I posted this information in another thread, but because it was somewhat off-topic there, I don't think it will receive much exposure. So, I'm starting a new thread to provide this data for those undecided about the importance of licensure.
For most of us, at a very personal level there's really only one meaningful argument to support licensure -- those who are licensed earn more money than those who are not licensed.
Per the 2008 AIA Compensation Survey, on a national basis, the average total annual compensation (including salary + OT pay + bonus) varies widely for mid-career professionals, depending on whether you're licensed or not, as follows:
$ 64,100: Architect I
$ 54,900: Unlicensed Architectural Staff 1
For the purposes of the survey, the only difference between the catgories in each pairing is the presence, or not, of an architectural license.
All other arguments aside - and irrespective of your views about when someone can be called an Architect - these compensation figures seem to me a totally compelling reason to complete the ARE as early as possible.
Once I earned my degree in architecture, I didn't really give a hoot-in-hell what somebody called me -- I did care about what I got paid.
I certainly agree with your argument, but it may be flawed. Will you employer pay you more once you become licensed? In most cases, the answer is NO. They may pay you a bonus but does your base salary increase?
The case for licensure is not money; it is because you want to be an architect and be in control of the design process.
I stand by the data and the argument ... I think it is meaningful that those who have the license demonstrate higher earnings potential at all mid-career stages.
It is true that compensation probably will not jump tremendously the day one obtains the license. But, having the license gives the individual both the opportunity and the ability to carry more responsibility -- I believe firms recognize this and generally, over time, those with licenses are able to boost their earnings capacity.
i think the key phrase of dr. arch's post is "because you want to be an architect." there are many m.arch graduates who do not necessarily want to be an architect, but are confronted with this question on a near daily basis. it becomes worse when you visit boards like archinect where the idea of not becoming an architect is inconceivable to many posters here.
i have many friends and colleagues who hold m.arch degrees, but are doing work tangential to the profession. frankly, i think individuals like these are becoming far more common and in many cases more in demand than your traditional licensed architect.
i don't think the issue is nearly as black and white as many here claim it is.
some have dual degrees, say an mba, mup, or mud. they are in positions at urban design firms or development firms where in my view holding the professional license would confuse their role without contributing much to their development in the company. others who are in academics do not need the license in their everyday work and are barely doing work that could be considered architecture in the traditional sense. similarly people doing 3d visualization, set design, or film production do not need to be licensed; albiet these fields are putting these individuals so far from their original course of studies that the question becomes less pressing.
I stand by the data and the argument ... I think it is meaningful that those who have the license demonstrate higher earnings potential at all mid-career stages.
I agree, but I do not think it is reality. From my colleagues, interns who become licensed do not see increases.
If you read this and are currently an architect, did your financial compensation increase as a result of your becoming licensed? Did your employer see value in your obtaining the license.
As a profession we do not celebrate licensure. The AIA does provide free convention registration to recently licensed architects (I think), but there is no ceremony, etc. like in law.
jafidler - I'm guessing that BlueGoose's thrust here is aimed more at those who work in more or less traditional firms and want to use the title of "architect" without having first passed the exam.
It seems to me that crowd does "want to be an architect" and this info. could (should) give them motivation to get on with the exam.
But, you are correct that there are many today who prefer to work on the periphery of the tradtional profession and this data probably is relatively meaningless to them.
I'd guess that compensation has more to do with responsibility and performance than licensure. No one I know got pay increases, but they are motivated and talented and paid well for their contributions.
BlueGoose - can you post more data on how those numbers were gathered or a link? The only data I can find is much different than what you posted. Just curious where those numbers came from.
Dr. A: very few individuals are significantly more valuable to their firm the day after passing the exam than the day before. I think the value of these numbers relates to what happens over time. Having the license changes the slope of the individual's career trajectory.
High schools graduates earn more during careers than do those who don't finish high school. College grads earn more during their careers than do high school graduates. Licensed architects earn more during their careers than do unlicensed grads.
I think licensure is important if you are running your own shop, and do not want to hire licensed architects, or pay someone to stamp your drawings.
It looks like the AIA compensation survey is gathered from Architecture firms and not those who, say do Urban design or Real Estate development (since those companies also hire architects). People in those roles make much more money than the numbers shown here. I have a 'friend' who does.
