recent m.arch grad. looking at the salary poll it seems that a lot of people with a wide variety of experience top out at somewhere near 60k.
i havent found a job with a firm yet after graduating in may. i want to find a place thats a good fit.
I am 27 now and want to be at 100k by the time I am 35. Is this unrealistic by going the traditional architecture route? what age would be more realistic for 100k?
i am considering taking some business classes this fall since i havent found full time employment yet. would and mba bump my salary up, or improve my chances of reaching 100k?
sorry to post a thread that is so hung up on money, i appreciate your responses.
I think this topic has been beaten to death in the past, so use the trusty search button for research. Anyhow, unless you make partner by the time you reach 35 at a large corporate office, reaching a salary of 100k is propably unrealistic in a traditional architecture office. Especially by 35.
Getting an MBA might or might not help you reach that salary in a traditional architecture office. It all depends on who you know and how you can market yourself. A consultant perhaps? Remember though, that the better MBA programs around the country will require you to have some business experience before being excepted. Just my two cents.
I guess my question more relates to the salary poll and its accuracy. Do you see it as an accurate reflection of salaries in the field or is it more the disgruntled minority posting their salaries?
I just wonder why so many people top out around 60k regardless or experience ect...
What's with the obsession with 100k? You are using it as some kind of a benchmark of success v. failure. 100k means different things in different cities. What exactly do you want out of life at the magic age of 35?
And, yes you will be making 100k in architecture 8 years from now simply due to inflation. My last paying gig paid 3X more than the one I had in '98. But my rent since then has pretty much tripled as well. I'm sure cost of my degree was just a fraction of what you are paying for yours, etc...
I know a few people in their mid 30's who are close to your magic number, and they tend to work in very corporate environments where architectural creativity is a mere afterthought. For the ones who prefer to work on projects that are mentally stimulating, 60K (at age 35) sounds about right (save for few markets such as NYC, SF, etc...)
It today's terms, what does 100k mean to you? Explain to us this awesome 6 figure abstraction!!
"It is not how much money you make but how much money you save that matters.
Plus, the "value" of $100k depends a great deal on where you live and practice. $100k goes a lot further in Omaha than it does in NYC. While $100k may be more easily obtainable in NYC (due to the cost of living) you're not necessarily better off than you would be earning $80k somewhere where the COL is more manageable.
While I think it's good to have goals, this one seems a little misguided and immature to me. If your self-worth is wrapped up in some hypothetical salary figure then, IMO, you may be focusing on the wrong things at the start of your career.
Age 27 now w/no experience and wants to be making $100k at 35 with 8 years experience. That's ambitious. Even if you found full time employment yesterday and spent the next 8 years working and passing the ARE's to boot, you'll be hard pressed to be making $100k (in 2010 dollars) anywhere with under 10 years experience.
$60k does sound about right for a pre-recession top out area for staff architects, read non-management architects. NYC and LA pay a little better but cost of living eats that up. Seems that to make it up higher you have to get promoted to management level. Then to push up and over $100k you literally need to make it to principal level. Tough to do before age 50, let alone before 40 ~ at least at larger corporate offices, that also tend to have depth to pay better.
no reason for picking 100k. it would just be sweet to make that much money. and to me it is more logical to pick 100k than 87 or some other number.
my self worth isnt wrapped up in a salary figure. but i would prefer to be steadily employed and paid a good income. after all we do all have masters degrees... well most of us.
traditional low salaries wouldnt be what deters me from architecture. it would be job security way before that.
i was merely questioning the trend i noticed on the salary poll...
You also have to consider that 60k will typically cost your employer closer to 80k given the payroll taxes and various benefits. The way salary is discussed in US is counter intuitive at best. 60k in Seattle (no state income tax) will be worth a lot more than 60k in NYC (high taxes, insane cost of housing).
Architecture is just not a very profitable profession for most players. To crack 100k you have to provide profit making skills to your resume. The ability to attract good clients is sadly not thought in school, and is otherwise treated as a trade secret once you start working...
entry level intern (median income):$34k
3rd year intern: $40k
architect I/II/III: $41k, $50k,$58k
Project Manager: $73k
Department head: $85k (but it cracks $100k for offices larger than 100, if you include incentives and bonuses)
As a junior principal you can expect to crack $100k as well.
I think these numbers all went up across the board coming up to the recession. Now it's a clusterfuck, and all bets are off....
"my self worth isnt wrapped up in a salary figure. but i would prefer to be steadily employed and paid a good income. after all we do all have masters degrees... well most of us."
Man. This is the attitude which will keep you from making 100K and from being successful.
Well, the 2005 report is probably mostly based on figured collected between 2003-2005. So, it is definitely "pre-boom" if not by just a couple of months.
Like steelstuds mentioned, there's a lot of 'architecturing' to learn client and office side. I've not seen that big of a shortage compared to actual architects when it comes to project management, directors, office staff and the like.
Someone in the starchitect brought up BIG and their appeal which seems to work out well, at least in architectural circles. But the issue with BIG is compared to other industries and other professions, well their marketing pretty much sucks.
And this is a big point here-- many people compare architects to accountants, lawyers, doctors and the like. But accountants, lawyers and doctors advertise their services like you would see a sandwich or a bottle of coke advertised.
They come on TV, they're in newspapers and they're plastered all over the yellow pages.
Now, there's a difference here: neighborhood architects and national architects. However, the fee difference between the two really isn't much. What you really get from hiring a local architect is the one-on-one customer service.
I could hire an out of state firm to design something for me... and because of the flexibility of the internet and communications now, it'd work out alright.
But when it comes to "attracting clients," there's no real way to attract clients unless you have active advertising campaigns.
Otherwise, clients are going to flock towards names they see in newspapers/magazines... or they're going to play phonebook roulette and pick a name from a list.
Now, networking isn't to be discounted... but networking itself seems to be limited to the upper strata of the office. You have to go where potential clients might be, you have to have the money to live like they do and, of course, you have to have the free time.
