Intern architects and even architects early in their career earn much much less than others with comparable education. A lot of interns with professional degrees make less than people who didn't even go to college (less than $25000 per year for some). The stress level can be insane for architects. Lawsuits, nasty contractors, incompetant engineers that you take the fall for, mistakes abound at every corner (unavoidable). It isn't all roses. As the song says, roses really smell like poo.

i would add to that by saying not just the amount of education but also a comparable number of years in their respective professions (ie an architect with 5 years of experience is most likely to earn a quarter to half of what an attorney with five years of experience).

i don't think it's possible the "somehow land in this field". it's pretty grueling in the academic arena since every spot is accounted for by an application into the professional school in both bachelor and master's programs.

i do agree however that every profession has it's downside and upside. the two biggest you're already mentioned (design and creation vs. monetary compensation). this falls under the "grass is always greener" adage.

in my personal view, i value creativity and design as a form of compensation. with that being said, i still have to be able to live and function in a normal capitalist society. i want my own definition of the American Dream.

i can see myself in any other profession, though i've thought about law quite often.

i wonder about this ratio, and wonder about pay relevant to standard of living, in other countries.

$60,000 ?? Where? I should apply there!

I don't think architecture is a bad profession. The only downside is studying for 9 years to become fully qualified (this is how long it took me in the UK) and then your pay is about the same as a secretary.

I think what gets me most is afer all this studying all the people I have to work with get paid more than we do - Project managers, bricklayers etc etc.

But saying that, I cannot see myself doing any other job. I do love architecture and I am therefore doing what I love.

But it would be nice to have slightly better recognition and better pay.

However we do have the added bonus of architecture being considered by others as the sexiest profession! On the downside everyone assumes architects earn a lot of money.

As someone who recently left architecture, I think the above points are pretty well founded. The reason I left, was because I wasn't able to CREATE. Part of that problem for me was the firm I was working for, but part of it is the nature of the profession in general.

It seems to me that other creative fields have a much shorter period of "internship" (let's call it) than other fields. I'm not talking about the time it takes to get licensed, but the time it takes to make a significant contribution to the design of a building. Most architects that get to design things are in the late 40's or 50's. For a lot of students (myself included) that seems like a really long time before you're going to get to do anything interesting, especially coming from an educational system where all you do is design work. (How many people worked for weeks straight on mundane details or construction documents in school?)

just my 2 cents

oh, just wanted to add..

I don't think it's unfair that it takes so long to be able to design a building, I'm pretty sure it's necessary.. It is frustratingly long and slow, that's all

pencrush, what type of job are you doing now that you've left architecture? have you found creative satisfaction in this field?

I work for a company that does exhibit booth design and point of purchase fixtures (retail display fixtures). I do have a lot more creative satisfaction in my job, but it's not perfect.

It's kind of like making disposable furniture or disposable architecture. Most of the things we build only get used for a few years and I don't really know what they do with them after that. That and I have to use a lot of p-lam for budget reasons.. which I'm not crazy about.

I find the downer attitudes of some kind of worrisome, too. Those folks nearly had me reconsidering whether this was worth it. I'm still not 100% sure it is, but it's that trade-off: go make money now and be bored shitless for the rest of my life, or stick it out in school for a little longer and do something creative that keeps you going even if the compensation isn't there. But I could see how one might be disillusioned if the creative aspect were stripped from you.

Anyhow, I still think architects carry a lot of prestige. As Mario Salvadori put it (circa 1980): "Architecture today is one of the most exciting and creative professions in the world and so complex that few become recognized as great architects at the end of their career. Artist and technician, leader of men and expert in the everchanging fields of finance and politics, the architect is perhaps the greatest humanist in our complex, and at times, chaotic societies."

You can do some amazing things as an architect. I think it's that potential that I find so meaningful in the profession.

"but also a comparable number of years in their respective professions (ie an architect with 5 years of experience is most likely to earn a quarter to half of what an attorney with five years of experience).

i wonder about this ratio, and wonder about pay relevant to standard of living, in other countries.
"

If this were true, it wouldn't be so bad. The highest salary I heard of when I graduated from UCLA was about $40+, or so. The starting salary for a UCLA grad as a lawyer was $130k. That's a lot more!! If I started making $65 I would never have changed careers.

I'd also like to add that people always talk about the creative side. It's not for everyone, there are only a few designers, at most, for every large project and there has to be a whole team of support/cad monkeys/managers/etc. to support it.

Pencrush - I am curious why you think you should wait to build? It's not rocket science. The problem is that, and this is my biggest gripe with architecture, there is no differentiation between 'good' designers and not good designers. Everyone pretty much enters the working world on a level playing field, with equal opportunities, and that is just not good for the long term. Architecture is the only profession I know like this.

trace:

I guess what I meant by "waiting to build" is that there are a lot of technical aspects of building that you only learn through experience. If you take someone freshly out of school and someone who has been working in an office for 10-15 years, chances are, the working person will know more about the process of construction and how buildings get built. ...not always, but most of the time.

Having said that, I don't think it's a good idea to take all interns and make them into exclusively cad monkey or code research. My biggest compaint is that young architects are generally given token design opportunities such as "hey, why don't you detail the handrail on this exit stair... ...see if you can come up with something interesting." That's a slight exaggeration, but most of us have had a similar experience. I think it would be an invaluable experience for young architects to be brought in at the earliest phases of design, have them come up with ideas and concepts and then get constructive criticism from the higher ups. I don't think that happens at enough firms.

who knows, maybe I've just had crappy work experience.

pencrush,

i am in that same boat right now. though i do get to add in my own 2 cents worth of design input on the extreme rare occasion, for the most part i am "the grunt". which isn't necessarily a bad thing. i am learning alot just by paying attention to those around me with more experience. as an intern, it is a matter of taking the bad with the good and having enough understanding of yourself to know how much you can and can't take. what is your "sell out" point?