Trace, adding to your post, I think compensation depends on performance, but also on opportunities. Not everyone can get those kind of opportunities, they happen more by luck than by anything else.
These numbers bear out what I've seen in practice in LA, where responsibility (and the related compensation) increases only after licensure. In our firm, licensure is one of the minimum requirements that one must meet in order to advance to Project Architect or Project Designer level. Our jobs are too complicated to leave critical decisions to people that "just want to design" without investing the time to understand the implications their actions have on code compliance, liability, schedule and budget.
Apurimac, I obviously don't know anything about you or your competence. I'm just relaying my experience and addressing the fairly common (and I think misguided) conception on this board that somehow architecture is about design and not about servicing clients, providing constructable structures, or knowing what the walls are made out of. It's the same attitude that allows Rem to address sustainability with "We have a consultant for that". The question was about the validity of the salary poll posted that compared unlicensed and licensed individuals in similar roles in traditional practice. Not real estate guys, nor the owners of visualization firms who also happen to design condominiums.
In my view, good buildings come from highly trained people who understand the entire material, social and legal process of building space. There are of course folks that can do this and don't pursue licensure, but it is a small minority AND, more than that, one that I think hobbles their own potential within the field.
no you don't have to be licensed to understand, but it acts as proxi for an interview every time a client has a question. really should anyone have to go their architect and ask," like do you really understand this shit or what? "
a license covers that query. if you think you understand and you don't then you are held accountable. because you would be part of a profession where consequences are spelled out. if you are a 'designer' then there are no consequences when you fuck up. all that responsibility goes to the architect who stamps the drawings. which is fine as far as it goes. really i have no problem with it.
still, for better or worse there are legitimate reasons for the system. accountability is a very big part of it. since my partner and i are involved in banking and real estate as part of what we do i understand the value a license has. for a bank looking to finance a construction loan it is proof of due-diligence. no license? no loan. it is as straightforward as that. and that has an impact on an office. the situation can be different and particulars are always different, but as a business decision it goes like this : the more licensed people in the office the larger the projects can be, the more comfortable the clients, and the better all round. so compensation goes up. so having a license and possible correlation to increased salary makes complete sense to me.
now what i don't like to see is that figure being so low even for mid to senior architects. if financial considerations are really the deal breaker then it is an easy decision. don't become an architect. because the compensation is never going to reflect the education, the studying and all the rest.
best choice? become a developer or similar and HIRE an architect to be your toy. and pay him/her the incredibly ridiculous salaries that are apparently normal even for experienced staff. and then keep the profits for yourself.
I'd strongly disagree. In California, for example, one cannot call onesself an architect without licensure. That's about as big a celebration as it gets.
I suppose I should have said in the introductory post that this topic probably is of most interest to graduate architects who actually practice architecture and who work in more-or-less traditional design firms. It should be of less interest to those who work in academia, real estate firms, corporate facilities groups, or other non-traditional roles.
And yes, the AIA salary surveys does tend to focus on compensation data related to so-called traditional architects working in so-called tradtional practices.
trace - the AIA conducts compensation surveys every three years. The 2008 survey was conducted in January and February of 2008, meaning most of the data gathered is related to 2007 compensation experience. 1,722 unique firms participated and the survey reflects data gathered from 2,050 individual offices (some firms obviously having more than one office.) The data reflects actual compensation information on more than 30,000 individual positions. Over the years, I have found the AIA survey to provide reliable information about wage practices in the profession. During the past ten years, I have been involved in the design of three separate editions of the survey.
The AIA Compensation Survey is a member service underwritten by member dues. For that reason it is not in the public domain. Copies of the full report can be purchased from the AIA at: 2008 Compensation Report - member price is $195 / non-member price is $249. Firms that participate in the survey receive a free copy. An overview summary can be reviewed by clicking the red text.
ZweigWhite also conducts salary surveys periodically. I have their latest survey -- that report is not directly comparable to the AIA report because they used a different array of job descriptions. However, through reasonable extrapolation I have found the two reports to offer up generally comparable data, with the AIA report tending to report somewhat higher numbers for generally comparable positions.
The AIA report is copyrighted material, so I am not aware of any free weblinks to the full report. In the past, pdf copies of earlier reports have made their way to the web, but I've yet to see a weblink to the 2008 report. Someone here may know of one and might be willing to post that link.