Events, volunteering, chatting et cetera. It is demanding. And unfortunately handing out business cards and being polite/engaging is about all you can do.
That being said, you can think of all the strategies you want, you can give or take any advice ad nasuem...
But someone actually has to try them out. And many architectural firms for all their brains and years of experience aren't in the position to try anything new or some of them just outright refuse.
@On The Fence: Your comment is a bit harsh. If you get an expensive, time consuming degree, you should have SOME expectations at least.
Cyclical nature of profession's boom/bust cycle all but ensures no guarantees with anything: security. compensation or anything really... These realities sink in after a few years of working in the profession. The original poster will get there eventually, but pissing on him in the meantime is hardly productive...
No. If you earn a degree which has some merit in a field that it could reflect positively on, you should have some expectations. That would be a far more accurate line. What we have here is one more guy who spent a whole bunch of money, his, his fathers or the banks, possibly on a degree with "some to a little bit" of relevence to the field of architecture and now believes he merits 100K within 5-8 years. Well, reality may start to set in for a lot of people who got on this boat. M.arch = not a requirement to become licensed. It is a luxury item. If you have it, great, but it makes you no higher up on the totem pole than someone with the 4 year or 5 year degree.
Here is the thing. First, the guy posts "I'm a recent grad" then says he is 27 and wants 100k by the time he hits 35. 8 years. We are supposed to guess at his future?
Seriously, what advice can anybody give this guy that is of any use?
We don't know what his under-grad degree was in. Did he work between that and grad school. I mean he is 27 so......... 4 year degree and 2 year or 3 year should have made him 25. My assumption is that he has a lib arts degree and a M.Arch which equates to a 4 or 5 year Barch max.
So what should he be making now? Who knows. Maybe, if he is lucky he can get a job making 30k or 40k. 8 years in this business, if he is at the 50 percentile and he'd be making 60k-70k and if higher then maybe 80k. And that is without knowing if he has any talent for this field or not. He could have gotten the March with all C's. Who know?
undergrad is a bs in architectural studies. (not the accredited b.arch)
have an accredited m.arch
nevermind my age.
graduating gpa was somewhere around a 3.5, not that employers have cared!
my question isnt, when will I reach 100k because that means i am successful and happy. I simply picked an nice round number. my question is more related to is it accurate that most people who arent partners top out at around 60, and how long does it usually take to get there.
I would say that grade one gets in academic circles is not very indicative of a salary one will have in this profession. In many cases it is inversely proportional. The sooner you realize you suck at design, the sooner you start developing objective skills that may make you actually useful in an office setting.
archgrad001's question may be a bit silly (the way it was phrased), but still not a reason to rip him a new one...
@archgrad001: the timing of your question is awful though. There are numerous practices in which the ownership hasn't paid itself salary in months in order to keep the ship afloat. Some US markets have unemployment rate as high as 50% when it comes to all construction fields. Portion of employed architects have seen pay drops, pay freezes, while still maintaining a very high work load. Construction field is not expected to rebound for another 2 years....
Consider yourself lucky if you get a work placement in the next year or so.
Getting an MBA would bump your salary up and give you a whole new repertoire of skills. Money management in arch. is poor at best. A good MBA will take 2 years to complete, and will be very cost prohibitive (from what I've seen) If you can afford it, I would strongly suggest considering that route...
100k is laughable. I don't personally know a single architect making that much as a salary, including the principals I know. I actually know more principals either not taking a salary or taking a loss than I know making more than 80k.
That's not to say it's not possible - we've all heard that (supposedly) the design heads at the bigger corporate firms pull down good wages... that would be, lets see, maybe 10 or 12 people at your local office of Gensler, SOM, HOK, HNTB, etc.
Anyway, as to your question of a 60k "cap"... odd, I never had heard of something like that, but now that I think of it that is in fact a number that a lot of people seem to get caught at. Frankly in years of project management I never made it past 50k myself, but if it weren't for this economy I'd be up around that 60k number now, I suppose.
There's definitely a problem in this field of getting trapped at the PM level. There are a lot of PMs out there and much fewer Principal or Partner positions. So from what I've seen (and heard from my friends), you do sort of seem to get stuck at PM for a while, until you either jump to do your own thing or find some way to make that bridge to the Partner/Principal level. It's kind of tough...
The fact that a large chunk of firms in our field are sole-proprietorships means that there are more limited spots available for partnerships. A lot of guys seem to like being head of their own thing and have no interest in ever pulling in any kind of partner to share with (or, when they HAVE, it has ended in disaster - I know of multiple partnerships that disolved amidst legal action). I guess we don't share well, maybe?
All this to say that the reality in this field frequently means starting your own firm rather than making it to partner level in someone else's biz.
* I do know of one principal who takes home some change every year but it's on company profit, not from salary (therefore, negates your goal of "stability"). Plenty of years where there is negative profit, unfortunately.
I know of an architect in her late thirties that supposedly makes 6 figures. Works for a national restuarant chain and travels 4+ days a week. So there ya go.
Well it def. can be done ...ive seen it.. i know of two people who are 35 or younger pulling in (or were pulling in) at least 100K ..but there principals at what was once a relatively large firm
but as mantaray said its hard to skip the PM level ..so good luck
PS.. those two people were the first two people to be employed by the principal
Well, as a general rule of thumb.....taken with more than a grain of salt, I'd say that 60k is probably about right after 8-10 years (adjust for inflation). Another general rule of thumb would be, and again you have to take your salt tablet for this one, is that whatever your starting salary is, in 8-10 years double that and that should be about what you will be making. Give or take unless you somehow make partner/owner and then you could be making as much as $500,000 or as little as $0.
Archiects in the true sense of the word...rarely crack 100k without being sole practitioner in a good year. However, it is not uncommon for a "business architect" to make 6 figures. Much like a "business engineer," if you're the one bringing the money in then you get a generous piece of the pie.
