After visiting the salary poll I realized I would NEVER want to become an architect. I never knew how low salaries were. Why would anyone go to school to become an architect for 6 years and take many exams to make a lousy 50k, give me a break! What is wrong with you people! Consider engineering or construction managment. Does anyone have regrets about getting into architecture, I would like to hear your stories.
Oh and I have an MArch from '06 and I passed the examinations to be licensed last year. So I am NCARB Certifed with 60k in student loans and I can't find a job, let alone one that will pay a living wage.
So, yes, personally I am in the exact same boat as Architak when he says,
"In conclusion, applying MARCH was the single biggest mistake in my life."
My wife and I are fed up with the bull$hit this profession has put her and I and our children through.
It is 2:00 am in the morning here. She arrived from working at the Hospital for an income to pay the bills an hour ago.
We just spent an hour planning some more of the details of our escape from the clutches of this god awful architorture existence. If things work out we have a five year plan that might succeed in putting this miserable profession behind us permanently.
I feel like I've been slowly entangled in web over the last ten years. Not a pleasant feeling at all. Its now to the point that the profession has drained my life's blood and I am a shell of the man I was before I stepped foot inside a cursed architecture school.
money gone. relationships severely damaged. opportunity costs spent. youth gone. all hope for reconciliation with a future in architecture gone.
i left the field 1 year after receiving my 5-year professional b.a..... i didn't like the field in the 1 year that i was working in firms.... i managed to do design/build and currently in grad school for a different degree....i like the field, but don't like the lifestyle of the career....to each his/her own, but i value my life and time to do other creative more enjoyable things......
unemployment sucks - and that's true for a whole lot of people across the country right now. it's disproportionately affected our profession this time around, but things will come back.
given people's life circumstances, a lot of people trained in architecture will end up doing something else. it happened to a huge swath of my generation and - in the end - made those of us still here more valuable.
for those who are employed, $50k ain't so bad. some vocations spend a whole career of back-breaking work and never go above it. not even 10yrs ago i was 9yrs out of school, making in the $40s when we bought our first (modest) house, got married, and started our family. even paid off my student loans while making that salary.
believe it or not, some people are not only able to survive, but feel that they're living a decent life, doing what they love and still maintaining family and home. no megalomania necessary.
feeling you're entitled to greater than the profession can support is the problem. not the profession itself.
A few firm owners and principals I know are making +100k.
Architects have the potential to make good $$, but no one should expect to make 75k right out of school.
So 40k might suck now, but you have to start somewhere. It actually doesn't even suck that bad, I live pretty well off of 40k even with a ton of school loans.
Asking how one can live off 50k is like asking how you could possible drive to the grocery store in anything but a BMW.
Steven says is well:
"Feeling you're entitled to greater than the profession can support is the problem. Not the profession itself."
Well, if there isn't any intention from the profession itself to increase the salaries, reduce the amount of years in college to two years. The rest you learn at work. This will reduce the student loan dramatically which can be payed off easier with a McDonald salary. People will feel less entitled for more compensation. Architecture isn't rocket science anyhow, so i don't see the point anymore to go 6 year plus to school with a huge debt to be making 30K.
none of this really should be a surprise for a career as an architect
I think a lot of this comes down to unrealistic expectations for what a career as an architect actually is
"So some of you have left the profession but still browse the forum on this website. Why?"
I have wondered about this as well
I also wonder what people actually expected to make after getting their M.Arch? Did someone tell you that it would be a ticket to double the starting salary that someone with a 5 year degree will get? Because if so, you were greatly mislead.
"money gone. relationships severely damaged. opportunity costs spent. youth gone. all hope for reconciliation with a future in architecture gone.
and yet, Winston, gross failure that you are, you continue to haunt these halls, spewing your venom in a thinly veiled attempt to drag others down with you. my, you are a loser, aren't you?
<i>We just spent an hour planning some more of the details of our escape from the clutches of this god awful architorture existence. <i>
Last year when things were looking very bad I started floating resumes out there in "alternative" career paths. Everything from somewhat related things like Architectural Product Sales and different jobs in construction or corporate real estate. Then to things completely 180 degrees in industries like medical devices and food conglomerates.
In the end I had about 5 interviews, 3 second interviews and all rejections. The common response was, "You are a flight risk once the economy improves." Also heard that I was "overqualified." Funny, since I had no experience in said profession, but multiple degrees and professional licensure looks pretty impressive, regardless of what income it might actually rake in.
Part of me envies the fresh arch grad. He/she has zero experience to make them overqualified or a flight risk. They can move into a career that has better advancement opportunities and earning potential.
Don't get me wrong, I do love Architecture. However I hate the holding pattern the profession is currently in. The work that we do have it mediocre at best. Perks, raises and bonuses are a distant memory...and I don't see a return to "good times" for many years...at least until there is another boom or large scale retirements of senior people in the profession. Since architects work until the day they die that isn't happening soon.
Many of the people here are sad folks, Archinect in general has become a support group for the general crap that a lot of architects put up with.
I have a bachelors, a burgeoning side business, and a job that pays me a generous salary... I'm two years out of school. I have a Bachelors of Fine Arts in Architecture and Design, you can find me somewhere abouts on page three of the salary poll.
Recently, I was considered for an ownership track position with a starting salary that some senior associates would entertain.
There is as much money in this profession as you are willing to make for yourself, is the way I see it.
However... I have been accepted to some Masters programs and am going to make a B-Line for the academic world this Fall, there's a great opening in this industry for someone, I'll be turning down two job offers and vacating my current position in order to continue schooling.
I understand the venom on this board about the low salaries. It's always been low for young architects but the last 10-15 years has also seen an inflation in prices for housing and transport and education coupled with a falling Dollar, in short our money is losing it's value and you see it most at the low end of the salary range. A low salaried Architect could get more for their money 30 years ago. Heres an interesting article in the Chicago Tribune about median salary required to buy a modest home / condo in the Chicagoland area - which probably means some ranch house 45 miles out
It's all about making ends meat, which is the reason people work in the first place. If a profession such as architecture doesn't provide the basics in live such as the ability to have a mortgage, pay the utilities, car note, kids, insurance, transportation, student loan etc. then the profession is just a hobby. And that is the reason why many people complain. Not that they can't afford a BMW like their brother who happen to be a lawyer, doctor, accountant, retail manager. We just want to be able to afford the basics. Is that too much to ask for?
med brings up another point I always find interesting: where do you live? I'm always perplexed that some young architects are making the exact same dollar amount, lets say $44,000 in Chicago today, as architects in Chicago made 15 years ago. Is there so many grads moving into large cities like NYC and LA and CHI driving down prices? Conversely I know architects in rural Iowa who are making more than those in Chicago with half the expenses. Is this a supply and demand scenario playing out where architects just arent evenly distributed geographically?
"So some of you have left the profession but still browse the forum on this website. Why?"
