A person/intern with the B.Arch degree spends 5 years and is going to make, if he can find a job, about $35,000 starting salary.
So lets break that down a little.
$35,000 x 28% tax, medicare, SS, Fics, etc = $25,200/year
$25,200/12 months = $2,100 per month
Student loans for $40,000 = +/- $250/mo.
Car loan after graduation $20,000 = +/- $400/mo.
$2,100 - $650 = $1,450/mo. to live on.
Sounds bad right?
But it could be far worse.
A person/intern with the M.Arch degree spends 4-5 years for their B.Arch or pre-prof degree then goes on to do 1, 2 or 3 more years for the M.Arch and is going to make, if he can find a job, about $40,000 starting salary.
So lets break that down a little.
$40,000 x 28% tax, medicare, SS, Fics, etc = $28,800/year
$28,800/12 months = $2,400 per month ($300 more than B.Arch)
Student loans for $80,000 = +/- $500/mo.
Car loan after graduation $20,000 = +/- $400/mo.
$2,400- $900 = $1,450/mo. to live on.
Now, what we have is this:
1, 2 or 3 years more in school
Those years less experiance
Those years more debt/loans
Those years no raises/promotions
For $50/mo. net gain
And to top it off, if you went the way of the M.Arch, you are pretty much locked into architecture. Hopefully you find that it is everything you thought it should be. Yeah right.
I only post this so that new students start to do the math. An M.Arch is a fine thing to get eventually, if you really want to. The B.Arch student should get out into the field immediatly. See what it is like. Look at their pay and if that is going to cover their expected lifestyle. Then come to realize that the M.Arch is there mostly for personal gratification and also the $50/mo.
I'm just asking people to do the math.
Of course if mom and dad are paying your way, this thread is not for you.
No posts regarding the pre-prof degrees or lib arts 4 year degrees and moving onto M.Arch. Typically, that is then the only route.
Except that with a B Arch you really are locked into architecture for a full 5 years and you don't have the additional knowledge gained from another degree, so all you are trained in is architecture. An M Arch might have a professional B Eng or a degree in computer science or business or fine art or industrial design etc. *in addition* to the architectural training... Also I think the argument would be that a high school graduate may not have the maturity or knowledge enough about what architecture is really about to make the right decision in committing to 5 years of study with no other avenue to change directions later... I think the M Arch system is actually more flexible... Also I think the intent would be to make architecture a more competitive program vs professional schools like law, business, or med school... Open the profession up to applicants who have already studied in other fields... Because otherwise, you are barring architecture from applicants except those who already knew they were going to do architecture as high schoolers...
For those who already know, you can just do undergrad architecture, and follow through with the MArch, which would take less time than doing a different 4 year degree (since you get advanced placement which typically saves you a year), or if the undergraduate non professional architecture student wants, they could finish that BA or BSc and apply to a law degree or med school or business etc. So I think the MArch is more flexible... Also, why should architects be "bachelors" vs other professional degrees which pretend to be "doctorates" like med school or law? At the very least, I think architecture school is as rigorous as law school IMHO, and it us just catching up with inflation in titles to make the profession more marketable by making it a masters in name...
But yeah, higher education is too expensive generally... That's a problem that us true across the board: just think of the liberal arts BA major graduating from a school like Harvard... Education in America is dangerously close to being a privelege for the wealthy... I don't think that's a problem isolated to architecture school...
I think they should do away with b
BArch... Make MArch the standard and automatically award existing BArch graduates from the old system an MArch... In my mind, the professional BArch is anyway the same thing as the professional MArch... This is jus keeping up with *degree inflation* generally... In a competitive labor market... 2 cents... We need to standardize the degree to mean something the way an MD or JD or MBA does... Have one degree standard...
Onthefence, sorry just read the last part if your post... I agree, if you have a professional BArch, you don't need an MArch... It's the same thing in the industry's eyes...
Seems backwards to me. JMHO. A lot of people, not most and I certainly do not claim to have the numbers, who have the M.Arch came from a 4 year degree. That does not sound equal to the 5 year B.Arch. JMHO again.
And I have not looked into it but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that I could exchange or turn a 5 year B.Arch into a 4 year lib arts or similar degree quicker and cheaper than into an M.Arch if I decided not to follow architecture. Lots can be done with a B.Arch outside of architecture firms.
Talk about versatility and options.
And again you and all of us need to stop comparing us to lawyers and doctors. We are more like an engineer.
I agree with brink that the MArch is much ore flexible in what you do with your undergrad studies. And even if you want to study architecture undergrad you can do that with a pre-professional degree in arch and still have some flexibility in what classes you take where as with the BArch you are locked in.
I also agree about the maturity level coming out of high school. For me I went straight into the BArch program out of high school, then transferred out after a year, took some time off got my AA, and then continued and got a 4year pre-professional degree. That time off allowed me to mature and develop a good deal intellectually (and I was fairly mature already compared to most college freshmen) and produce much better projects and become much more successful in my program.
Now I am going to continue with the MArch and If I had to do it all over again I would do it the pre-professional - MArch every time.
As for the expense and the debt I think your numbers are fairly skewed because it is quite possible to do an undergrad and masters for cheaper or less then a 5-year BArch.
As an example my state school does not offer the BArch but the offer a BS.Arch and the MArch. Going that route at instate tuition 8K -10K a year that would be 60K.
The closet school to me to offer a BArch is a private school which costs 30K a year which for 5years would be 150K.
Granted this isn't always the case and it will vary given the person, situation, state, and university but it is possible to get an MArch cheaper then the BArch, and for less cost have 1 more year of education, which in my opinion is never a bad thing.
"And again you and all of us need to stop comparing us to lawyers and doctors. We are more like an engineer"
On the Fence, right on. This is after all else a technicaly creative proffesion and 4 years is certainly enough. 5 years even better and 6 years downright insane.
Then bRink if we're going to one standard I think we should do away with the MArch *unless* it is a narrow specialization after BArch.
I came out of a BArch program ready to work, with a basic understanding of the things that make one valuable to an employer: drafting, drawing, programming, putting a set together, writing persuasively, structural forces, and even a bit of business.
An MArch should be for honing one set of knowledge: desert climate design, for example, or maybe design related to health care, or accessibility, or structural technologies, etc.
I got my MArch because I thought I wanted to teach. But a specialized MArch would also give its holders something TO teach.
