When I worked and an arch firm, I worked my a$$ off 6 days a week for 10-12 hours a day (at least) and made such a low salary. Our structural engineer would stop by our office, after grabbing lunch out somewhere, in his brand new F-150 clean as a whistle and take off his ray bans and talk about all the great projects he was working on. I always wondered why, when we were the ones handling all coordination between owners and engineers, working crazy hours, and our drawings were two times as many pages, how it worked out that we were clearly the lowest paid in the group of consultants.
Has anyone else experienced this? Maybe I was just in a bad situation, and my bosses were jerks, but it forced me out of the industry and into working for a contractor, which I do enjoy very much (I wasn't ultra creative - and always found interests in drafting and construction details/ admin more)
In St. Louis, Missouri, architects out of school make about 30-35k and I really haven't heard of anyone making much more than that fresh out (I graduated peak recession too) and engineers also don't require an expensive masters' degree- and they should.
Engineers typically have a higher average wage. They are worker bees who don't carry the ego and self-entitlement that most M.Arch grads do. They perform linear tasks as per their last similar project unless directed otherwise... and even then, might not.
Like JLC says, they run dozens of projects at once because they don't have to think much or deal with clients. Efficiency equals less time spent on project and justifies higher wages for the good ones.
You basically chose a career that is pretty much non existent any more. The most important part is realizing that architecture sucks, and that there are may other ways to make more money and still be creative and have a passion in whatever you do. It is also good that you realized this sooner than later. I spent 8 years chasing a white rabbit in architecture (trying making more than $42,000 a year before taxed) only to realize that every employer was a joke and full of hot air. Trust me, you'll hear everything from in 6months-1year we'll do an assessment review; it all depends on how hard you work and your bonus at the end of the year; or, I don't even pay anyone $3k a month....
The great part is that there is always some silly tard that is just as naïve as the next to take your low paying, stress filled days, making love to a computer, losser drafter lifestyle, because being an 'architect' is magnanimous!!!!!
I think the best thing to do is assess the ppl you work with ( other employees, and even the bosses), and ask yourself; are those ppl happy? Do I want to do what that person does? Are the people around me happy? Do they have the life you want to live?
Most ppl are locked into architecture bc of the investment of time and money just to get a degree, the notion that they cant get over themselves for going into such a shitty occupation yet they are so so smart and creative, and that no other career fields outside of the building industry sees how a background in architecture translate to a different field.
Non Sequitur, yeah 35k is what I made. St. Louis was hit hard in the construction sector during the recession, there were literally 0 jobs and everyone was laid off. Also, the cost of living here is pretty low. $250k can buy you a 2000SF home here, while my brother in DC paid $450k for a 1200SF home in a not so great area for an old house that needed a lot of work, so its all relative.
But this is my home, and always will be.
I make about double that now, working for a contractor. And my skills learned at the arch firm have clearly put me in a better position and greater understanding of building design and construction than most of the other young(er) people here.
Responses all make sense you guys, but I feel it shouldn't be this way, Architects should make MORE money than these worker bees. What can be done to change this? Dont you guys want to earn more? I dont care for being stupid rich, but I would like a nice home, and to send my kids to good schools.
I think the best thing to do is assess the ppl you work with ( other employees, and even the bosses), and ask yourself; are those ppl happy? Do I want to do what that person does? Are the people around me happy? Do they have the life you want to live?
DeTwan, this is so true! It's exactly what I realized. I couldn't understand why my bosses were so angry all the time. They were unhappy everyday. I also contracted an older (laid off) architect once for a side project that was always running his mouth about his divorce and how his ex married a rich guy now and his kids don't like being in his shitty apartment and all this super depressing stuff.
I feel bad for some architects and think they deserve so much more, being passionate and working so hard for something you care about, it doesn't pay off sometimes it seems, not cool at all.
engineers also don't require an expensive masters' degree- and they should
This is a small part of the OP, but I'm curious. Why should engineering require an expensive masters degree? I'm not convinced architecture requires a masters degree either.
I count myself as lucky - I work in place where people around me are generally happy, though we drink and complain a bit. We do solid, well thought-out work that takes 40 hours / week to produce. Our clients are (for the most part) very good to work with. And I feel fairly compensated for a job where I don't have to carry heavy stuff or am bent over an assembly line for a full shift. Architecture has been very rewarding for me, both personally and financially, and I would rather trade efficiency and a higher salary for being able to spend time thinking about what I am doing. Please don't take this post the wrong way, but there is so much negativity about the profession on this site I feel like I have to make a counterpoint.
engineers also don't require an expensive masters' degree- and they should
One of the principal structural engineers on the Golden Gate bridge taught structures at the collegiate level and wrote the definitive structural engineering textbook of the day without an engineering degree. I think they finally gave him one for appearance's sake.
I'm not convinced architecture requires a masters degree either.
One could argue that, and I'm sure its been done . My thoughts were just that engineers and architects should be required at least the same amount of education, and it seems reversed that an engineer makes more money when an architect needs a masters and therefore needs more money to pay for that additional education...
I'm glad you've found happiness in the profession. I knew there had to be someone out there getting paid what they should (which I believe leads to happy employees). Judging by all the negativity of the profession on the site probably indicates that most Architects feel uncompensated for their efforts like I did. If I worked where you did, Andrew, I would most likely have stayed in the profession.
My new office has the BEST people and everyone is happy all the time. It was life changing for me.
consultants only design the project one time ideally and if they have to do it again they charge for extra services -
In addition - architects start many projects that are speculative that die before they even have a chance to get started - where as, engineers usually only get hired if it is a sure thing, and if not, they still get payed for their work 9 out of 10 times.
I wonder what it is that makes Andrew.Circles firm great, and able to compensate employees generously. Is it a small or large firm? What business practices lead to this success? I think there's something to be learned from Andrew's firm. BUT WHAT IS IT??
I said fairly compensated, not generously...don't get crazy here. I probably make less than the engineers I work with, but my point was I'm ok with that. It is a reasonable trade-off to me to not have to pump out 10 projects for every one.