The data I posted in the introduction were taken directly from the 2008 report and reflect the entire national sample for each position shown - obviously there are regional variations that can be viewed by drilling down into the report. Firm size is also reported and there can be significant variations based on the size of the firm, with larger firms generally paying higher wages.
For each title, I added the reported average base pay for that title to what AIA calls "mean additional cash" -- "mean additional cash" includes overtime pay, bonuses, profit sharing and other cash compensation. Essentially, the numbers I provided are a close approximation of average W-2 income for that role back in 2007. Were the survey being conducted today, I'm inclined to think the numbers reported would be much lower.
being an architect has nothing to do with how well you are paid...unless, of course, you are a union architect...but who wants to be considered part of labor?
i think the bump in salary after you get your license most likely will come from you leaving your current job to go to a higher paying job
before you got your license, you couldnt apply for those job openings that were looking specifically for someone with a license, which would have a higher salary than job openings that didnt require a license
i would say most places dont really compensate you much for passing your exams
you might get a small bump as some have said, but for a real increase, you usually have to leave and go somewhere else
not saying that is necessarily wrong though
by passing your exams, you didnt become $10,000 more important to your firm overnight
i am happy if my firm will reimburse me for the exams and give me a pay raise when i pass the exams
other than that, they already know, and hopefully are compensating me for, all my skills as an architect
just having the license doesnt change what they should already know
IDP and licensure varies by state.
Most states do require i t at this point.
Information for each state's requirement can be found on NCARB's website and go your state architect board's website for additional info.
Let me say that I never meant to suggest that the differentials shown in the data above become automatic or swift upon passing the ARE.
Personally, I think the data reflects the faster pace at which one's pay increases over time, once one holds the license. To me, this is mostly about the opening of doors to greater responsiblity.
at my first proper job (in japan) having a license meant an immediate raise of 2 or 3 thousand dollars a year on the base salary. which was not much, but it also meant that the licensed fellow would be put in charge of larger projects and would become site architect.
this was important because we were paid more to work at site than at office. our time sheets were divided up to show what work we did every day and where. so a kid doing a rendering would be paid less than someone doing CD set, and site work earned a couple bucks an hour more. i don't pretend to understand the mathematics involved in that set up or why it was like that but it made an enormous difference to monthly salary if we were working on site.
i guess the deal was that the clients would be billed more, or perhaps it was just the way my boss set things up...but the truth of the matter is that NO CLIENT would ever ever listen to any punk ass designer without a license. the office would have been laughed out the door. so being licensed meant direct value to the firm and they would pass that on to the staff.
interestingly we were paid the higher wage for being on site to learn as well. so in my first year when i went to check out re-bar placement with the senior architect (who is also a licensed engineer, as all japanese architects are) i was paid extra. my boss placed value on knowledge and experience.
it seems to me the american offices do too. whether it requires moving on to new firm to get the benefits of license or not there is no other way to parse a $20,000 gap between licensed and non-licensed wages for the same job. i can't for the life of me understand why that seems so uncomfortable to so many above...
When I worked at a large Chicago architectural office, I saw no noticeable difference in salary scale between those many low-level and mid-level architects who were licensed versus those who were unlicensed. There was a salary range for each position level, but salary was a reflection of work-experience, length of employment, time at that level, and degree of success in negotiating salary, rather than "license vs no license" registration status. There were senior staff members who weren't registered, but well-compensated and rewarded with promotions.
If your goal is to open your own office, then architectural license ( state-defined professional registration) is mandatory.
If an employment position requires "stamping of architectural drawings" in its job description, then too.
Licensing can be a requirement for designated "architect" partnership at an architectural firm, and certainly in Illinois for a professional services architectural firm. At a large Chicago architectural office a decade ago, a long-term partner was discovered to be an unlicensed architect, and he left firm because of that requirement change.
The question of License vs. non is of greater importance the smaller the firm. smaller projects often times are billed hourly, and an architect can be billed out at a higher rate. It is also a selling point to clients knowing their project will be managed by a licensed architect vs. an "intern" (definitely need a better title). I saw a 15% increase with a license, but i was the #2 guy at the time, so it was definitely a benefit to the firm... if you already have 20 to 30 licensed architects one more doesn't really matter.