That's me. I left, but stayed close to the profession (I'm in another design field). Architects represent a potential collaborator or even client to me now, and by the time I left the field I had made friends on these forums. There are things that I can learn from y'all, and things that y'all can learn from me. So all in all, it would have been a bit odd if I had just stopped coming here one day because I was no longer in architecture. Heck, the editors even liked the idea enough to let me do a school blog on life after architecture.
On the original topic... I "only" make 50k, and it works for me. Yes there are things I've had to give up, but they're not unreasonable. I don't own a car, but I'm paying down my debt at a reasonable pace. I live with a roommate, but I have a pretty sweet apartment. I can afford to dress well and go out on the weekends and join a gym, but again it's at the expense of needing to bike everywhere. It's a matter of balance, of figuring out what's really important to you.
let's also not forget that a pretty good cross section of archinect is just people with 3-5 years of experience. i know licensed architects who make 400k. because a $1m house build out at 10% is 100k, and you can easily do four of those a year.
"Is there so many grads moving into large cities like NYC and LA and CHI driving down prices?"
Not necessarily. In fact, it is quite difficult for people to move to the those cities without some sort of modest sign on bonus or relocation expense.
There's a pretty common factor here though-- commercial real estate.
For two reasons, the bulk of the taxes paid in the private sector are not corporate income taxes... they are real estate taxes. And the second reason is the price of commercial real estate has grown disproportionately to inflation and real market growth.
For instance, the going rate of "nice office space" in Manhattan is about $35-40 sq.ft. annually (plus maintenance, janitorial et cetera). Well, the identical office space in the 1970s to 1980s should be about $13-15 sq. ft. if we reverse adjust for inflation. The reality is that office space was renting out at $8-13 sq.ft. and even lower.
Possible reasons for this? Urban renewal schemes of the period were afraid of the growing "Rust Belt" and were doing everything to gaurantee a profitable business environment. In addition, there was a massive expansion of commercial real estate saturating the market and driving prices down. Finally, white flight and suburbanization hollowed out many cities as CEOs and the executive boards relocated to the city edge further saturating the market.
There was a point in the 1970s-1990s where office buildings were giving tenants years of free rent on the condition that once they became profitable that they would pay rent and provide a percentage of their profits to their landlords.
So, many businesses were not only reaping the value of changing power structures within cities... but with property values so low, they were not only getting the benefit of cheap rent but low taxes.
One could argue that commercial real estate has gone up because of new market demands but that itself doesn't hold water. If we look at the basic infrastructure of a building, it has gotten substantially simplified since the 1960s and 1970s. There are no longer miles of phone lines, server rooms that occupy whole floors, enormous power inverters, switch rooms, switchboard rooms et cetera. In fact, the only thing a business needs is space (wireless) and a tiny thin filament (fiber optics) to replace all of that.
The bigger picture here is that sometime around the 1980s to 1990s, it became in vogue for corporations to relocate back to cities-- perhaps the suburbs weren't as exciting as previous thought, culture shifted, a new demand for the finer things a city can provide. There's also a major shift in what type of businesses inhabited the city as it hollowed it-- these empty cities became playgrounds for the white collar businesses.
So, the increase of interest brought an increase in demand. Rents go up. Taxes go up, too. Because the bottom line is moving towards the middle, prices go up. Because prices go up, expenses must go down. So, salaries, perks and other things start to dramatically disappear and freeze.
And that's really why we're seeing stale wages and a lack of mobility. Combined that with the fact that New York City has something like 17 million potential employees in a 75 mile radius and 30 million in a 150 mile radius... you don't have to go very far to find someone above average.
Steven Ward said: believe it or not, some people are not only able to survive, but feel that they're living a decent life, doing what they love and still maintaining family and home. no megalomania necessary.
This is totally me. I'm the breadwinner in our family, and we get along quite nicely on $50K (a bit more in good years, a bit less potentially this year). We have a house, four cars (my husband builds hot rods - we have old cars, not new), are saving a bit, and live a generally nice life.
What we don't do: extravagant vacations, new car every three years, dine out a lot, do spa days, buy stuff.
One thing of note: when I lived in a major east coast city and earned less than $40K, we didn't live a lifestyle that most young grads probably imagine for themselves. We rarely ate out or went to clubs, even though hip new ones were opening around us practically weekly; we didn't jet to Florida for fun weekends, we didn't own expensive electronics, we didn't buy designer clothes. When we remodeled our kitchen, the salesman looked at our order form and said "Oh - entry level stainless appliances." (Yeah, pretty-boy-son-of-the-owner, I got your entry level cash right here, pal. Note to Philly people: Donatucci Appliances, stay away from them. Jerks.) We lived frugally of necessity, but had a fun time anyway.
It's fun to imagine a glamorous lifestyle post-graduation. But the reality of student loans and the current economic situation is that you'll likely struggle through several years of expectation readjustment. It's normal and not un-survivable. And salaries DO go up, generally, as you become more knowledgeable and valuable to a firm or go out on your own.
2step (and med) - salaries can be location dependent, but i'd argue they are more correlated to the type and size of the practice.
i doubt, for example, that med's numbers apply to a 3-5 person residential firm, unless they do exceptionally high end work. more likely, that represents a larger firm (40+), doing higher end commercial and institutional work.
point being, gensler ny, for example, is (statistically speaking) going to pay a good deal more than francis black, solo architect in islip.
While I suppose this will be a controversial post, when you actually look at data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average compensation in our profession really isn't all that low when compared to the rest of the economy.
In fact, architectural compensation is 1.8 times the national average -- see this link: National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates Sure, lots of folks make more than we do, on average. But, many many more make way less.
I suppose your perspective on this is influenced heavily by your expectations, but - as Stephen suggests above -- the fundmental economics of our industry remain the basic determinant of how participants in this industry are paid. We have chosen to work in a highly fragmented industry, where the barriers to entry are low, the barriers to exit are high and price competition is fundamental to winning new work.
Perhaps we all should have pursued careers in the petroleum, health care or legal services industries. Of course, had I made one of those choices 30 years back, I probably would have blown my brains out by now.
In all of my interviews, the one thing that keeps me from landing a position where I can see myself long term is the lack of a professional degree. Additionally, I am very interested in research and a career as a professor.
If anyone think 35k for a master graduate is a fair market value, please give me 10 other examples of master degrees with getting similar pay.
I was already lucky to got a scholarship for minority which covered at least half of my tuition fee, but still ended up with 100k student loans. Money you will spend in graduate school including model materials, laser cut fee, plotting fee, field trips.......
I love architecture, that's why I chose to pursue BARCH and MARCH.
What I didn't expect is that most MARCH need to work as a CAD money for almost 3 to 5 years after school, and get paid like a janitor.
At the end of the day, I am blaming no one but myself. I didn't do a good market research before I jumped in. My ego was too high to listen to anyone who told me it didn't worth it.
Why am I still here? I need to share my story to those who don't wanna end up like me.
Am I a loser? Definitely! My parents are still living in public housing and I can do nothing about it! I am a total loser!
Why is it that architects think they automatically deserve to live at the top 10% of salaries just because they are architects and graduated from college? Our administrative assistant has a masters degree in fine arts. Should she make the same as an architect?