Right if you have a professional BArch you wouldn't do another MArch... That is redundant. There are post professional M Arch II degrees that take 1 or 2 years currently but that is in my mind silly to have to do an advanced degree for the degree to be labelled an M Arch... You should already have an M Arch and that should be the professional standard to avoid the complications of differing titles... Instead advanced post professional specialist degrees should have a different title to avoid ambiguity. One of the problems I see is that there are too many variations in degree title that confuse title in a competitive market where degree titles have become anyway inlated (outside architecture)... In Canada for example, a law degree is a bachelors... If you are going to call a lawyer a doctoral profession, an architect should be a masters on par with an MBA at the least...
Right if you have a professional BArch you wouldn't do another MArch... That is redundant. There are post professional M Arch II degrees that take 1 or 2 years currently but that is in my mind silly to have to do an advanced degree for the degree to be labelled an M Arch... You should already have an M Arch and that should be the professional standard to avoid the complications of differing titles... Instead advanced post professional specialist degrees should have a different title to avoid ambiguity. One of the problems I see is that there are too many variations in degree title that confuse title in a competitive market where degree titles have become anyway inlated (outside architecture)... In Canada for example, a law degree is a bachelors... If you are going to call a lawyer a doctoral profession, an architect should be a masters on par with an MBA at the least...
If I remember right the MARCH was a way for the universities to make more money and the snooty architects to say they have a "masters" unlike their engineering counterparts - ME, EE.
Sorry for the double post... Maybe lb... That could work too... But then, what would gave been my avenue to become an architect, I studied business as my first degree... I would probably be a lawyer right now... Or still in school right now doing my 5 year b arch after having gotten a 4 year degree in business... IMHO the m arch avenue opens up the degree to be competitive for candidates with other professions... I think our profession especially being as diverse and involved in so many different industries benefits from having architects from diverse backgrounds... Art, science, engineering, technology, other design fields etc...
*inlated = inflated*: Degree titles have become *inflated* in the market generally (outside architecture), so I think using the M Arch designation instead of B Arch is just keeping up with that inflation...
*gave = have*: If the degree was a 5 year bachelors, what would *have* been my avenue to become an architect, given that I studied business as my first degree...?
RE: drafting, drawing, programming, putting a set together, writing persuasively, structural forces, and even a bit of business.
I think an M Arch is enough to prepare a professional to do thos things... Or at least it *should* be... If a doctor can come out of 3 years of school and be able to be a general practitioner of medicine, surely an architect should be able to graduate from a degree in architecture and be able to practice generally, meeting those minimum requirements after a 3 1/2 to 4 year M Arch... If we are not graduating professionals who meet those minimum requirements, then I think that is a problem with the education system not placing enough emphasis in the basic requirements for practice... I think design studio is important, but perhaps schools are placing an overemphasis on design only, and not enough equal stress on the requirements for practice...?
The "should be" is what is key, bRink! I do feel that current Master's programs tend to de-emphasize practical matters too much. I just think the technical/craft and business sides are, frankly, more interesting. At least at this point in my life and our profession I do.
Granted, going to only MArchs would set architects more solidly on the level of lawyers and doctors, which is where we seem to aspire to be, right?
Yeah maybe right regarding med school I could be wrong but I thought med school was 3...
Also, it is much easier and would be more well received generally to upgrade existing BArchs to a masters, then for example to retroactively degrade all MArchs to a bachelors! ;-)
Not to knitpick here but it was you who said the M.Arch is more a requirement for those with a 4 year degree. I don't see why we should bump up Barch's. Bumping down seems to be more inline especially if looking at the 4+2 or 3 programs. It just happens to be more equal downgrading than up.
Sorry, but I like the diversity in our profession. It's confusing. And to some that can be detrimental. Schools needs to make it clear that there are different routes to becoming an architect. Those who are 90% sure they want to be an architect take the 5 yr route and those that don't should take the 4+2 route. As a happy 5yr grad I could definitely see that some of my classmates would have been better off going the 4+2 route. I mean, if you figure out that it's not right for you in 2nd or 3rd year... you have to start all over, none of that stuff transfers.
But OTF, the other reason for upgrading rather than downgrading, is that 5yr programs require the equivalent coursework for a masters. Typical Bachelors 120 + typical masters 36 = 156. My 5yr degree required 169. So to keep it on par with the rest of the degrees... MArch. Otherwise we're valuing our time and skill even less.
(Not to mention that you really earn those studio credit hours!)
Time I understand. What level of skill did you get for the extra 1-2 years that you rely on on a daily basis which you could not have relied on from the BArch?
The overall b.arch/m.arch argument I think boils down to your preference on timing-whether you would like to learn architecture first or later on.
As a B.Arch student, I can still pursue another professional degree such as a Masters in Real Estate Development, M.Arch2, construction management, MBA etc. to supplement my architecture degree. This is an important option for me because it would give me a lot more options in terms of future career paths and allow me more versatility in the different sectors of the industry such as development or construction.
For M.Arch students, it would seem harder to go for another professional degree without being burnt out after at least 7 years of schooling or be in some serious debt after having to pay for a M.Arch degree.
The $40,000 starting salary for a MArch does not seem accurate. Where did you get this number from? I speak from experience coming out of school last May and landing a job for nearly 50% more. Maybe I am the exception to the rule.
Overall I think your numbers are skewed. I spent 6 years (4+2) getting my Masters at two out of state schools, so my numbers are far worse than you indicate but I am not in any sort of dire straits. Granted I have loan payments for next 20 years, but I wouldn't trade the time for anything. And I understood the debt burden I was placing on myself.
And why does post graduation have to include a $20,000 car loan? For less than $80 a month I take public transportation to and from work.
You've simplified the BArch vs MArch argument too much.
By the time its all paid off (so including interest) it will be in the neighborhood of $200,000.
And I do own a car. I was lucky enough to purchase a family member's used car at a reasonable price. But its only used once a month to run errands.
Again, I knew going in (or should I say going out "of state") the debt I would incur. I was comfortable taking it on. And I do realize that I may be an exception at this current stage since most of my fellow graduates remain unemployed 9 months after graduation.
The $40,000 starting salary for a MArch does not seem accurate. Where did you get this number from? I speak from experience coming out of school last May and landing a job for nearly 50% more. Maybe I am the exception to the rule.
Well, starting salaries vary a lot, but most entry level intern architects don't make anywhere near $60k no matter what their degree. To do that in the 2009 economy is remarkable. You should be very thankful.
