After ten years and passing the A.R.E. six months ago---I've had it. I'm bailing on this pathetic profession. It is no longer viable and the trajectories only indicate more long term trouble ahead.
I am thinking about turning myself into something society actually values, like an engineer, lawyer, or doctor.
Does anyone have any insight into what it takes for a Reg. Arch to turn themselves into a Structural Engineer?
for those of us who think architecture still has value and is in fact, not a "pathetic profession" you might consider just asking your question with out the heavy dose of "it didn't work for me so all you suck" attitude.My dos cents. Good luck with your career move.
haha, sorry didn't mean to go emo on ya....i just hate negative attitudes....my real advice, is to look for accredited 4yr engineering programs at state universities which also have architecture degrees. most of these programs share curriculum and you should be able to exempt 1/2 the load. or, you might be able to get a 2 yr master of engineering, you have to have a professional degree in engineering to sit for their test sequences or work for an engineer for 8 yrs i think
is the structural engineering profession not dealing with the same recession we are? last i checked, architects were their primary clients, with some exceptions.
the best thing about your potential change is that architects are likely to be better clients, more respectful of what you do, than many of your current clients might be. other than that, there are engineers hurting too.
eh, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. thank you for leaving the profession, i'll be happy to take the work, and besides; this profession does not suffer quitters for long. so, buh-bye.
I'm a structural engineer applying to M.Arch programs this year. I will be taking the PE Exam this spring. I went to an ABET accredited undergraduate program and with 4 years of work experience have been accepted to sit for the PE. With a non-ABET degree you need 6 years experience, no degree I think is 12 years experience. (New York)
I would not give up on the profession, but maybe embrace a different perspective with a new educational background. Have you considered construction engineering? A Master's in Structural Engineering is tough, construction engineering might allow you in use your architecture knowledge while still earning an accredited engineering degree.
I'm looking forward to the diversity of both an engineering degree and architecture degree. I think both fields are changing a lot because of recession in the construction industry. In order to be successful in the future I think all design professionals will be required to change how they work. For me, this means embracing a broad view to the design and construction of buildings and spaces. When the construction industry seemed to be infinite, it was plausible to have an architect, all types of engineers, an interior designer perhaps. Because the industry has shrunk I think projects will employ far less design professionals, preferably ones that are multidisciplinary.
Piggy, if you're concerned with perceived societal value, you should understand that with any building, the engineer is subcontracted by the architect, simply hired by us to help execute our vision.
silverlake last I checked architects are 60% unemployed. The 40% that have any remnant of meaningful work have drastically reduced billable hours.
Even in the "good" times a few years ago the average salary out of grad school with an MArch was a measly 35k.
Engineers make 57k right out of school with an undergrad degree.
Engineers are still in demand in the marketplace generally, even structural. Of all the layoffs at the big firms, most of the struct eng have been retained. Heck, I have a struct eng friend who was recently hired by a big arch firm that laid off 1/2 its arch staff at the same time.
Fact is, who cares who is technically the sub and who is the general in a contracting relationship. The fact is engineers make 5X what architects make after adjusting for the cost of living, are still generally employed even in a down economy, AND they still basically work 8-5 M-F. (so they get to keep that priceless thing called mental health). You can keep your contracting hierarchy if it makes you feel any better...I'll take the 5x better profits and sleep and better quality of life, thank you very much.
first of all you are an idiot. You completely, totally, absolutely took what I said completely out of context.
I said, "The fact is engineers make 5X what architects make AFTER adjusting for the cost of living..."
Prove me wrong I dare you. You can't because I've crunched the numbers and I can cite every single authoritative source I have used, starting with the U.S. Department of Labor.
Secondly, prove me wrong on the 60% unemployment in architecture right now. Anecdotally its at least 60% across the board and I have read several newspaper articles to prove it. Minnesota, Nevada, Florida, and Arizona in particular are even outright admitting 60% unemployment figure. Don't bother citing the "official" AIA numbers either -they are as funny as the governments "official" numbers right now.
b3tadine[sutures] you are suffering from a terminal case of cognitive dissonance. Don't worry you have plenty of company---about 80% of architects are infested with the virus.
You posted the question regarding COLs 9 minutes after I posted my response to empea. It is probably reasonable to believe that you've since had time to review the post above your most recent.
Structural Engineers are under the umbrella of civil engineers, and civil engineers are the lowest paid of all the engineering professions. I don't think you will see much of an increase in salary from a licensed architect to a structural engineer. (maybe more so if you're going from a small design firm to a large engineering company)
My wife is a structural engineer at a small design friendly office so I am well aware of salary structure at different offices.