Please, no backlash, but those of you who say "100k is laughable" are mistaken - you may not personally know anyone who fits that description but it doesn't mean its impossible. Our regional mid-size firm, not located in a top 10 city, with an average COL, has several employees who either make more than that or easily hit that amount with yearly bonuses and I doubt we are the exception.
I assume most realize that architects (like most people) do not like to discuss personal compensation and the guy sitting next to you at the local monthly AIA meeting might be making 100K or more and you'd never know it. The recent ecomony has skewed all of this of course, with principals and senior staff seeing huge changes in salaries/bonuses, but this type of compensation is not unusual. And these type of salaries are quite often not for the flashy designer or marketing types but instead for the day-to-day architects that mentor the younger guys, deal with clients, help the principals and basically keep their firm's afloat.
Between reviewing resumes coming into our office (sadly too many over the last 18 months) and conducting interviews, previous salary information from around our city/region is easy to gather and these types of salaries exist - I see them often from candidates who submit them as previous compensation - if I was forced I would say that they seem to concentrate in the "solid" firms, companies that are well-established, secure in their markets and consistently win/get projects that they pursue. In each of the markets that I have lived/worked, these companies exist and the architects around town can usually identify the few firms that meet this description. These firms are often not flashy or huge award-winners, but year in/year out get buildings built and keep long-term clients and staff happy, resulting in staff receiving larger salaries over time.
On the other hand, I would never say that these salaries are "standard" unfortunately - in my opinion, you do have to bust your ass, learn your profession, excel in client service, market the firm when you can and have some luck in your career and its possible.
this all so bass akwards... a nurse makes an average 60K+ a year after 4 years of college and about a year of experience with overtime... and an architect makes 35-40K a year after 6 years of school and about one year of experience with unpaid overtime?!
Prolly cuz one of those two requires the college education due to a need to have special knowledge in which they are actuallly taught something tangible. The other requires the college education to stoke an ego with a fairly modest gain in any knowledge, outside of artsy fartsy design abilities he/she wont use for another 10 plus years after the firm educates him/her.
Also, nursing is a much, much harder job to do. The emotional toll alone is hard to compare. Whatever salary a nurse pulls in, at any level, is well deserved.
@cajunarch: that's interesting info. I wonder how many people are honest with their 'salary history'. I remember from years ago in my NYC days, the easiest way to climb the salary scale was to switch jobs every couple of years and oversell yourself in each step. Creative interpretation of your salary history included.
cajun, I don't think anyone's saying those salaries don't exist - in fact we've each expressly stated that they do. The point is that they're not remotely the standard in the field as a whole.
In my opinion it would be irresponsible for a 27-yr-old beginning architect to plan his or her life as though he is going to be making $100,000 at age 35 - or, frankly, to plan for that kind of salary at almost any age. The reality is that this profession is too dependent on economic cycles, too fragmented by the peculiarities of individual markets, and too saturated with sole-proprietorship firms to allow for a very high median, or 'standard' salary. To plan one's life around an exception to a rule is not very intelligent or responsible.
Although it is possible to take home that kind of salary, it's not probable. It sounds as though your firm falls into the '10-12 ppl per big firm per city' category I mentioned earlier. The majority of working architects are not those people.
By the way - I agree that not enough people here share their salary honestly (which is why I shared mine above) - although this behaviour is not exclusive to architecture, it is very damaging to this profession in particular. Compensation in our field tends to be more haphazard than in most, if not all, the other professions, due to a lack of set compensatory levels and an extreme lack of transparency. We should all force ourselves to honestly discuss salary with our friends, colleagues, and mentors - although it may make you momentarily uncomfortable (and wound your pride) in the long run it can be extremely helpful to you and to the profession at large. But that's a discussion for another time...
My architect friends and co-workers share salary info with me when I ask. It doesn't have to be so hush-hush. Share it in a positive, constructive way and you might be surprised both at what people make and their willingness to share.
Having said that, I have no idea what I make now. I think it's more, but too soon to tell.
great thread, straw, I can't believe I missed it at the time. I'd say it's about time for an update, but too many of us have no salary at all right now! Maybe in a year or two when people are working in the field again.
Although I agree with you in theory, unfortunately when I've shared in a positive, constructive way I usually get terrified looks and clammed mouths. You and I, Straw, have a bit more business savvy (I believe) than the average architect... My colleagues never seem to understand (or agree) that it's in their best interest to share info. Ah well.
this thread is a great resource for initial poster as well. Get used to being kicked in the nuts kiddo. It never stops hurting, you just learn to 'cope'.
manta, I got a raise to $56k not too long after I posted that other thread. Then the small firm I worked for went out of business a year and a half later after slowly laying all of us off. Anyways, I knew what most everyone in that office made. Those in their mid 30's on up, including the principal, made between 65k and 85k.
If you are going to ask others, proceed with tact, as it is a VERY sensitive topic to many. But it is worthwhile as I've used the info I've gathered to get raises and in turn to help friends get raises too.
Manta: I understand your cynicism but as I mentioned in my entry, while not the "standard", this type of salary is definetly achievable with hard work and possibly a little luck. No one would ever describe our firm as a "Gensler, SOM, HOK, HNTB, etc. type firm" - I doubt most architects in the other 49 states would even recognize the name of our small/mid-size office.
My point, which I guess I didnt make well, is that this type of salary is not just for the "high-fliers" at big national firms. I would bet that most of the architects within my home city who are NOT invovled with HR would be able to accurately describe the salary structure at the typical local office, which is a shame - this information should be more widespread. I could name at least 10 people (age 35-50) who I would consider a "peer" at local firms who make somewhere in the 90K-110K range, none of them firm owners - they have titles like Studio Director, Senior Project Manager, Healthcare Architect, Junior Principal, Interior Group Director, Production Manager, Detailer/Technical Architect, etc. Basically all guys/girls who do the heavy lifting in their firms on a daily basis and are well compensated for it - no mystery, no hocus pocus, no BS.
lastly, before I stop rambling, I have to say that to stay mentally healthy in our bizzare profession, you have to understand that compensation is only a piece of the fullfillment you should get from your firm - I would work here for less, and I wouldn't take a 50% raise to work in some of the hell-holes I know about - being happy and appreciated and challenged should all be part of your "compensation".