Also note, I have yet to hear of any architecture firm that pays anything significantly more to MArch grads than BArch grads. I've heard of people with years of experience in different careers getting MArch degrees and getting hired at a higher rate for "years of experience" although it may not directly apply. But for a 22-25 year old fresh grad, starting salaries are by in large the same and in the roughly $35-40k range.
My own personal saga didn't come with near the amount of student loan debt as the above example. I also had an old beater vehicle in lieu of addn'l debt. Still, as a fresh grad I had to make tough decisions all because of personal finances. For one I opted to take a job in a city where I knew that I could easily find a roommate and share the cost of rent. I'd be lying if I said that I enjoyed my 20's the same way other friends in more lucrative careers had. There were also times I begrudgingly accepted financial help from my folks, a safety blanket that vanished once they retired and went on a fixed income. Not until I got married and starting living under a dual income (one that was much higher than my own) did I feel enough financial security to really "relax."
My advise to new students is that this is a tough career and you have to be 100% motivated because it's a long uphill struggle.
60? really, i'm seeing a lot of 32's... but I'm looking at engineering degrees to compare... (originally i just googled typical masters and typical bachelors) oh, looked at UofI and they are around 60 for Arch but there Comp Science M.S. is only 32... So, perhaps is an Architecture thing, twice the school for the same creds. I'm not a Masters student, perhaps someone could shed some light on the comparison.
To answer your second question, I don't rely an any info that I would have gotten in a Master's Program on a day to day basis. However, people I work with who have done the 4+2 know more cool cultural stuff depending on what kind of liberal arts electives they took. (I would say that the 5yr people we see are better prepared though, but that maybe a personal experience/bias, and I certainly don't want to start a 5yr/4+2yr war) I think I took maybe 4-5 electives outside of the arch program. That's the problem with the 5yr program, it's all arch all the time.
Essentially, on the fence, I don't think you can run a legitimate cost-benefit analysis. These are 5-6 years of your life. And it involves soooo much more than money. The difference in money is rather negligible when you think about it. (Who you meet, what you work on, where you live, who you become)
Hell, nobody knows what architecture is before they go to school. Nobody wants to know what they want to do in this profession. Of which there are so many niches, styles, approaches that would affect things like salary and "real-world" application. Sure, a lot of people live off nothing right out of school, think they'll never get out from under the mountain of debt they created, and see no real earning potential (if any at all these days), but... a lot of people would count the opportunity to practice architecture as a real benefit. If you're an architect, that's it. I mean to a certain degree its black and white. I don't want to be a biochem engineer, an accountant, a trader. I could certainly transition to a cushy gov job and make some serious dough doing less work then I do know. But I'm an architect (barely) and that's it. There's no changing it. (Sorry for the pointless rant)
(Unfortunately, you can only take the way I feel about it with a certain grain of salt as I know I'm not under some of the financial pressures and burden that some of my colleagues are. But I think many would say the same thing)
And I don't know how you can not run a cost analysis. Actually I see how people didn't do it. But it doesn't show up until about 10-15 years later when they sit there complaining about their wages compared to their lifestyles now that they have a wife,2 kids, a dog, mortgage, 2 car payments and the 529 plans they need for their kids to goto college they can't afford.
"Essentially, on the fence, I don't think you can run a legitimate cost-benefit analysis. These are 5-6 years of your life. And it involves soooo much more than money. The difference in money is rather negligible when you think about it. (Who you meet, what you work on, where you live, who you become)"
There is current debate in all fields about the benefits of a college degree. These debates center around earning potential and cost benefit and fail to address the social, political, etc. aspects that come with a college life.
It is being argued that the earning potential of a college degree is not nearly as high a number that is usually given when you consider student debt (especially considering the always increasing costs), the "catch-up" required for scheduled raises and bonuses required by those starting in the field 4-6 years later, and other similar factors. Continuing in school addtional time only makes it worse.
But there are many professions where at minimum a bachelors degree is required. Then there are many jobs which require a masters degree.
Obviously money is an important factor but as postal said I want to be an architect, not in another profession which my earn more money. I don't think the BArch vs MArch debate is cut and dry. Its going to vary based on individual situations.
26, is that to young? i don't think anyone here would say they weren't profoundly different after school.. that college was merely a test, an obligatory hurdle on their path to licensure, that there weren't profound impacts on their personal and professional lives outside architecture. college doesn't merely prepares you for you career, it prepares you to handle your future when it's time to handle it. to make the decisions to switch jobs or stay pat in order to sacrifice for your kids or your mortgage. does anyone really regret their time in school? no, i'd even like to go back, but seeing as college has become the american dream/rite of passage costs have sky rocketed.
but are you going to lay it all out for your son or daughter, throw the numbers down, and compute the difference of taking tuition and throwing it in the market with an expected rate of return, and projecting the career path for your child... and then deny them every right to choose what they'd like to do. i mean, you can sit down like bill cosby and theo with the monopoly money and play the numbers all you want. but at a certain point, you need to have faith in your ability (or have faith in your son/daughter's ability) to achieve anything you want. and if you use the reasoning your, why be an architect? why make you chances of success so slim?
i guess i'm struggling to find your point otf, the original premise of the thread. you've built this analysis based on the natural american progression, college, job, wife, kids, college, retirement. but there's a lot of things that could go wrong or great, and 1 yr in or out of school is nothing. I think everybody comes in with the notion that college is going to help you get a job (or is required to get a job) but few would say that's all it did, really i'm what, 3.5 years out of school, and i'm already so far removed from those studio classes, those final reviews of torture and elation, but i can't help but feel like i was molded into something more than what i was. and if i don't think that's incredibly priceless i might be crazy.
(i hope i don't sound like i'm arguing too much. we've debated the monetary problems in arch education and the profession a lot around here. I'd like to know why we should start here and what solution we should propose.)
"i mean, you can sit down like bill cosby and theo with the monopoly money and play the numbers all you want. but at a certain point, you need to have faith in your ability (or have faith in your son/daughter's ability) to achieve anything you want. and if you use the reasoning your, why be an architect?"
I was making 36,000 with my BS and after getting my March I was offered 59,000 right out of school. I did have about 3 years experience between those two.
I was also able to move up really quick and have my own team.
I did get laid off after about a year or so, but then was rehired at the same pay 6 weeks later.
"Does anyone sense a salary ceiling to the BArch vs MArch or can you earn more over an entire career with an MArch than a BArch?
Is it more prestigious to an employer to list MArchs as employees?"
