I got an email the other day from a UK London based recruitment agency, I'm not an architect, only a Graphic Designer whom might know what to do so I'll chime in with previous salaries compared to BoE inflation:
Sheppard Robson (2005-2008)
£23,500-£29,500 with a decent pension and bonus scheme BoE in 2024 = £40,391-£48,425
Zaha Hadid Architects (2014-2015)
£36,000 = £48,000
What's that wage in 2024? Architects get paid poorly as does anyone else involved.
When architecture schools start to create graduates that can plug-into technical roles right out of college, that is when salaries for junior positions can increase. I am all in-favor of salaries for senior positions (including overall fees) increasing, but this entitlement by juniors for high salaries is ridiculous.
what's yours? what do you mean by entitlement? how would you explain that to a young person starting in the profession and how would you try and justify paying poorly? SR paid well and respected everyone involved, shared profits and so on. I'm a Graphic Designer so I appreciate that apart from a degree I may have had more value than someone who went to architecture school in terms of salary.
Sep 28, 24 12:19 am ·
·
Hemichromis
How many projects and what have you built? Bulgar Bugle?
Sep 28, 24 12:30 am ·
·
luvu
@Hemich , you would get proper responses by asking this Q at thestudent room.co.uk . This forum is very American-centric. Though, from personal experience the architect salary in the UK is relatively low compared to ie Singapore , HK , The US. A systematic problem , to put it simply
.
Sep 28, 24 6:10 am ·
·
BulgarBlogger
My salary? 160k a year + bonuses and personal projects equating $250k. I’m 36 and have designed multiple highrises in NYC.
Hemichromis - simply put, the problem isn't to explain to the students other than, they should get their money back from these con jobbers that charged them an arm and a leg but didn't teach them the professional and technical skills they need for entering the profession. This is because the architecture school aren't teaching the professional degree as a profession. They don't provide adequate instructions in teaching the students the various knowledge and skills of needed. For example, they need to learn the tools used in the profession but they also need to learn how to use the tool in a manner as it would be in the profession and learn the associated knowledge of designing buildings, spatial planning, structural design, codes and regulations. All those things you need to know when you go into the profession working for a professional.
They don't have time to spend 40+ hours a week teaching you for 4-5 years while also having to do the real work for clients. They know you are a time waste so they can't charge you much because you are not much better after 5 years of college as someone fresh out of high school. They see someone who was bilked a lot of money by the biggest scam across the world for all these expensive degrees but not teaching you the things you need to know on day 1 upon employment. The schools think they employer should teach it but the employers don't have time to teach. They aren't running a school.
If someone is hired they should be ready to work with minimal degree of instruction. If I told you, go design a house, per these specifications, I expect you to know what to do. I expect you to know how to make drawings at each stage of a design process and the technical submissions. I expect you to know how to research the codes. I then can review your work at the various stages and redline and place notes for corrections or changes. Sometimes the client may have a change in mind and changed something. I expect you to be able to design at day 1. Architect employers wants people that are ready enough that they don't have to spend more time in instructing you than it would be to have done it himself or herself. You know, if an employee isn't increasing performance by them being employed and working, then its wasting time and money.
An employer would have to mitigate damage and impact by paying a doofus a lower rate.
Sep 28, 24 5:46 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
BulgarBlogger wrote:
"My salary? 160k a year + bonuses and personal projects equating $250k. I’m 36 and have designed multiple highrises in NYC."
Hemi, what’s your goal here? You’ve spammed about salary polls but don’t really offer much in return. So you’re an underpaid graphic designer complaining in a forum filled mostly with professionals architect. Sure, there are plenty of disgruntled and disillusioned students/fresh grads but most here are doing fine.
I make just over $100k a year in Grand Junction, CO. It may not seem like a lot however the cost of living here is way lower than Denver or NYC. I'd need to make 1.5 to 2.4x in those areas to make my money go as far.
Salary Survey
I got an email the other day from a UK London based recruitment agency, I'm not an architect, only a Graphic Designer whom might know what to do so I'll chime in with previous salaries compared to BoE inflation:
Sheppard Robson (2005-2008)
£23,500-£29,500 with a decent pension and bonus scheme BoE in 2024 = £40,391-£48,425
Zaha Hadid Architects (2014-2015)
£36,000 = £48,000
What's that wage in 2024? Architects get paid poorly as does anyone else involved.
It's not really working is it?
When architecture schools start to create graduates that can plug-into technical roles right out of college, that is when salaries for junior positions can increase. I am all in-favor of salaries for senior positions (including overall fees) increasing, but this entitlement by juniors for high salaries is ridiculous.
what's yours? what do you mean by entitlement? how would you explain that to a young person starting in the profession and how would you try and justify paying poorly? SR paid well and respected everyone involved, shared profits and so on. I'm a Graphic Designer so I appreciate that apart from a degree I may have had more value than someone who went to architecture school in terms of salary.
How many projects and what have you built? Bulgar Bugle?
@Hemich , you would get proper responses by asking this Q at thestudent room.co.uk . This forum is very American-centric. Though, from personal experience the architect salary in the UK is relatively low compared to ie Singapore , HK , The US. A systematic problem , to put it simply
.
My salary? 160k a year + bonuses and personal projects equating $250k. I’m 36 and have designed multiple highrises in NYC.
Hemichromis - simply put, the problem isn't to explain to the students other than, they should get their money back from these con jobbers that charged them an arm and a leg but didn't teach them the professional and technical skills they need for entering the profession. This is because the architecture school aren't teaching the professional degree as a profession. They don't provide adequate instructions in teaching the students the various knowledge and skills of needed. For example, they need to learn the tools used in the profession but they also need to learn how to use the tool in a manner as it would be in the profession and learn the associated knowledge of designing buildings, spatial planning, structural design, codes and regulations. All those things you need to know when you go into the profession working for a professional.
They don't have time to spend 40+ hours a week teaching you for 4-5 years while also having to do the real work for clients. They know you are a time waste so they can't charge you much because you are not much better after 5 years of college as someone fresh out of high school. They see someone who was bilked a lot of money by the biggest scam across the world for all these expensive degrees but not teaching you the things you need to know on day 1 upon employment. The schools think they employer should teach it but the employers don't have time to teach. They aren't running a school.
If someone is hired they should be ready to work with minimal degree of instruction. If I told you, go design a house, per these specifications, I expect you to know what to do. I expect you to know how to make drawings at each stage of a design process and the technical submissions. I expect you to know how to research the codes. I then can review your work at the various stages and redline and place notes for corrections or changes. Sometimes the client may have a change in mind and changed something. I expect you to be able to design at day 1. Architect employers wants people that are ready enough that they don't have to spend more time in instructing you than it would be to have done it himself or herself. You know, if an employee isn't increasing performance by them being employed and working, then its wasting time and money.
An employer would have to mitigate damage and impact by paying a doofus a lower rate.
BulgarBlogger wrote:
"My salary? 160k a year + bonuses and personal projects equating $250k. I’m 36 and have designed multiple highrises in NYC."
How many hours a week do you work?
Hemi, what’s your goal here? You’ve spammed about salary polls but don’t really offer much in return. So you’re an underpaid graphic designer complaining in a forum filled mostly with professionals architect. Sure, there are plenty of disgruntled and disillusioned students/fresh grads but most here are doing fine.
I make just over $100k a year in Grand Junction, CO. It may not seem like a lot however the cost of living here is way lower than Denver or NYC. I'd need to make 1.5 to 2.4x in those areas to make my money go as far.
I'm 46 years old. I work 40 hours a week.
You could look at this survey too:
https://salaries.archinect.com...
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.