@cajunarch: Would you say such salaries are more likely to be seen at companies that do heavy specialization in project types? Doing 4 hospitals (or churches or casinos or death camps) in a row would put you in a much better position to properly manage the project profitability, and thus the team compensation. In my experience returning clients bringing in projects with small typology variations is great for the bottom line. Government or municipal work can keep a company quite regular, for instance.
On the other hand, firms with wild portfolios often can not afford to pay much, but may be a much more interesting choice for those with monster ambitions.
Steelstuds - In my opinion you have hit on one of the secret truths in our world - our traditional design-based schooling leads us to drool over the flashy pictures and wild portfolios of the firms we see in the national magazines, and if you work at one of these (I did a while back), you can be rewarded in many obvious ways other than salary.
But the firms that can specialize, or better yet, have multiple specializations, with hopefully repeat clients, can attempt to be so much more profitable with so many effeciencies which in turn naturally leads to firm profitablity which, in a long-term successful firm, will lead to staff compensation (otherwise people leave and take their specialized knowledge with them). And naturally, the person with the specialized knowledge/skils/experience gets to move to the head of the salary line as they develop.
i saw this great lecture once by a prof. named nina hofer --- part of it covered her observation that the best indicator of the likelihood of success and/or creativity of a designer/manager was what they were doing when they were not doing what they were supposed to be doing
i raise it b/c there are many references to people getting stuck at the pm/pa level, and the associated salary ceiling that can occur as a result
so far, i've found her observation to be true --- what has propelled me forward at various points are arguably those skills that no one hired me for and that are not emphasized in design school or even practice --- such as having been involved with sustainability & LEED a few years before it was fashionable, or taking a break from interning to work in a steel shop and learn to detail miscellaneous metals properly, or learning to write well, which so far has been my biggest asset and most bankable skill, this and always bringing workable solutions to those above me, even if only as a segue to ask for guidance
i think before the downturn i was on pace to hit the 70's to 90's by my mid-to-late thirties --- now i just don't know --- i had already gone back to school when the downturn hit, and i don't know what i'll find when i get out
that other thread was a good one straw, thanks for sharing. all that info is pre-recession(ish) too! i wish everyone could give an update to what has happened since.
"the best indicator of the likelihood of success and/or creativity of a designer/manager was what they were doing when they were not doing what they were supposed to be doing"
That can be said for any profession...the person who works at their craft whether its architecture, welding or delivering packages...the better employee will make more money.
My first internship in a corporate firm had 3 graduates from my alma mater who all joined the firm in the late 80s. 20 years later they were all still there, never got laid off but each of them advanced based on their abilities. I learned the different peaks in our profession very quickly from my experience there.
One never advanced past production level, he could put a set of perfect drawings together in no time and was damn good at his craft but he couldn't socialize with people.
The second was a senior project manager, he didn't get along with the higher ups and couldn't make principal. He made a good living though, his wife was also an interior designer and they are fairly well off with their combined incomes. Had kids, a dog and lived in an upper-middle class neighborhood and appeared to be happy with his life.
The third, made principal because he was a bachelor with no family ties. He was well connected in local politics which brought in a lot of work. He owned something in the neighborhood of 10 classic cars (he would never admit what the real number was), lived in a large house that he designed and had a bitchin pair of black thick framed glasses.
I'd be really happy as the 2nd guy and I think it's a completely reasonable goal to shoot for. Since we are talking hard numbers I assume he earns around 80-90k since he never made principal and his wife earns probably just as much because I believe she was the design director for her office. Double income is the way to go, so find a partner with some earning potential.
You will have to be a Department sector leader or something like that to even come close. I was really close with our HR department before I was laid off so I knew what EVERONE made. You will be shocked at what craziness goes on in firms in regards to pay.
Before I was laid off, I made 54,000 k with 5 years of experience. My project manager who had 15 years of experience was making 73,000 k.
Our department head or market sector leader (healthcare) made 100k. He was 58 years old. Our firm operational manager made 120k, he was 50.
Not one person at the age of 40 or below even cracked the 75k mark.
This is with a firm that has 10 to 12 offices internationally.
This will be different depending on where you live.
But here's the bulldozer that floored me. In the firm I worked for,,,,and I'm just saying this about the firm I worked for, not Architecture in general,,, salaries depended on race, sex, family status , design talent and Licensure. It did not matter AT ALL wehther you had a bachelors, masters. I know that's illegal but it happens!
Here were things that were consistant across the board.
1.ALL the women made about 10% less than the men at the same level.
2 .All the minorities other than one African American man who was our Design lead made 10 to 12% less than others at the same level.
3 .ALL DESIGN LEADS whether they managed a project or not made 20% more than EVERYONE. We had Designers who couldn't even read a door schedule or who couldn't even open up REVIT, but they made more than ALL PA'S even if that PA designed projects as well.
4. If you were licensed you made more than someone that wasn't even if you didn't have the experience unless of course you were a woman or minority,,lol.
5. This wasn't across the board, but most of the single P.A's made more than the married ones. This had more to do with the fact that they worked 10 to 12 hour days. Most of the married people couldn't do that.
So 100k by 35,,,
I say,, make sure that you live in NYC, become a DESIGN lead and be a WHITE MALE,, you will be there. Also you do know that 8 years from now you your 100k will be the equivalent of todays 70k!
Aug 4, 10 12:06 pm ·
·
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.
the salary poll
recent m.arch grad. looking at the salary poll it seems that a lot of people with a wide variety of experience top out at somewhere near 60k.
i havent found a job with a firm yet after graduating in may. i want to find a place thats a good fit.