It's also a totally different profession...yes our 2 professions sometimes work on the same projects, but I couldn't dream of doing the work she does. It's all about calculations...totally different side of the brain than with which we usually operate in. It's the very rare person who gets enjoyment out of doing both.
And they are also an under appreciated profession...that is unless you move to Houston and work for an oil company doing off shore stuff, then you get paid boat loads.
You're looking at either another 4 year degree, plus 4 years of EIT training, or longer EIT training if you don't have the degree, and the the PE exam which has like a 30% pass rate. That's a long journey to essentially take all over for a licensed architect.
A)"The fact is engineers make 5X what architects make AFTER adjusting for the cost of living..."
and
B) have used the same cost of living in both equations (approx. $55,000)
you are basically saying:
C) Engineers make 5x what architects make, period.
Since the cost of living is equal (statement B). That's pretty simple logic. And to be honest: if this kind of math surpasses you, maybe engineering isn't the right thing for you
And to be honest: I understand that there are some cultural differences between the USA and Europe, but I cannot, for the life of me, imagine this to make any sense: If an architect gets an entry level salary of 35.000, as you claim, entry level salaries for engineers are at 175.000. That would be somewhat steep, wouldn't it?
Potential unemployment aside (I don't know if the 60% is true or not), I can see some upsides to engineering jobs. But also some downsides. And for good measures: I'd never work with a structural engineer, who is in fact a frustrated architect...
I'll leave the mathematics and research to you. If you can't perform simple algebraic calculations (no surprise as 80% of those on this forum are designers and not architects) then you are out of luck...even if I kept spoon feeding you the data and equations you would still be skeptical. Complete waste of time arguing with designers...they are too busy perpetually reinventing the wheel.
good, I am going to get the facts from your links:
The median salary for civil engineers (structural engineers are part of this cluster) is $74,600, which corresponds with an hourly wage of $35.87
The median salary for architects is $70,320, which corresponds with an hourly wage of $33.81
This means that civil engineers make $4.680 more a year than architects, approximately 6.5%. However, this is without taking into account that not all civil engineers are structural engineers, and not all architects work as designers.
So, therefore I looked at the numbers for both architects and engineers working in "Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services":
median for engineers: $79,880
median for architects: $76,430
again, engineers make more: this time about 4,5%. I'm not going to do a full statistical analysis, but even though there is a significant difference, it's not quite as grave as you suggested. If you'd purely look at the median salary, the difference is not nearly as close as you'd suggest.
Again, this is not about very specific situations (starting interns, senior project managers or whatever): this is the AVERAGE situation. So averagely speaking, architects make about 4,5% less than structural engineers.
However, it only starts to go towards extreme situations if you'd take into account vague (and not very probable) claims that architects work on average around 100 hours a week, and engineers work 40 hours a week. Since I couldn't find actual data on hours/week for both jobs, we'd have to work with vague claims.Again, it's improbable that this is the (AVERAGE) real deal, but still, for arguments' sake:
architects would then get 14,70 an hour, engineers would make 38,40... Here we'd have a real, difference. However, one should note that the scenarios on working hours is extreme, and highly unlikely. As much as you cannot imagine that the average architect works 100 hours a week, it's impossible to imagine that the average engineer works 40 hours a week. Simply statistically improbabilities...
Ok, maybe if you'd look at investment to begin with the job. However, the post tagalong made in this topic, makes me believe that engineers have to study as many years as architects, on equally expensive institutes.
So, basically: the only way I can make your claims add up, is if you'd consider all architects to work 100 hours a week, and all engineers about 22 hours. Maybe I'm missing something crucial here, but I assume there's no way one could get 500% out of this data.
Yes you are missing at least 3 crucial somethings usernametaken but at least you are starting to get on the right track (and you gave me cause to think about another element I hadn't considered, thank you for that...)
I can't figure out at all what why you add in a cost of living adjustment. The last time I checked a Big Mac costs the same for an architect as it does for an engineer - unless, of course, they live in different locations. And, before you start saying I’m all right brain and no left brain or I should learn how to do simple algebra, I have professional degrees in both architecture and engineering, and I’ve taken more calculus classes than any architect I know.