Even the newest, youngest member of our firm (just graduated with a masters) lives pretty well, and just qualified to buy a remodeled 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom home. All of our interns are pretty well paid, have full benefits, get to do work they like.
Meanwhile, I have one kid who graduated from college. and is in grad school. He does research, and lives (pretty well, actually) on a lowly $24,000 a year stipend. He is married (to another student who also makes $24,000 a year) but they live frugally enough that they bought a house. My daughter is graduating from college this year, from a great school, but with a degree that will probably doom her to working in a social service organization or non profit for less than $25,000 a year. She is really bright, worked hard, went to a top 20 college, got straight A's. She is willing to sacrifice a higher salary to do something she enjoys. Why do architects think they "are entitled" to make a top salary? Stop comparing yourselves to investment bankers, lawyers and doctors. Just cause you have rich clients doesn't mean you should be rich.
That said, you can make a good living in this business. It takes a ton of work, and you need to take the risk of ownership in a firm to get the rewards. I was lucky (and so were my kids) that I was able to pay for those high priced college tuitions for them. I have no complaints- this profession has been hard work, but it has been financially very rewarding as well as rewarding personally.
an M.Arch isnt quite the same in architecture as other masters degrees
It is essentially the same degree as an undergrad B.Arch
that's why there is no automatic bump up in salary just because of that degree
I have an M.Arch, and honestly, dont feel like i was at any sort of advantage over those coming out with a B.Arch beyond me being a little older and having a little bit more experience
archie: great post -- you said some things that really needed to be said.
About the only thing you might have missed is some attention to the concept of productivity. At the end of the day, higher productivity leads directly to higher compensation. Nobody gets rich at low levels of productivity -- lots of folks stay poor for exactly that reason.
Architak, you are not a loser. I think you're referencing babs' comment above, which is directed at one individual, not everyone in your situation.
IMO, the schools really do shoulder some blame here, for not being crystal clear about how much it costs to get a degree (especially a Masters), what your starting salaries are likely to be (even harder to determine in this bizarro-world economic situation we are in now), and just how freaking big that student loan monthly payment will be. Again, it's not only architecture schools doing this: I just heard, where was that?, a report of a woman who quit working in financial aid and admissions at, I think Ivy Tech, because she knew she was misleading potential students.
Schools want a paying body in a classroom seat above all. Within the schools, there are awesome opportunities for all kinds of financial aid, networking, and of course education, but the cost of that degree is overwhelming the first few years, or even the first decade, out of school.
I always like these kind of threads. I don't know why. I like to hear the dark side of things i guess. of course taken with a critical eye.
I've read a book about a barber that wanted to become a lawyer when he was younger but family illness prevented him from going to college. But with the salary of a barber he was still able to be pretty well off. I'm not sure if I'm remembering the exact title since it was a while since I read it, but I think he was a millionaire barber. He didn't spend his money on latte's everyday, but invested it, and with compound interest was able to make bank. he managed to have a family as well. Same thing with a teacher I read about in the newspaper that died. She left millions of dollars, with a teacher's salary, through investments and such. Although in her case she didn't have a family.
A guy up here who stopped working at the age of 30, wrote a book called "Stop working now". Basically graduated with accounting degree, decided accounting wasn't for him, but did odd jobs. Like telephone survey things, taught english overseas. Only earning around 20,000 in the beginning years after college, but vowed to put into investments 200 every month before university I think. All the while managing to save money for traveling as well, not living like a monk. Now is living off the dividends and investments accumulated by saving 200 every month. of course making smart choices along the way. All this while still managing to have a family as well.
Then you have broke doctors earning 100,000 but in so much debt that they're broke. or if not because of school debt, spends it all on toys and are still broke.
So maybe it's not how much money one makes, but how well one manages the money that counts. And being smart about how much loans you can realistically handle.
I don't know....if these guys earning even less can manage to have money, I'm sure I can find a way to do it with an architect's salary. I guess you need to have the skill to differentiate between need vs want (unnecessary wants).
Why do I get the consistent feeling that quizzical, archie, and stone have a vested interest in seeing the most amount of CAD jockeys ready to flood the market this spring?
oh. Because they are probably in all likelihood past the stage of having to participate in the economy as a future architect or recently licensed architect in the contemporary economy (which they ironically created). Instead they are "all set" and look down from their "high" places and wonder why the "interns" of today don't just shut up and bang out ten more lines in AutoCAD.
...and I'd bet my life that all things being equal 98% of those in the profession that espouse this approach to those around 40 and younger are AIA. That is why we've been designated "YOUNG" Architects. Whoever heard of such a thing? As if after graduating from Medical School and completing a residency doesn't qualify one to a full blown "Medical Doctor". How can an organization continue to justify with a straight face labeling 50 year olds that have practiced for 25+ years as "interns" and not drafters?
And why shouldn't Architects expect the same pay as lawyers and Doctors?
Oh. I guess even though it was one of the original 7 veritable professions it isn't any longer thanks to all the "designers" who've turned it into nothing more than the pursuit of "graphic design" as opposed to life safety.
I suppose we'll have to leave it to the Engineers to remain a viable profession while architects continue to busy themselves debating choices in interior paint colors.
The real reason Architects don't make as much as Doctors or Lawyers is because:
#1 They don't think they can, so they don't
#2 They don't value their own time, so others don't either, naturally
#3 They don't value licensure
#4 They think "its all good" and undermine their own progress in the nonsensical pursuit of some nebulous, phantom "equality".
#5 The organizations that run the profession, from NCARB, to the State Boards, are infected/ infested with morally corrupt, ethically bankrupt members and proponents of the AIA, who constantly undermine principle through the worship of legal expediency and blind solidarity to the AIA itself (instead of the larger profession).
#6 The public, either consciously or subconsciously, knows about #5 (the jig is up folks) so they rightfully withhold socioeconomic compensation.
"You can fool some of the people some of the time (ignorant your aspiring architects who are honestly trying to follow the rules)...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
And before the typical ad hominem attacks are unleashed on WinstonSmith, why not do something unusual and unexpected first, i.e. ask yourself if what I say is true, and if you thin knot, argue my points on their own merit and don't bother wasting time attacking WinstonSmith himself. A(or lack thereof) after all, he doesn't exist anyways. But his ideas do.
Tell me about it. I have 89k in student loan debt quietly sitting in deferment on the elusive hopes that one day I will have an income to make modest dents in them. Still I know that it will likely be a good 15-20 years before I get the satisfaction of making that last payment. I really have no clue how I am going to pay for ARE exams, let alone NCARB fees.
To be perfectly honest, all I want is a modest wage that pays for my cost of living and expenses with maybe some modest extras. I know that a Masters with 4 years experience is pretty low on the ladder but 28k? Seriously? Managers at McDonalds get paid that much (if not more). I can't imagine how someone can make that work in any city, let alone places like New York, etc. where I frequently hear of such salaries. I'm not expecting to make 6 figures, buy a yacht and shop at Prada. But I would like to afford my rent, but new running shoes and at least afford to shop at Target.