I am willing to bet there are a number of architects, some even on this website, who have similar experiences in architecture. It just doesn't make for a great story or really push forum discussions along I guess, or maybe there is concern that if you say that you have a reasonably good job it will come off as gloating or something.
I don't think the firm I work for is doing anything crazy innovative as far as business practices.
There are many factors that are in play when it comes to the quality of life you will have over the course of your architectural career. Whom you are as a person and the drive you bring to life, how much & long you have worked in the industry, whom you know, where you live, what your expectations are, etc.
I think it is fair to say that with the standardized building methods that have been developed and implemented over the last 100 years architects have taken quite the back seat in the relativity of importance when it comes to building a structure this day and age.
Then you factor in the number of recessions that have affected the industry over the past 15 years, 2008 being a game changer in 'professional mobility', meaning the ability to move up a 'ladder', and lowering of the glass ceiling.
Then you couple that with 15 years of educational institutions making a killing by romanticizing the industry with all the willy nilly design crap, but no real world application. Then in the past 8 years all the universities going to Masters only programs (hence the idea that a masters is needed, bc that is all that is 'sold' now).
In the end you have a bunch of white collar kids graduating in one of the deadest eras of architecture, whom where sold a mirage of an idea of what the architecture industry really entails. Sadly, if you have half a brain, you realize that any firm or architecture studio is just a few ppl at the top, with a slew of CAD/BIM slaves working for chump change; you are perhaps less marketable with a license bc employers will think you want more money & and you become a threat to current and potential clients; and that if you don't have a fat portfolio of built work and super competitive rates you will never be able to attract potential clients and go out on your own.
It's a hard industry to be happy in once you realize those factors. Money usually help in that case. Alcohol helps too in the short term. I guess you either make it, bend in the wind, or break. Everyone's different, but I definitely don't see architecture become a "better industry" any time soon.
Oh, and it's smarter to lease a car, you don't have to pay personal property tax on it...perhaps engineers do deserve more compensation?
With respect to the school issue, undergraduate federal loans are capped, graduate loans are not. Students are being taken advantage of by the universities first, followed by the NCARB.
The great part is that there is always some silly tard that is just as naïve as the next to take your low paying, stress filled days, making love to a computer, losser drafter lifestyle, because being an 'architect' is magnanimous!!!!!
Architects should make MORE money than these worker bees. What can be done to change this?
-make the schools professional again. Kick out all unlicensed professors who have not completed IDP and practiced professionally. Immediately.
-make the admissions standards to architecture programs exceedingly rigorous again. Advanced Calculus. Engineering up the butt. Especially structural engineering. Take the Construction Management curriculum back from the CM schools and re insert it into the prof arch programs
-make the arch school programs get rid of the 70 hour a week commitment to 'design' studio (mental masturbation). Pare it down to less than 12 hours/ week. Take the remaining hours left over and commit them to actual professional practice activities needed and relevant in the marketplace. Drafting, putting a set of design documents culminating in CDs together. How to do CA. How to do business and money management. Cost Estimating. Scheduling projects and project management. How to do business development/ marketing. How to interface with clients, contractors and give public presentation skills (esp important is to stop traumatizing arch students in terms of their negative associations with public presentations and fear...make learning public speaking and presentation skills a positive learning experience!)
-create an Architect in Training situation similar to what engineers have done with the E.I.T. Engineer in Training situation. That is make the A.R.E. more difficult and make the current A.R.E. the A.I.T. exam.
-make the AIA and NCARB separate the drafters from the architects. Their IDP program takes far too long (on average 8-10 years) to complete. Yes technically they say you can get done in 2-3 years but everyone marinated in the profession for 20+ years knows the vast majority of arch school grads who remain in architecture, finish the IDP and ARE are not done in 2-3. Its more like 8-10+! This is an outrage in and of itself. During the 8-10 years the true architects are wasting their potential to benefit the profession and the public with their innovative ideas. Their potential instead goes to fighting with the hordes of moronic ITT tech drafters with monumental sized egos which their pea brains will perpetually render unsupportable in mere production roles. Architects have been expected to trudge their way through the factory lines of the factory floor pumping out thought widgets alongside drafters. For 10+ years! This is an outrage and very inefficient. Let the drafters be drafters and the architects be architects! Both sides are miserable trying to be something they are not and never will be. As I've stated before the present situation is like as if in the medical profession the nurses aides were to be fighting with the doctors to fulfill the doctors roles. Or if in law the clerks were trying to fulfill the lawyers and law makers roles. You can't fix stupid. Need to get stupid out of the way so the architects can start practicing their innovative, profitable, leverag-able ideas again.
-To the point above: make the AIA require AIA members to use contracts when hiring arch school grads who have passed the A.I.T. exam MENTOR them. Make a true commitment to true MENTORING part of the AIA code of ethics. And make it point #1! STOP HIRING THE DRAFTERS to fulfill the role of architect and vice versa.
Without these changes (and more!) the crabs in a bucket phenomenon will continue in perpetuity.
I spent 7 months as a BIM Wit at a structural engineering firm - they do all these calculations to determine loading, moments, flexure, deflections and interactions - serious math, finite element analysis - Tekla, Robobat, Etabs etc - and take responsibility for the buildings structure - esp on siesmic
“Because nobody can figure out how to do what we do and everybody has good taste."
just finished up a project where we were the cad/sketchup monkeys. design was done by a fashion designer because he has, to quote a senior person on the project "good taste."
also, that engineer is pretty arrogant to say that all we do is make pretty stuff. i wonder if people were actually educated at a general level about architecture, city planning, landscaping, urban design as part of high school or college general education would professionals be financially valued more for what they do?
I spent 7 months as a BIM Wit at a structural engineering firm - they do all these calculations to determine loading, moments, flexure, deflections and interactions - serious math, finite element analysis - Tekla, Robobat, Etabs etc - and take responsibility for the buildings structure - esp on siesmic
can you do that?
sadly and pathetically these days arch grads can talk a whole lot of theoretical mumbo jumbo feel good warm and fuzzy BS...but no they couldn't structure and add up a monthly budget to account for their $10 starbucks coffee if their lives depended on it. Or schedule a haircut 2 days in advance and show up on time or even maybe a little early. The schools are expressly at fault for not filtering in the right folks and in fact filtering out the right folks, and then those that are filtered in not teaching them what they need to know to be profitable (see my post above)
Most artists these days = fools and court jesters providing meaningless entertainment who are penniless beggars.