I think that all comes down to the person 10, 15 or 20 years later. The degree no longer matters. JMHO. We would need input from some others and especially anybody who emplys people.
"26, is that to young? i don't think anyone here would say they weren't profoundly different after school.. that college was merely a test, an obligatory hurdle on their path to licensure, that there weren't profound impacts on their personal and professional lives outside architecture."
Actually yes. Not to be demeaing. I'm not trying to. In ten years your view may very well change based on, again, wife, kids, mortgage, car loans, medical bills, 529 plans for your 3 kids so they can enjoy the same typ e of schooling you were able to, so on and so forth. Your opinion is worht noting. I am not discarding it but I have to take it with a grain of salt.
I'm 42, so I have a little practical experiance on this issue. I am glad I never got the M.Arch, not that it is a bad thing to have, but the cost would probably not have allowed me to stay in architecture. Obviously my personal experiances here and situation but an M.Arch IMHO wouldn't make anything up for me.
Hopefully this forum will be around 10 years from now and you can post on this subject. We will see if you have changed your mind or not.
"but are you going to lay it all out for your son or daughter, throw the numbers down, and compute the difference of taking tuition and throwing it in the market with an expected rate of return, and projecting the career path for your child... and then deny them every right to choose what they'd like to do."
No. I don't have to if everything remains the way it is. Like I said, if your mom and dad can pay for school, this thread is not for you. If you have to pay for your own 4, 5 year degree and the M.Arch on your own, this thread is definatly for you. You need to do the math. When I pay for my kids tuition, it is a gift bceause I have the money in hand. But I am not paying for any masters degrees. They can do that on their own and weigh the costs vs. value.
"i guess i'm struggling to find your point otf, the original premise of the thread. you've built this analysis based on the natural american progression, college, job, wife, kids, college, retirement. but there's a lot of things that could go wrong or great, and 1 yr in or out of school is nothing."
The point is obvious.
I care. I want people to pay attention.
And I used this scenario because it is basic or the average. Sure thing scan change and do. You could get pregnant in your 2nd year and then we don't need this conversation. You could be a trust fund baby and again, this thread is not for you. But the average path, if you feel like taking a poll, is college, wife, home, babies, 529 plans so on and so forth.
"i hope i don't sound like i'm arguing too much. we've debated the monetary problems in arch education and the profession a lot around here. I'd like to know why we should start here and what solution we should propose.)"
I heartbooks thinks you sound wise for your age.
Amazingly enough to me you sound like you are fresh into the field, which is why I asked the question. Maybe we should ask Iheartbooks his/her age next.
I think the point of the thread is obvious. It is about maximizing opportunities, and planning to succeed.
"I am glad I never got the M.Arch, not that it is a bad thing to have, but the cost would probably not have allowed me to stay in architecture" Agreed! If I had gotten my masters I would have had too much debt and no cash to do the things I did in the last few years: buy a house, pay for my husband's graduate degree, and now, start my own business...
Does anyone sense a salary ceiling to the BArch vs MArch or can you earn more over an entire career with an MArch than a BArch?
Is it more prestigious to an employer to list MArchs as employees?
All that really matters to a potential client is how many Registered Architects they have. Once you pass that ARE the BArch/MArch debate is basically null and void. Same goes for earning potential.
Fence, you may care and want to help others plan for their future, but by only looking at the numbers you are not doing the situation justice.
As long as we are clear about our goals, and our personal financial situation then what is the problem?
Your approach doesn’t account for any of the subtleties that make life more complex and enjoyable. Where does happiness and personal growth fit into your equation?
If there is no financial net gain (or net lose), but the experience of grad school changes who you are as a person and designer, is it worth it?
As long as you understand and account for the financial obligations then what is the problem?
we were doing some projects in Dubai in 2008/2009 and when we were sending people to join the office there, the client requested copies of the degrees of the potential architects/designers that were joining the office there. The only reason we had an office there was to satisfy that particular client.
It's not about the client thinking what degrees you have, but it's about us, the employees and the office positions you get within the firm with a Barch or a March.
From my experience, architects with March were higher up in the firm and were making more money as well.
If I had the experience that a Barch and a March made the same amount, had the same positions....FUCK THAT, I wouldn't think twice getting only a Barch, but I never saw that happen.
The most redeeming aspect of this profesion is that it is a "Put up or Shut up" job. You can have the fanciest degrees or minimal technical training and if the work is good, you will be fine and that should be a comfort to everyone.
"And I'm 25. Maybe too young in your eyes, but I'm happy with were I'm at. "
I understand that. Really, I was 25 once too. The moment matters.
I am asking you people who are in school right now to pay some attention. Do some math. See if it works or not. And just as we do in architecture, pay attention to what came before you. Meaning the older people in the profession. A lot, not a few, of us who have been throughh it already are expressing concerns about this financial situation. There is a real reason and it starts to show up by the time you hit your early 30's to late 30's. Then BANG. All of a sudden that good feeling you hand in college hanging out doing design with no cares in the word ENDS or diminishes.
Please just do the math and pay attention to others already through, not others in grad school who have not on ioda of knowledge of the reality you will be stepping into.
Let me also add that I am not getting one thing for this advice to you.
The schools, are getting something for telling you to stay in school though, right? They do it for profit. They need you in school for as long as possible. They are not doing it for the betterment of mankind or from the bottom of their hearts. My advice is strictly for your benifit to use as you will. I'm only asking for people to do the math prior to jumping in and not after 10-15 years to find out your financial situation is in ruins and your fuzzy feeling has gone the way of the dodo bird.
Don't take my word for it. Go lookk up on all the architecture websites and see what others say about earnings after 10,15 or 20 years. I know they used to tell you in school that you are not going to make big money. Don't know what they tell you these days though. Probabaly that it is better to be in school getting the M.Arch than out their in the real world in this economy.
Barch vs. March and reality
B.Arch vs. M.Arch
What makes sense?
A person/intern with the B.Arch degree spends 5 years and is going to make, if he can find a job, about $35,000 starting salary.
So lets break that down a little.
$35,000 x 28% tax, medicare, SS, Fics, etc = $25,200/year
$25,200/12 months = $2,100 per month
Student loans for $40,000 = +/- $250/mo.
Car loan after graduation $20,000 = +/- $400/mo.
$2,100 - $650 = $1,450/mo. to live on.
Sounds bad right?
But it could be far worse.
