I'm in a bit of a dilemma as my graduation from my M.Arch degree creeps ever closer. I currently have two offers for employment from very different companies; the first is a well-known Canadian design firm, the other a large multinational AE firm- both located in Toronto.
The salary difference between the two offers is not insignificant; the AE firm is offering 15k more, along with many other incentives. I have several summers worth of internship experience at design-focused offices, both domestically and internationally, as well as a year of co-op during my undergraduate degree.
Aside from the financial aspect, is there any reason not to go for the higher paying position? My experience in the Canadian market is that the projects are fiscally conservative, and limited in terms of design potential.
If my end goal is to have a practice, will the experience at one place or the other really matter?
Non Sequitur
Feb 19, 17 4:00 pm
AE firms always pay more than traditional small or mid size arch offices because the AE guys have more repeate jobs and don't have the same aversion to cookie cutter work that design firms have.
$15k is big jump for roughly inexperienced grad. You may not get much design variation with the AE guys, but at least you'll have the cash to move on with your life faster than most colleagues. Making sure you get exposure on the construction site is important because without it, you'll find that glass ceiling very quickly.
archiwutm8
Feb 20, 17 3:30 am
Money helps with cookie cutter boredom.
natematt
Feb 20, 17 3:42 am
Run with the AE firm for a year or two. The financial difference will be helpful, and frankly more design oriented firms are likely to give you a lot of boring things to do at first anyway.
thisisnotmyname
Feb 20, 17 12:04 pm
Thoughtful use of the extra money to advance your independent creative endeavors can go a long way to mitigate the possible lack of "design opportunity" at the A/E place. Use the extra money to travel, go to exhibits, set up a nice home studio, etc.
Be sure that the A/E has good learning opportunities for you to be involved with all phases of the design and construction, that would be my only concern. You may find that the A/E may let you design more that the "design oriented" firm, where there's probably some principals or senior designers really dominating the process. That has been my personal experience, having been with both a fancy firm and an A/E.
l3wis
Feb 20, 17 12:18 pm
I don't know.. for someone interested in being a designer and owning their own practice (making an assumption here) , I feel like the first serious work experience on your resume should be someplace with an excellent reputation, where you'll be working on challenging / great projects. If you look at any young architect with award winning and quality work they without fail have spent at least several to many years in a good office before going out on their own. It really depends where your aspirations lie. The extra money may not actually be worth the most formative years of work experience for you, as I wager you will learn more from the talented designers at the design firm then the AE firm where people are thinking differently about architecture.
Just thought I'd offer a counterpoint to these other perspectives. Its easier said then done especially if you have a large amount of debt.
sameolddoctor
Mar 3, 17 10:17 pm
The OP can go work at a more design oriented office later in her/his career too. As architects, all we have is time. There will be way more exposure in the AE firm, which will actually lead to better prospects down the road.
no_form
Feb 20, 17 8:34 pm
easy. the bigger salary. you can save more money for investing in your downpayment on a house/condo/property, build up your retirement nest egg, pay off more of any existing debt.
if both offices are high profile, like SOM vs small design oriented boutique they will both help you get a new job/work after you leave them.
most young grads go for the shiny design carrot and forget that it all comes down to money. which is why the design oriented office pays pennies to employees. the owners want all the profits.
bowling_ball
Feb 20, 17 10:10 pm
You're going to probably hate either job in a couple years, so take the higher pay for now. Once you've learned what you can and when you start to feel bored, move on. There's a lot to learn at either job, but having exposure to a bread and butter firm will actually be helpful as you enter the work force.
s=r*(theta)
Feb 21, 17 1:01 pm
How is this a dilemma?!?
and also if I may suggest.. "The salary difference between the two offers is not insignificant;" to: salary difference is significant.
3tk
Feb 21, 17 6:11 pm
As long as both help you get the next job, take the money. However, if the higher pay prevents you from getting into the next job, take the lower pay job.
Also note if you will be around people you want to work with - being in a place where you end up picking up the mess after others incompetence is not necessarily worth higher pay. When I finished school, I opted for the lower pay but better environment (longer hours, but with equally driven non-competitive coworkers). That led me to accelerate my career more than the dull job (later employers noted the ability to think quicker and solve problems better), at +10 yrs I'm sure my total compensation is bigger because of that time (I also survived the recession by being desirable on contract work). Food for thought.
Remember - it's not your last job, and more than likely a 2~3 yr gig unless you really love it.
randomised
Feb 22, 17 6:28 am
I would personally always go for the job with a better design potential, but since you already say that will be limited in both places, go for the money and get some on-site experience under your belt and move on to a more design-oriented practice when you are really getting too bored with cutting cookies.
Driko
Feb 23, 17 5:15 pm
Go for the job that pays 15k more. The largest complaint about the industry is that architects dont get pain enough and every now or then i see a post like this. How is anyone suppose to take the architecture business seriously when you take jobs that pay under minimum wage (hourly breakdown) and justify it with "ill build my portfolio with work i like".
your post sounds like you answer your own question as well and on a side note when you apply to other jobs and you get into the negotiation table you will have more leverage for a higher salary. Once they offer you a job they wont take it away from you. The worst they can say is "hey we cant offer that much but,....".
good luck but it seems like you are on the right track.
