as the employer... not much. what you're already contributing (in terms of skill, responsibility, etc.) is much more important in terms of figuring out compensation. (i should note that i'm considering this from a 3-6 years total experience range and for a firm that does complex institutional projects).

i've seen where not getting a license ultimately hurt colleagues in other firms, where they couldn't advance to a 'title' level (firm rules, which seem totally appropriate to me). there, it could absolutely bump your pay...

In all other professions you get a raise. But architecture generally is the exceptions to pretty much all the rules.

from what I have gathered:

1: don't expect a raise for getting a professional (i.e. graduate) degree.
2: don't expect a raise for getting your license.
3: don't expect a raise for getting any other license, degree, certification, etc

So basically don't spend any money on professional advancement because you're not going to see a return on your dollar.

So if you want a raise, start job shopping. But don't expect to find a job either.

Which raises the question, why study architecture in the first place if you don't get a return of investment.

Our firm does provide a modest salary bump when someone passes the ARE. While it's not a huge amount of money (for the reasons stated above by outed) we do want to recognize the accomplishment financially.

On the flip side of that equation, our firm also constrains the pay increases for individuals who otherwise should be licensed but, for whatever reason, won't move forward with passing the exam.

Our self-view is that we're a firm of "professionals" ... we expect our graduate architects to become licensed within a reasonable amount of time after graduation. For us, individuals who do not pursue licensure with some degree of energy convey a serious lack of ambition and drive.

What about firms who pay their "professionals" $50,000 salaries and treat them like interns? I'm hearing more an more of this every year as actual Architect opportunities dry up. When I employed Architects, I employed them for their capacity to perform and I let them run things because it made them and I money as I was free to sell and develop new business. I just dont understand this trend towards the stupefaction of the younger professionals. "Congratulations Kid, heres some stair details to draw up after you finish tagging the floor plans". What a career the next generation is going to have. In fact, if the next generation is truly being educated in this manner, there may not be enough competent Architects left to actually have a profession.

My wife's firm actually provides incremental raises of around $500 for each section of the ARE that is passed. So I believe that would work out to around $3500 in raises for passing all the exams.

As noted above, many firms do not see an inherent value in licensure for their employees. However, my wife's firm was in a position where NO ONE from the junior staff was getting licensed. Because the firm does a lot of public work where it is often required to have a licensed architect listed in proposals as the PA, they had to create an incentive program to get people to take the tests. The funny thing is: it doesn't matter. Very few of her colleagues are undertaking the AREs, even with this modest financial incentive in place.

Other firms in town require that employees be licensed and LEED APs before they can be promoted to Associate or other more senior levels. That type of policy can also act as an incentive, but I think it still largely depends on the individual and their ambitions w/in the frim.

^ Wow. That's actually a really good deal as it more than pays for the ARE exam fees. Granted the license is probably of more value to the firm (for all the things you mentioned) but the offset of expenses is pretty nice. And given what you have said about the exams providing greater leadership opportunities I would imagine that raises would be likely in the future, esp. if the other staff is not taking the initiative. I would love to work in an office that would provide assistance for the licensing process.

Oh who am I kidding, I would love to work in an office period.

I got an extra $1000 bonus, better than nothing. I also got paid time off to take a few review classes and take the exams, which I had to pay for myself. Again, better than nothing.

gresham - we do see an inherent value, but it may not be monetary in and of itself.

there's also a difference between a 'raise' and other forms of compensation. we do reimburse for sections of the exam as well as give paid time off for studying and taking the test itself. those are, admittedly, one time expenses and are not a directly correlated raise.

way i try to look at it is this: if you're hurrying to get your license (and completing IDP for that matter) and it's part of a pattern of taking more initiative professionally.... that's what we're rewarding with raises. not necessarily the milestone itself.

My firm paid for all my AREs and on the end I also got a raise. I'm not sure if I would get that raise regardless, but I'd like to think it's because I passed the AREs.

If your being bumped from 50 to 55K its not a whole lot of a raise. Hell, licensed architects made that in the 1980s.

2step, its a raise! What are you expecting....80,000 with 4 years experience

It's a 10% raise from 50k to 55k. That seems like a pretty decent raise to me.

I'm just saying from a position of experiance that the low wages are hurting the future profesionals and hence the profesion. If you can't afford to live in the neighborhoods the future clients and decision makers live or participate in the same social circles you will never realise your profesional potential. Firms are starting their young architects 10 yards behind the starting line in a hundred yard dash. I paid well and my employees brought in work often and many now work for themselves and sometimes partner with me. We have profesional relationships, not master and servant.