A person/intern with the M.Arch degree spends 4-5 years for their B.Arch or pre-prof degree then goes on to do 1, 2 or 3 more years for the M.Arch and is going to make, if he can find a job, about $40,000 starting salary.
So lets break that down a little.
$40,000 x 28% tax, medicare, SS, Fics, etc = $28,800/year
$28,800/12 months = $2,400 per month ($300 more than B.Arch)
Student loans for $80,000 = +/- $500/mo.
Car loan after graduation $20,000 = +/- $400/mo.
$2,400- $900 = $1,450/mo. to live on.
Now, what we have is this:
1, 2 or 3 years more in school
Those years less experiance
Those years more debt/loans
Those years no raises/promotions
For $50/mo. net gain
And to top it off, if you went the way of the M.Arch, you are pretty much locked into architecture. Hopefully you find that it is everything you thought it should be. Yeah right.
I only post this so that new students start to do the math. An M.Arch is a fine thing to get eventually, if you really want to. The B.Arch student should get out into the field immediatly. See what it is like. Look at their pay and if that is going to cover their expected lifestyle. Then come to realize that the M.Arch is there mostly for personal gratification and also the $50/mo.
I'm just asking people to do the math.
Of course if mom and dad are paying your way, this thread is not for you.
No posts regarding the pre-prof degrees or lib arts 4 year degrees and moving onto M.Arch. Typically, that is then the only route.
B.Arch vs. M.Arch
What do you think?
Having both. I think it should have been all done as a BARCH. I got my MARCH as a specialist. BTW one I never use.
I encourage all of the four years who are not required by their state's law not go to grad school.
I can't see the benefit unless you want to teach. and then they are looking for PHD's.
reality check: I've got less than $80k in loans, and definitely pay more than $500/mo. So it's even worse than you're depicting.
Except that with a B Arch you really are locked into architecture for a full 5 years and you don't have the additional knowledge gained from another degree, so all you are trained in is architecture. An M Arch might have a professional B Eng or a degree in computer science or business or fine art or industrial design etc. *in addition* to the architectural training... Also I think the argument would be that a high school graduate may not have the maturity or knowledge enough about what architecture is really about to make the right decision in committing to 5 years of study with no other avenue to change directions later... I think the M Arch system is actually more flexible... Also I think the intent would be to make architecture a more competitive program vs professional schools like law, business, or med school... Open the profession up to applicants who have already studied in other fields... Because otherwise, you are barring architecture from applicants except those who already knew they were going to do architecture as high schoolers...
For those who already know, you can just do undergrad architecture, and follow through with the MArch, which would take less time than doing a different 4 year degree (since you get advanced placement which typically saves you a year), or if the undergraduate non professional architecture student wants, they could finish that BA or BSc and apply to a law degree or med school or business etc. So I think the MArch is more flexible... Also, why should architects be "bachelors" vs other professional degrees which pretend to be "doctorates" like med school or law? At the very least, I think architecture school is as rigorous as law school IMHO, and it us just catching up with inflation in titles to make the profession more marketable by making it a masters in name...
But yeah, higher education is too expensive generally... That's a problem that us true across the board: just think of the liberal arts BA major graduating from a school like Harvard... Education in America is dangerously close to being a privelege for the wealthy... I don't think that's a problem isolated to architecture school...
I think they should do away with b
BArch... Make MArch the standard and automatically award existing BArch graduates from the old system an MArch... In my mind, the professional BArch is anyway the same thing as the professional MArch... This is jus keeping up with *degree inflation* generally... In a competitive labor market... 2 cents... We need to standardize the degree to mean something the way an MD or JD or MBA does... Have one degree standard...
Onthefence, sorry just read the last part if your post... I agree, if you have a professional BArch, you don't need an MArch... It's the same thing in the industry's eyes...
Seems backwards to me. JMHO. A lot of people, not most and I certainly do not claim to have the numbers, who have the M.Arch came from a 4 year degree. That does not sound equal to the 5 year B.Arch. JMHO again.
And I have not looked into it but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that I could exchange or turn a 5 year B.Arch into a 4 year lib arts or similar degree quicker and cheaper than into an M.Arch if I decided not to follow architecture. Lots can be done with a B.Arch outside of architecture firms.
Talk about versatility and options.
And again you and all of us need to stop comparing us to lawyers and doctors. We are more like an engineer.
I agree with brink that the MArch is much ore flexible in what you do with your undergrad studies. And even if you want to study architecture undergrad you can do that with a pre-professional degree in arch and still have some flexibility in what classes you take where as with the BArch you are locked in.
I also agree about the maturity level coming out of high school. For me I went straight into the BArch program out of high school, then transferred out after a year, took some time off got my AA, and then continued and got a 4year pre-professional degree. That time off allowed me to mature and develop a good deal intellectually (and I was fairly mature already compared to most college freshmen) and produce much better projects and become much more successful in my program.
Now I am going to continue with the MArch and If I had to do it all over again I would do it the pre-professional - MArch every time.
As for the expense and the debt I think your numbers are fairly skewed because it is quite possible to do an undergrad and masters for cheaper or less then a 5-year BArch.
As an example my state school does not offer the BArch but the offer a BS.Arch and the MArch. Going that route at instate tuition 8K -10K a year that would be 60K.
The closet school to me to offer a BArch is a private school which costs 30K a year which for 5years would be 150K.
Granted this isn't always the case and it will vary given the person, situation, state, and university but it is possible to get an MArch cheaper then the BArch, and for less cost have 1 more year of education, which in my opinion is never a bad thing.
"And again you and all of us need to stop comparing us to lawyers and doctors. We are more like an engineer"
On the Fence, right on. This is after all else a technicaly creative proffesion and 4 years is certainly enough. 5 years even better and 6 years downright insane.
Then bRink if we're going to one standard I think we should do away with the MArch *unless* it is a narrow specialization after BArch.
I came out of a BArch program ready to work, with a basic understanding of the things that make one valuable to an employer: drafting, drawing, programming, putting a set together, writing persuasively, structural forces, and even a bit of business.
An MArch should be for honing one set of knowledge: desert climate design, for example, or maybe design related to health care, or accessibility, or structural technologies, etc.
I got my MArch because I thought I wanted to teach. But a specialized MArch would also give its holders something TO teach.
This is how I'm feeling today, anyway.