Engineers and Construction Managers = in tune with cost and schedule and design variables and therefore profitable in their decision making.
Xenakis, i think the bigger picture is that they need something to engineer. would you ever trust a structural engineer to do the work of an architect? a colleague of mine once mentioned how architects leave school and barely know how to do structural analysis on a wood framed house. which echoes good_knight's points.
^ the engineer was referring to what the public thinks...everybody is an expert when it comes to architecture because - "I know what I like" is king and everybody has graduated from Home Depot University.
also, that engineer is pretty arrogant to say that all we do is make pretty stuff. i wonder if people were actually educated at a general level about architecture, city planning, landscaping, urban design as part of high school or college general education would professionals be financially valued more for what they do?
Yes perhaps, but think about this:
what is the AIA doing to the public perception and education regarding what the architect actually does which might be of value to the public?
Its pretty obvious, just by flipping through that latest monthly issue of Record, that the AIA is actively and intentionally promoting the magazine (porn) architecture and architects to the exclusion of "actually educat[ing the public] at a general level about architecture, city planning, landscaping, urban design..." and the tangible value architects bring to the table.
Currently the AIA is a scam to recruit as many artistically minded (i.e. wishful thinking idealists) drafters to the bottom ranks of the profession to use them like cannon fodder for a few years until they run out of steam and wake up and realize they can't achieve anything more than indentured servitude financially speaking as a drafter. The AIA runs the profession like Hollywood and its attraction of hordes of starving waitresses to tinseltown with dreams of being the next big thing. For every 1 who makes it there are 999 hundred thousand who don't. This is an abomination for a profession like architecture where the value the 99.9% bring to the table is being leveraged to the benefit of the 1%.
why was great Da Vinci really interested in art, but little in architecture or building design? maybe he figured out that mechanics are the engines toward the future.. not "buildings design or structures".. buildings were being built the same way (more or less) throughout history... does designing a building saves a life? or even improve a life, or we're just making up "life problems" to solve it by our unique designs to later call ourselves problem solvers?
I spent 7 months as a BIM Wit at a structural engineering firm - they do all these calculations to determine loading, moments, flexure, deflections and interactions - serious math, finite element analysis - Tekla, Robobat, Etabs etc - and take responsibility for the buildings structure - esp on siesmic
can you do that?
Yeah I can to a certain level, .....when I was mentored by a structural engineer.......ahh now I understand.
the engineer was referring to what the public thinks...everybody is an expert when it comes to architecture because - "I know what I like" is king and everybody has graduated from Home Depot University.
Yes. The "everyone is an expert in everything" is a huge, almost invisible aspect of the problem with the profitability of the profession as it inhabits the zeitgeist as an ephemeral, intangible fact girding up the present pathetic paradigm, factor.
Experts are experts because they are the exception to the general rule.
Joe Everyman shoots himself in the foot everytime he allows his overinflated ego to convince him he is Leonardo Davinci and Tim the Toolman all rolled into one.
With respect to the school issue, undergraduate federal loans are capped, graduate loans are not. Students are being taken advantage of by the universities first, followed by the NCARB.
Sadly missing from this discussion is a licensed Architect in most states IS a structural engineer and is allowed to engineer a building. The architect is entrusted to make the judgment when a structural engineering consultant is warranted. Typically the SE comes in for oversize foundations, greater than 2 story wood frame or post and beam timber, large masonry structures, steel frame etc. Effectively Architects should be engineering their own structures for 1 story commercial and 2 story frame houses, basically half the buildings in America. I produce at least 10 pages of structural calcs for a 4000SF house, no engineer required except when I have a funky valley rafter or steep roof in a high wind zone. I can save $10,000 (or more if the engineer drafts it ) on engineering fees on each house project. If you are an architect and cant engineer a 2 story home then your not really an architect.
I like that Good_Knight has a theory on how he/she would change it . I take it as, in summary, that schools are:
not teaching them what they need to know to be profitable
In his theory, (correct me if I'm wrong) it is that the architect does not know what the others do, about what it takes to make money, be profitable, and successful in practice. Too much time is spent on studio and artistic time in school and not enough on professional practice, as well as understanding the other trades and technical knowledge.
One could argue that an architect is the jack of all trades- that there is so much for an architect to learn in school that it is almost impossible to learn enough to be successful. Being an architect is hard, and that is just 'being an architect'- this does not include running a business which is half of the work- while we receive almost no education on it. And by the time you learn enough to be a great architect in practice, at the end of the day, the owner wont want to pay you enough to make up for all the time you've spent gathering up all this knowledge, which makes us unhappy and unrewarded.
A principal architect in a large corporate firm (200+) makes $120,000-$180,000/year (and even $250,000+/year for a founder or prominent academic contributor, like Bob Stern, Liz Diller, Thom Mayne, etc.) depending on their level of involvement in the firm's assets. Engineers do make good money out of school, and six-figures when they're mid-or-senior level, but you'll find similar numbes when you ascend the hierarchy in architecture, 10-20, and 30+ years down the road. Of course, these wealthy or successful architects form a small percentage of our industry, but I see this as a point to self-motivate yourself enough to not stop until you join them.
"Engineers typically have a higher average wage. [...] They perform linear tasks as per their last similar project unless directed otherwise..."
^It's really easy to get pidgeon-holed, which is sometimes seen as a bad thing even if you enjoy the role. I only personally know entry-level engineers at the moment, but I can tell you that none of them are working on anything exciting, not to me and not to them. To a lot of us, an engineer's work is only exciting if they're doing something centered on innovation, not MEP shaft placement and beam reduction (although this tremendously helps bring a project to fruition because they often find the most efficient and economic means of material usage). This statement is said knowing that many architects work on boring projects too and get pidgeon-holed into designing strip malls, but I resent their values equally as much.