"an M.Arch isnt quite the same in architecture as other masters degrees
It is essentially the same degree as an undergrad B.Arch"
probably the dumbest thing I have heard all day.
So, the public thinks a Bachelor's is equivalent to a Masters?
So if I want to teach at the Community College will they let me if I have a MAsters and not if I merely hold a Bachelors?
Don't bother explaining the nuances of difference between the two...I already know of course that within the "holy" (HAHA) walls of our profession there is a slight, if any, difference.
But to ignore the greater public's perception is jsut raw, massive, indiscriminate ignorance.
I dont know if you read your own posts there Winston, then maybe you would have read something pretty dumb also
But why exactly should a starting salary for an M.Arch right out of school be more than a B.Arch right out of school? What difference is there in the actual education of the 2?
I love how you bring up teaching as a point when we are discussing starting salaries of architects.
Read the entire post before you rant against someone
I never said they were equivilant, thanks again for an example of you just putting words in peoples mouths to further your rant
In terms of starting salary right out of school though, they are.
All unlicensed poser architecture professors need to be kicked to the curb.
The verifiable information that I've come across states that less than 30% of professors at the "professionally" accredited schools (NAAB) are actually Licensed Architects.
I can tell you one easy thing that would make an immediate positive impact on the profession: make Licensure a mandatory, no loop holes allowed prerequisite to teaching in accredited schools.
The rest of the 70% of the teaching staff (I call them teaching staff because despite the weapons of mass deception they are not qualified to teach architecture) can high tail it over to the art departments and smoke their dope someplace else.
There are many other ways tactics that would immediately improve the profession. But, as long as those at the top are comfortable I guarantee you...nothing will change. Oh, they might make it look like "Hope" and "Change" are perpetually on the horizon but I guarantee you substantial positive change will not happen until the people on the top are made to share in feeling the heat and sting of what they have created and the people at the bottom have allowed them to create.
If you look at the nationally published statistics, the average salaries for a family physician or an attorney with 10 to 15 years of experience are around $125,000 to $150,000 a year. Yes of course there are lawyers and doctors who make $500,000 to $1,000,000 and more a year. There are architects who are making that much too. Just like the lawyers and doctors, they either are partners, or have a very specific, desirable skill.
So the average architect wage is less than the average lawyer or attorney, but not that much. We just hired an experienced architect at $115k a year, plus benefits, plus bonus, etc. And we live in a very low cost city, so that money goes a long way. i don't think that is anything to complain about.
and Winston, you are so wrong about our motives. Sure, i want to see the market have a ton of really good, talented people who will work hard available for hire. But I never would hire a CAD monkey. We expect our professional staff to act as professionals. What I can't believe is how hard it is to find people who are willing to be responsible for what they do, follow through on the work they are given, care about the quality of that work, manage themselves and their workload, work without micromanagement, and want to advance in their profession. I am always surprised to see that a large percentage of the graduates today really just want to show up, be told what to do, and then leave work and all of the responsibility behind. They don't last long here.
I suppose your perspective on this is influenced heavily by your expectations
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for fresh grads to have high expectations in the profession. If someone comes in with the goal of making a six figure salary in the not-so-distant future they'll probably be a harder worker. All the trash talking about how poor our salaries are can't be entirely good for the youngest in the profession and their motivation.
That said, I have yet to have a boss that has proved to me that hard work and dedication equals financial gain. My biggest salary boosts have been from job hopping. I think anyone not at the partner/ownership level in this profession would agree that's the fastest way to financial gain.
So the average architect wage is less than the average lawyer or attorney, but not that much
Years ago I read an article about average wages broken down to an hourly wage. Architects, lawers and doctors all were earning far less per hour than other professions. Why? Because we all work a lot of hours. School teachers were amongst the highest paid people given the high degree of days off for holidays and summers they get. Also, union labor jobs are very well paying when you consider they get paid for every single hour worked.
School teachers were amongst the highest paid people given the high degree of days off for holidays and summers they get.
the good teachers put in a lot more time outside of the "union mandated" hours... plus there's a reason there's a tax credit for out of pocket expenses if you are a teacher. if you want to get any grading or lesson planning done, you've got to work weekends and evenings (especially if you have 200 kids all turning in homework each day and you teach a subject that requires a ton of prep - like science or the lower grades). it's a really tough job - often more demanding than architecture (definitely more physically demanding).
sure - they get forced vacation a couple times a year, but many teachers also work second jobs during the summers to make ends meet.
if you think we're low paid for the amount of work we do and for our education - try being a teacher in a low-income urban school. I'm very thankful I have a desk job.
In my experience that is all the profession has for those who are licensed with 5-15 years experience. And then they try the old "reverse psychology" tactic to imply that "you aren't tough enough to handle this" to appeal to the overinflated and ignorant ego of the younger set.
Words. That is all.
And whoever quoted the figure of 115k earlier: you are exceptionalizing to the exclusion of the much broader general rule.
THE AVERAGE SALARY for a licensed Architect in the U.S. is ACTUALLY 65k. And this was before the market meltdown and the number is per the US Dept of Labor.
put those words in your pipe and smoke them. At least I have cited third party sources with generally applicable data sets. All you have given and no doubt will continue to submit are verbose "feel good" reverse psychology tactics designed to obfuscate the cold, hard reality of being either a recent graduate or a recently licensed architect with 5-15 years of experience.
The AIA is nothing but fluffy wordy smoke and mirrors. The rubber never hits the road but the wheels sure spin and the engine makes a lots of sexy noises.
I've been laid off for 7 weeks. I have had four prospects and have interviewed at 3. Each time I have been told I am "overqualified" and then I find out later that the firm was merely using me as a free way to establish their baseline for what would be a cheap deal for them. IN each case they have hired a recent grad for 1/2 the price the market in the past has told them I am worth EVEN though I am PERFECTLY QUALIFIED for the actual work that they advertise for the position.
Care to have a little deception with that kool aid anyone?
I'll believe the AIA cronies when I see it. Show me the money.
Disgusting salaries!!
After visiting the salary poll I realized I would NEVER want to become an architect. I never knew how low salaries were. Why would anyone go to school to become an architect for 6 years and take many exams to make a lousy 50k, give me a break! What is wrong with you people! Consider engineering or construction managment. Does anyone have regrets about getting into architecture, I would like to hear your stories.
Troll harder.
Archinect is not a clear-cut cross section of the AEC industry.
What office is paying 50k! I want to work there.
50k!? How do you people live?
Good, please don't become one! There's not enough jobs for the ones we have now.
most of the general public makes less than 50k.
A lot of us having a MARCH degree and getting paid between 35k to 50k.
I have a BARCH + a MARCH + 3.5 years of experience + 2 exams away from my architect license, getting paid 35k right now.
Even after I get my license in this year, I am not expecting a raise at all.
I am staying in the firm because I still need an income to pay my student loans and credit card debts accumulated in grad school.
In conclusion, applying MARCH was the single biggest mistake in my life.
50K! I wish...try 35K for an MArch BEFORE the meltdown that has left Architecture the #1 most devastated profession and 60-80% unemployment.