Right if you have a professional BArch you wouldn't do another MArch... That is redundant. There are post professional M Arch II degrees that take 1 or 2 years currently but that is in my mind silly to have to do an advanced degree for the degree to be labelled an M Arch... You should already have an M Arch and that should be the professional standard to avoid the complications of differing titles... Instead advanced post professional specialist degrees should have a different title to avoid ambiguity. One of the problems I see is that there are too many variations in degree title that confuse title in a competitive market where degree titles have become anyway inlated (outside architecture)... In Canada for example, a law degree is a bachelors... If you are going to call a lawyer a doctoral profession, an architect should be a masters on par with an MBA at the least...
Right if you have a professional BArch you wouldn't do another MArch... That is redundant. There are post professional M Arch II degrees that take 1 or 2 years currently but that is in my mind silly to have to do an advanced degree for the degree to be labelled an M Arch... You should already have an M Arch and that should be the professional standard to avoid the complications of differing titles... Instead advanced post professional specialist degrees should have a different title to avoid ambiguity. One of the problems I see is that there are too many variations in degree title that confuse title in a competitive market where degree titles have become anyway inlated (outside architecture)... In Canada for example, a law degree is a bachelors... If you are going to call a lawyer a doctoral profession, an architect should be a masters on par with an MBA at the least...
If I remember right the MARCH was a way for the universities to make more money and the snooty architects to say they have a "masters" unlike their engineering counterparts - ME, EE.
Sorry for the double post... Maybe lb... That could work too... But then, what would gave been my avenue to become an architect, I studied business as my first degree... I would probably be a lawyer right now... Or still in school right now doing my 5 year b arch after having gotten a 4 year degree in business... IMHO the m arch avenue opens up the degree to be competitive for candidates with other professions... I think our profession especially being as diverse and involved in so many different industries benefits from having architects from diverse backgrounds... Art, science, engineering, technology, other design fields etc...
gah lots of typos... iphone ineptitude...
*inlated = inflated*: Degree titles have become *inflated* in the market generally (outside architecture), so I think using the M Arch designation instead of B Arch is just keeping up with that inflation...
*gave = have*: If the degree was a 5 year bachelors, what would *have* been my avenue to become an architect, given that I studied business as my first degree...?
*inaptitude*... :P
liberty bell:
RE: drafting, drawing, programming, putting a set together, writing persuasively, structural forces, and even a bit of business.
I think an M Arch is enough to prepare a professional to do thos things... Or at least it *should* be... If a doctor can come out of 3 years of school and be able to be a general practitioner of medicine, surely an architect should be able to graduate from a degree in architecture and be able to practice generally, meeting those minimum requirements after a 3 1/2 to 4 year M Arch... If we are not graduating professionals who meet those minimum requirements, then I think that is a problem with the education system not placing enough emphasis in the basic requirements for practice... I think design studio is important, but perhaps schools are placing an overemphasis on design only, and not enough equal stress on the requirements for practice...?
The "should be" is what is key, bRink! I do feel that current Master's programs tend to de-emphasize practical matters too much. I just think the technical/craft and business sides are, frankly, more interesting. At least at this point in my life and our profession I do.
Granted, going to only MArchs would set architects more solidly on the level of lawyers and doctors, which is where we seem to aspire to be, right?
And aren't most medical schools 4 years?
Yeah maybe right regarding med school I could be wrong but I thought med school was 3...
Also, it is much easier and would be more well received generally to upgrade existing BArchs to a masters, then for example to retroactively degrade all MArchs to a bachelors! ;-)
brink,
Not to knitpick here but it was you who said the M.Arch is more a requirement for those with a 4 year degree. I don't see why we should bump up Barch's. Bumping down seems to be more inline especially if looking at the 4+2 or 3 programs. It just happens to be more equal downgrading than up.
In my mind bumping up more sense... The 5 year b arch is most equivalent to a 4 + 2 avenue...
Sorry, but I like the diversity in our profession. It's confusing. And to some that can be detrimental. Schools needs to make it clear that there are different routes to becoming an architect. Those who are 90% sure they want to be an architect take the 5 yr route and those that don't should take the 4+2 route. As a happy 5yr grad I could definitely see that some of my classmates would have been better off going the 4+2 route. I mean, if you figure out that it's not right for you in 2nd or 3rd year... you have to start all over, none of that stuff transfers.
But OTF, the other reason for upgrading rather than downgrading, is that 5yr programs require the equivalent coursework for a masters. Typical Bachelors 120 + typical masters 36 = 156. My 5yr degree required 169. So to keep it on par with the rest of the degrees... MArch. Otherwise we're valuing our time and skill even less.
(Not to mention that you really earn those studio credit hours!)
A typical masters is 60 plus.
Where'd you get 36?
Time I understand. What level of skill did you get for the extra 1-2 years that you rely on on a daily basis which you could not have relied on from the BArch?
The overall b.arch/m.arch argument I think boils down to your preference on timing-whether you would like to learn architecture first or later on.
As a B.Arch student, I can still pursue another professional degree such as a Masters in Real Estate Development, M.Arch2, construction management, MBA etc. to supplement my architecture degree. This is an important option for me because it would give me a lot more options in terms of future career paths and allow me more versatility in the different sectors of the industry such as development or construction.
For M.Arch students, it would seem harder to go for another professional degree without being burnt out after at least 7 years of schooling or be in some serious debt after having to pay for a M.Arch degree.
But ultimately, it's a matter of preference...
The $40,000 starting salary for a MArch does not seem accurate. Where did you get this number from? I speak from experience coming out of school last May and landing a job for nearly 50% more. Maybe I am the exception to the rule.
Overall I think your numbers are skewed. I spent 6 years (4+2) getting my Masters at two out of state schools, so my numbers are far worse than you indicate but I am not in any sort of dire straits. Granted I have loan payments for next 20 years, but I wouldn't trade the time for anything. And I understood the debt burden I was placing on myself.
And why does post graduation have to include a $20,000 car loan? For less than $80 a month I take public transportation to and from work.
You've simplified the BArch vs MArch argument too much.
It's a discussion forum. Of course it is simplified.
Here is one link to salaries. You are by far the exception. Most people in America drive cars. At some level.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Architectural_Intern/Salary
What was your debt? If I may ask. How much do you have to pay per month?
By the time its all paid off (so including interest) it will be in the neighborhood of $200,000.
And I do own a car. I was lucky enough to purchase a family member's used car at a reasonable price. But its only used once a month to run errands.
Again, I knew going in (or should I say going out "of state") the debt I would incur. I was comfortable taking it on. And I do realize that I may be an exception at this current stage since most of my fellow graduates remain unemployed 9 months after graduation.