I'm not sure if an engineer points at the windows on a high-rise condo tower while walking on the sidewalk with their family, and says "see son, behind those windows are condos for other families to live in, and I was responsible for placing the heating vents in all of them", but I am sure an architect points at the same building with a much more rewarding and collective sense of pride for the work done. I've said this before, but this is the priceless reward to our careers and helps justify our lost potential of financial gain.
Reminds me of the friend I mentioned a few weeks ago who works for Goldman Sachs in NYC, and makes twice as much money as me but has half the mental stimulation/fulfillment at work. The engineers I know are the same way, but they make 2/3 of his salary.
Making money is only important if you don't make enough to live comfortably. It's well-known by economists that the lifestyle difference between a $75,000 and $120,000 salary is seemingly nonexistent (although I would like the raise!). Once you make enough to live comfortably, you don't need to worry about money. At the very least, licensed architects make enough to live comfortably.
sadly and pathetically these days arch grads can talk a whole lot of theoretical mumbo jumbo feel good warm and fuzzy BS...but no they couldn't structure and add up a monthly budget to account for their $10 starbucks coffee if their lives depended on it. Or schedule a haircut 2 days in advance and show up on time or even maybe a little early.
"These days"? ...you just described both of my previous 50-60 year old bosses.
I'm not sure if an engineer points at the windows on a high-rise condo tower while walking on the sidewalk with their family, and says "see son, behind those windows are condos for other families to live in, and I was responsible for placing the heating vents in all of them", but I am sure an architect points at the same building with a much more rewarding and collective sense of pride for the work done. I've said this before, but this is the priceless reward to our careers and helps justify our lost potential of financial gain.
Reminds me of the friend I mentioned a few weeks ago who works for Goldman Sachs in NYC, and makes twice as much money as me but has half the mental stimulation/fulfillment at work. The engineers I know are the same way, but they make 2/3 of his salary.
Making money is only important if you don't make enough to live comfortably. It's well-known by economists that the lifestyle difference between a $75,000 and $120,000 salary is seemingly nonexistent (although I would like the raise!). Once you make enough to live comfortably, you don't need to worry about money. At the very least, licensed architects make enough to live comfortably.
Keep selling yourself the BS. How long will you keep buying it though? Very rarely does the feel good warm and fuzzy rhetoric numb the reality beyond about 5 or so years.
Don't worry... pretty soon google will allow us to instantly design cities and manufacture them... buildings will become computers and we'll all be irrelevant... Im going skiing tomorrow!
https://flux.io/about/
Stockholm syndrome runs deep in the culture of architecture...it's the best way to reason with yourself and the horror of realizing that you're stuck in a crappy career.
ok... starting engineering graduates with a BS degree do make more than architecture graduates; but once you're licensed it's not that far different (I make more than many of my classmates from engineering school, albeit in a major city - many of my peers are in StL).
Engineering is moving to make the MS the first professional degree and not allow BS to be the first step as it does not cover enough to realistically expect them to get through a PE exam.
An area many engineers can find less work / more profit is by doing repetitive work. Structural, civil, hydraulic, there's not a whole lot of reinventing the wheel, both for liability but also the lack of need - when there is, they work harder and generally longer (with premium in costs). If you look at architects that do the same building or variations on the same over and over, chances are they're reusing details, etc that helps with similar efficiency and their work hours reflect that.
The academic programs in architecture often encourage trying to be 'creative' and rethinking every single little thing (north arrows, graphic scales and table layouts? they don't need to be different for each project...) over learning the full scope of work - though I will argue some of that is on the students as the course credit distribution is not reflected on students hours. Accredited engineering programs have courses in law, surveying (less and less so), economics and the graduates can plug into everyday work based on what they were taught, i.e. they are doing billable work at their billing rate.
One way to look at it is to find mentors that are at the income levels above you and learn what you need to know to make that jump - repeat and you'll move up the income ladder quickly. Also learn to assess a firm's profitability. Cool trendy magazine projects may not be the most revenue-friendly work. There is a balance to be played.
Stockholm syndrome runs deep in the culture of architecture...it's the best way to reason with yourself and the horror of realizing that you're stuck in a crappy career.
don't know what happened to detwan, but his exp. is definitely not typical for the profession. I made his salary for about 2 years, and have progressed pretty much in line with the published AIA compensation report .
i'd try to stop comparing the appearance of money with other's, it will only lead to a lifetime of unhappiness as there is always someone with "more." You never know who's leasing their cars, renting their homes, debt up to their eyeballs, no 401k, etc.
I was making 35k with basic benefits, at 24. I am now with a commercial contractor making 60k with excellent benefits including dental, 401k, and company stock one year later at age 25.
I will say one thing, my bosses were JERKS. Their business goals were to make employees work as much as possible, while paying as little as possible. They didn't fulfill promises on raises and made my life hell. 3 people quit within 6 months, I was the third. I thought it was just me, but after moving on I truly realize what a positive work environment is, and I've been told that most architects work in a similar environment to what I experienced. They finally wanted to give me a raise when I put in my two weeks and I told them to go shove it.
Making 48k (in Portland Oregon. Goes a lot farther than in NYC) with full benefits (Medical/Dental/Vision/Life, 401k match, PTO etc. etc.). 18 months out of grad school. I'll be 30 in a month. I'm about a year away from my license, at which point I should enjoy another healthy raise.
I'm making 20% more than I was a year ago and about 50% more than my first post-recession gig ($15/hr.. ugh). Times are good. For me at least.
Why do most Engineers make more CA$H than Architects?
This has always baffled me.
When I worked and an arch firm, I worked my a$$ off 6 days a week for 10-12 hours a day (at least) and made such a low salary. Our structural engineer would stop by our office, after grabbing lunch out somewhere, in his brand new F-150 clean as a whistle and take off his ray bans and talk about all the great projects he was working on. I always wondered why, when we were the ones handling all coordination between owners and engineers, working crazy hours, and our drawings were two times as many pages, how it worked out that we were clearly the lowest paid in the group of consultants.
