jjng:

As a structural engineer, you will often work as a consultant to the architect.  You will be designing structures, your expertise is in things like calculating the loads affecting things and then determining the size (strength) of material required to make something work.  This can be creative too, but you will likely be working for an architect (hired by them) if you are working on a building project where there is an architect who is designing the thing.  So you can be a consultant to an architect.  At the same time, for some projects there may not be an architect, and it is primarily designed by a civil or structural engineer... Things like infrastructure projects, things like bridges, etc. may be strictly engineering projects.  Anything where you might be required to modify the existing structure of a building might require a structural engineer... Like architecture offices, structural engineering firms can vary in size... There are some large offices that include many engineering disciplines, and then there are small one man shops, structural engineers working for themselves that architects can call on when they need structural consulting like sizing a steel element in their design etc.  There can be creativity in structural engineering but you will be more of a technical person usually, more the person called to calculate the size needed for something rather than the guy who is coming up with the big idea about how the thing goes together... You might do that too, but not always.  Regarding civil: you will be the expert on things like parking lots, drainage outside, slopes of things outside buildings... Civil engineers are the site experts, but not in the same way the landscape architect is... They are more focused on hard surfaces I think, but also the infrastructure that feeds to the building site, etc. So they would also often be a consultant for the architect... Landscape architects can sometimes do the same stuff, and more designers IMHO than the civil who tend to be more technical experts, it doesn't seem like quite the creative field...

Regarding architecture: all of this said, if your goal is to do something creative, or even if you think you are not that creative but want to be an expert in a technical field but one where every project you work on is about developing a design, working with the client, managing the project team (including all of your consultants - engineers including potentially mechanical, electrical, plumbing (MEP), structural, civil, landscape design, or whatever else - say kitchen consultants for a restaurant, or baggage or security consultants for an airport, or graphic designers, or lighting consultants, or audio visual consultants... On larger projects you might have alot of different people working on the team, but they are all basically hired by the architect traditionally, so they are part of the architect's design team.  The architect is usually the business entity hired directly by the owner traditionally and is the project manager and designer on the project, and all of the engineers are like sub consultants working for the owner through the architect.  So if you want to do project management, or if you want to do design, architecture is the most interesting field IMHO because the architect interfaces with all of these different disciplines, comes up with the big idea, and synthesizes it into the end product... The architect therefore needs to know something about all of these disciplines... You won't be such an expert, but you can design structures, you will know generally what you want something to do, you can come up with the detail and structural design concept, and get a structural engineer to make it work (size things), or you can work with them and get their advice... If you want something to look a certain way, usually the architect is the owner of aesthetic design concerns, and engineers don't typically care what things look like, they only care about making things work... (Not always the case, some engineers are more creative and care about aesthetic ideas too, others are very functional oriented)... On small projects, there may be no engineers on the design team.  The architect does the design, including possibly producing the design intent drawings for electrical layouts, lighting etc. and it is more of a "design build" for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing where the contractor's mechanical, electrical, and plumbing sub contractors will be the ones producing those engineering drawings.

Regarding construction: once things are in construction (after the architect and his team has finished the construction documents, and a contractor has been selected through the bid process, or other process), the general contractor takes over the show but they are bound by the design in the construction documents... This is the binding contract with the owner, and the architect and his team represent the owner... They do "construction administration", review submittals, answer RFI's (requests for information), basically questions from the contractor, etc. so the architect is involved during construction as well, going to the construction meetings, etc. and he may pull in engineers to specific meetings related to their piece of the work... Meetings with mechanical contractor may involve the mechancial and electrical engineers etc.

This basically is how the business of architecture works.  Design wise, architects can work in different ways: they can build models in 3D, do presentation drawings including big ideas, help the client with visioning what the project should be, or if the client has a very specific idea about program, it can be more executing on that program in a creative way... You don't have to be "artsy" to be an architect.  You can be a problem solver, and frankly, there are different kinds of firms and different kinds of architects out there... There are some architects who are more technical, focused on the details of design, others who are more focused on the conceptual but rarely get into the nitty gritty of construction...

Also, there are many different markets.  Different architecture firms do different kinds of work.  There are residential design firms that do primarily custom homes.  There are also firms that do residential but more multifamily like condo buildings and townhomes.  There is commercial office towers (core and shell of tall buildings or office buildings), corporate workplace (things like the HQ of a company, or other office spaces, instutional (some firms do mainly schools, or specialize in university buildings), law courts, hospitality (restaurants or hotels, etc. which can be quite fast but also sometimes very user experience oriented, cause thats what they are selling...), transportation (some architects focus primarily on a particular thing, like airport design for example), sports arenas (there are actually firms that have a speciality in sports facilities like stadiums etc...), health care (hospital projects... there are some pretty cool hospitals these days... facilities that lean more towards hospitality like a spa like experience vs. just functional spaces...)