Well, starting salaries vary a lot, but most entry level intern architects don't make anywhere near $60k no matter what their degree. To do that in the 2009 economy is remarkable. You should be very thankful.
Also note, I have yet to hear of any architecture firm that pays anything significantly more to MArch grads than BArch grads. I've heard of people with years of experience in different careers getting MArch degrees and getting hired at a higher rate for "years of experience" although it may not directly apply. But for a 22-25 year old fresh grad, starting salaries are by in large the same and in the roughly $35-40k range.
My own personal saga didn't come with near the amount of student loan debt as the above example. I also had an old beater vehicle in lieu of addn'l debt. Still, as a fresh grad I had to make tough decisions all because of personal finances. For one I opted to take a job in a city where I knew that I could easily find a roommate and share the cost of rent. I'd be lying if I said that I enjoyed my 20's the same way other friends in more lucrative careers had. There were also times I begrudgingly accepted financial help from my folks, a safety blanket that vanished once they retired and went on a fixed income. Not until I got married and starting living under a dual income (one that was much higher than my own) did I feel enough financial security to really "relax."
My advise to new students is that this is a tough career and you have to be 100% motivated because it's a long uphill struggle.
60? really, i'm seeing a lot of 32's... but I'm looking at engineering degrees to compare... (originally i just googled typical masters and typical bachelors) oh, looked at UofI and they are around 60 for Arch but there Comp Science M.S. is only 32... So, perhaps is an Architecture thing, twice the school for the same creds. I'm not a Masters student, perhaps someone could shed some light on the comparison.
To answer your second question, I don't rely an any info that I would have gotten in a Master's Program on a day to day basis. However, people I work with who have done the 4+2 know more cool cultural stuff depending on what kind of liberal arts electives they took. (I would say that the 5yr people we see are better prepared though, but that maybe a personal experience/bias, and I certainly don't want to start a 5yr/4+2yr war) I think I took maybe 4-5 electives outside of the arch program. That's the problem with the 5yr program, it's all arch all the time.
Essentially, on the fence, I don't think you can run a legitimate cost-benefit analysis. These are 5-6 years of your life. And it involves soooo much more than money. The difference in money is rather negligible when you think about it. (Who you meet, what you work on, where you live, who you become)
Hell, nobody knows what architecture is before they go to school. Nobody wants to know what they want to do in this profession. Of which there are so many niches, styles, approaches that would affect things like salary and "real-world" application. Sure, a lot of people live off nothing right out of school, think they'll never get out from under the mountain of debt they created, and see no real earning potential (if any at all these days), but... a lot of people would count the opportunity to practice architecture as a real benefit. If you're an architect, that's it. I mean to a certain degree its black and white. I don't want to be a biochem engineer, an accountant, a trader. I could certainly transition to a cushy gov job and make some serious dough doing less work then I do know. But I'm an architect (barely) and that's it. There's no changing it. (Sorry for the pointless rant)
(Unfortunately, you can only take the way I feel about it with a certain grain of salt as I know I'm not under some of the financial pressures and burden that some of my colleagues are. But I think many would say the same thing)
Youre probably looking at a transition from five year degrees not 4 year degrees. 4 years equals 120 + 2years equals another 60 hours.
And I don't know how you can not run a cost analysis. Actually I see how people didn't do it. But it doesn't show up until about 10-15 years later when they sit there complaining about their wages compared to their lifestyles now that they have a wife,2 kids, a dog, mortgage, 2 car payments and the 529 plans they need for their kids to goto college they can't afford.
"Essentially, on the fence, I don't think you can run a legitimate cost-benefit analysis. These are 5-6 years of your life. And it involves soooo much more than money. The difference in money is rather negligible when you think about it. (Who you meet, what you work on, where you live, who you become)"
How old are you?
There is current debate in all fields about the benefits of a college degree. These debates center around earning potential and cost benefit and fail to address the social, political, etc. aspects that come with a college life.
It is being argued that the earning potential of a college degree is not nearly as high a number that is usually given when you consider student debt (especially considering the always increasing costs), the "catch-up" required for scheduled raises and bonuses required by those starting in the field 4-6 years later, and other similar factors. Continuing in school addtional time only makes it worse.
But there are many professions where at minimum a bachelors degree is required. Then there are many jobs which require a masters degree.
Obviously money is an important factor but as postal said I want to be an architect, not in another profession which my earn more money. I don't think the BArch vs MArch debate is cut and dry. Its going to vary based on individual situations.
Does anyone sense a salary ceiling to the BArch vs MArch or can you earn more over an entire career with an MArch than a BArch?
Is it more prestigious to an employer to list MArchs as employees?
26, is that to young? i don't think anyone here would say they weren't profoundly different after school.. that college was merely a test, an obligatory hurdle on their path to licensure, that there weren't profound impacts on their personal and professional lives outside architecture. college doesn't merely prepares you for you career, it prepares you to handle your future when it's time to handle it. to make the decisions to switch jobs or stay pat in order to sacrifice for your kids or your mortgage. does anyone really regret their time in school? no, i'd even like to go back, but seeing as college has become the american dream/rite of passage costs have sky rocketed.
but are you going to lay it all out for your son or daughter, throw the numbers down, and compute the difference of taking tuition and throwing it in the market with an expected rate of return, and projecting the career path for your child... and then deny them every right to choose what they'd like to do. i mean, you can sit down like bill cosby and theo with the monopoly money and play the numbers all you want. but at a certain point, you need to have faith in your ability (or have faith in your son/daughter's ability) to achieve anything you want. and if you use the reasoning your, why be an architect? why make you chances of success so slim?
i guess i'm struggling to find your point otf, the original premise of the thread. you've built this analysis based on the natural american progression, college, job, wife, kids, college, retirement. but there's a lot of things that could go wrong or great, and 1 yr in or out of school is nothing. I think everybody comes in with the notion that college is going to help you get a job (or is required to get a job) but few would say that's all it did, really i'm what, 3.5 years out of school, and i'm already so far removed from those studio classes, those final reviews of torture and elation, but i can't help but feel like i was molded into something more than what i was. and if i don't think that's incredibly priceless i might be crazy.
(i hope i don't sound like i'm arguing too much. we've debated the monetary problems in arch education and the profession a lot around here. I'd like to know why we should start here and what solution we should propose.)
Great post postal. you sound much wiser then 26.