i think the cost of living calculation must be something like this, if cost of living is around 55,000 (i guess that means average living expenses) then the base for the calculation is 55,000 dollars. which means let's say i graduate with my march and make 45,000, im technically -10,000 on cost of living. if the same engineer graduates and makes 65,000 he or she is 10,000 above cost of living....which now, piggy is stating that the engineer is making 20,000 dollars more then me in context to cost of living, meaning that the difference is much more weighted.....but still, i don't see if the math still adds up. ill tell you one thing, i have an awesome engineering friend...works for buro happold....and guess what piggy, they keep their office lean and mean.........he works at least 60hrs a week, and usually more. so as far as i can tell, the leading engineers in the profession are probably very similiar to a leading architecture office meaning they are doing work that is above and beyond 40 hr week work. I dunno....this thread is worthless to me bc the same friend told me all he does is crunch numbers and loves working with architects bc the collaboration is more exciting......my dos cents
rob(e), well actually, I'm guessing he's used an average figure that was above 55000 because to say someone makes -2X something wouldn't make much sense (although that highlights the downfall of such a comparison). So I'm guessing piggy's formula is something like
60000 - 55000 = 5000 (architects' pay after adjusting for COL)
80000 - 55000 = 25000 (engineers' pay after adjusting for COL)
25000/5000 = 5
So engineer's make 5X more after adjusting for COL. So technically its true by definition as he defined the formula. The more important question would be that of the formula being a useful comparison, disregarding the validity of the actual figures for now, because as we all know, anyone can quote articles on-line and you'd get different figures (What? No!).
OK, now, getting that out of the way, I have some insight to this since I work in a primarily structural engineering firm although I've been trained as an architect. Firstly, my first response was similar to Steven Ward: disregarding the comments about the client/consultant structure (something about someone being a bitch of someone else), YES, many structural engineers have architects as their main clients. And so engineers were hit hard too, albeit not as much due to more diversification of the source of work. Most engineers are on a salary basis, meaning that they will NOT get paid over time either. While they may not work 80 hours a week all the time, I can't actually say from observation that I know for a fact that engineers do less work (hourly) than architects.
My observation has always been that it is TRUE that engineers make more straight out of school. No question about it. They can provide more value to a firm straight out of school than any architecturally trained graduate. Over the lifetime of a career? That is a totally different question and something that I would think would be more relevant (especially if we're not referring to $$$).
i'm with edgewood, the last time i checked a big mac does cost the same for both.
now, if dipstick wants to say purchasing power, based on what a grad needs to pay back on student loans, is drastically affected, then i am there. graduates in engineering, EITs, make more than graduates with a barch.
Slartibartfast: thanks for sharing. Extremely relevant and useful. I am jealous that you are working in an engineering firm.
Can you give me any advice on what a Reg. Architect might do to land a job inside a structural engineering firm? What NOT to do?
Also my research to date indicates that I probably have a GPA (3.71 and 3.64) and other prerequisites already good enough that I can apply to the major University in my area (next town over actually) and apply for the M.S. in Civil Eng with a concentration in structural engineering and maybe even the PHD program (this is probably way out of my league at this point anyways).
Oh and Slartibartfast you are getting very, very warm as far as the calcs. (Probably due to working in a much more logical/ rational environment and not pulling all nighters every weekend)
b3tadine[sutures] you are correct. A cost of living adjustment is specifically used to offset a loss in purchasing power. That may be due to inflation, for example an anual cost of living adjustment to one’s salary, or a higher salary due to a cost of living adjustment that is offered in a more expensive city.
Piggy, was that the way you reached your numbers? Because if you’ve derived these figures using Slartibartfast’s crazy formula, then it seems like you’ve tried to skew the results to support your going back to school. If that’s the case I'd say plan on being in engineering school for the full four years. The good engineers I know let the numbers speak for themselves.
Not MY "crazy" formula, but my understanding of the formula that went through Piggy's head. My point was that, if anything, you should question the usefulness of the formula itself, not necessarily the numbers/figures or the calculations.
Piggy - Anyway, I'll entertain you, assuming you're really serious about this (although your language says otherwise, and seems to be much more of an emotional response to a singular event or a culmination of many small events). For an architect to be useful to an engineering firm, you have to have quantifiable experience in a specific area. They will not be impressed with cool portfolios. And Piggy, there is nothing to be jealous about. You're just having a case of the grass-is-greener-on-the-other-side syndrome.
Thanks for your time and consideration Slartibartfast.
I've been hiding out in a CM firm for a couple of years whilst I finished the A.R.E..
I don't think that I'm having a simple case of the grass being greener although I don't disregard you by any means -I totally understand your points above.
The last two years I've been making 30% more money and getting real health insurance coverage for my family of 4, a cell phone and a bunch of reimbursibles the last two years doing CM work. Also, I have been dealing with normal people and have had access to leaderhsip opportunties which translates into leverage. Also have built a professional network through daily contacts with owners -all things the owners of firms in my experience try to guard like starving vultures. This experience has taught me the grass really, really is greener on the other side.
Prior to giving this CM thing a try I did a lot of research. I was very intimidated because I had only worked in Arch offices post high school my entire professional life of 10 years.
If I were an engineer the only thing I would use Arch Record for (or a fancy portfolio) is to wipe my posterior or light a fire.
