
quizzical said, "
IamGray: "Architects simply aren't doing enough to get their share of the pie."
You dismiss "supply and demand" as the culprit, yet you make the statement copied immediately above and then disclaim any notion of solutions to the problem.
While I would agree that our profession is heavily populated by individuals who abhor salesmanship and avoid conflict like the plague - bad behaviors both when trying to negotiate higher compensation - the ability of consumers to always find someone who will "do it cheaper" sets a real upper limit to compensation levels.
In the current environment sellers of architectural services frequently are left with the very unattractive choice between a) walking away, or b) taking the work at compensation lower than desired. By any rationale, that is a primary characteristic of a market where "supply and demand" rules the behavior of market participants.
Because there are so many of us relative to demand, architects have no market power -- there's always another professional ready to undermine those who try to hold the line on compensation. That will not change until the demand for services outstrips the available supply of service providers. I don't see that change happening anytime soon."
quizzical, the sick thing is both you and IamGray are exactly correct. Whether the balance is 40/60, 60/40 or whatever is irrelevant to the larger bleak picture.
bowling_ball said, "There are many, many more engineers out there than architects, and they command better pay than us. Supply and demand is clearly a red herring."
No, you are mistaken. You are probably mistaken because you are comparing the supply of licensed/ registered architects (indeed non-licensed architect is an oxymoron) v licensed/ registered engineers in the A/E/C industry is indeed affected by the non-licensed 'designers' lurking around every corner.
The reality is that once these non licensed 'designers' (CAD operators, really) are counted, the marketplace is indeed completely oversaturated with what the schools and the magazines refer to as "architect", not to mention the uninitiated mothers who paste their recent graduates picture on the refrigerator and call the person in the photo "architect", also not to mention all the self identified "architects" on archinect, not to mention all the "architects" archinect article staff mistakenly apply the title to.
26,900 new NAAB graduates (only qualified within the marketplace, and barely at that, to be CAD operators) PER YEAR!
BTW Yale's "Perspecta 47: Money" is extremely useful in terms of context. Helps ameliorate a bit of the vertigo and makes the nauseating experience less intense:
http://architecture.yale.edu/school/publications/perspecta-47-money
Some good stuff to chew on, I appreciate all of it, even if I'm still not convinced.
Supply and demand aside, a project architect should be earning more than the drywall taper on site, full stop. If you don't agree, I think you're part of the problem (I say aloud to nobody in particular...)
Yale's "Perspecta 47: Money" - "It is time to break these habits. In the contemporary world, in which economies are increasingly connected, architects must creatively harness the financial logics behind architecture in order to contribute meaningfully to the development of the built environment."
The problem lies right there.....you can't control something you don't understand.
A) Anybody who spends the time and money to get a masters degree in architecture and is not planning on an academic career is a fool. (Those planning on academic careers are beyond foolish: deluded to the point of clinically insane).
B) There are way too many people who want to do architecture competing for a small pool of work. There may be 100,000 licensed architects in the USA (citation needed), but only a very small fraction of built projects every year have an architect involved in their design at all.
C) Blame the AIA for rolling over for DOJ under the antitrust consent decree and screwing all y'all: http://aia.org/about/antitrust/index.htm
C.1) And that goes for NCARB too, for creating and perpetuating a system of indentured servitude in order to protect firm profit margins at the production end.
D) You can still charge big $$$$ for high-value work. Problem is that most architects haven't the faintest idea what high-value work is.
D.1) Similarly, you can earn a high salary as an architect if you put yourself in a high-value niche. Again, most architects have no idea what that is.
bowling ball: "a project architect should be earning more than the drywall taper on site"
Says who? Where is that written?
In the context of "potential value to society" I believe an elementary school teacher should be making more than someone who operates an oil refinery. But, that's not the way it is.
We live - and work - in the real world. We really should approach our profession as though we have some meaningful concept of the reality in which we operate. Then, if we don't like that reality, we can work to change it.
But, simply spouting aspirational memes won't change anything.
gwhorton above has a solid grip on our reality.
gwhorton: according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012 there were 107,400 licensed architects practicing in the USA, at a median pay of $73,090.
To put that in perspective relative to our engineering brethren, the BLS reports that in 2012 there were:
Civil Engineers:
. Number of Jobs Available: 272,900
. Median Pay: $79,340
Electrical Engineers:
. Number of Jobs Available: 306,100
. Median Pay: $89,630
Mechanical Engineers:
. Number of Jobs Available: 258,100
. Median Pay: $80,580
Quizzical -
bowling ball: "a project architect should be earning more than the drywall taper on site"
Says who? Where is that written?
Are you kidding me? I won't even dignify that with an answer.