We usually award a salary increase for licensure as an incentive to our current staff as well as our future staff (we mention it in interviews) - the point is not that any certain employee is suddenly $3,000 to $5,000 more valuable the day after receiving the "YOU PASSED" letter or about to stamp plans but as a way to signify the progression of their career from internship to professional staff member. And we talk openly with our interns about how the firm benefits from marketing them as Architects instead of Intern-Architects.
§ 150.150 SUBMISSION OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
Application for a new building permit shall require submission of four sets of stamped and signed architectural plans or drawings complete with all details showing plumbing, electrical, heating, and ventilation schedules and diagrams.
Plans and drawings for new construction, additions or any type of remodeling with a construction cost over $10,000.00 shall be required to be signed and sealed by an Illinois licensed Architect or Structural Engineer.
(Ord. 2561, passed 10-28-82; Ord. 5481, passed 5/6/04)
I suppose its possible that this section was amended in 04 - this is interesting because I cant find anywhere ord. 2561, which very well may say an architect is / is not req. for single family residential. I bet eyes on Lombard could tell you
I am utterly facinated by the depth of detail this person has gone to. I like the documents where he links the 2 builders, architect and common attorney to all 3 searching illinois databases. If I could find this person I would hire them to handle our permits!!
May 29, 09 10:35 pm ·
·
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.
The Case for Licensure
I posted this information in another thread, but because it was somewhat off-topic there, I don't think it will receive much exposure. So, I'm starting a new thread to provide this data for those undecided about the importance of licensure.
For most of us, at a very personal level there's really only one meaningful argument to support licensure -- those who are licensed earn more money than those who are not licensed.
Per the 2008 AIA Compensation Survey, on a national basis, the average total annual compensation (including salary + OT pay + bonus) varies widely for mid-career professionals, depending on whether you're licensed or not, as follows:
$ 64,100: Architect I
$ 54,900: Unlicensed Architectural Staff 1
$ 74,900: Architect 2
$ 66,000: Unlicensed Architectural Staff 2
$ 95,200: Architect 3
$ 73,400: Unlicensed Architectural Staff 3
For the purposes of the survey, the only difference between the catgories in each pairing is the presence, or not, of an architectural license.
All other arguments aside - and irrespective of your views about when someone can be called an Architect - these compensation figures seem to me a totally compelling reason to complete the ARE as early as possible.
Once I earned my degree in architecture, I didn't really give a hoot-in-hell what somebody called me -- I did care about what I got paid.
I certainly agree with your argument, but it may be flawed. Will you employer pay you more once you become licensed? In most cases, the answer is NO. They may pay you a bonus but does your base salary increase?
The case for licensure is not money; it is because you want to be an architect and be in control of the design process.
My thoughts!
I stand by the data and the argument ... I think it is meaningful that those who have the license demonstrate higher earnings potential at all mid-career stages.
It is true that compensation probably will not jump tremendously the day one obtains the license. But, having the license gives the individual both the opportunity and the ability to carry more responsibility -- I believe firms recognize this and generally, over time, those with licenses are able to boost their earnings capacity.
i think the key phrase of dr. arch's post is "because you want to be an architect." there are many m.arch graduates who do not necessarily want to be an architect, but are confronted with this question on a near daily basis. it becomes worse when you visit boards like archinect where the idea of not becoming an architect is inconceivable to many posters here.
i have many friends and colleagues who hold m.arch degrees, but are doing work tangential to the profession. frankly, i think individuals like these are becoming far more common and in many cases more in demand than your traditional licensed architect.
i don't think the issue is nearly as black and white as many here claim it is.
jafidler - would those non-licensed people you're referring to be unable to attain their current position if they had a license?
i suspect that having a license can only increase one's opportunities for employment.
some have dual degrees, say an mba, mup, or mud. they are in positions at urban design firms or development firms where in my view holding the professional license would confuse their role without contributing much to their development in the company. others who are in academics do not need the license in their everyday work and are barely doing work that could be considered architecture in the traditional sense. similarly people doing 3d visualization, set design, or film production do not need to be licensed; albiet these fields are putting these individuals so far from their original course of studies that the question becomes less pressing.
I stand by the data and the argument ... I think it is meaningful that those who have the license demonstrate higher earnings potential at all mid-career stages.