I am 27 now and want to be at 100k by the time I am 35. Is this unrealistic by going the traditional architecture route? what age would be more realistic for 100k?
i am considering taking some business classes this fall since i havent found full time employment yet. would and mba bump my salary up, or improve my chances of reaching 100k?
sorry to post a thread that is so hung up on money, i appreciate your responses.
salt lake market
I think this topic has been beaten to death in the past, so use the trusty search button for research. Anyhow, unless you make partner by the time you reach 35 at a large corporate office, reaching a salary of 100k is propably unrealistic in a traditional architecture office. Especially by 35.
Getting an MBA might or might not help you reach that salary in a traditional architecture office. It all depends on who you know and how you can market yourself. A consultant perhaps? Remember though, that the better MBA programs around the country will require you to have some business experience before being excepted. Just my two cents.
I understand...
I guess my question more relates to the salary poll and its accuracy. Do you see it as an accurate reflection of salaries in the field or is it more the disgruntled minority posting their salaries?
I just wonder why so many people top out around 60k regardless or experience ect...
because only younger people know how to use the internets, archgrad001
What's with the obsession with 100k? You are using it as some kind of a benchmark of success v. failure. 100k means different things in different cities. What exactly do you want out of life at the magic age of 35?
And, yes you will be making 100k in architecture 8 years from now simply due to inflation. My last paying gig paid 3X more than the one I had in '98. But my rent since then has pretty much tripled as well. I'm sure cost of my degree was just a fraction of what you are paying for yours, etc...
I know a few people in their mid 30's who are close to your magic number, and they tend to work in very corporate environments where architectural creativity is a mere afterthought. For the ones who prefer to work on projects that are mentally stimulating, 60K (at age 35) sounds about right (save for few markets such as NYC, SF, etc...)
It today's terms, what does 100k mean to you? Explain to us this awesome 6 figure abstraction!!
60k I wish i was making that right now, my unemployment doesn't even get close.
I'll give you a secret: It is not how much money you make but how much money you save that matters.
Plus, the "value" of $100k depends a great deal on where you live and practice. $100k goes a lot further in Omaha than it does in NYC. While $100k may be more easily obtainable in NYC (due to the cost of living) you're not necessarily better off than you would be earning $80k somewhere where the COL is more manageable.
While I think it's good to have goals, this one seems a little misguided and immature to me. If your self-worth is wrapped up in some hypothetical salary figure then, IMO, you may be focusing on the wrong things at the start of your career.
Age 27 now w/no experience and wants to be making $100k at 35 with 8 years experience. That's ambitious. Even if you found full time employment yesterday and spent the next 8 years working and passing the ARE's to boot, you'll be hard pressed to be making $100k (in 2010 dollars) anywhere with under 10 years experience.
$60k does sound about right for a pre-recession top out area for staff architects, read non-management architects. NYC and LA pay a little better but cost of living eats that up. Seems that to make it up higher you have to get promoted to management level. Then to push up and over $100k you literally need to make it to principal level. Tough to do before age 50, let alone before 40 ~ at least at larger corporate offices, that also tend to have depth to pay better.
Welcome to reality.
no reason for picking 100k. it would just be sweet to make that much money. and to me it is more logical to pick 100k than 87 or some other number.
my self worth isnt wrapped up in a salary figure. but i would prefer to be steadily employed and paid a good income. after all we do all have masters degrees... well most of us.
traditional low salaries wouldnt be what deters me from architecture. it would be job security way before that.
i was merely questioning the trend i noticed on the salary poll...
Wouldn't we all....
traditional low salaries wouldnt be what deters me from architecture. it would be job security way before that.
Unfortunately low salaries and poor job security are part of the profession.
Try to get your hands on the AIA salary ...i googled it and came accross this one from 2005
link
this will give you a more accurate idea of salaries
You also have to consider that 60k will typically cost your employer closer to 80k given the payroll taxes and various benefits. The way salary is discussed in US is counter intuitive at best. 60k in Seattle (no state income tax) will be worth a lot more than 60k in NYC (high taxes, insane cost of housing).
Architecture is just not a very profitable profession for most players. To crack 100k you have to provide profit making skills to your resume. The ability to attract good clients is sadly not thought in school, and is otherwise treated as a trade secret once you start working...
@outhere: great link. Makes for a fun read.
highlights:
entry level intern (median income):$34k
3rd year intern: $40k
architect I/II/III: $41k, $50k,$58k
Project Manager: $73k
Department head: $85k (but it cracks $100k for offices larger than 100, if you include incentives and bonuses)
As a junior principal you can expect to crack $100k as well.
I think these numbers all went up across the board coming up to the recession. Now it's a clusterfuck, and all bets are off....
...so $60k looks like a logical bottleneck based on the numbers collected by that report.
"my self worth isnt wrapped up in a salary figure. but i would prefer to be steadily employed and paid a good income. after all we do all have masters degrees... well most of us."
Man. This is the attitude which will keep you from making 100K and from being successful.
Well, the 2005 report is probably mostly based on figured collected between 2003-2005. So, it is definitely "pre-boom" if not by just a couple of months.
Like steelstuds mentioned, there's a lot of 'architecturing' to learn client and office side. I've not seen that big of a shortage compared to actual architects when it comes to project management, directors, office staff and the like.
Someone in the starchitect brought up BIG and their appeal which seems to work out well, at least in architectural circles. But the issue with BIG is compared to other industries and other professions, well their marketing pretty much sucks.
And this is a big point here-- many people compare architects to accountants, lawyers, doctors and the like. But accountants, lawyers and doctors advertise their services like you would see a sandwich or a bottle of coke advertised.
They come on TV, they're in newspapers and they're plastered all over the yellow pages.
Now, there's a difference here: neighborhood architects and national architects. However, the fee difference between the two really isn't much. What you really get from hiring a local architect is the one-on-one customer service.
I could hire an out of state firm to design something for me... and because of the flexibility of the internet and communications now, it'd work out alright.
But when it comes to "attracting clients," there's no real way to attract clients unless you have active advertising campaigns.
Otherwise, clients are going to flock towards names they see in newspapers/magazines... or they're going to play phonebook roulette and pick a name from a list.