I think S.E. would be great because a lot of my strengths with mathematics and my previous experiences with Structures will apply.
I've sent some emails to some S.E. acquaintances to get their advice...waiting to hear back...
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo has an Architectural Engineering program but the program focuses on structural engineering.
If your looking into structural engineering I'd consider Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection design/engineering as a specialty. You can command higher fees in specialization.
Piggy - From personal observation, CMs tend to have a low opinion of architects in general. So I don't think that is the best environment to think over perceptions of architects and letting that get to you. And perhaps visiting a real structural office will give you insight on how they do work. Just like everyone has perceptions of how architects work (on some cloud somewhere in front of a drafter's table), there are perceptions of how engineers work. Its not all fancy and interesting calculations and the satisfaction of clear cut answers. Its a lot of spreadsheets, tables, and product data, etc etc. Not that there is no value in that, but its not as interesting as it may seem from the outside.
To put this in perspective, I highly value my opportunity in getting insight of how engineers work, but if the economy wasn't this way, I would move to an Arch office ASAP.
Hey, but you never know, maybe you'd make a great engineer. But I don't see how going back to school for a engineering degree will guarantee a financial payback any time soon if ever. Or why you value your perception of Society's perception of our profession so much so that you are abandoning something that has been a part of you for so long and worked hard to get.
I think if I were to go into a structures related office I would still be interested in doing something that is creative and design driven...
A few weeks ago there was a pretty cool lecture at the University of Washington by Front Inc., a design and facade consulting firm... basically building envelope design... But they have architects, structural engineers and mechanical engineers on board and do pretty amazing custom stuff... work with alot of interesting architects, high end projects...
personally I like the diversity of architecture... thinking about all the parts coming together as a whole, rather than just the structural systems... Isn't it nice to be an architect and get to work with all of these different consultants and fabricators etc.? I think structural is interesting but if you are primarily interested in specializing in a particular kind of system, or like the structural element of it over the aesthetic, material, finishes or spatial elements... plus you are always then a consultant to the architect...
That said, keep in mind that structural designers are hurting in this economy too... it's not just architecture firms, it's the whole aec industry so you can't exactly get away from the cyclical nature of our industry by moving laterally in the industry imho... it's really more about what you're interested in, since you'll excel at what interests you imho...
Okay so I met with the director of the Masters of Engineering program Structures department today for about an hour. Its the best school of one of the four major regions of the United States and it happens to be 15 miles away from my house (bought the house from a family friend who was a tenured professor at this school who went to spend his final years in Florida).
If I do really decide to do this then its good news. The Director of the structures department reviewed my professional and academic qualifications and said that if I applied I would pretty much have no problem getting in.
How intimidating! Will probably be a nice, exhilarating challenge if things work out towards this end...lots more research to do and then I'll get back in touch with the Director to have him review some more...Perhaps I'll retake the GRE for fun. He said my score is good enough to get in but I'd like to improve it just to see how well I would do if I actually cared enough to prep for it. (the first time I took it I didn't take it too seriously because I was only applying to architecture school, after all).
I've also been talking this over with many friends who are P.E.s and they seem to think its a good idea for a lot of reasons.
And I've thought that it is very interesting that I joined an engineering forum recently and noticed the stark absence of "emo" responses to my questions...very encouraging. Just a lot of input on approaching this as a problem to be solved...nice.
where in my post did I say one is better than the other?
immature huh.... it's immature to come onto an architecture forum and repeatedly knock the profession, glad you found an engineering forum so PACK UP YOUR REMARKS AND SEE YOUR WAY OUT. I'm sure an engineering forum would love to discuss your hatred for the architecture profession.
Morph Into a Structural Engineer
After ten years and passing the A.R.E. six months ago---I've had it. I'm bailing on this pathetic profession. It is no longer viable and the trajectories only indicate more long term trouble ahead.
I am thinking about turning myself into something society actually values, like an engineer, lawyer, or doctor.
Does anyone have any insight into what it takes for a Reg. Arch to turn themselves into a Structural Engineer?
I would say an engineering degree at the minimum... possibly skip out of a few years of it with your background
for those of us who think architecture still has value and is in fact, not a "pathetic profession" you might consider just asking your question with out the heavy dose of "it didn't work for me so all you suck" attitude.My dos cents. Good luck with your career move.
emo alert
haha, sorry didn't mean to go emo on ya....i just hate negative attitudes....my real advice, is to look for accredited 4yr engineering programs at state universities which also have architecture degrees. most of these programs share curriculum and you should be able to exempt 1/2 the load. or, you might be able to get a 2 yr master of engineering, you have to have a professional degree in engineering to sit for their test sequences or work for an engineer for 8 yrs i think
Forget structural, try electrical. Or law.
is the structural engineering profession not dealing with the same recession we are? last i checked, architects were their primary clients, with some exceptions.
the best thing about your potential change is that architects are likely to be better clients, more respectful of what you do, than many of your current clients might be. other than that, there are engineers hurting too.
eh, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. thank you for leaving the profession, i'll be happy to take the work, and besides; this profession does not suffer quitters for long. so, buh-bye.