Haha. I've been applying to entry-level office manager positions that start at $55k.

i'm going to throw another wrench in this thread:

interns now taking the ARE's concurrent with doing idp and, in many cases, right when they enter the work force.

now, more than ever before, there will be countless licensed Architects having only three years experience. because you can chip away at and wrap up exams while doing idp, i would guess that many interns will sign off on their hours as soon as they can -- in 3 years. in my experience under the former system, people usually worked 5-7 years average before obtaining their license and doing so implied a very good professional and technical foundation. i don't think that's the case any longer, and i definitely don't think that having that paper translates into instant moolah. we're becoming a watered-down market and the title of Architect is becoming devalued because of it.

When I got licensed the office threw me a party, reimbursed me for my exams then laid me off a week later.

kissy_face: not sure if you're taking a shot at your old firm or not, but I suppose they could have laid you off before the party and reimbusement.

I'm really taking a shot at them. I would have taken the reimbursement...minus the party. The party just stings...

"there will be countless licensed Architects having only three years experience. because you can chip away at and wrap up exams while doing idp" - As someone has pointed out before, this is certainly NOT the case. If anything, people are taking longer and longer between graduation and licensure. And concurrent IDP and AREs are only allowed in certain states anyway (Not mine).

As for a raise, it would seem to me that getting a license makes that employee more at risk of leaving the firm. So more importantly than the raise itself, if the employer wants to keep the employee they have to give that person more stake in the firm which would happen to come with a raise or bigger bonuses. It has to be more than simply rewarding someone for passing the AREs. That kind of short-sighted vision can only hurt a business.

BTW, I do like that idea of giving a raise per test. Thats interesting.

If you get licensed and your firm starts billing you out at a higher rate, then they for damn sure better give you a raise. I wouldn't start stamping anything without a raise either.

tagalong's nailed it. it is common for a firm to bump your billable rate by $20-30/hour after an employee receives his or her license. a typical multiplier is 2.6-3.2, i.e. divide that increase in your billable rate by your multiplier, multiply that by 2080. that should be approximately your bump. if you don't see that bump, you may want to ask yourself some questions, if not take those questions to your boss.

ess - I disagree - if someone is together enough to both complete IDP and take the ARE, they're going to be fine - no matter how quickly they do it.

Of all the interns I've worked with over the years, I'd guess much less than half of them actually bother to do IDP.

I can speak from experience on this one. NO Raise. My exams were paid for and I did get a modest one time bonus of $500. I appreciated that, but IMO it doesn't show that the firm is truly committed to professional development. There are plenty of people working above me without being registered, some don't even have Architecture degrees. Hence, the overall attitude amongst the young in the firm is "what's the point?"

now, more than ever before, there will be countless licensed Architects having only three years experience. because you can chip away at and wrap up exams while doing idp

Overall I think this is a big mistake that many states are making. While IDP sucks, it does give people a good period of 3-5 years to "cut your teeth" in the profession. The ARE exams can be passed by just studying books, but it's supposed to determine if you are competent enough to be an Architect. Either stop making it easier to get access to the exams - or - make the exam far more difficult. I for one thought the ARE was a bit of a joke in terms of difficulty. It's more about getting IDP out of the way and having the motivation to actually dedicate yourself to professional development.

I think jaifdler, aqua and tagalong are onto something here.

@JAifdler and tagalog--

If you're being billed out at a higher rate, then your pay should obviously be increasing. I think, however, because of the inherent complexity in determining a wholesale rate of what 'architecture' actually costs... your pay rate increase won't or shouldn't be proportional to the increase of billing rate.

@2step--

The master-servant objection should be bolded.

What some people here have forgotten is not everyone can be kings! Kings need subjects. If everyone at your firm is 'on top' because of their 'drive and ambition'... then who is on the bottom and in the middle?!

Punishing individuals for not wanting to go 'the distance' completely negates that some people are more than happy and willing to avoid responsibility and 'growth.'

I don't see very many offices practicing profit-sharing, parallel power structures and decentralized processes as key tenants of their business plan. In fact, I don't see very many offices that actually have viable business plans that aren't PR fluff.

Since, the entire concept of many businesses and business practices is based of hierarchical designs-- like project management where the system is superimposed over reality-- it requires a hierarchy to function.

So, don't lambaste licensure unless you're 100% ready to share power. There's no reason for middlemen to become bosses if it isn't a practicality.

@aqua--

I know those arguments very temptingly turn into troll bait... but I think that related to the two things above I just said.

I think you're right to some instance that even though passing a license means your competent... competency doesn't necessarily infer success.