Right now 1 out of 4 recent graduates will be extremely lucky to get a position as a CAD jockey for 30K/year.
What the hell is wrong with us? Many, many things *sigh*
The biggest thing is ironically the one thing that makes it impossible to address all the others:
self imposed delusions of grandeur (megalomania).
aka runaway "egos" that lead people in this profession to think in terms of the cart goes before the horse. aka failure to prioritize.
"What we've got here is...
...a failure to prioritize."
Oh and I have an MArch from '06 and I passed the examinations to be licensed last year. So I am NCARB Certifed with 60k in student loans and I can't find a job, let alone one that will pay a living wage.
So, yes, personally I am in the exact same boat as Architak when he says,
"In conclusion, applying MARCH was the single biggest mistake in my life."
My wife and I are fed up with the bull$hit this profession has put her and I and our children through.
It is 2:00 am in the morning here. She arrived from working at the Hospital for an income to pay the bills an hour ago.
We just spent an hour planning some more of the details of our escape from the clutches of this god awful architorture existence. If things work out we have a five year plan that might succeed in putting this miserable profession behind us permanently.
I feel like I've been slowly entangled in web over the last ten years. Not a pleasant feeling at all. Its now to the point that the profession has drained my life's blood and I am a shell of the man I was before I stepped foot inside a cursed architecture school.
money gone. relationships severely damaged. opportunity costs spent. youth gone. all hope for reconciliation with a future in architecture gone.
i left the field 1 year after receiving my 5-year professional b.a..... i didn't like the field in the 1 year that i was working in firms.... i managed to do design/build and currently in grad school for a different degree....i like the field, but don't like the lifestyle of the career....to each his/her own, but i value my life and time to do other creative more enjoyable things......
So some of you have left the profession but still browse the forum on this website. Why?
unemployment sucks - and that's true for a whole lot of people across the country right now. it's disproportionately affected our profession this time around, but things will come back.
given people's life circumstances, a lot of people trained in architecture will end up doing something else. it happened to a huge swath of my generation and - in the end - made those of us still here more valuable.
for those who are employed, $50k ain't so bad. some vocations spend a whole career of back-breaking work and never go above it. not even 10yrs ago i was 9yrs out of school, making in the $40s when we bought our first (modest) house, got married, and started our family. even paid off my student loans while making that salary.
believe it or not, some people are not only able to survive, but feel that they're living a decent life, doing what they love and still maintaining family and home. no megalomania necessary.
feeling you're entitled to greater than the profession can support is the problem. not the profession itself.
A few firm owners and principals I know are making +100k.
Architects have the potential to make good $$, but no one should expect to make 75k right out of school.
So 40k might suck now, but you have to start somewhere. It actually doesn't even suck that bad, I live pretty well off of 40k even with a ton of school loans.
Asking how one can live off 50k is like asking how you could possible drive to the grocery store in anything but a BMW.
Steven says is well:
"Feeling you're entitled to greater than the profession can support is the problem. Not the profession itself."
Well, if there isn't any intention from the profession itself to increase the salaries, reduce the amount of years in college to two years. The rest you learn at work. This will reduce the student loan dramatically which can be payed off easier with a McDonald salary. People will feel less entitled for more compensation. Architecture isn't rocket science anyhow, so i don't see the point anymore to go 6 year plus to school with a huge debt to be making 30K.
none of this really should be a surprise for a career as an architect
I think a lot of this comes down to unrealistic expectations for what a career as an architect actually is
"So some of you have left the profession but still browse the forum on this website. Why?"
I have wondered about this as well
I also wonder what people actually expected to make after getting their M.Arch? Did someone tell you that it would be a ticket to double the starting salary that someone with a 5 year degree will get? Because if so, you were greatly mislead.
and yet, Winston, gross failure that you are, you continue to haunt these halls, spewing your venom in a thinly veiled attempt to drag others down with you. my, you are a loser, aren't you?
<i>We just spent an hour planning some more of the details of our escape from the clutches of this god awful architorture existence. <i>
Last year when things were looking very bad I started floating resumes out there in "alternative" career paths. Everything from somewhat related things like Architectural Product Sales and different jobs in construction or corporate real estate. Then to things completely 180 degrees in industries like medical devices and food conglomerates.
In the end I had about 5 interviews, 3 second interviews and all rejections. The common response was, "You are a flight risk once the economy improves." Also heard that I was "overqualified." Funny, since I had no experience in said profession, but multiple degrees and professional licensure looks pretty impressive, regardless of what income it might actually rake in.
Part of me envies the fresh arch grad. He/she has zero experience to make them overqualified or a flight risk. They can move into a career that has better advancement opportunities and earning potential.
Don't get me wrong, I do love Architecture. However I hate the holding pattern the profession is currently in. The work that we do have it mediocre at best. Perks, raises and bonuses are a distant memory...and I don't see a return to "good times" for many years...at least until there is another boom or large scale retirements of senior people in the profession. Since architects work until the day they die that isn't happening soon.
chemitas -
Many of the people here are sad folks, Archinect in general has become a support group for the general crap that a lot of architects put up with.
I have a bachelors, a burgeoning side business, and a job that pays me a generous salary... I'm two years out of school. I have a Bachelors of Fine Arts in Architecture and Design, you can find me somewhere abouts on page three of the salary poll.
Recently, I was considered for an ownership track position with a starting salary that some senior associates would entertain.
There is as much money in this profession as you are willing to make for yourself, is the way I see it.
However... I have been accepted to some Masters programs and am going to make a B-Line for the academic world this Fall, there's a great opening in this industry for someone, I'll be turning down two job offers and vacating my current position in order to continue schooling.
"So some of you have left the profession but still browse the forum on this website. Why?"
why not?
"Architecture is a rich man's hobby. If you want to make money, please leave now." -- Opening words by freshman year studio prof.
Loremipsum, Why are you making a B-line for grad school to incure more debt?
I understand the venom on this board about the low salaries. It's always been low for young architects but the last 10-15 years has also seen an inflation in prices for housing and transport and education coupled with a falling Dollar, in short our money is losing it's value and you see it most at the low end of the salary range. A low salaried Architect could get more for their money 30 years ago. Heres an interesting article in the Chicago Tribune about median salary required to buy a modest home / condo in the Chicagoland area - which probably means some ranch house 45 miles out
http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/chicago-homeownership-out-of-reach-for-many-with-jobs.html
If your 30, delaying marraige, family, kids home waiting for the day you might break $60,000 you should note you might need $2,686 more LOL
It's all about making ends meat, which is the reason people work in the first place. If a profession such as architecture doesn't provide the basics in live such as the ability to have a mortgage, pay the utilities, car note, kids, insurance, transportation, student loan etc. then the profession is just a hobby. And that is the reason why many people complain. Not that they can't afford a BMW like their brother who happen to be a lawyer, doctor, accountant, retail manager. We just want to be able to afford the basics. Is that too much to ask for?