I'm a structural engineer applying to M.Arch programs this year. I will be taking the PE Exam this spring. I went to an ABET accredited undergraduate program and with 4 years of work experience have been accepted to sit for the PE. With a non-ABET degree you need 6 years experience, no degree I think is 12 years experience. (New York)
I would not give up on the profession, but maybe embrace a different perspective with a new educational background. Have you considered construction engineering? A Master's in Structural Engineering is tough, construction engineering might allow you in use your architecture knowledge while still earning an accredited engineering degree.
I'm looking forward to the diversity of both an engineering degree and architecture degree. I think both fields are changing a lot because of recession in the construction industry. In order to be successful in the future I think all design professionals will be required to change how they work. For me, this means embracing a broad view to the design and construction of buildings and spaces. When the construction industry seemed to be infinite, it was plausible to have an architect, all types of engineers, an interior designer perhaps. Because the industry has shrunk I think projects will employ far less design professionals, preferably ones that are multidisciplinary.
Good luck, don't give up!
That is very useful information and experience Kim607, thank you very much!
Piggy, if you're concerned with perceived societal value, you should understand that with any building, the engineer is subcontracted by the architect, simply hired by us to help execute our vision.
You will be our bitch.
silverlake last I checked architects are 60% unemployed. The 40% that have any remnant of meaningful work have drastically reduced billable hours.
Even in the "good" times a few years ago the average salary out of grad school with an MArch was a measly 35k.
Engineers make 57k right out of school with an undergrad degree.
Engineers are still in demand in the marketplace generally, even structural. Of all the layoffs at the big firms, most of the struct eng have been retained. Heck, I have a struct eng friend who was recently hired by a big arch firm that laid off 1/2 its arch staff at the same time.
Fact is, who cares who is technically the sub and who is the general in a contracting relationship. The fact is engineers make 5X what architects make after adjusting for the cost of living, are still generally employed even in a down economy, AND they still basically work 8-5 M-F. (so they get to keep that priceless thing called mental health). You can keep your contracting hierarchy if it makes you feel any better...I'll take the 5x better profits and sleep and better quality of life, thank you very much.
good riddance.
piggy - you have some good points. but is the cost of living different for architects and engineers?
60% Unemployment? Ridiculous
Engineers make 5X what Architects make? (Really now...)
I hope you can relax and come down to earth soon, it might help you earn some decent employment.
loremipsum:
first of all you are an idiot. You completely, totally, absolutely took what I said completely out of context.
I said, "The fact is engineers make 5X what architects make AFTER adjusting for the cost of living..."
Prove me wrong I dare you. You can't because I've crunched the numbers and I can cite every single authoritative source I have used, starting with the U.S. Department of Labor.
Secondly, prove me wrong on the 60% unemployment in architecture right now. Anecdotally its at least 60% across the board and I have read several newspaper articles to prove it. Minnesota, Nevada, Florida, and Arizona in particular are even outright admitting 60% unemployment figure. Don't bother citing the "official" AIA numbers either -they are as funny as the governments "official" numbers right now.
empea:
when computing the differences between what archs and engs make I have used the same cost of living in both equations (approx. $55,000).
"The fact is engineers make 5X what architects make AFTER adjusting for the cost of living..."
what does this even mean anyway?
are you suggesting that architects and engineers have different COLs?
that statement is about as nonsensical as they come.
b3tadine[sutures] you are suffering from a terminal case of cognitive dissonance. Don't worry you have plenty of company---about 80% of architects are infested with the virus.
You posted the question regarding COLs 9 minutes after I posted my response to empea. It is probably reasonable to believe that you've since had time to review the post above your most recent.
Structural Engineers are under the umbrella of civil engineers, and civil engineers are the lowest paid of all the engineering professions. I don't think you will see much of an increase in salary from a licensed architect to a structural engineer. (maybe more so if you're going from a small design firm to a large engineering company)
My wife is a structural engineer at a small design friendly office so I am well aware of salary structure at different offices.
It's also a totally different profession...yes our 2 professions sometimes work on the same projects, but I couldn't dream of doing the work she does. It's all about calculations...totally different side of the brain than with which we usually operate in. It's the very rare person who gets enjoyment out of doing both.
And they are also an under appreciated profession...that is unless you move to Houston and work for an oil company doing off shore stuff, then you get paid boat loads.