Im about to get my license and I make 40k. bahahaha, maybe time to go job hunting?

40K for a licensed architect might be good money if you're into living in a shaft under the overpass or practice in a third-world country. I was above that in my first year working with zero experience.

Some people just love the abuse I guess.

//edit// old thread... damn, I've been tempted by a one-post-wonder thread Resurrection.

A beginning elementary school teacher makes more than 40k with health benefits, I suggest you change professions immediately, and enjoy your life.

Traditionally, once you get licensed go rent an office space, hang out your shingle and run your show!

That is the only raise you will get from being a licensed architect.

I'm interested to see this thread bumped- now that the construction industry (for now) seems to be doing better.  Mostly I've heard of reimbursement of costs or there abouts as a bonus; often with a raise.  As most people have noted, raises has to do with billing rates, and the hope that you'll stay.  I supposed firm owners should answer this, but I've also heard that the percentage of licensed staff reflects on insurance premiums as well as RFP/RFQ requirements. 

The number of licensed staff (especially those that have done it while at a particular office) is an effective recruiting tool for young staff.
 

We're still left to our own devices as far as negotiating salaries, there is no automatic entitlement increase. Were pretty much at the mercy of our employers.

With the shortage of experienced people right now, it's probably pretty easy to get a raise when you become licensed. For example, mine was a 10 min conversation with the partners and I got one pretty easily...and two more within the first year.

It's not automatic, but if you are good, you'll get one. 

i asked one of the partners at a past firm about insurance and new licences, he said it really didn't matter much.  So maybe it would only affect marginal firms?

The only way I see things changing is if each PM or PA was a licensed architect and the PM / PA (not the principal of the firm) was responsible for signing and sealing the drawings. That way, as more projects come up and there is a higher demand for PA's / PM's having more licensed individuals would actually help... 

shortage of workers is always good:)

I hope so

I currently work for a firm where only the partners sign off on drawings... Tell me something: if there are senior designers who design the project, and the partners take on the liability, what incentive (other than going off on your own) does the firm have to support your licensure if the project managers have the requires experience to manage the pronect? Trust me, I'm all for it, but I really don't think many people in the firm's leadership give a shit about who is licecensed and who is not. Long term, maybe it matters in terms of who can become partner, but no one cares about the lower level staff... I mean for god's sake... If you are licensed, then you actually are in the right place working for an Architectural firm... Its kind of like boasting about having your medical boards and working in a hospital... Why get a raise for being yourself?

if you have one person who works hard to follow through on their goals and another who gives up, isn't the first more valuable?

The one who can do the work better and faster is more valuable.  

i never get those people who actually are good at this profession but do not want to become licensed.  they'd rather just be drafters or job captain/pm's.

seems like they're limiting themselves.  but i guess if they stay employed while others are let go, what does it matter?

I think being fine with staying a drafter or job captain over having the same pay as an architect has to do with whether you define yourself through your career achievements or through life and social experiences.

Everyone can make their own choices (that's pretty cool). But you're going to be working anyway, gaining hours whether you want them or not. The exams aren't cheap, but they're not expensive either, especially when you consider that it pays for itself many times over. If anything, it gives you an edge on the competition and makes you more attractive to future employers.

that sense of entitlement could get ya a better lookin' wife. Sorry dont know where that came from.

apologies, anyway during the course of your career, it is going to be something inevitable - you'd accumulate hours anyway eventually becoming eligible for exams, its a win win situation i think. I have peers who mentioned years ago that they will deliberately dodge the AREs. It does not make any sense anymore. 

From an international pt of view, being a registered architect in the u.s. ( or any reputable country in particular) could boost one's credentials and would often validate his/ her competency level. 

i think its one thing if you plan on working at one place your whole life, but at some point you might want to switch jobs and that is likely a lot easier with a license.  

employers may look at someone with 15 years exp and no license and think: are they just not smart enough to pass and so claim to have never taken them?

Guys... why want to get a license for anyone else except yourselves? If you are getting a license purely because you want to advance in the hierarchy of a firm... that is the wrong reason to pursue it. You should want to do it for yourselves, because it is the formalization of an education, a milestone of achievement. If money does that for you, great, but for me- no amount of money can ever buy the exhilaration I felt when I received my license number.

I'm testing right now, and I hold this belief:

You cannot remain in the office you were in when you obtained your license and get paid what the office would pay to a candidate they hired who already had their license.

I will likely leave shortly after I finish my last exam and get my registration.

^^ Bingo.

It's not the tool, but how you use it. ...That said, you still need the tool to have that option.