Has anyone else experienced this? Maybe I was just in a bad situation, and my bosses were jerks, but it forced me out of the industry and into working for a contractor, which I do enjoy very much (I wasn't ultra creative - and always found interests in drafting and construction details/ admin more)
In St. Louis, Missouri, architects out of school make about 30-35k and I really haven't heard of anyone making much more than that fresh out (I graduated peak recession too) and engineers also don't require an expensive masters' degree- and they should.
What gives?
because they run 10 projects when the architects are busy running only 1, they don't decide what to do, they just tell you how.
architects run 1? I run 3-4 projects at a time. Engineers scope of work is much less than architects. Thats why they handle 10 projects
Engineers typically have a higher average wage. They are worker bees who don't carry the ego and self-entitlement that most M.Arch grads do. They perform linear tasks as per their last similar project unless directed otherwise... and even then, might not.
Like JLC says, they run dozens of projects at once because they don't have to think much or deal with clients. Efficiency equals less time spent on project and justifies higher wages for the good ones.
Also, 30K/year? Dude... you need to get out more.
Because while you pick out colors and cloth swatches, they are in charge of figuring out how the structure will stay up.
You basically chose a career that is pretty much non existent any more. The most important part is realizing that architecture sucks, and that there are may other ways to make more money and still be creative and have a passion in whatever you do. It is also good that you realized this sooner than later. I spent 8 years chasing a white rabbit in architecture (trying making more than $42,000 a year before taxed) only to realize that every employer was a joke and full of hot air. Trust me, you'll hear everything from in 6months-1year we'll do an assessment review; it all depends on how hard you work and your bonus at the end of the year; or, I don't even pay anyone $3k a month....
The great part is that there is always some silly tard that is just as naïve as the next to take your low paying, stress filled days, making love to a computer, losser drafter lifestyle, because being an 'architect' is magnanimous!!!!!
I think the best thing to do is assess the ppl you work with ( other employees, and even the bosses), and ask yourself; are those ppl happy? Do I want to do what that person does? Are the people around me happy? Do they have the life you want to live?
Most ppl are locked into architecture bc of the investment of time and money just to get a degree, the notion that they cant get over themselves for going into such a shitty occupation yet they are so so smart and creative, and that no other career fields outside of the building industry sees how a background in architecture translate to a different field.
Non Sequitur, yeah 35k is what I made. St. Louis was hit hard in the construction sector during the recession, there were literally 0 jobs and everyone was laid off. Also, the cost of living here is pretty low. $250k can buy you a 2000SF home here, while my brother in DC paid $450k for a 1200SF home in a not so great area for an old house that needed a lot of work, so its all relative.
But this is my home, and always will be.
I make about double that now, working for a contractor. And my skills learned at the arch firm have clearly put me in a better position and greater understanding of building design and construction than most of the other young(er) people here.
Responses all make sense you guys, but I feel it shouldn't be this way, Architects should make MORE money than these worker bees. What can be done to change this? Dont you guys want to earn more? I dont care for being stupid rich, but I would like a nice home, and to send my kids to good schools.
I think the best thing to do is assess the ppl you work with ( other employees, and even the bosses), and ask yourself; are those ppl happy? Do I want to do what that person does? Are the people around me happy? Do they have the life you want to live?
DeTwan, this is so true! It's exactly what I realized. I couldn't understand why my bosses were so angry all the time. They were unhappy everyday. I also contracted an older (laid off) architect once for a side project that was always running his mouth about his divorce and how his ex married a rich guy now and his kids don't like being in his shitty apartment and all this super depressing stuff.
I feel bad for some architects and think they deserve so much more, being passionate and working so hard for something you care about, it doesn't pay off sometimes it seems, not cool at all.
because they know technical shit you don't.
engineers also don't require an expensive masters' degree- and they should
This is a small part of the OP, but I'm curious. Why should engineering require an expensive masters degree? I'm not convinced architecture requires a masters degree either.
I count myself as lucky - I work in place where people around me are generally happy, though we drink and complain a bit. We do solid, well thought-out work that takes 40 hours / week to produce. Our clients are (for the most part) very good to work with. And I feel fairly compensated for a job where I don't have to carry heavy stuff or am bent over an assembly line for a full shift. Architecture has been very rewarding for me, both personally and financially, and I would rather trade efficiency and a higher salary for being able to spend time thinking about what I am doing. Please don't take this post the wrong way, but there is so much negativity about the profession on this site I feel like I have to make a counterpoint.
Engineer probably leased that truck anyway...
engineers also don't require an expensive masters' degree- and they should
One of the principal structural engineers on the Golden Gate bridge taught structures at the collegiate level and wrote the definitive structural engineering textbook of the day without an engineering degree. I think they finally gave him one for appearance's sake.
because they make buildings stand, we make them beautiful.. "safety" is a stronger value than "beauty"
haha when there is a moisture leakage in the building, we'll see how much safety concern that is.
Andrew.Circle,
I'm not convinced architecture requires a masters degree either.
One could argue that, and I'm sure its been done . My thoughts were just that engineers and architects should be required at least the same amount of education, and it seems reversed that an engineer makes more money when an architect needs a masters and therefore needs more money to pay for that additional education...
I'm glad you've found happiness in the profession. I knew there had to be someone out there getting paid what they should (which I believe leads to happy employees). Judging by all the negativity of the profession on the site probably indicates that most Architects feel uncompensated for their efforts like I did. If I worked where you did, Andrew, I would most likely have stayed in the profession.
My new office has the BEST people and everyone is happy all the time. It was life changing for me.
consultants only design the project one time ideally and if they have to do it again they charge for extra services -
In addition - architects start many projects that are speculative that die before they even have a chance to get started - where as, engineers usually only get hired if it is a sure thing, and if not, they still get payed for their work 9 out of 10 times.
I wonder what it is that makes Andrew.Circles firm great, and able to compensate employees generously. Is it a small or large firm? What business practices lead to this success? I think there's something to be learned from Andrew's firm. BUT WHAT IS IT??
I said fairly compensated, not generously...don't get crazy here. I probably make less than the engineers I work with, but my point was I'm ok with that. It is a reasonable trade-off to me to not have to pump out 10 projects for every one.