You're looking at either another 4 year degree, plus 4 years of EIT training, or longer EIT training if you don't have the degree, and the the PE exam which has like a 30% pass rate. That's a long journey to essentially take all over for a licensed architect.
Piggy, your initial post was about 'value', you didn't say anything about salary.
If you're just concerned with making money, why would you bother with either profession, where the difference is negligible??
All fun and games aside, if you claim that:
A)"The fact is engineers make 5X what architects make AFTER adjusting for the cost of living..."
and
B) have used the same cost of living in both equations (approx. $55,000)
you are basically saying:
C) Engineers make 5x what architects make, period.
Since the cost of living is equal (statement B). That's pretty simple logic. And to be honest: if this kind of math surpasses you, maybe engineering isn't the right thing for you
And to be honest: I understand that there are some cultural differences between the USA and Europe, but I cannot, for the life of me, imagine this to make any sense: If an architect gets an entry level salary of 35.000, as you claim, entry level salaries for engineers are at 175.000. That would be somewhat steep, wouldn't it?
Potential unemployment aside (I don't know if the 60% is true or not), I can see some upsides to engineering jobs. But also some downsides. And for good measures: I'd never work with a structural engineer, who is in fact a frustrated architect...
thanks tagalong, great information and very useful
usernametaken:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/15/pf/training_pay/
http://www.dol.gov/
aia compensation report
http://www.daapspace.daap.uc.edu/~stedmabn/profprac-base/hotoffthepress/AIA05Full%20Report.pdf
I'll leave the mathematics and research to you. If you can't perform simple algebraic calculations (no surprise as 80% of those on this forum are designers and not architects) then you are out of luck...even if I kept spoon feeding you the data and equations you would still be skeptical. Complete waste of time arguing with designers...they are too busy perpetually reinventing the wheel.
good, I am going to get the facts from your links:
The median salary for civil engineers (structural engineers are part of this cluster) is $74,600, which corresponds with an hourly wage of $35.87
The median salary for architects is $70,320, which corresponds with an hourly wage of $33.81
This means that civil engineers make $4.680 more a year than architects, approximately 6.5%. However, this is without taking into account that not all civil engineers are structural engineers, and not all architects work as designers.
So, therefore I looked at the numbers for both architects and engineers working in "Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services":
median for engineers: $79,880
median for architects: $76,430
again, engineers make more: this time about 4,5%. I'm not going to do a full statistical analysis, but even though there is a significant difference, it's not quite as grave as you suggested. If you'd purely look at the median salary, the difference is not nearly as close as you'd suggest.
Again, this is not about very specific situations (starting interns, senior project managers or whatever): this is the AVERAGE situation. So averagely speaking, architects make about 4,5% less than structural engineers.
However, it only starts to go towards extreme situations if you'd take into account vague (and not very probable) claims that architects work on average around 100 hours a week, and engineers work 40 hours a week. Since I couldn't find actual data on hours/week for both jobs, we'd have to work with vague claims.Again, it's improbable that this is the (AVERAGE) real deal, but still, for arguments' sake:
architects would then get 14,70 an hour, engineers would make 38,40... Here we'd have a real, difference. However, one should note that the scenarios on working hours is extreme, and highly unlikely. As much as you cannot imagine that the average architect works 100 hours a week, it's impossible to imagine that the average engineer works 40 hours a week. Simply statistically improbabilities...
Ok, maybe if you'd look at investment to begin with the job. However, the post tagalong made in this topic, makes me believe that engineers have to study as many years as architects, on equally expensive institutes.
So, basically: the only way I can make your claims add up, is if you'd consider all architects to work 100 hours a week, and all engineers about 22 hours. Maybe I'm missing something crucial here, but I assume there's no way one could get 500% out of this data.
Yes you are missing at least 3 crucial somethings usernametaken but at least you are starting to get on the right track (and you gave me cause to think about another element I hadn't considered, thank you for that...)
Piggy,
I think your math is what's being questioned.
I can't figure out at all what why you add in a cost of living adjustment. The last time I checked a Big Mac costs the same for an architect as it does for an engineer - unless, of course, they live in different locations. And, before you start saying I’m all right brain and no left brain or I should learn how to do simple algebra, I have professional degrees in both architecture and engineering, and I’ve taken more calculus classes than any architect I know.