As an architect, you can take more or less three different focuses (although some people do more than one): Basically: PROJECT DESIGNER ("PD"), PROJECT ARCHITECT ("PA"), and PROJECT MANAGER ("PM")... None of these is above any other in heirarchy... It's more about what their role is... Small projects you may be all of these things... But the "PD" types are the ones who focus strictly on design... Big ideas, what the thing should do, how it operates, the aesthetic rules, concepts, vision, and what that looks like... Client development of these design items... The "PA" types are the ones actually executing that design... They will be the ones going to meetings with consultants, coordinating the documents, working out details etc. and at construction they will be the ones doing CA, executing that thing with the contractor in the field... They will work on detail design, but usually defer to the PD for design decisions... The "PM"s are usually the keepers of the schedule, contract related items, and coordinate teams... They are the ones working mostly via emails and microsoft project and on the phone rather than actually putting their hands to paper or designing anything.  The PM role is an option as well, there are plenty of good designers who find they enjoy working as a project architect, the more technical aspects, or like the process of working as a project manager, and end up being more of a PM type architect... These are all different roles you can choose if you pursue a career in architecture, depending on the type of firm you work at... At a smaller firm doing smaller work, you will probably need to wear all three hats regularly - PD, PA, and PM...

Awesome post! :O

I'll add another take from the SE side- the path that I undertook with regard to that part of my career is far more traditional (and likely more valuable in answering your questions) than my path to architecture. Please excuse any typos or funky grammar- pecking away on my cell at a laundromat at the moment.

My career as a SE has been very different than what the above poster has described- mainly in that it hasn't focused exclusively on sizing structural elements or being a consultant to an architect. I currently work for for the architectural/ structural forensics arm of a national SE firm- I can't say which specifically as it is prohibited by company policy, but it is one of the following: WJE, SGH, Arup, or TT.

My firm gets called in after something goes wrong- ranging from a leak in a curtain wall to a recovery response after a major terrorist attack. The majority of our day-to-day work relies on knowing how buildings and building systems integrate with one another to the smallest detail.

Most of our designs are done on the fly with a very tight turnaround. For example, last week we were called in to investigate a cracking column in an apartment building- we spent the next week modeling what we saw in the field, and sent a report to the owner the following week that outlined our conclusions. Much shorter of a timeframe than you would see on a design project.

Some of the historic preservation work that I've done had been very exciting and require a very high degree of knowledge with respect to original architectural intent and historic construction methodology- particularly on some 400+ year old churches in Europe.

New design work that I have done is varied. I have sat and played the "excel jockey" and sized structural members, worked in the same capacity as a project architect, and designed smaller-scale projects in their entirety (thanks AE degree!).

As a SE consultant, I started out getting paid approximately $30/hr- after overtime and profit sharing/ bonuses, I made about $80k my first year. Benefits were great too.

My path to architecture is much different than most here. While I've been told that I am creative and have an eye for design, I simply could not work fast enough to make a living out of architecture. I have about as much academic studio experience as a BS Arch student would have, but got lucky professionally and worked under an architect for a long enough time to qualify for the broadly experienced path for licensure. All of my work as an architect is very small in nature and is entirely for friends and family gratis as a hobby.

If you aren't sure which way to go, I would suggest investigating an architectural engineering program- Penn State has the top rated, but Nebraska and Texas are good as well. I would be wary of others as they tend to be more construction management related. AE will expose you to all aspects of the industry- structural, mechanical, electrical, and construction engineering in addition to taking about 6 semesters worth of design studios (more via electives if you wish). This is a pretty good starting point if you want to pursue a masters in any other area.

One more point I want to reiterate: do not use civil and structural engineering interchangeably. SE tacitly requires a MS or PhD focusing specifically in SE in addition to a standard bachelors degree for most major firms (6-10yrs minimum). Civil engineers (4-5 yr degree) focus more on site and geotechnical work than most SEs would.

Thank you bRink and Token AE for your descriptive comments! they were really helpful. So is Architectural Engineering more like SE? I've done some research on that profession as well, and it is a little confusing, because I don't know where to classify it as engineering or architecture. I also hear that employers in the workforce get confused by the title of that degree as well, and it becomes hard to get hired because they want something specific like an SE.

So in order for me to pursue SE I would have to go back to obtain a Beng degree and then a masters? I just like the idea that I can go directly to a MArch program as opposed to starting completely over. Thanks for your help! I really appreciate your inputs!

I know when I looked into it some of the AE degree's are a 5 year BS+ Masters where you could get probably 2 years from your prior undergrad degree and finish the whole thing BS and MS arch engineering in like 3 years I think Lawrence tech in Michigan has a program like this among others. I'm doing an arch masters now I know my cousin just did a BS eng and signed a 60+ a year job offer right out of school so the ENG seems to have much better job prospects and you can make money quicker than in the arch field. 

Or u can try the fantastic dual degree @ UC Berkeley  M.arch/MS structural engineering... so U can be both !