I am willing to bet there are a number of architects, some even on this website, who have similar experiences in architecture. It just doesn't make for a great story or really push forum discussions along I guess, or maybe there is concern that if you say that you have a reasonably good job it will come off as gloating or something.
I don't think the firm I work for is doing anything crazy innovative as far as business practices.
There are many factors that are in play when it comes to the quality of life you will have over the course of your architectural career. Whom you are as a person and the drive you bring to life, how much & long you have worked in the industry, whom you know, where you live, what your expectations are, etc.
I think it is fair to say that with the standardized building methods that have been developed and implemented over the last 100 years architects have taken quite the back seat in the relativity of importance when it comes to building a structure this day and age.
Then you factor in the number of recessions that have affected the industry over the past 15 years, 2008 being a game changer in 'professional mobility', meaning the ability to move up a 'ladder', and lowering of the glass ceiling.
Then you couple that with 15 years of educational institutions making a killing by romanticizing the industry with all the willy nilly design crap, but no real world application. Then in the past 8 years all the universities going to Masters only programs (hence the idea that a masters is needed, bc that is all that is 'sold' now).
In the end you have a bunch of white collar kids graduating in one of the deadest eras of architecture, whom where sold a mirage of an idea of what the architecture industry really entails. Sadly, if you have half a brain, you realize that any firm or architecture studio is just a few ppl at the top, with a slew of CAD/BIM slaves working for chump change; you are perhaps less marketable with a license bc employers will think you want more money & and you become a threat to current and potential clients; and that if you don't have a fat portfolio of built work and super competitive rates you will never be able to attract potential clients and go out on your own.
It's a hard industry to be happy in once you realize those factors. Money usually help in that case. Alcohol helps too in the short term. I guess you either make it, bend in the wind, or break. Everyone's different, but I definitely don't see architecture become a "better industry" any time soon.
Oh, and it's smarter to lease a car, you don't have to pay personal property tax on it...perhaps engineers do deserve more compensation?
Asked that to an engineer once, he said “Because nobody can figure out how to do what we do and everybody has good taste”.
it takes more smarts to engineer a building than to design one -
With respect to the school issue, undergraduate federal loans are capped, graduate loans are not. Students are being taken advantage of by the universities first, followed by the NCARB.
Detwan said,
The great part is that there is always some silly tard that is just as naïve as the next to take your low paying, stress filled days, making love to a computer, losser drafter lifestyle, because being an 'architect' is magnanimous!!!!!
Best assessment I've read in a long time.
Damn knew I should of taken that engineer job.
Cambino said,
Architects should make MORE money than these worker bees. What can be done to change this?
-make the schools professional again. Kick out all unlicensed professors who have not completed IDP and practiced professionally. Immediately.
-make the admissions standards to architecture programs exceedingly rigorous again. Advanced Calculus. Engineering up the butt. Especially structural engineering. Take the Construction Management curriculum back from the CM schools and re insert it into the prof arch programs
-make the arch school programs get rid of the 70 hour a week commitment to 'design' studio (mental masturbation). Pare it down to less than 12 hours/ week. Take the remaining hours left over and commit them to actual professional practice activities needed and relevant in the marketplace. Drafting, putting a set of design documents culminating in CDs together. How to do CA. How to do business and money management. Cost Estimating. Scheduling projects and project management. How to do business development/ marketing. How to interface with clients, contractors and give public presentation skills (esp important is to stop traumatizing arch students in terms of their negative associations with public presentations and fear...make learning public speaking and presentation skills a positive learning experience!)
-create an Architect in Training situation similar to what engineers have done with the E.I.T. Engineer in Training situation. That is make the A.R.E. more difficult and make the current A.R.E. the A.I.T. exam.
-make the AIA and NCARB separate the drafters from the architects. Their IDP program takes far too long (on average 8-10 years) to complete. Yes technically they say you can get done in 2-3 years but everyone marinated in the profession for 20+ years knows the vast majority of arch school grads who remain in architecture, finish the IDP and ARE are not done in 2-3. Its more like 8-10+! This is an outrage in and of itself. During the 8-10 years the true architects are wasting their potential to benefit the profession and the public with their innovative ideas. Their potential instead goes to fighting with the hordes of moronic ITT tech drafters with monumental sized egos which their pea brains will perpetually render unsupportable in mere production roles. Architects have been expected to trudge their way through the factory lines of the factory floor pumping out thought widgets alongside drafters. For 10+ years! This is an outrage and very inefficient. Let the drafters be drafters and the architects be architects! Both sides are miserable trying to be something they are not and never will be. As I've stated before the present situation is like as if in the medical profession the nurses aides were to be fighting with the doctors to fulfill the doctors roles. Or if in law the clerks were trying to fulfill the lawyers and law makers roles. You can't fix stupid. Need to get stupid out of the way so the architects can start practicing their innovative, profitable, leverag-able ideas again.
-To the point above: make the AIA require AIA members to use contracts when hiring arch school grads who have passed the A.I.T. exam MENTOR them. Make a true commitment to true MENTORING part of the AIA code of ethics. And make it point #1! STOP HIRING THE DRAFTERS to fulfill the role of architect and vice versa.
Without these changes (and more!) the crabs in a bucket phenomenon will continue in perpetuity.
I spent 7 months as a BIM Wit at a structural engineering firm - they do all these calculations to determine loading, moments, flexure, deflections and interactions - serious math, finite element analysis - Tekla, Robobat, Etabs etc - and take responsibility for the buildings structure - esp on siesmic
can you do that?
“Because nobody can figure out how to do what we do and everybody has good taste."
just finished up a project where we were the cad/sketchup monkeys. design was done by a fashion designer because he has, to quote a senior person on the project "good taste."
also, that engineer is pretty arrogant to say that all we do is make pretty stuff. i wonder if people were actually educated at a general level about architecture, city planning, landscaping, urban design as part of high school or college general education would professionals be financially valued more for what they do?