I agree, but I do not think it is reality. From my colleagues, interns who become licensed do not see increases.
If you read this and are currently an architect, did your financial compensation increase as a result of your becoming licensed? Did your employer see value in your obtaining the license.
As a profession we do not celebrate licensure. The AIA does provide free convention registration to recently licensed architects (I think), but there is no ceremony, etc. like in law.
jafidler - I'm guessing that BlueGoose's thrust here is aimed more at those who work in more or less traditional firms and want to use the title of "architect" without having first passed the exam.
It seems to me that crowd does "want to be an architect" and this info. could (should) give them motivation to get on with the exam.
But, you are correct that there are many today who prefer to work on the periphery of the tradtional profession and this data probably is relatively meaningless to them.
I wonder if anybody can answer this question:
Is IDP absolutely necessary to get a license? If you work in the field long enough without enrolling is it possible to sit for the ARE?
Yup, meaningless, as are those numbers (to me).
I'd guess that compensation has more to do with responsibility and performance than licensure. No one I know got pay increases, but they are motivated and talented and paid well for their contributions.
BlueGoose - can you post more data on how those numbers were gathered or a link? The only data I can find is much different than what you posted. Just curious where those numbers came from.
Dr. A: very few individuals are significantly more valuable to their firm the day after passing the exam than the day before. I think the value of these numbers relates to what happens over time. Having the license changes the slope of the individual's career trajectory.
High schools graduates earn more during careers than do those who don't finish high school. College grads earn more during their careers than do high school graduates. Licensed architects earn more during their careers than do unlicensed grads.
I think it's really that simple.
I think licensure is important if you are running your own shop, and do not want to hire licensed architects, or pay someone to stamp your drawings.
It looks like the AIA compensation survey is gathered from Architecture firms and not those who, say do Urban design or Real Estate development (since those companies also hire architects). People in those roles make much more money than the numbers shown here. I have a 'friend' who does.
Trace, adding to your post, I think compensation depends on performance, but also on opportunities. Not everyone can get those kind of opportunities, they happen more by luck than by anything else.
These numbers bear out what I've seen in practice in LA, where responsibility (and the related compensation) increases only after licensure. In our firm, licensure is one of the minimum requirements that one must meet in order to advance to Project Architect or Project Designer level. Our jobs are too complicated to leave critical decisions to people that "just want to design" without investing the time to understand the implications their actions have on code compliance, liability, schedule and budget.
Like i have to be licensed to understand the implications of my decisions? Please.
Apurimac, I obviously don't know anything about you or your competence. I'm just relaying my experience and addressing the fairly common (and I think misguided) conception on this board that somehow architecture is about design and not about servicing clients, providing constructable structures, or knowing what the walls are made out of. It's the same attitude that allows Rem to address sustainability with "We have a consultant for that". The question was about the validity of the salary poll posted that compared unlicensed and licensed individuals in similar roles in traditional practice. Not real estate guys, nor the owners of visualization firms who also happen to design condominiums.
In my view, good buildings come from highly trained people who understand the entire material, social and legal process of building space. There are of course folks that can do this and don't pursue licensure, but it is a small minority AND, more than that, one that I think hobbles their own potential within the field.
no you don't have to be licensed to understand, but it acts as proxi for an interview every time a client has a question. really should anyone have to go their architect and ask," like do you really understand this shit or what? "
a license covers that query. if you think you understand and you don't then you are held accountable. because you would be part of a profession where consequences are spelled out. if you are a 'designer' then there are no consequences when you fuck up. all that responsibility goes to the architect who stamps the drawings. which is fine as far as it goes. really i have no problem with it.
still, for better or worse there are legitimate reasons for the system. accountability is a very big part of it. since my partner and i are involved in banking and real estate as part of what we do i understand the value a license has. for a bank looking to finance a construction loan it is proof of due-diligence. no license? no loan. it is as straightforward as that. and that has an impact on an office. the situation can be different and particulars are always different, but as a business decision it goes like this : the more licensed people in the office the larger the projects can be, the more comfortable the clients, and the better all round. so compensation goes up. so having a license and possible correlation to increased salary makes complete sense to me.
now what i don't like to see is that figure being so low even for mid to senior architects. if financial considerations are really the deal breaker then it is an easy decision. don't become an architect. because the compensation is never going to reflect the education, the studying and all the rest.
best choice? become a developer or similar and HIRE an architect to be your toy. and pay him/her the incredibly ridiculous salaries that are apparently normal even for experienced staff. and then keep the profits for yourself.
hm, i think i just wrote my business plan. ;-)
Dr. A,
I'd strongly disagree. In California, for example, one cannot call onesself an architect without licensure. That's about as big a celebration as it gets.