Now, networking isn't to be discounted... but networking itself seems to be limited to the upper strata of the office. You have to go where potential clients might be, you have to have the money to live like they do and, of course, you have to have the free time.
Events, volunteering, chatting et cetera. It is demanding. And unfortunately handing out business cards and being polite/engaging is about all you can do.
That being said, you can think of all the strategies you want, you can give or take any advice ad nasuem...
But someone actually has to try them out. And many architectural firms for all their brains and years of experience aren't in the position to try anything new or some of them just outright refuse.
@On The Fence: Your comment is a bit harsh. If you get an expensive, time consuming degree, you should have SOME expectations at least.
Cyclical nature of profession's boom/bust cycle all but ensures no guarantees with anything: security. compensation or anything really... These realities sink in after a few years of working in the profession. The original poster will get there eventually, but pissing on him in the meantime is hardly productive...
No. If you earn a degree which has some merit in a field that it could reflect positively on, you should have some expectations. That would be a far more accurate line. What we have here is one more guy who spent a whole bunch of money, his, his fathers or the banks, possibly on a degree with "some to a little bit" of relevence to the field of architecture and now believes he merits 100K within 5-8 years. Well, reality may start to set in for a lot of people who got on this boat. M.arch = not a requirement to become licensed. It is a luxury item. If you have it, great, but it makes you no higher up on the totem pole than someone with the 4 year or 5 year degree.
Here is the thing. First, the guy posts "I'm a recent grad" then says he is 27 and wants 100k by the time he hits 35. 8 years. We are supposed to guess at his future?
Seriously, what advice can anybody give this guy that is of any use?
We don't know what his under-grad degree was in. Did he work between that and grad school. I mean he is 27 so......... 4 year degree and 2 year or 3 year should have made him 25. My assumption is that he has a lib arts degree and a M.Arch which equates to a 4 or 5 year Barch max.
So what should he be making now? Who knows. Maybe, if he is lucky he can get a job making 30k or 40k. 8 years in this business, if he is at the 50 percentile and he'd be making 60k-70k and if higher then maybe 80k. And that is without knowing if he has any talent for this field or not. He could have gotten the March with all C's. Who know?
on the fence you are awesome...! ha.
undergrad is a bs in architectural studies. (not the accredited b.arch)
have an accredited m.arch
nevermind my age.
graduating gpa was somewhere around a 3.5, not that employers have cared!
my question isnt, when will I reach 100k because that means i am successful and happy. I simply picked an nice round number. my question is more related to is it accurate that most people who arent partners top out at around 60, and how long does it usually take to get there.
I would say that grade one gets in academic circles is not very indicative of a salary one will have in this profession. In many cases it is inversely proportional. The sooner you realize you suck at design, the sooner you start developing objective skills that may make you actually useful in an office setting.
archgrad001's question may be a bit silly (the way it was phrased), but still not a reason to rip him a new one...
@archgrad001: the timing of your question is awful though. There are numerous practices in which the ownership hasn't paid itself salary in months in order to keep the ship afloat. Some US markets have unemployment rate as high as 50% when it comes to all construction fields. Portion of employed architects have seen pay drops, pay freezes, while still maintaining a very high work load. Construction field is not expected to rebound for another 2 years....
Consider yourself lucky if you get a work placement in the next year or so.
Getting an MBA would bump your salary up and give you a whole new repertoire of skills. Money management in arch. is poor at best. A good MBA will take 2 years to complete, and will be very cost prohibitive (from what I've seen) If you can afford it, I would strongly suggest considering that route...
100k is laughable. I don't personally know a single architect making that much as a salary, including the principals I know. I actually know more principals either not taking a salary or taking a loss than I know making more than 80k.
That's not to say it's not possible - we've all heard that (supposedly) the design heads at the bigger corporate firms pull down good wages... that would be, lets see, maybe 10 or 12 people at your local office of Gensler, SOM, HOK, HNTB, etc.
Anyway, as to your question of a 60k "cap"... odd, I never had heard of something like that, but now that I think of it that is in fact a number that a lot of people seem to get caught at. Frankly in years of project management I never made it past 50k myself, but if it weren't for this economy I'd be up around that 60k number now, I suppose.
There's definitely a problem in this field of getting trapped at the PM level. There are a lot of PMs out there and much fewer Principal or Partner positions. So from what I've seen (and heard from my friends), you do sort of seem to get stuck at PM for a while, until you either jump to do your own thing or find some way to make that bridge to the Partner/Principal level. It's kind of tough...
The fact that a large chunk of firms in our field are sole-proprietorships means that there are more limited spots available for partnerships. A lot of guys seem to like being head of their own thing and have no interest in ever pulling in any kind of partner to share with (or, when they HAVE, it has ended in disaster - I know of multiple partnerships that disolved amidst legal action). I guess we don't share well, maybe?
All this to say that the reality in this field frequently means starting your own firm rather than making it to partner level in someone else's biz.
* I do know of one principal who takes home some change every year but it's on company profit, not from salary (therefore, negates your goal of "stability"). Plenty of years where there is negative profit, unfortunately.
I know of an architect in her late thirties that supposedly makes 6 figures. Works for a national restuarant chain and travels 4+ days a week. So there ya go.
Well it def. can be done ...ive seen it.. i know of two people who are 35 or younger pulling in (or were pulling in) at least 100K ..but there principals at what was once a relatively large firm
but as mantaray said its hard to skip the PM level ..so good luck
PS.. those two people were the first two people to be employed by the principal
ok.
Well, as a general rule of thumb.....taken with more than a grain of salt, I'd say that 60k is probably about right after 8-10 years (adjust for inflation). Another general rule of thumb would be, and again you have to take your salt tablet for this one, is that whatever your starting salary is, in 8-10 years double that and that should be about what you will be making. Give or take unless you somehow make partner/owner and then you could be making as much as $500,000 or as little as $0.
Hope this helps.
Archiects in the true sense of the word...rarely crack 100k without being sole practitioner in a good year. However, it is not uncommon for a "business architect" to make 6 figures. Much like a "business engineer," if you're the one bringing the money in then you get a generous piece of the pie.