Xenakis said
I spent 7 months as a BIM Wit at a structural engineering firm - they do all these calculations to determine loading, moments, flexure, deflections and interactions - serious math, finite element analysis - Tekla, Robobat, Etabs etc - and take responsibility for the buildings structure - esp on siesmic
can you do that?
sadly and pathetically these days arch grads can talk a whole lot of theoretical mumbo jumbo feel good warm and fuzzy BS...but no they couldn't structure and add up a monthly budget to account for their $10 starbucks coffee if their lives depended on it. Or schedule a haircut 2 days in advance and show up on time or even maybe a little early. The schools are expressly at fault for not filtering in the right folks and in fact filtering out the right folks, and then those that are filtered in not teaching them what they need to know to be profitable (see my post above)
Most artists these days = fools and court jesters providing meaningless entertainment who are penniless beggars.
Engineers and Construction Managers = in tune with cost and schedule and design variables and therefore profitable in their decision making.
Xenakis, i think the bigger picture is that they need something to engineer. would you ever trust a structural engineer to do the work of an architect? a colleague of mine once mentioned how architects leave school and barely know how to do structural analysis on a wood framed house. which echoes good_knight's points.
^ the engineer was referring to what the public thinks...everybody is an expert when it comes to architecture because - "I know what I like" is king and everybody has graduated from Home Depot University.
no_form said
also, that engineer is pretty arrogant to say that all we do is make pretty stuff. i wonder if people were actually educated at a general level about architecture, city planning, landscaping, urban design as part of high school or college general education would professionals be financially valued more for what they do?
Yes perhaps, but think about this:
what is the AIA doing to the public perception and education regarding what the architect actually does which might be of value to the public?
Its pretty obvious, just by flipping through that latest monthly issue of Record, that the AIA is actively and intentionally promoting the magazine (porn) architecture and architects to the exclusion of "actually educat[ing the public] at a general level about architecture, city planning, landscaping, urban design..." and the tangible value architects bring to the table.
Currently the AIA is a scam to recruit as many artistically minded (i.e. wishful thinking idealists) drafters to the bottom ranks of the profession to use them like cannon fodder for a few years until they run out of steam and wake up and realize they can't achieve anything more than indentured servitude financially speaking as a drafter. The AIA runs the profession like Hollywood and its attraction of hordes of starving waitresses to tinseltown with dreams of being the next big thing. For every 1 who makes it there are 999 hundred thousand who don't. This is an abomination for a profession like architecture where the value the 99.9% bring to the table is being leveraged to the benefit of the 1%.
why was great Da Vinci really interested in art, but little in architecture or building design? maybe he figured out that mechanics are the engines toward the future.. not "buildings design or structures".. buildings were being built the same way (more or less) throughout history... does designing a building saves a life? or even improve a life, or we're just making up "life problems" to solve it by our unique designs to later call ourselves problem solvers?
Xenakis said
I spent 7 months as a BIM Wit at a structural engineering firm - they do all these calculations to determine loading, moments, flexure, deflections and interactions - serious math, finite element analysis - Tekla, Robobat, Etabs etc - and take responsibility for the buildings structure - esp on siesmic
can you do that? Yeah I can to a certain level, .....when I was mentored by a structural engineer.......ahh now I understand.
Carrera said
the engineer was referring to what the public thinks...everybody is an expert when it comes to architecture because - "I know what I like" is king and everybody has graduated from Home Depot University.
Yes. The "everyone is an expert in everything" is a huge, almost invisible aspect of the problem with the profitability of the profession as it inhabits the zeitgeist as an ephemeral, intangible fact girding up the present pathetic paradigm, factor.
Experts are experts because they are the exception to the general rule.
Joe Everyman shoots himself in the foot everytime he allows his overinflated ego to convince him he is Leonardo Davinci and Tim the Toolman all rolled into one.
This present popular culture is poisonous indeed.
Volunteer said
With respect to the school issue, undergraduate federal loans are capped, graduate loans are not. Students are being taken advantage of by the universities first, followed by the NCARB.
Yes.
Sadly missing from this discussion is a licensed Architect in most states IS a structural engineer and is allowed to engineer a building. The architect is entrusted to make the judgment when a structural engineering consultant is warranted. Typically the SE comes in for oversize foundations, greater than 2 story wood frame or post and beam timber, large masonry structures, steel frame etc. Effectively Architects should be engineering their own structures for 1 story commercial and 2 story frame houses, basically half the buildings in America. I produce at least 10 pages of structural calcs for a 4000SF house, no engineer required except when I have a funky valley rafter or steep roof in a high wind zone. I can save $10,000 (or more if the engineer drafts it ) on engineering fees on each house project. If you are an architect and cant engineer a 2 story home then your not really an architect.
I like that Good_Knight has a theory on how he/she would change it . I take it as, in summary, that schools are:
not teaching them what they need to know to be profitable
In his theory, (correct me if I'm wrong) it is that the architect does not know what the others do, about what it takes to make money, be profitable, and successful in practice. Too much time is spent on studio and artistic time in school and not enough on professional practice, as well as understanding the other trades and technical knowledge.
One could argue that an architect is the jack of all trades- that there is so much for an architect to learn in school that it is almost impossible to learn enough to be successful. Being an architect is hard, and that is just 'being an architect'- this does not include running a business which is half of the work- while we receive almost no education on it. And by the time you learn enough to be a great architect in practice, at the end of the day, the owner wont want to pay you enough to make up for all the time you've spent gathering up all this knowledge, which makes us unhappy and unrewarded.
A principal architect in a large corporate firm (200+) makes $120,000-$180,000/year (and even $250,000+/year for a founder or prominent academic contributor, like Bob Stern, Liz Diller, Thom Mayne, etc.) depending on their level of involvement in the firm's assets. Engineers do make good money out of school, and six-figures when they're mid-or-senior level, but you'll find similar numbes when you ascend the hierarchy in architecture, 10-20, and 30+ years down the road. Of course, these wealthy or successful architects form a small percentage of our industry, but I see this as a point to self-motivate yourself enough to not stop until you join them.
"Engineers typically have a higher average wage. [...] They perform linear tasks as per their last similar project unless directed otherwise..."