I suppose I should have said in the introductory post that this topic probably is of most interest to graduate architects who actually practice architecture and who work in more-or-less traditional design firms. It should be of less interest to those who work in academia, real estate firms, corporate facilities groups, or other non-traditional roles.
And yes, the AIA salary surveys does tend to focus on compensation data related to so-called traditional architects working in so-called tradtional practices.
trace - the AIA conducts compensation surveys every three years. The 2008 survey was conducted in January and February of 2008, meaning most of the data gathered is related to 2007 compensation experience. 1,722 unique firms participated and the survey reflects data gathered from 2,050 individual offices (some firms obviously having more than one office.) The data reflects actual compensation information on more than 30,000 individual positions. Over the years, I have found the AIA survey to provide reliable information about wage practices in the profession. During the past ten years, I have been involved in the design of three separate editions of the survey.
The AIA Compensation Survey is a member service underwritten by member dues. For that reason it is not in the public domain. Copies of the full report can be purchased from the AIA at: 2008 Compensation Report - member price is $195 / non-member price is $249. Firms that participate in the survey receive a free copy. An overview summary can be reviewed by clicking the red text.
ZweigWhite also conducts salary surveys periodically. I have their latest survey -- that report is not directly comparable to the AIA report because they used a different array of job descriptions. However, through reasonable extrapolation I have found the two reports to offer up generally comparable data, with the AIA report tending to report somewhat higher numbers for generally comparable positions.
The AIA report is copyrighted material, so I am not aware of any free weblinks to the full report. In the past, pdf copies of earlier reports have made their way to the web, but I've yet to see a weblink to the 2008 report. Someone here may know of one and might be willing to post that link.
The data I posted in the introduction were taken directly from the 2008 report and reflect the entire national sample for each position shown - obviously there are regional variations that can be viewed by drilling down into the report. Firm size is also reported and there can be significant variations based on the size of the firm, with larger firms generally paying higher wages.
For each title, I added the reported average base pay for that title to what AIA calls "mean additional cash" -- "mean additional cash" includes overtime pay, bonuses, profit sharing and other cash compensation. Essentially, the numbers I provided are a close approximation of average W-2 income for that role back in 2007. Were the survey being conducted today, I'm inclined to think the numbers reported would be much lower.
being an architect has nothing to do with how well you are paid...unless, of course, you are a union architect...but who wants to be considered part of labor?
i think the bump in salary after you get your license most likely will come from you leaving your current job to go to a higher paying job
before you got your license, you couldnt apply for those job openings that were looking specifically for someone with a license, which would have a higher salary than job openings that didnt require a license
i would say most places dont really compensate you much for passing your exams
you might get a small bump as some have said, but for a real increase, you usually have to leave and go somewhere else
not saying that is necessarily wrong though
by passing your exams, you didnt become $10,000 more important to your firm overnight
i am happy if my firm will reimburse me for the exams and give me a pay raise when i pass the exams
other than that, they already know, and hopefully are compensating me for, all my skills as an architect
just having the license doesnt change what they should already know
in the long run though, i would say getting your license can only be looked at as positive
if you plan on working in a firm primarily, it will only help you
doesnt mean you need it
but it doesnt hurt
Apurimac
IDP and licensure varies by state.
Most states do require i t at this point.
Information for each state's requirement can be found on NCARB's website and go your state architect board's website for additional info.
thanks iamonhold
Let me say that I never meant to suggest that the differentials shown in the data above become automatic or swift upon passing the ARE.