Better head Eisenman's advice
http://www.designboom.com/eng/interview/eisenmann_mov.html
Please, no backlash, but those of you who say "100k is laughable" are mistaken - you may not personally know anyone who fits that description but it doesn't mean its impossible. Our regional mid-size firm, not located in a top 10 city, with an average COL, has several employees who either make more than that or easily hit that amount with yearly bonuses and I doubt we are the exception.
I assume most realize that architects (like most people) do not like to discuss personal compensation and the guy sitting next to you at the local monthly AIA meeting might be making 100K or more and you'd never know it. The recent ecomony has skewed all of this of course, with principals and senior staff seeing huge changes in salaries/bonuses, but this type of compensation is not unusual. And these type of salaries are quite often not for the flashy designer or marketing types but instead for the day-to-day architects that mentor the younger guys, deal with clients, help the principals and basically keep their firm's afloat.
Between reviewing resumes coming into our office (sadly too many over the last 18 months) and conducting interviews, previous salary information from around our city/region is easy to gather and these types of salaries exist - I see them often from candidates who submit them as previous compensation - if I was forced I would say that they seem to concentrate in the "solid" firms, companies that are well-established, secure in their markets and consistently win/get projects that they pursue. In each of the markets that I have lived/worked, these companies exist and the architects around town can usually identify the few firms that meet this description. These firms are often not flashy or huge award-winners, but year in/year out get buildings built and keep long-term clients and staff happy, resulting in staff receiving larger salaries over time.
On the other hand, I would never say that these salaries are "standard" unfortunately - in my opinion, you do have to bust your ass, learn your profession, excel in client service, market the firm when you can and have some luck in your career and its possible.
this all so bass akwards... a nurse makes an average 60K+ a year after 4 years of college and about a year of experience with overtime... and an architect makes 35-40K a year after 6 years of school and about one year of experience with unpaid overtime?!
Prolly cuz one of those two requires the college education due to a need to have special knowledge in which they are actuallly taught something tangible. The other requires the college education to stoke an ego with a fairly modest gain in any knowledge, outside of artsy fartsy design abilities he/she wont use for another 10 plus years after the firm educates him/her.
Also, nursing is a much, much harder job to do. The emotional toll alone is hard to compare. Whatever salary a nurse pulls in, at any level, is well deserved.
@cajunarch: that's interesting info. I wonder how many people are honest with their 'salary history'. I remember from years ago in my NYC days, the easiest way to climb the salary scale was to switch jobs every couple of years and oversell yourself in each step. Creative interpretation of your salary history included.
cajun, I don't think anyone's saying those salaries don't exist - in fact we've each expressly stated that they do. The point is that they're not remotely the standard in the field as a whole.
In my opinion it would be irresponsible for a 27-yr-old beginning architect to plan his or her life as though he is going to be making $100,000 at age 35 - or, frankly, to plan for that kind of salary at almost any age. The reality is that this profession is too dependent on economic cycles, too fragmented by the peculiarities of individual markets, and too saturated with sole-proprietorship firms to allow for a very high median, or 'standard' salary. To plan one's life around an exception to a rule is not very intelligent or responsible.
Although it is possible to take home that kind of salary, it's not probable. It sounds as though your firm falls into the '10-12 ppl per big firm per city' category I mentioned earlier. The majority of working architects are not those people.
By the way - I agree that not enough people here share their salary honestly (which is why I shared mine above) - although this behaviour is not exclusive to architecture, it is very damaging to this profession in particular. Compensation in our field tends to be more haphazard than in most, if not all, the other professions, due to a lack of set compensatory levels and an extreme lack of transparency. We should all force ourselves to honestly discuss salary with our friends, colleagues, and mentors - although it may make you momentarily uncomfortable (and wound your pride) in the long run it can be extremely helpful to you and to the profession at large. But that's a discussion for another time...
My architect friends and co-workers share salary info with me when I ask. It doesn't have to be so hush-hush. Share it in a positive, constructive way and you might be surprised both at what people make and their willingness to share.
Having said that, I have no idea what I make now. I think it's more, but too soon to tell.
great thread, straw, I can't believe I missed it at the time. I'd say it's about time for an update, but too many of us have no salary at all right now! Maybe in a year or two when people are working in the field again.
Although I agree with you in theory, unfortunately when I've shared in a positive, constructive way I usually get terrified looks and clammed mouths. You and I, Straw, have a bit more business savvy (I believe) than the average architect... My colleagues never seem to understand (or agree) that it's in their best interest to share info. Ah well.
that thread is a great resource for the initial poster, btw.
this thread is a great resource for initial poster as well. Get used to being kicked in the nuts kiddo. It never stops hurting, you just learn to 'cope'.
manta, I got a raise to $56k not too long after I posted that other thread. Then the small firm I worked for went out of business a year and a half later after slowly laying all of us off. Anyways, I knew what most everyone in that office made. Those in their mid 30's on up, including the principal, made between 65k and 85k.
If you are going to ask others, proceed with tact, as it is a VERY sensitive topic to many. But it is worthwhile as I've used the info I've gathered to get raises and in turn to help friends get raises too.
"no reason for picking 100k. it would just be sweet to make that much money."
It would be todally sweet!!!1!
Manta: I understand your cynicism but as I mentioned in my entry, while not the "standard", this type of salary is definetly achievable with hard work and possibly a little luck. No one would ever describe our firm as a "Gensler, SOM, HOK, HNTB, etc. type firm" - I doubt most architects in the other 49 states would even recognize the name of our small/mid-size office.