Most SEs start as civil, and then specialize in structures for their masters/phd. Civil has content relating to transportation, water, environmental, construction, and structures.

AE drops the transportation, water, and environmental aspects of civil but adds in building mechanical (energy), building electrical, and architectural design. AE is more for people that know they want to design buildings, but aren't sure which angle they want to approach it from. The point is to give you a liberal technical education as it relates to buildings. The three programs that I mentioned require you to specialize in a subdiscipline later in your academic career.

I can assure you that nobody in the workforce at any major firm is going to be confused by what an AE is- perhaps in smaller or more specialized . You would normally qualify it along with your specialization- e.g. AE - Structural, AE - Mechanical, etc. Our career fair had all of the major firms in the AEC industry perennially: SOM, HOK, Smithgroup, Cannon, Gensler, Arup, Buro Happold, and so on. These may or may not appeal to you, depending on your tastes. AE is a great starting point, but I wanted to get my masters elsewhere.

If you want to go the MS - SE route, you won't need to go back to get a BS or BEng but you will have to take a lot of prerequisites. Most programs require that you have taken advanced steel design, advanced concrete design, matrix analysis for structures, strength of materials, and structural analysis I and II prior to starting the MS level courses.  Electives vary from seismic design to architectural studios. It will probably take two to three years to graduate with the degree after you begin.

If you aren't looking to be in school forever, I would rule out AE. Most programs tend to last 5 years for bachelors, another two for masters. Other than that- what's to stop you from applying to both MS - SE and MArch I?

interesting. I could apply to both, but I just feel like they are a little different routes. For example, I would need to create a great portfolio for MArch and also take pre-req courses for MS-SE. I was actually trying to find some post-bac programs in engineering that would lead me to the Master's degree in around 3 years. I only found the LEAP program at BU, but they don't have structural engineering. I realized that a lot of programs do have a foundation in civil and then specialty in structural. I went to UCSD and they actually offered a BS in SE, which was why I was wondering if I would need to go back entirely to obtain this type of degree. I'm hesitant to do MArch only because I am nervous about the career itself. Just like how you said you couldn't work fast enough to make a living.  Would you happen to know good programs for MS-SE? ones that maybe I can possibly transition into the master's, like post-bac?

You take the prerequisite courses as part of the degree. They don't hold it against you during the admissions process.

They make you take them when you get there with the understanding that you are extending the length of the program from 10 months-2 years to 2-3 years. The application process for MArch and MS Structural are identical with the exception of the Portfolio requirement for Arch.

Great. Thanks for the advice. I have been doing more research on programs, but I think what you say about MS in SE I will need to ask the admissions about, because it does seem odd that I can pursue that route with a Bachelors in Biology. It is also confusing about how I will be able to become licensed as a PE with little background and no ABET accreditation for Master's programs, as I have looked through the California (where I will ultimately be practicing) requirements. Are you a licensed PE by any chance?

I am, but not in CA. I am not familiar with CA's requirements- they tend to play by a very different set of rules.

I work with people that had english undergrad, SE masters that are PEs. I'm not sure how they did it, but it is evidently possible.

Please don't get my message confused- SE and Architecture each have their own very different rewards and are both worthwhile pursuits. It will come down to what you are most interested in- please don't pick one because it appears to be easier or more financially rewarding. The other thing to think about is that after 10-15 years in both fields, your role tends to gravitate towards one of professional service management (with the exception think tank firms).

Thank you for your great insights. Oh, please don't get me wrong. I am definitely not choosing a route for financial rewards or ease. I respect both fields, but I want to make sure what I go into now is what I will truly enjoy as a career, which is why I am struggling so much with deciding. I don't want to be in so much financial debt, which is why I am trying not to look into a path that will require many, many years of education/curriculum to achieve where I want to essentially be. That being said, I actually have decided that I want to pursue the structural engineering route. I'm just finding difficulty now in trying to find routes on how I might do that.

I am definitely looking at the bigger picture too. I actually anticipated that professional management, or a more business admin role as opposed to technical aspects might be in my later future in the profession. It is something that I want as well, but depending on how my future pans out, I will hope to plan that later on.

If it is possible, if you could maybe connect me to some of your coworkers who have pursued these unique routes so that I could seek some advice on how to go about it, I would very much appreciate it. But I understand if it's too imposing. I would actually like to talk to you outside of this forum because you seem to have a lot of insight that I would love to hear about as an inexperienced newly graduate. maybe we can get connected via email. Thanks again for your help. I really appreciate all the information and perspective you have given me

I found this data for California about becoming a PE without a BS in engineering it states that passage of a masters in engineering will allow 5 out of 6 years of qualifying experience for license regardless of what  the undergraduate education is in. see attached top of page 9.

http://www.pels.ca.gov/applicants/faq_eng.pdf

Thanks for the info shimmyshaw. that actually really clarifies a lot. question now is, which would be more beneficial, second ABET-accredited bachelors or non-ABET masters + more work experience?