I'm not sure where som eof you live but in my city most people unlicenced with about 2-5 years of experience make between 50-60k.
licenced PAs at my firm earn anywhere between 60-100k. Same with PMs.
And most senior associates, associate principals and above earn 90k+
med brings up another point I always find interesting: where do you live? I'm always perplexed that some young architects are making the exact same dollar amount, lets say $44,000 in Chicago today, as architects in Chicago made 15 years ago. Is there so many grads moving into large cities like NYC and LA and CHI driving down prices? Conversely I know architects in rural Iowa who are making more than those in Chicago with half the expenses. Is this a supply and demand scenario playing out where architects just arent evenly distributed geographically?
That's me. I left, but stayed close to the profession (I'm in another design field). Architects represent a potential collaborator or even client to me now, and by the time I left the field I had made friends on these forums. There are things that I can learn from y'all, and things that y'all can learn from me. So all in all, it would have been a bit odd if I had just stopped coming here one day because I was no longer in architecture. Heck, the editors even liked the idea enough to let me do a school blog on life after architecture.
On the original topic... I "only" make 50k, and it works for me. Yes there are things I've had to give up, but they're not unreasonable. I don't own a car, but I'm paying down my debt at a reasonable pace. I live with a roommate, but I have a pretty sweet apartment. I can afford to dress well and go out on the weekends and join a gym, but again it's at the expense of needing to bike everywhere. It's a matter of balance, of figuring out what's really important to you.
let's also not forget that a pretty good cross section of archinect is just people with 3-5 years of experience. i know licensed architects who make 400k. because a $1m house build out at 10% is 100k, and you can easily do four of those a year.
Washington DC and New York.
You cannot afford to live in those cities today and make less than 45k a year even as an intern.
"Is there so many grads moving into large cities like NYC and LA and CHI driving down prices?"
Not necessarily. In fact, it is quite difficult for people to move to the those cities without some sort of modest sign on bonus or relocation expense.
There's a pretty common factor here though-- commercial real estate.
For two reasons, the bulk of the taxes paid in the private sector are not corporate income taxes... they are real estate taxes. And the second reason is the price of commercial real estate has grown disproportionately to inflation and real market growth.
For instance, the going rate of "nice office space" in Manhattan is about $35-40 sq.ft. annually (plus maintenance, janitorial et cetera). Well, the identical office space in the 1970s to 1980s should be about $13-15 sq. ft. if we reverse adjust for inflation. The reality is that office space was renting out at $8-13 sq.ft. and even lower.
Possible reasons for this? Urban renewal schemes of the period were afraid of the growing "Rust Belt" and were doing everything to gaurantee a profitable business environment. In addition, there was a massive expansion of commercial real estate saturating the market and driving prices down. Finally, white flight and suburbanization hollowed out many cities as CEOs and the executive boards relocated to the city edge further saturating the market.
There was a point in the 1970s-1990s where office buildings were giving tenants years of free rent on the condition that once they became profitable that they would pay rent and provide a percentage of their profits to their landlords.
So, many businesses were not only reaping the value of changing power structures within cities... but with property values so low, they were not only getting the benefit of cheap rent but low taxes.
One could argue that commercial real estate has gone up because of new market demands but that itself doesn't hold water. If we look at the basic infrastructure of a building, it has gotten substantially simplified since the 1960s and 1970s. There are no longer miles of phone lines, server rooms that occupy whole floors, enormous power inverters, switch rooms, switchboard rooms et cetera. In fact, the only thing a business needs is space (wireless) and a tiny thin filament (fiber optics) to replace all of that.
The bigger picture here is that sometime around the 1980s to 1990s, it became in vogue for corporations to relocate back to cities-- perhaps the suburbs weren't as exciting as previous thought, culture shifted, a new demand for the finer things a city can provide. There's also a major shift in what type of businesses inhabited the city as it hollowed it-- these empty cities became playgrounds for the white collar businesses.
So, the increase of interest brought an increase in demand. Rents go up. Taxes go up, too. Because the bottom line is moving towards the middle, prices go up. Because prices go up, expenses must go down. So, salaries, perks and other things start to dramatically disappear and freeze.
And that's really why we're seeing stale wages and a lack of mobility. Combined that with the fact that New York City has something like 17 million potential employees in a 75 mile radius and 30 million in a 150 mile radius... you don't have to go very far to find someone above average.
I like to call this "Why Denny's doesn't have table cloths and table lamps anymore effect."
Steven Ward said: believe it or not, some people are not only able to survive, but feel that they're living a decent life, doing what they love and still maintaining family and home. no megalomania necessary.
This is totally me. I'm the breadwinner in our family, and we get along quite nicely on $50K (a bit more in good years, a bit less potentially this year). We have a house, four cars (my husband builds hot rods - we have old cars, not new), are saving a bit, and live a generally nice life.
What we don't do: extravagant vacations, new car every three years, dine out a lot, do spa days, buy stuff.
One thing of note: when I lived in a major east coast city and earned less than $40K, we didn't live a lifestyle that most young grads probably imagine for themselves. We rarely ate out or went to clubs, even though hip new ones were opening around us practically weekly; we didn't jet to Florida for fun weekends, we didn't own expensive electronics, we didn't buy designer clothes. When we remodeled our kitchen, the salesman looked at our order form and said "Oh - entry level stainless appliances." (Yeah, pretty-boy-son-of-the-owner, I got your entry level cash right here, pal. Note to Philly people: Donatucci Appliances, stay away from them. Jerks.) We lived frugally of necessity, but had a fun time anyway.
It's fun to imagine a glamorous lifestyle post-graduation. But the reality of student loans and the current economic situation is that you'll likely struggle through several years of expectation readjustment. It's normal and not un-survivable. And salaries DO go up, generally, as you become more knowledgeable and valuable to a firm or go out on your own.
Another option, of course, is to marry rich.
2step (and med) - salaries can be location dependent, but i'd argue they are more correlated to the type and size of the practice.
i doubt, for example, that med's numbers apply to a 3-5 person residential firm, unless they do exceptionally high end work. more likely, that represents a larger firm (40+), doing higher end commercial and institutional work.
point being, gensler ny, for example, is (statistically speaking) going to pay a good deal more than francis black, solo architect in islip.
While I suppose this will be a controversial post, when you actually look at data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average compensation in our profession really isn't all that low when compared to the rest of the economy.
In fact, architectural compensation is 1.8 times the national average -- see this link: National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates Sure, lots of folks make more than we do, on average. But, many many more make way less.
I suppose your perspective on this is influenced heavily by your expectations, but - as Stephen suggests above -- the fundmental economics of our industry remain the basic determinant of how participants in this industry are paid. We have chosen to work in a highly fragmented industry, where the barriers to entry are low, the barriers to exit are high and price competition is fundamental to winning new work.
Perhaps we all should have pursued careers in the petroleum, health care or legal services industries. Of course, had I made one of those choices 30 years back, I probably would have blown my brains out by now.
I like being an architect.
@ Dapper Napper
In all of my interviews, the one thing that keeps me from landing a position where I can see myself long term is the lack of a professional degree. Additionally, I am very interested in research and a career as a professor.