My point, which I guess I didnt make well, is that this type of salary is not just for the "high-fliers" at big national firms. I would bet that most of the architects within my home city who are NOT invovled with HR would be able to accurately describe the salary structure at the typical local office, which is a shame - this information should be more widespread. I could name at least 10 people (age 35-50) who I would consider a "peer" at local firms who make somewhere in the 90K-110K range, none of them firm owners - they have titles like Studio Director, Senior Project Manager, Healthcare Architect, Junior Principal, Interior Group Director, Production Manager, Detailer/Technical Architect, etc. Basically all guys/girls who do the heavy lifting in their firms on a daily basis and are well compensated for it - no mystery, no hocus pocus, no BS.
lastly, before I stop rambling, I have to say that to stay mentally healthy in our bizzare profession, you have to understand that compensation is only a piece of the fullfillment you should get from your firm - I would work here for less, and I wouldn't take a 50% raise to work in some of the hell-holes I know about - being happy and appreciated and challenged should all be part of your "compensation".
@cajunarch: Would you say such salaries are more likely to be seen at companies that do heavy specialization in project types? Doing 4 hospitals (or churches or casinos or death camps) in a row would put you in a much better position to properly manage the project profitability, and thus the team compensation. In my experience returning clients bringing in projects with small typology variations is great for the bottom line. Government or municipal work can keep a company quite regular, for instance.
On the other hand, firms with wild portfolios often can not afford to pay much, but may be a much more interesting choice for those with monster ambitions.
cajunarch - well said
Steelstuds - In my opinion you have hit on one of the secret truths in our world - our traditional design-based schooling leads us to drool over the flashy pictures and wild portfolios of the firms we see in the national magazines, and if you work at one of these (I did a while back), you can be rewarded in many obvious ways other than salary.
But the firms that can specialize, or better yet, have multiple specializations, with hopefully repeat clients, can attempt to be so much more profitable with so many effeciencies which in turn naturally leads to firm profitablity which, in a long-term successful firm, will lead to staff compensation (otherwise people leave and take their specialized knowledge with them). And naturally, the person with the specialized knowledge/skils/experience gets to move to the head of the salary line as they develop.
i saw this great lecture once by a prof. named nina hofer --- part of it covered her observation that the best indicator of the likelihood of success and/or creativity of a designer/manager was what they were doing when they were not doing what they were supposed to be doing
i raise it b/c there are many references to people getting stuck at the pm/pa level, and the associated salary ceiling that can occur as a result
so far, i've found her observation to be true --- what has propelled me forward at various points are arguably those skills that no one hired me for and that are not emphasized in design school or even practice --- such as having been involved with sustainability & LEED a few years before it was fashionable, or taking a break from interning to work in a steel shop and learn to detail miscellaneous metals properly, or learning to write well, which so far has been my biggest asset and most bankable skill, this and always bringing workable solutions to those above me, even if only as a segue to ask for guidance
i think before the downturn i was on pace to hit the 70's to 90's by my mid-to-late thirties --- now i just don't know --- i had already gone back to school when the downturn hit, and i don't know what i'll find when i get out
that other thread was a good one straw, thanks for sharing. all that info is pre-recession(ish) too! i wish everyone could give an update to what has happened since.
"the best indicator of the likelihood of success and/or creativity of a designer/manager was what they were doing when they were not doing what they were supposed to be doing"
That can be said for any profession...the person who works at their craft whether its architecture, welding or delivering packages...the better employee will make more money.
My first internship in a corporate firm had 3 graduates from my alma mater who all joined the firm in the late 80s. 20 years later they were all still there, never got laid off but each of them advanced based on their abilities. I learned the different peaks in our profession very quickly from my experience there.
One never advanced past production level, he could put a set of perfect drawings together in no time and was damn good at his craft but he couldn't socialize with people.
The second was a senior project manager, he didn't get along with the higher ups and couldn't make principal. He made a good living though, his wife was also an interior designer and they are fairly well off with their combined incomes. Had kids, a dog and lived in an upper-middle class neighborhood and appeared to be happy with his life.
The third, made principal because he was a bachelor with no family ties. He was well connected in local politics which brought in a lot of work. He owned something in the neighborhood of 10 classic cars (he would never admit what the real number was), lived in a large house that he designed and had a bitchin pair of black thick framed glasses.
I'd be really happy as the 2nd guy and I think it's a completely reasonable goal to shoot for. Since we are talking hard numbers I assume he earns around 80-90k since he never made principal and his wife earns probably just as much because I believe she was the design director for her office. Double income is the way to go, so find a partner with some earning potential.
You will have to be a Department sector leader or something like that to even come close. I was really close with our HR department before I was laid off so I knew what EVERONE made. You will be shocked at what craziness goes on in firms in regards to pay.
Before I was laid off, I made 54,000 k with 5 years of experience. My project manager who had 15 years of experience was making 73,000 k.
Our department head or market sector leader (healthcare) made 100k. He was 58 years old. Our firm operational manager made 120k, he was 50.
Not one person at the age of 40 or below even cracked the 75k mark.
This is with a firm that has 10 to 12 offices internationally.
This will be different depending on where you live.
But here's the bulldozer that floored me. In the firm I worked for,,,,and I'm just saying this about the firm I worked for, not Architecture in general,,, salaries depended on race, sex, family status , design talent and Licensure. It did not matter AT ALL wehther you had a bachelors, masters. I know that's illegal but it happens!
Here were things that were consistant across the board.
1.ALL the women made about 10% less than the men at the same level.
2 .All the minorities other than one African American man who was our Design lead made 10 to 12% less than others at the same level.
3 .ALL DESIGN LEADS whether they managed a project or not made 20% more than EVERYONE. We had Designers who couldn't even read a door schedule or who couldn't even open up REVIT, but they made more than ALL PA'S even if that PA designed projects as well.
4. If you were licensed you made more than someone that wasn't even if you didn't have the experience unless of course you were a woman or minority,,lol.
5. This wasn't across the board, but most of the single P.A's made more than the married ones. This had more to do with the fact that they worked 10 to 12 hour days. Most of the married people couldn't do that.
So 100k by 35,,,
I say,, make sure that you live in NYC, become a DESIGN lead and be a WHITE MALE,, you will be there. Also you do know that 8 years from now you your 100k will be the equivalent of todays 70k!
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.