All of this ambivalent, self-defeatist attitude shown in this thread is exactly the problem. No wonder you're all happy settling for peanuts - your intellectualizing has gotten in the way of your self-respect. Fucking grow a pair, already.
I can't think of any successful person I know, in any field, who says to themself "oh well, that's just the way it is."
At least most drywallers are capable of doing something marketable and useful. Can't say that about most architecture school graduates.
^ This.
Architecture school is, generally speaking, worse than a waste of time these days. Takes several years beyond the tangle of knots school puts in the brain to become marketable and profitable.
The typical graduate today is lucky to be at the same level of a beginning CAD operator with 2 year degree in hand, in terms of being capable of competing in the marketplace.
I know, I've been trying to manage them for years. Their minds and egos are out of control.
And no its not the fault of the graduate.
quizzical,
NCARB did a survey not that long ago and I think the numbers are about the same give or take 5% accounting for both newly licensed since the survey and those retired. There numbers would be largely valid because it would be based on the number of licensed architects on the licensing boards' roster. They can submit this without exposing identity of anyone but each board would run a database query to tally up the number of active registrants. Even if you put a 10-15% +/- to the NCARB data... it is still within reason.
Use that.
bowling ball: "I can't think of any successful person I know, in any field, who says to himself "oh well, that's just the way it is."
On this we can agree.
My post to which you have such objection is not defeatist - it's a declaration that unless we truly understand - deeply - the true reality in which we operate, we cannot improve and overcome difficulty.
Leading with testosterone is not a substitute for intellect. Just try demanding $100,000 for a job paying $70,000 when the employer has no shortage of qualified candidates. You will be shown the door (perhaps politely) without delay.
I echo gwharton's comments above about establishing oneself (and one's firm) as a "high value" contributor. That's not achieved by bluster - or lame comparisons to the earnings of blue collar workers - but rather by genuine expertise.
In addition, I would be careful about comparing to separate data. BLS data doesn't delineate jobs requiring license from that not requiring license. So you can't compare data like that.
You maybe better off using NCEES data for each discipline licensed. Do note: There is sometime people licensed in multiple states but it isn't that simple to roster each unique licensed engineer or architect.
As for how many jobs for Architecture.... who knows. Comparing the same statistic data would be better.
I haven't read this whole thread but this article seems relevant. It says firms are scrambling to hire architects with 5-10 years of experience.
^ They're not looking for architects, they're looking for CAD monkeys.
He'd settle for architects with as little as one year of experience who simply knew their way around basic computer-aided design software.
There's a reason for the 5-10 years of experience. They know enough that they are capable and won't require handholding. Basically, your best bang for your buck because you can set them loose with a client or have them draft or take on the design and the salary expectations allow you to use them with a lot of versatility without breaking the project budget. Due to this, the higher experienced staff also won't need to spend as much time redlining or correcting work, so you can spread them out a bit more.
Anyone with 10 years experience in this field has had 10 years of experiencing bullshit as well. Most of the managerial jobs that pay well are already taken in the architecture industry, and always have been. What is left is CAD monkey jobs. Half the people with 10 years experience left the industry b/c they learned what a joke the field is. It is not hard to realize that the world offers many more opportunities to make money, especially if you have half a brain and can think for yourself. If you have 10 years experience in this industry you know that the headache (selling of the soul) is not worth the $15-25 an hour.
5-10yr relevant experience is a gap around here in nyc; hard to find people with a good spread of experience (marketing through DD/CD and PM/CA). It's just enough that they'll do everything in the firm (mostly) capably and not expect partnership or go out on their own for a bit of time. I find that a lot of firms are looking for people that can take on most of the day-to-day running of a project including design and detailing with minimal hand holding.
I guess that's what happens when fresh grads spend the first few years out of school modelling in sketchup instead of taking an active role in the CD and CA phases of projects. They claim 5y+ experience yet very little of that can be transferred to real projects.
It's just enough that they'll do everything in the firm (mostly) capably and not expect partnership or go out on their own for a bit of time
sounds like you want to find someone that wants to do the work without bothering with the compensation?
In a profession that only dedicates about 15% of its billable time to design – there then is an 85% chance you’re going to end up being a CADMonkey.
+++carrera
YOU ARE ALL DOOMED.
nothing wrong with being a cad monkey, just better to be the top monkey vs. the bottom monkey.
The money is pretty good for drafting, huh? Seems someone said that way up there in the beginning....
Architects aren't the only professionals who feel themselves to lack business savvy. Imagine if some big firm started doing something like this...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-16/why-a-top-law-firm-teaches-its-lawyers-to-be-more-like-mbas
I have an idea to teach young architects about balance sheets, fees, cash flows, et al... design a game that simulates practice. More fun than a mini MBA and will probably stick better. Good idea?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.