If anyone think 35k for a master graduate is a fair market value, please give me 10 other examples of master degrees with getting similar pay.
I was already lucky to got a scholarship for minority which covered at least half of my tuition fee, but still ended up with 100k student loans. Money you will spend in graduate school including model materials, laser cut fee, plotting fee, field trips.......
I love architecture, that's why I chose to pursue BARCH and MARCH.
What I didn't expect is that most MARCH need to work as a CAD money for almost 3 to 5 years after school, and get paid like a janitor.
At the end of the day, I am blaming no one but myself. I didn't do a good market research before I jumped in. My ego was too high to listen to anyone who told me it didn't worth it.
Why am I still here? I need to share my story to those who don't wanna end up like me.
Am I a loser? Definitely! My parents are still living in public housing and I can do nothing about it! I am a total loser!
Why is it that architects think they automatically deserve to live at the top 10% of salaries just because they are architects and graduated from college? Our administrative assistant has a masters degree in fine arts. Should she make the same as an architect?
Even the newest, youngest member of our firm (just graduated with a masters) lives pretty well, and just qualified to buy a remodeled 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom home. All of our interns are pretty well paid, have full benefits, get to do work they like.
Meanwhile, I have one kid who graduated from college. and is in grad school. He does research, and lives (pretty well, actually) on a lowly $24,000 a year stipend. He is married (to another student who also makes $24,000 a year) but they live frugally enough that they bought a house. My daughter is graduating from college this year, from a great school, but with a degree that will probably doom her to working in a social service organization or non profit for less than $25,000 a year. She is really bright, worked hard, went to a top 20 college, got straight A's. She is willing to sacrifice a higher salary to do something she enjoys. Why do architects think they "are entitled" to make a top salary? Stop comparing yourselves to investment bankers, lawyers and doctors. Just cause you have rich clients doesn't mean you should be rich.
That said, you can make a good living in this business. It takes a ton of work, and you need to take the risk of ownership in a firm to get the rewards. I was lucky (and so were my kids) that I was able to pay for those high priced college tuitions for them. I have no complaints- this profession has been hard work, but it has been financially very rewarding as well as rewarding personally.
an M.Arch isnt quite the same in architecture as other masters degrees
It is essentially the same degree as an undergrad B.Arch
that's why there is no automatic bump up in salary just because of that degree
I have an M.Arch, and honestly, dont feel like i was at any sort of advantage over those coming out with a B.Arch beyond me being a little older and having a little bit more experience
archie: great post -- you said some things that really needed to be said.
About the only thing you might have missed is some attention to the concept of productivity. At the end of the day, higher productivity leads directly to higher compensation. Nobody gets rich at low levels of productivity -- lots of folks stay poor for exactly that reason.
Architak, you are not a loser. I think you're referencing babs' comment above, which is directed at one individual, not everyone in your situation.
IMO, the schools really do shoulder some blame here, for not being crystal clear about how much it costs to get a degree (especially a Masters), what your starting salaries are likely to be (even harder to determine in this bizarro-world economic situation we are in now), and just how freaking big that student loan monthly payment will be. Again, it's not only architecture schools doing this: I just heard, where was that?, a report of a woman who quit working in financial aid and admissions at, I think Ivy Tech, because she knew she was misleading potential students.
Schools want a paying body in a classroom seat above all. Within the schools, there are awesome opportunities for all kinds of financial aid, networking, and of course education, but the cost of that degree is overwhelming the first few years, or even the first decade, out of school.
I always like these kind of threads. I don't know why. I like to hear the dark side of things i guess. of course taken with a critical eye.
I've read a book about a barber that wanted to become a lawyer when he was younger but family illness prevented him from going to college. But with the salary of a barber he was still able to be pretty well off. I'm not sure if I'm remembering the exact title since it was a while since I read it, but I think he was a millionaire barber. He didn't spend his money on latte's everyday, but invested it, and with compound interest was able to make bank. he managed to have a family as well. Same thing with a teacher I read about in the newspaper that died. She left millions of dollars, with a teacher's salary, through investments and such. Although in her case she didn't have a family.
A guy up here who stopped working at the age of 30, wrote a book called "Stop working now". Basically graduated with accounting degree, decided accounting wasn't for him, but did odd jobs. Like telephone survey things, taught english overseas. Only earning around 20,000 in the beginning years after college, but vowed to put into investments 200 every month before university I think. All the while managing to save money for traveling as well, not living like a monk. Now is living off the dividends and investments accumulated by saving 200 every month. of course making smart choices along the way. All this while still managing to have a family as well.
Then you have broke doctors earning 100,000 but in so much debt that they're broke. or if not because of school debt, spends it all on toys and are still broke.
So maybe it's not how much money one makes, but how well one manages the money that counts. And being smart about how much loans you can realistically handle.
I don't know....if these guys earning even less can manage to have money, I'm sure I can find a way to do it with an architect's salary. I guess you need to have the skill to differentiate between need vs want (unnecessary wants).
Why do I get the consistent feeling that quizzical, archie, and stone have a vested interest in seeing the most amount of CAD jockeys ready to flood the market this spring?
oh. Because they are probably in all likelihood past the stage of having to participate in the economy as a future architect or recently licensed architect in the contemporary economy (which they ironically created). Instead they are "all set" and look down from their "high" places and wonder why the "interns" of today don't just shut up and bang out ten more lines in AutoCAD.
...and I'd bet my life that all things being equal 98% of those in the profession that espouse this approach to those around 40 and younger are AIA. That is why we've been designated "YOUNG" Architects. Whoever heard of such a thing? As if after graduating from Medical School and completing a residency doesn't qualify one to a full blown "Medical Doctor". How can an organization continue to justify with a straight face labeling 50 year olds that have practiced for 25+ years as "interns" and not drafters?
And why shouldn't Architects expect the same pay as lawyers and Doctors?
Oh. I guess even though it was one of the original 7 veritable professions it isn't any longer thanks to all the "designers" who've turned it into nothing more than the pursuit of "graphic design" as opposed to life safety.
I suppose we'll have to leave it to the Engineers to remain a viable profession while architects continue to busy themselves debating choices in interior paint colors.
The real reason Architects don't make as much as Doctors or Lawyers is because:
#1 They don't think they can, so they don't
#2 They don't value their own time, so others don't either, naturally
#3 They don't value licensure
#4 They think "its all good" and undermine their own progress in the nonsensical pursuit of some nebulous, phantom "equality".
#5 The organizations that run the profession, from NCARB, to the State Boards, are infected/ infested with morally corrupt, ethically bankrupt members and proponents of the AIA, who constantly undermine principle through the worship of legal expediency and blind solidarity to the AIA itself (instead of the larger profession).
#6 The public, either consciously or subconsciously, knows about #5 (the jig is up folks) so they rightfully withhold socioeconomic compensation.
