In many of my conversations about career with soon to be graduates, recent graduates, early professionals, and even intermediate professionals salary is probably one of the most frequent topics. Here are some of the questions I hear from professionals looking for their first full time job, for example:
What's the problem here? The preoccupation with money is truly bewildering. Early on, it's quite simple: know what the average pay is for your experience level and make sure you aren't being underpaid. If you are at a firm that can pay you more, then kudos to you, but the obsession with money at this point in a career is misplaced. We should all be fairly compensated for our work, this is a given.
Let's do a little thought experiment: You have job offers from two firms.
Firm A offers you $50k; you will be a junior designer working on all phases of various projects, you will have an assigned mentor who will teach you the ins and outs of each phase and who will help facilitate your professional growth within the firm, Firm A also offers ARE support and has an established plan to help you become a licensed architect.
Firm B offers you $60k; you will also be a junior designer, your primary focus will be to transfer drawings you receive from a project architect into Revit, you will build physical models of designs that are given to you, pick up redlines, organize the materials library, every now and then you will be able to accompany a more senior member to the construction site to take meeting notes, there is no talk of licensure or the ARE, but when time permits you will be able to do some design work.
If your goal is to become a competent licensed architect, which is the better offer? Firm A or Firm B? Which offers more value to you?
I'm choosing Firm A without a question. The math is simple. In 8 years you will be exponentially more valuable than your friend who takes the job at Firm B. Learning is undeniably more valuable to architectural professionals early on in comparison to salary. Firm leaders want nothing more than to hire competent and capable staff who they know can handle the nuances of architecture. When you're in an environment where you aren't being exposed to the vastness that the profession has to offer you are diminishing your value with every year that passes.
Let your friend brag about his $60k for now, because you know that you are slowly and surely increasing in value every day you work, learning and cultivating your craft. Learn as much as you can as deeply as you can, and after some years of practice you can be a stickler about salary. Remember, money is only one form of value.
Agree with the overall point but some smaller firms do take advantage of this angle to get unpaid workers - like Karim Rashid, who argues that working at his studio is superior to attending design school.
All 5 Comments
Agree with the overall point but some smaller firms do take advantage of this angle to get unpaid workers - like Karim Rashid, who argues that working at his studio is superior to attending design school.
Most definitely. We should always be paid fairly for our work. We've actually discussed this issue quite a bit on Archinect:
It's often not as cut and dried as your examples. Often there will be two job listings similar to A with the salary difference of 10k (or whatever) and the actual difference will be unknown until it's too late. Or the applicant gets lucky and the better salary is also the better job but one can't know that because one never took B.
TL;DR: When it is as you set it up, sure. But I don't think it's commonly that transparent.
unless the young graduate has a very specific career goal to target, the higher paid entry jobs tend to prepare for higher paying mid-level jobs. it's a straw-man argument to say one has to choose between well-paid rote work or lower paid useful jobs. Highly paid jobs are never dead-end rote work; they usually mean working in a well run company good at getting money and needing to grow.
I don’t think the premise is high pay = crappy job (The example is merely a thought experiment). But rather, focusing solely on money is misplaced for one’s future. I’m not seeing the straw man. There are many jobs that offer both great pay and great learning, this would be the ideal scenario.
ok i misread, agree on that. the key is looking a bit above the role and see if the management and leadership of the firm are people you can admire and seek to learn from. the people matter more than the job in fact.
Oh yeah 100 percent. Personally, culture and good leadership are probably the most important thing for me in a job/position.
Besides being horrid advice, the example choice scenario doesn’t really exist. All the entry level jobs pay crap. If you want to learn anything and be decently paid definitely don’t stay at the same firm for the first 8 years of your career. On the off chance the projects are actually that diverse and you somehow get to work on a diverse set of them your understanding of firm operations, styles, management etc will still be extremely limited having been at one office. Early career is the time to work at a few different firms to see other perspectives not just project typologies. It’s also a well known fact that the best way to hike your salary early in your career is by switching firms which is sad but true. Moreover if some place offers you a higher salary upfront at the first job, you’re grunt work the first year no matter what. Take the money and jumpstart your 401k and pay down some loans as soon as possible. A dollar in the first period is always worth more than one in the second. Finally, who cares if firm A pays the $250 for each of the tests (a fairly standard benefit these days anyway), with an extra 10K times 3 years (assuming you get licensed in the minimum time) you’ll easily pay for your own tests and then some.
A couple of things. Few thought experiments actually “exist.” All entry level jobs don’t pay crap, but sure, some do. Switching firms early on is one strategy to hike up pay, but there are many others. And many people care that firms support their path to licensure
.
I find that one good way to rise up the ranks is to provide a unique value-add. Not just putting in long hours but by doing something no one else in the firm does - and which benefits all employees or the bottom line. Examples include being a designer with an exceptional eye or style (Favored by leadership and the clientele of course), introducing new productivity tools to the workflow e.g. Rhino to Revit integration, improving BIM processes with Dynamo, networking extensively with the real estate community to boost the firm's profile. Young professionals who manage to value-add tend to rise faster than those who simply put in the long hours.
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.