^It's really easy to get pidgeon-holed, which is sometimes seen as a bad thing even if you enjoy the role. I only personally know entry-level engineers at the moment, but I can tell you that none of them are working on anything exciting, not to me and not to them. To a lot of us, an engineer's work is only exciting if they're doing something centered on innovation, not MEP shaft placement and beam reduction (although this tremendously helps bring a project to fruition because they often find the most efficient and economic means of material usage). This statement is said knowing that many architects work on boring projects too and get pidgeon-holed into designing strip malls, but I resent their values equally as much.
I'm not sure if an engineer points at the windows on a high-rise condo tower while walking on the sidewalk with their family, and says "see son, behind those windows are condos for other families to live in, and I was responsible for placing the heating vents in all of them", but I am sure an architect points at the same building with a much more rewarding and collective sense of pride for the work done. I've said this before, but this is the priceless reward to our careers and helps justify our lost potential of financial gain.
Reminds me of the friend I mentioned a few weeks ago who works for Goldman Sachs in NYC, and makes twice as much money as me but has half the mental stimulation/fulfillment at work. The engineers I know are the same way, but they make 2/3 of his salary.
Making money is only important if you don't make enough to live comfortably. It's well-known by economists that the lifestyle difference between a $75,000 and $120,000 salary is seemingly nonexistent (although I would like the raise!). Once you make enough to live comfortably, you don't need to worry about money. At the very least, licensed architects make enough to live comfortably.
sadly and pathetically these days arch grads can talk a whole lot of theoretical mumbo jumbo feel good warm and fuzzy BS...but no they couldn't structure and add up a monthly budget to account for their $10 starbucks coffee if their lives depended on it. Or schedule a haircut 2 days in advance and show up on time or even maybe a little early.
"These days"? ...you just described both of my previous 50-60 year old bosses.
Engineers I know love their jobs, like absolutely love it.
Most architects I know outside of this forum also love their jobs.
Cambino,
Yes to your summary
BR.TN said
I'm not sure if an engineer points at the windows on a high-rise condo tower while walking on the sidewalk with their family, and says "see son, behind those windows are condos for other families to live in, and I was responsible for placing the heating vents in all of them", but I am sure an architect points at the same building with a much more rewarding and collective sense of pride for the work done. I've said this before, but this is the priceless reward to our careers and helps justify our lost potential of financial gain.
Reminds me of the friend I mentioned a few weeks ago who works for Goldman Sachs in NYC, and makes twice as much money as me but has half the mental stimulation/fulfillment at work. The engineers I know are the same way, but they make 2/3 of his salary.
Making money is only important if you don't make enough to live comfortably. It's well-known by economists that the lifestyle difference between a $75,000 and $120,000 salary is seemingly nonexistent (although I would like the raise!). Once you make enough to live comfortably, you don't need to worry about money. At the very least, licensed architects make enough to live comfortably.
Keep selling yourself the BS. How long will you keep buying it though? Very rarely does the feel good warm and fuzzy rhetoric numb the reality beyond about 5 or so years.
Don't worry... pretty soon google will allow us to instantly design cities and manufacture them... buildings will become computers and we'll all be irrelevant... Im going skiing tomorrow! https://flux.io/about/
Stockholm syndrome runs deep in the culture of architecture...it's the best way to reason with yourself and the horror of realizing that you're stuck in a crappy career.
ok... starting engineering graduates with a BS degree do make more than architecture graduates; but once you're licensed it's not that far different (I make more than many of my classmates from engineering school, albeit in a major city - many of my peers are in StL).
Engineering is moving to make the MS the first professional degree and not allow BS to be the first step as it does not cover enough to realistically expect them to get through a PE exam.
An area many engineers can find less work / more profit is by doing repetitive work. Structural, civil, hydraulic, there's not a whole lot of reinventing the wheel, both for liability but also the lack of need - when there is, they work harder and generally longer (with premium in costs). If you look at architects that do the same building or variations on the same over and over, chances are they're reusing details, etc that helps with similar efficiency and their work hours reflect that.
The academic programs in architecture often encourage trying to be 'creative' and rethinking every single little thing (north arrows, graphic scales and table layouts? they don't need to be different for each project...) over learning the full scope of work - though I will argue some of that is on the students as the course credit distribution is not reflected on students hours. Accredited engineering programs have courses in law, surveying (less and less so), economics and the graduates can plug into everyday work based on what they were taught, i.e. they are doing billable work at their billing rate.
One way to look at it is to find mentors that are at the income levels above you and learn what you need to know to make that jump - repeat and you'll move up the income ladder quickly. Also learn to assess a firm's profitability. Cool trendy magazine projects may not be the most revenue-friendly work. There is a balance to be played.
DeTwan said
Stockholm syndrome runs deep in the culture of architecture...it's the best way to reason with yourself and the horror of realizing that you're stuck in a crappy career.
Yes.
^ 3tk Yes.
don't know what happened to detwan, but his exp. is definitely not typical for the profession. I made his salary for about 2 years, and have progressed pretty much in line with the published AIA compensation report .
i'd try to stop comparing the appearance of money with other's, it will only lead to a lifetime of unhappiness as there is always someone with "more." You never know who's leasing their cars, renting their homes, debt up to their eyeballs, no 401k, etc.
How much money are you guys making and how old are you? if anyone would be willing to share.
I was making 35k with basic benefits, at 24. I am now with a commercial contractor making 60k with excellent benefits including dental, 401k, and company stock one year later at age 25.
I will say one thing, my bosses were JERKS. Their business goals were to make employees work as much as possible, while paying as little as possible. They didn't fulfill promises on raises and made my life hell. 3 people quit within 6 months, I was the third. I thought it was just me, but after moving on I truly realize what a positive work environment is, and I've been told that most architects work in a similar environment to what I experienced. They finally wanted to give me a raise when I put in my two weeks and I told them to go shove it.
Making 48k (in Portland Oregon. Goes a lot farther than in NYC) with full benefits (Medical/Dental/Vision/Life, 401k match, PTO etc. etc.). 18 months out of grad school. I'll be 30 in a month. I'm about a year away from my license, at which point I should enjoy another healthy raise.
I'm making 20% more than I was a year ago and about 50% more than my first post-recession gig ($15/hr.. ugh). Times are good. For me at least.
I'm making 70K and I'm 23, quite like my job.
location archiwutm8?
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.