"You can fool some of the people some of the time (ignorant your aspiring architects who are honestly trying to follow the rules)...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
And before the typical ad hominem attacks are unleashed on WinstonSmith, why not do something unusual and unexpected first, i.e. ask yourself if what I say is true, and if you thin knot, argue my points on their own merit and don't bother wasting time attacking WinstonSmith himself. A(or lack thereof) after all, he doesn't exist anyways. But his ideas do.
Tell me about it. I have 89k in student loan debt quietly sitting in deferment on the elusive hopes that one day I will have an income to make modest dents in them. Still I know that it will likely be a good 15-20 years before I get the satisfaction of making that last payment. I really have no clue how I am going to pay for ARE exams, let alone NCARB fees.
To be perfectly honest, all I want is a modest wage that pays for my cost of living and expenses with maybe some modest extras. I know that a Masters with 4 years experience is pretty low on the ladder but 28k? Seriously? Managers at McDonalds get paid that much (if not more). I can't imagine how someone can make that work in any city, let alone places like New York, etc. where I frequently hear of such salaries. I'm not expecting to make 6 figures, buy a yacht and shop at Prada. But I would like to afford my rent, but new running shoes and at least afford to shop at Target.
"an M.Arch isnt quite the same in architecture as other masters degrees
It is essentially the same degree as an undergrad B.Arch"
probably the dumbest thing I have heard all day.
So, the public thinks a Bachelor's is equivalent to a Masters?
So if I want to teach at the Community College will they let me if I have a MAsters and not if I merely hold a Bachelors?
Don't bother explaining the nuances of difference between the two...I already know of course that within the "holy" (HAHA) walls of our profession there is a slight, if any, difference.
But to ignore the greater public's perception is jsut raw, massive, indiscriminate ignorance.
I dont know if you read your own posts there Winston, then maybe you would have read something pretty dumb also
But why exactly should a starting salary for an M.Arch right out of school be more than a B.Arch right out of school? What difference is there in the actual education of the 2?
I love how you bring up teaching as a point when we are discussing starting salaries of architects.
Read the entire post before you rant against someone
I never said they were equivilant, thanks again for an example of you just putting words in peoples mouths to further your rant
In terms of starting salary right out of school though, they are.
All unlicensed poser architecture professors need to be kicked to the curb.
The verifiable information that I've come across states that less than 30% of professors at the "professionally" accredited schools (NAAB) are actually Licensed Architects.
I can tell you one easy thing that would make an immediate positive impact on the profession: make Licensure a mandatory, no loop holes allowed prerequisite to teaching in accredited schools.
The rest of the 70% of the teaching staff (I call them teaching staff because despite the weapons of mass deception they are not qualified to teach architecture) can high tail it over to the art departments and smoke their dope someplace else.
There are many other ways tactics that would immediately improve the profession. But, as long as those at the top are comfortable I guarantee you...nothing will change. Oh, they might make it look like "Hope" and "Change" are perpetually on the horizon but I guarantee you substantial positive change will not happen until the people on the top are made to share in feeling the heat and sting of what they have created and the people at the bottom have allowed them to create.
With a name like Winston how could you be wrong?
Winny, here, rest your weary head while i play you a song.
I have always felt that the best way to bring about actual change is to rant endlessly on a random website
that always works
If you look at the nationally published statistics, the average salaries for a family physician or an attorney with 10 to 15 years of experience are around $125,000 to $150,000 a year. Yes of course there are lawyers and doctors who make $500,000 to $1,000,000 and more a year. There are architects who are making that much too. Just like the lawyers and doctors, they either are partners, or have a very specific, desirable skill.
So the average architect wage is less than the average lawyer or attorney, but not that much. We just hired an experienced architect at $115k a year, plus benefits, plus bonus, etc. And we live in a very low cost city, so that money goes a long way. i don't think that is anything to complain about.
and Winston, you are so wrong about our motives. Sure, i want to see the market have a ton of really good, talented people who will work hard available for hire. But I never would hire a CAD monkey. We expect our professional staff to act as professionals. What I can't believe is how hard it is to find people who are willing to be responsible for what they do, follow through on the work they are given, care about the quality of that work, manage themselves and their workload, work without micromanagement, and want to advance in their profession. I am always surprised to see that a large percentage of the graduates today really just want to show up, be told what to do, and then leave work and all of the responsibility behind. They don't last long here.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for fresh grads to have high expectations in the profession. If someone comes in with the goal of making a six figure salary in the not-so-distant future they'll probably be a harder worker. All the trash talking about how poor our salaries are can't be entirely good for the youngest in the profession and their motivation.
That said, I have yet to have a boss that has proved to me that hard work and dedication equals financial gain. My biggest salary boosts have been from job hopping. I think anyone not at the partner/ownership level in this profession would agree that's the fastest way to financial gain.
So the average architect wage is less than the average lawyer or attorney, but not that much
Years ago I read an article about average wages broken down to an hourly wage. Architects, lawers and doctors all were earning far less per hour than other professions. Why? Because we all work a lot of hours. School teachers were amongst the highest paid people given the high degree of days off for holidays and summers they get. Also, union labor jobs are very well paying when you consider they get paid for every single hour worked.
the good teachers put in a lot more time outside of the "union mandated" hours... plus there's a reason there's a tax credit for out of pocket expenses if you are a teacher. if you want to get any grading or lesson planning done, you've got to work weekends and evenings (especially if you have 200 kids all turning in homework each day and you teach a subject that requires a ton of prep - like science or the lower grades). it's a really tough job - often more demanding than architecture (definitely more physically demanding).
sure - they get forced vacation a couple times a year, but many teachers also work second jobs during the summers to make ends meet.
if you think we're low paid for the amount of work we do and for our education - try being a teacher in a low-income urban school. I'm very thankful I have a desk job.
archie: nice, fluffy words.
In my experience that is all the profession has for those who are licensed with 5-15 years experience. And then they try the old "reverse psychology" tactic to imply that "you aren't tough enough to handle this" to appeal to the overinflated and ignorant ego of the younger set.
Words. That is all.
And whoever quoted the figure of 115k earlier: you are exceptionalizing to the exclusion of the much broader general rule.
THE AVERAGE SALARY for a licensed Architect in the U.S. is ACTUALLY 65k. And this was before the market meltdown and the number is per the US Dept of Labor.
put those words in your pipe and smoke them. At least I have cited third party sources with generally applicable data sets. All you have given and no doubt will continue to submit are verbose "feel good" reverse psychology tactics designed to obfuscate the cold, hard reality of being either a recent graduate or a recently licensed architect with 5-15 years of experience.
The AIA is nothing but fluffy wordy smoke and mirrors. The rubber never hits the road but the wheels sure spin and the engine makes a lots of sexy noises.
I've been laid off for 7 weeks. I have had four prospects and have interviewed at 3. Each time I have been told I am "overqualified" and then I find out later that the firm was merely using me as a free way to establish their baseline for what would be a cheap deal for them. IN each case they have hired a recent grad for 1/2 the price the market in the past has told them I am worth EVEN though I am PERFECTLY QUALIFIED for the actual work that they advertise for the position.
Care to have a little deception with that kool aid anyone?
I'll believe the AIA cronies when I see it. Show me the money.
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.