Piggy, you graduated from DAAP? I recognize the daapspace link.
i think the cost of living calculation must be something like this, if cost of living is around 55,000 (i guess that means average living expenses) then the base for the calculation is 55,000 dollars. which means let's say i graduate with my march and make 45,000, im technically -10,000 on cost of living. if the same engineer graduates and makes 65,000 he or she is 10,000 above cost of living....which now, piggy is stating that the engineer is making 20,000 dollars more then me in context to cost of living, meaning that the difference is much more weighted.....but still, i don't see if the math still adds up. ill tell you one thing, i have an awesome engineering friend...works for buro happold....and guess what piggy, they keep their office lean and mean.........he works at least 60hrs a week, and usually more. so as far as i can tell, the leading engineers in the profession are probably very similiar to a leading architecture office meaning they are doing work that is above and beyond 40 hr week work. I dunno....this thread is worthless to me bc the same friend told me all he does is crunch numbers and loves working with architects bc the collaboration is more exciting......my dos cents
rob(e), well actually, I'm guessing he's used an average figure that was above 55000 because to say someone makes -2X something wouldn't make much sense (although that highlights the downfall of such a comparison). So I'm guessing piggy's formula is something like
60000 - 55000 = 5000 (architects' pay after adjusting for COL)
80000 - 55000 = 25000 (engineers' pay after adjusting for COL)
25000/5000 = 5
So engineer's make 5X more after adjusting for COL. So technically its true by definition as he defined the formula. The more important question would be that of the formula being a useful comparison, disregarding the validity of the actual figures for now, because as we all know, anyone can quote articles on-line and you'd get different figures (What? No!).
OK, now, getting that out of the way, I have some insight to this since I work in a primarily structural engineering firm although I've been trained as an architect. Firstly, my first response was similar to Steven Ward: disregarding the comments about the client/consultant structure (something about someone being a bitch of someone else), YES, many structural engineers have architects as their main clients. And so engineers were hit hard too, albeit not as much due to more diversification of the source of work. Most engineers are on a salary basis, meaning that they will NOT get paid over time either. While they may not work 80 hours a week all the time, I can't actually say from observation that I know for a fact that engineers do less work (hourly) than architects.
My observation has always been that it is TRUE that engineers make more straight out of school. No question about it. They can provide more value to a firm straight out of school than any architecturally trained graduate. Over the lifetime of a career? That is a totally different question and something that I would think would be more relevant (especially if we're not referring to $$$).
i'm with edgewood, the last time i checked a big mac does cost the same for both.
now, if dipstick wants to say purchasing power, based on what a grad needs to pay back on student loans, is drastically affected, then i am there. graduates in engineering, EITs, make more than graduates with a barch.
Slartibartfast: thanks for sharing. Extremely relevant and useful. I am jealous that you are working in an engineering firm.
Can you give me any advice on what a Reg. Architect might do to land a job inside a structural engineering firm? What NOT to do?
Also my research to date indicates that I probably have a GPA (3.71 and 3.64) and other prerequisites already good enough that I can apply to the major University in my area (next town over actually) and apply for the M.S. in Civil Eng with a concentration in structural engineering and maybe even the PHD program (this is probably way out of my league at this point anyways).
Oh and Slartibartfast you are getting very, very warm as far as the calcs. (Probably due to working in a much more logical/ rational environment and not pulling all nighters every weekend)
b3tadine[sutures] who is the dipstick and why?
b3tadine[sutures] you are correct. A cost of living adjustment is specifically used to offset a loss in purchasing power. That may be due to inflation, for example an anual cost of living adjustment to one’s salary, or a higher salary due to a cost of living adjustment that is offered in a more expensive city.
Piggy, was that the way you reached your numbers? Because if you’ve derived these figures using Slartibartfast’s crazy formula, then it seems like you’ve tried to skew the results to support your going back to school. If that’s the case I'd say plan on being in engineering school for the full four years. The good engineers I know let the numbers speak for themselves.
Not MY "crazy" formula, but my understanding of the formula that went through Piggy's head. My point was that, if anything, you should question the usefulness of the formula itself, not necessarily the numbers/figures or the calculations.
Piggy - Anyway, I'll entertain you, assuming you're really serious about this (although your language says otherwise, and seems to be much more of an emotional response to a singular event or a culmination of many small events). For an architect to be useful to an engineering firm, you have to have quantifiable experience in a specific area. They will not be impressed with cool portfolios. And Piggy, there is nothing to be jealous about. You're just having a case of the grass-is-greener-on-the-other-side syndrome.
Thanks for your time and consideration Slartibartfast.
I've been hiding out in a CM firm for a couple of years whilst I finished the A.R.E..
I don't think that I'm having a simple case of the grass being greener although I don't disregard you by any means -I totally understand your points above.
The last two years I've been making 30% more money and getting real health insurance coverage for my family of 4, a cell phone and a bunch of reimbursibles the last two years doing CM work. Also, I have been dealing with normal people and have had access to leaderhsip opportunties which translates into leverage. Also have built a professional network through daily contacts with owners -all things the owners of firms in my experience try to guard like starving vultures. This experience has taught me the grass really, really is greener on the other side.