"i mean, you can sit down like bill cosby and theo with the monopoly money and play the numbers all you want. but at a certain point, you need to have faith in your ability (or have faith in your son/daughter's ability) to achieve anything you want. and if you use the reasoning your, why be an architect?"
right on sir.
I was making 36,000 with my BS and after getting my March I was offered 59,000 right out of school. I did have about 3 years experience between those two.
I was also able to move up really quick and have my own team.
I did get laid off after about a year or so, but then was rehired at the same pay 6 weeks later.
"Does anyone sense a salary ceiling to the BArch vs MArch or can you earn more over an entire career with an MArch than a BArch?
Is it more prestigious to an employer to list MArchs as employees?"
I think that all comes down to the person 10, 15 or 20 years later. The degree no longer matters. JMHO. We would need input from some others and especially anybody who emplys people.
"26, is that to young? i don't think anyone here would say they weren't profoundly different after school.. that college was merely a test, an obligatory hurdle on their path to licensure, that there weren't profound impacts on their personal and professional lives outside architecture."
Actually yes. Not to be demeaing. I'm not trying to. In ten years your view may very well change based on, again, wife, kids, mortgage, car loans, medical bills, 529 plans for your 3 kids so they can enjoy the same typ e of schooling you were able to, so on and so forth. Your opinion is worht noting. I am not discarding it but I have to take it with a grain of salt.
I'm 42, so I have a little practical experiance on this issue. I am glad I never got the M.Arch, not that it is a bad thing to have, but the cost would probably not have allowed me to stay in architecture. Obviously my personal experiances here and situation but an M.Arch IMHO wouldn't make anything up for me.
Hopefully this forum will be around 10 years from now and you can post on this subject. We will see if you have changed your mind or not.
"but are you going to lay it all out for your son or daughter, throw the numbers down, and compute the difference of taking tuition and throwing it in the market with an expected rate of return, and projecting the career path for your child... and then deny them every right to choose what they'd like to do."
No. I don't have to if everything remains the way it is. Like I said, if your mom and dad can pay for school, this thread is not for you. If you have to pay for your own 4, 5 year degree and the M.Arch on your own, this thread is definatly for you. You need to do the math. When I pay for my kids tuition, it is a gift bceause I have the money in hand. But I am not paying for any masters degrees. They can do that on their own and weigh the costs vs. value.
"i guess i'm struggling to find your point otf, the original premise of the thread. you've built this analysis based on the natural american progression, college, job, wife, kids, college, retirement. but there's a lot of things that could go wrong or great, and 1 yr in or out of school is nothing."
The point is obvious.
I care. I want people to pay attention.
And I used this scenario because it is basic or the average. Sure thing scan change and do. You could get pregnant in your 2nd year and then we don't need this conversation. You could be a trust fund baby and again, this thread is not for you. But the average path, if you feel like taking a poll, is college, wife, home, babies, 529 plans so on and so forth.
"i hope i don't sound like i'm arguing too much. we've debated the monetary problems in arch education and the profession a lot around here. I'd like to know why we should start here and what solution we should propose.)"
I heartbooks thinks you sound wise for your age.
Amazingly enough to me you sound like you are fresh into the field, which is why I asked the question. Maybe we should ask Iheartbooks his/her age next.
I think the point of the thread is obvious. It is about maximizing opportunities, and planning to succeed.
"I am glad I never got the M.Arch, not that it is a bad thing to have, but the cost would probably not have allowed me to stay in architecture" Agreed! If I had gotten my masters I would have had too much debt and no cash to do the things I did in the last few years: buy a house, pay for my husband's graduate degree, and now, start my own business...
Is it more prestigious to an employer to list MArchs as employees?
All that really matters to a potential client is how many Registered Architects they have. Once you pass that ARE the BArch/MArch debate is basically null and void. Same goes for earning potential.
Fence, you may care and want to help others plan for their future, but by only looking at the numbers you are not doing the situation justice.
As long as we are clear about our goals, and our personal financial situation then what is the problem?
Your approach doesn’t account for any of the subtleties that make life more complex and enjoyable. Where does happiness and personal growth fit into your equation?
If there is no financial net gain (or net lose), but the experience of grad school changes who you are as a person and designer, is it worth it?
As long as you understand and account for the financial obligations then what is the problem?
And I'm 25. Maybe too young in your eyes, but I'm happy with were I'm at.
aquapura,
we were doing some projects in Dubai in 2008/2009 and when we were sending people to join the office there, the client requested copies of the degrees of the potential architects/designers that were joining the office there. The only reason we had an office there was to satisfy that particular client.
It's not about the client thinking what degrees you have, but it's about us, the employees and the office positions you get within the firm with a Barch or a March.
From my experience, architects with March were higher up in the firm and were making more money as well.
If I had the experience that a Barch and a March made the same amount, had the same positions....FUCK THAT, I wouldn't think twice getting only a Barch, but I never saw that happen.
The most redeeming aspect of this profesion is that it is a "Put up or Shut up" job. You can have the fanciest degrees or minimal technical training and if the work is good, you will be fine and that should be a comfort to everyone.
iheartbooks,
"And I'm 25. Maybe too young in your eyes, but I'm happy with were I'm at. "
I understand that. Really, I was 25 once too. The moment matters.
I am asking you people who are in school right now to pay some attention. Do some math. See if it works or not. And just as we do in architecture, pay attention to what came before you. Meaning the older people in the profession. A lot, not a few, of us who have been throughh it already are expressing concerns about this financial situation. There is a real reason and it starts to show up by the time you hit your early 30's to late 30's. Then BANG. All of a sudden that good feeling you hand in college hanging out doing design with no cares in the word ENDS or diminishes.
Please just do the math and pay attention to others already through, not others in grad school who have not on ioda of knowledge of the reality you will be stepping into.
Let me also add that I am not getting one thing for this advice to you.
The schools, are getting something for telling you to stay in school though, right? They do it for profit. They need you in school for as long as possible. They are not doing it for the betterment of mankind or from the bottom of their hearts. My advice is strictly for your benifit to use as you will. I'm only asking for people to do the math prior to jumping in and not after 10-15 years to find out your financial situation is in ruins and your fuzzy feeling has gone the way of the dodo bird.
Don't take my word for it. Go lookk up on all the architecture websites and see what others say about earnings after 10,15 or 20 years. I know they used to tell you in school that you are not going to make big money. Don't know what they tell you these days though. Probabaly that it is better to be in school getting the M.Arch than out their in the real world in this economy.
If you are doing it for the money, change careers!
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.