Hi everyone,
I'm in a bit of a dilemma as my graduation from my M.Arch degree creeps ever closer. I currently have two offers for employment from very different companies; the first is a well-known Canadian design firm, the other a large multinational AE firm- both located in Toronto.
The salary difference between the two offers is not insignificant; the AE firm is offering 15k more, along with many other incentives. I have several summers worth of internship experience at design-focused offices, both domestically and internationally, as well as a year of co-op during my undergraduate degree.
Aside from the financial aspect, is there any reason not to go for the higher paying position? My experience in the Canadian market is that the projects are fiscally conservative, and limited in terms of design potential.
If my end goal is to have a practice, will the experience at one place or the other really matter?
AE firms always pay more than traditional small or mid size arch offices because the AE guys have more repeate jobs and don't have the same aversion to cookie cutter work that design firms have.
$15k is big jump for roughly inexperienced grad. You may not get much design variation with the AE guys, but at least you'll have the cash to move on with your life faster than most colleagues. Making sure you get exposure on the construction site is important because without it, you'll find that glass ceiling very quickly.
Money helps with cookie cutter boredom.
Run with the AE firm for a year or two. The financial difference will be helpful, and frankly more design oriented firms are likely to give you a lot of boring things to do at first anyway.
Thoughtful use of the extra money to advance your independent creative endeavors can go a long way to mitigate the possible lack of "design opportunity" at the A/E place. Use the extra money to travel, go to exhibits, set up a nice home studio, etc.
Be sure that the A/E has good learning opportunities for you to be involved with all phases of the design and construction, that would be my only concern. You may find that the A/E may let you design more that the "design oriented" firm, where there's probably some principals or senior designers really dominating the process. That has been my personal experience, having been with both a fancy firm and an A/E.
I don't know.. for someone interested in being a designer and owning their own practice (making an assumption here) , I feel like the first serious work experience on your resume should be someplace with an excellent reputation, where you'll be working on challenging / great projects. If you look at any young architect with award winning and quality work they without fail have spent at least several to many years in a good office before going out on their own. It really depends where your aspirations lie. The extra money may not actually be worth the most formative years of work experience for you, as I wager you will learn more from the talented designers at the design firm then the AE firm where people are thinking differently about architecture.
Just thought I'd offer a counterpoint to these other perspectives. Its easier said then done especially if you have a large amount of debt.
The OP can go work at a more design oriented office later in her/his career too. As architects, all we have is time. There will be way more exposure in the AE firm, which will actually lead to better prospects down the road.
easy. the bigger salary. you can save more money for investing in your downpayment on a house/condo/property, build up your retirement nest egg, pay off more of any existing debt.
if both offices are high profile, like SOM vs small design oriented boutique they will both help you get a new job/work after you leave them.
most young grads go for the shiny design carrot and forget that it all comes down to money. which is why the design oriented office pays pennies to employees. the owners want all the profits.
You're going to probably hate either job in a couple years, so take the higher pay for now. Once you've learned what you can and when you start to feel bored, move on. There's a lot to learn at either job, but having exposure to a bread and butter firm will actually be helpful as you enter the work force.
How is this a dilemma?!?
and also if I may suggest.. "The salary difference between the two offers is not insignificant;" to: salary difference is significant.
As long as both help you get the next job, take the money. However, if the higher pay prevents you from getting into the next job, take the lower pay job.
Also note if you will be around people you want to work with - being in a place where you end up picking up the mess after others incompetence is not necessarily worth higher pay. When I finished school, I opted for the lower pay but better environment (longer hours, but with equally driven non-competitive coworkers). That led me to accelerate my career more than the dull job (later employers noted the ability to think quicker and solve problems better), at +10 yrs I'm sure my total compensation is bigger because of that time (I also survived the recession by being desirable on contract work). Food for thought.
Remember - it's not your last job, and more than likely a 2~3 yr gig unless you really love it.
I would personally always go for the job with a better design potential, but since you already say that will be limited in both places, go for the money and get some on-site experience under your belt and move on to a more design-oriented practice when you are really getting too bored with cutting cookies.
Go for the job that pays 15k more. The largest complaint about the industry is that architects dont get pain enough and every now or then i see a post like this. How is anyone suppose to take the architecture business seriously when you take jobs that pay under minimum wage (hourly breakdown) and justify it with "ill build my portfolio with work i like".
your post sounds like you answer your own question as well and on a side note when you apply to other jobs and you get into the negotiation table you will have more leverage for a higher salary. Once they offer you a job they wont take it away from you. The worst they can say is "hey we cant offer that much but,....".
good luck but it seems like you are on the right track.
you sound like a spoiled brat
thanks everyone
What you pick?