Prior to giving this CM thing a try I did a lot of research. I was very intimidated because I had only worked in Arch offices post high school my entire professional life of 10 years.
If I were an engineer the only thing I would use Arch Record for (or a fancy portfolio) is to wipe my posterior or light a fire.
I think S.E. would be great because a lot of my strengths with mathematics and my previous experiences with Structures will apply.
I've sent some emails to some S.E. acquaintances to get their advice...waiting to hear back...
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo has an Architectural Engineering program but the program focuses on structural engineering.
If your looking into structural engineering I'd consider Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection design/engineering as a specialty. You can command higher fees in specialization.
http://www.hce.com/
Piggy - From personal observation, CMs tend to have a low opinion of architects in general. So I don't think that is the best environment to think over perceptions of architects and letting that get to you. And perhaps visiting a real structural office will give you insight on how they do work. Just like everyone has perceptions of how architects work (on some cloud somewhere in front of a drafter's table), there are perceptions of how engineers work. Its not all fancy and interesting calculations and the satisfaction of clear cut answers. Its a lot of spreadsheets, tables, and product data, etc etc. Not that there is no value in that, but its not as interesting as it may seem from the outside.
To put this in perspective, I highly value my opportunity in getting insight of how engineers work, but if the economy wasn't this way, I would move to an Arch office ASAP.
Hey, but you never know, maybe you'd make a great engineer. But I don't see how going back to school for a engineering degree will guarantee a financial payback any time soon if ever. Or why you value your perception of Society's perception of our profession so much so that you are abandoning something that has been a part of you for so long and worked hard to get.
I'll be yo huckleberry...
Thanks Slartibartfast, thats some really great feedback!
Thinking it all over and doing the research and applying at Arch Firms and Engineering firms...
I think if I were to go into a structures related office I would still be interested in doing something that is creative and design driven...
A few weeks ago there was a pretty cool lecture at the University of Washington by Front Inc., a design and facade consulting firm... basically building envelope design... But they have architects, structural engineers and mechanical engineers on board and do pretty amazing custom stuff... work with alot of interesting architects, high end projects...
http://frontinc.com/
vs. more traditional engineering firms, although there are some interesting structural firms out there
http://www.mka.com/
http://www.arup.com/
there's also fabricators who need people to design stuff... these guys were posting a couple jobs here a while back:
http://novumstructures.com/
personally I like the diversity of architecture... thinking about all the parts coming together as a whole, rather than just the structural systems... Isn't it nice to be an architect and get to work with all of these different consultants and fabricators etc.? I think structural is interesting but if you are primarily interested in specializing in a particular kind of system, or like the structural element of it over the aesthetic, material, finishes or spatial elements... plus you are always then a consultant to the architect...
That said, keep in mind that structural designers are hurting in this economy too... it's not just architecture firms, it's the whole aec industry so you can't exactly get away from the cyclical nature of our industry by moving laterally in the industry imho... it's really more about what you're interested in, since you'll excel at what interests you imho...
Okay so I met with the director of the Masters of Engineering program Structures department today for about an hour. Its the best school of one of the four major regions of the United States and it happens to be 15 miles away from my house (bought the house from a family friend who was a tenured professor at this school who went to spend his final years in Florida).
If I do really decide to do this then its good news. The Director of the structures department reviewed my professional and academic qualifications and said that if I applied I would pretty much have no problem getting in.
How intimidating! Will probably be a nice, exhilarating challenge if things work out towards this end...lots more research to do and then I'll get back in touch with the Director to have him review some more...Perhaps I'll retake the GRE for fun. He said my score is good enough to get in but I'd like to improve it just to see how well I would do if I actually cared enough to prep for it. (the first time I took it I didn't take it too seriously because I was only applying to architecture school, after all).
I've also been talking this over with many friends who are P.E.s and they seem to think its a good idea for a lot of reasons.
And I've thought that it is very interesting that I joined an engineering forum recently and noticed the stark absence of "emo" responses to my questions...very encouraging. Just a lot of input on approaching this as a problem to be solved...nice.
you're a little boy stuck in a womens body
Men and women are different and have different roles. One is not "better" than the other but they are very different.
Therefore, your comment ----0---- is rather pointless and immature.
where in my post did I say one is better than the other?
immature huh.... it's immature to come onto an architecture forum and repeatedly knock the profession, glad you found an engineering forum so PACK UP YOUR REMARKS AND SEE YOUR WAY OUT. I'm sure an engineering forum would love to discuss your hatred for the architecture profession.
GET LOST
Glad to see you are about as territorial and logical as a junkyard dog.
Major emo alert...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HQIcdGg63I
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.