Holz.Box. In my view ,people see 'what' you've worked on as more important than 'where' you've worked on.

nevermore-
the next step of that process
is it better to:
a. work on a mediocre project w/ a mediocre firm that pays well
b. work on a mediocre project w/ a stellar firm that probably doesn't pay as well.

alternatively:
a. work on a stellar project w/ a mediocre firm
b. work on a mediocre project w/ a stellar firm

i don't even know where i stand, i was just curious as to other's thoughts.

see dude, let me give u my perspective. ( of course I dont have a hell lot of experience -apprx 5 odd years after B.Arch, ) nevertheless ..heres what I feel

a) work on a mediocre project w/ a mediocre firm that pays well
Not happening...cos In the long run, you begin to creatively stagnate and start thinking with blinkers on.that will prove deleterious in the long run to your overall development.

b.) work on a mediocre project w/ a stellar firm that probably doesn't pay as well
Stay a bit for the experience ( you wont regret it )....the money part, they would start paying well eventually but even if they dont, then move on...which you could then do comfortably cos your resume is then armed.

a. work on a stellar project w/ a mediocre firm
Is that a flash in the pan thing for the mediocre firm, or a regular thing that they get stellar projects..if they get good projects on a regular basis then they cannot be classified as a 'mediocre' firm
..If you mean small firm, even thats not bad, but In a big office, you get to learn many things apart from architecture..most importantly, management and PR.

work on a mediocre project w/ a stellar firm
Not happening again...but like i said, in the previous point , you can still get a lot to learn (apart from architecture ) in a big firm .i.e if youve not relegated to the position of a CAD monkey.

very succintly, where you end up either temporarily or permanently I feel its just 3 things which you need and not necessarily in that order.

-*Luck,*hard work and
finally (very very important.)

*Its How you market yourself.Your abilities ,capabilities and talent.

Sadly for howsoever noble we may call our profession, there's still a lot of self-pimping to be done, wether you'r self-employed or not.

get in, get out, and start your own gig. it's a process i know, but think tortoise and hare. my thought is get through licensing, work for who will get you through it, and start your own gig. all the in between matters less when you break it down that way.

beta, very true, But its not easy to start your own show.
I know many who've gone and started their own show, but have collapsed ( due to various issues )and ended up being employed again. acc to them That really hurts the self-esteem.

would you wanna work for a firm which would discriminate in that way, anyways?

what about blueballing?

it makes the office feel like a cutting edge little avante-garde firm...

chuckle,chuckle....what the hell is a stellar project?

In teaching in a couple programs I sat on admissions committees some years, and I never saw any discrimination based on the firms at which an applicant has worked. This might conceivably impact the decision indirectly though, for example if the candidate's portfolio were heavy on fragmentary work that was the result of performing entry-level tasks as part of a large team on a big project. In other words those committees are usually looking for evidence of independent creative thought, so if valuable portfolio space is consumed by scupper details and door hardware schedules completed at a large firm then the candidate may be hurting himself.
But the job history itself is usually pretty inconsequential to the applicant's chances - unless of course the candidate worked for/with members of the faculty of the school to which they're applying! Even a candidate who spent years on scupper details at a "corporate" firm could have a great portfolio if it included other types of creative work.


Some firms can be a different story - some smaller firms do have the idea that a person who comes from a big-firm background will need substantial re-training and may never be happy without the more standardized procedures and systems that are more typical in larger firms. Sometimes this is based on experience with previous employees (and I've seen this at work myself.)

But a more fundamental reason that I've seen for small firms to skip over resumes from big-firm folks is simply that the smaller firms feel they can't compete with the salaries and benefits offered by the larger firms and that it's not worth wasting time on applicants with unrealistic expectations.
If you are trying to make a move from a larger firm to a smaller one and you're ok with the idea that this might be a lateral move at best - and could even mean a slightly lower salary for the same level position - and that it might not include some of the benefits you had in the larger firm (I missed things like a 401k, flexible spending account, dental and vision insurance, education benefits, partial health coverage for spouse and/or dependents, a systematic and official policy on comp time, etc. when I went to a tiny firm) - then you should be candid about that (to a degree. you don't want to sabotage your ability to negotiate.) Let the firm know upfront that you're committed to your choice to work in a smaller place (have some reasons why prepared too) and willing to negotiate to make that work, so they don't end up skipping over your application based on the mis-assumption that you expect the same or better financial package that would be average for a large firm in that region.