Personally, I think the data reflects the faster pace at which one's pay increases over time, once one holds the license. To me, this is mostly about the opening of doors to greater responsiblity.
i agree that it definitely opens doors to greater responsibility
it also opens doors to a higher salary for your future job prospects
its just one check mark to add to your resume that can bump you up
fair or not, it definitely helps
at my first proper job (in japan) having a license meant an immediate raise of 2 or 3 thousand dollars a year on the base salary. which was not much, but it also meant that the licensed fellow would be put in charge of larger projects and would become site architect.
this was important because we were paid more to work at site than at office. our time sheets were divided up to show what work we did every day and where. so a kid doing a rendering would be paid less than someone doing CD set, and site work earned a couple bucks an hour more. i don't pretend to understand the mathematics involved in that set up or why it was like that but it made an enormous difference to monthly salary if we were working on site.
i guess the deal was that the clients would be billed more, or perhaps it was just the way my boss set things up...but the truth of the matter is that NO CLIENT would ever ever listen to any punk ass designer without a license. the office would have been laughed out the door. so being licensed meant direct value to the firm and they would pass that on to the staff.
interestingly we were paid the higher wage for being on site to learn as well. so in my first year when i went to check out re-bar placement with the senior architect (who is also a licensed engineer, as all japanese architects are) i was paid extra. my boss placed value on knowledge and experience.
it seems to me the american offices do too. whether it requires moving on to new firm to get the benefits of license or not there is no other way to parse a $20,000 gap between licensed and non-licensed wages for the same job. i can't for the life of me understand why that seems so uncomfortable to so many above...
When I worked at a large Chicago architectural office, I saw no noticeable difference in salary scale between those many low-level and mid-level architects who were licensed versus those who were unlicensed. There was a salary range for each position level, but salary was a reflection of work-experience, length of employment, time at that level, and degree of success in negotiating salary, rather than "license vs no license" registration status. There were senior staff members who weren't registered, but well-compensated and rewarded with promotions.
If your goal is to open your own office, then architectural license ( state-defined professional registration) is mandatory.
If an employment position requires "stamping of architectural drawings" in its job description, then too.
Licensing can be a requirement for designated "architect" partnership at an architectural firm, and certainly in Illinois for a professional services architectural firm. At a large Chicago architectural office a decade ago, a long-term partner was discovered to be an unlicensed architect, and he left firm because of that requirement change.
The question of License vs. non is of greater importance the smaller the firm. smaller projects often times are billed hourly, and an architect can be billed out at a higher rate. It is also a selling point to clients knowing their project will be managed by a licensed architect vs. an "intern" (definitely need a better title). I saw a 15% increase with a license, but i was the #2 guy at the time, so it was definitely a benefit to the firm... if you already have 20 to 30 licensed architects one more doesn't really matter.
We usually award a salary increase for licensure as an incentive to our current staff as well as our future staff (we mention it in interviews) - the point is not that any certain employee is suddenly $3,000 to $5,000 more valuable the day after receiving the "YOU PASSED" letter or about to stamp plans but as a way to signify the progression of their career from internship to professional staff member. And we talk openly with our interns about how the firm benefits from marketing them as Architects instead of Intern-Architects.
I bring my stamp to the bars to pick up women.
"I bring my stamp to the bars to pick up women."
LOL LOL :)) Have you achieved a large success doing that EvilP?
While on the subject of architects licenses, have a look here: http://www.eyeonlombard.com
I love Lompton. Actualy going there this weekend to party in the parking lot at Yorktown mall, maybe find some hottie single moms.
Wow - the eyes on Lombard site is awesome. Whoever did that I salute you!
so in illinois, does the law really "requires that an Illinois licensed architect design a home."?
if not, the lombard person might want to chill a little. holy sh*t.
§ 150.150 SUBMISSION OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
Application for a new building permit shall require submission of four sets of stamped and signed architectural plans or drawings complete with all details showing plumbing, electrical, heating, and ventilation schedules and diagrams.
Plans and drawings for new construction, additions or any type of remodeling with a construction cost over $10,000.00 shall be required to be signed and sealed by an Illinois licensed Architect or Structural Engineer.
(Ord. 2561, passed 10-28-82; Ord. 5481, passed 5/6/04)
I suppose its possible that this section was amended in 04 - this is interesting because I cant find anywhere ord. 2561, which very well may say an architect is / is not req. for single family residential. I bet eyes on Lombard could tell you
I am utterly facinated by the depth of detail this person has gone to. I like the documents where he links the 2 builders, architect and common attorney to all 3 searching illinois databases. If I could find this person I would hire them to handle our permits!!
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.