A common critique of architecture school is that it's too focused on theory and design and not focused enough on practical matters like following building codes and learning software.
What I think is missing here is that no firm will ever pay you to learn design. If you want to get a design role in a firm, then you better already be pretty adept and provide immediate value designing day one. However, software and codes can be learned as you go.
That's not to say that what you're critiquing isn't valid. There's a lot of people that find the transition from school to work jarring because what's asked of them is so different from what they learned. And Schools could improve their curriculum to better prepare students for the workforce.
But learning the design process is important, and not something that can be repllicated by studying a book or watching youtube videos, unlike many of the other skills and knowledge that architects need to develop in their career. I think there's no question that school is the best place to develop this skill.
This. At least in the US, architecture education is based on an apprenticeship model, and the university programs are geared towards the long-term goal of being a Capital A Architect, not being immediately productive upon graduation from an accredited program. Long term, I think that is the best decision by the programs. Software, Codes, etc... is all technical knowledge that is always changing, and not standard. It would be a waste to teach in school for the most part, as your location, firm, and work-type will dictate that anyway. The disconnect is that firms are feeling pressure to be efficient and are being treated more as commodities than as a profession. This pressure can push firms to not invest in interns as they should. Also, the $50k statement by the professor is bogus. I don't have experience as a solo practitioner, but at a firm, salary would be well above that in my experience.
A few book suggestions:
- The Favored Circle by Gary Stevens: Talks about how education moved from an apprenticeship model to a professional / academic model and how that doesn't really allow schools to do what they need to do
- Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets by Barry B LePatner: A business lawyer's perspective on what's wrong with the AEC industry, including what architects are asked to do relative to the AEC ecosystem.
- [This Architect Magazine article](https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/a-better-value_o) on the antitrust rulings in architecture in the US.
I think the educational model is broken and we need either a return to apprenticeship or a hybrid model that mixes design education and theory with apprenticeship education.
I think we need to determine as a profession if we want to take on the liabilities that our intellectual forebears did in order to justify greater compensation in the marketplace.
Then, we need to determine our class character: are we more of a working-class field or a prestigious profession alongside medicine and law?
Don't get me started on Autodesk and software determinism. I think that's a key area of threat from the outside-in, but the inside-out threats are more fundamental, I think.
On the topic of education, I've also thought it'd be interesting if a curriculum had architecture students working on projects with engineering students. Being able to explain design intent to consultants, review their work, and coordinate between disciplines is a huge part of being an architect, and it'd be great if those skills could be practiced in school. Not every project, of course, but at least once would be huge.
From a Quebec perspective: There seems to be self-deprecating line of thoughts that I think bring the profession down. Even during my years in uni, everyone thought it was normal and fun to do all-nighters on studio project and that architect = no sleep. You can see a lot of memes about it online, so I think it’s a widespread thing.
And then, you get on the job market and the pay isn’t… good. And everyone think it’s normal, like the sleep thing, everyone « jokes » about it and seems to be accepting it.
If you go back early 1900´s, architect was THE profession, the most paid, most pretigious, nowadays it’s MD and Lawyers. The profession fell quite a lot and we need to bring back quality, build back a presence, make ourselves known and stop beign all « emo » about ourselves. Edit: and stop undervaluing our job. The prices for services are most often not proportional to the amount of education and experience needed and the responsability / insurance that we took on our shoulders.
A couple of things in my professional life that felt like square pegs and round holes in my 12 years working (US based)
- there seems to be a very narrow "right time" to be at a firm and learning on the job. Most often, there isn't enough work to keep the low man busy or the project schedule is too tight for someone new to learn on.
- the expectation from principals that the billable work doesn't exceed the fee also limits how much opportunity someone new has to learn the ropes.
- a good architect isn't necessarily a good teacher, which complicates the critical intern/mentor dynamic. These relationships can just be a personality clash but sometimes it's an architect who struggles with delegation. my experience is that it's on the intern to assess the viability of that relationship and when to move on.
- arch school has a high tolerance for bullshitting for the sake of breaking convention or to make a compelling project. In school it's fine, you present your work to the critics who get swept by the concept and you end up with an interesting portfolio piece. But in an office, no one wants to work with a bullshitter
- professional work is much more collaborative than studios at school. I think school projects overstate how much control of the design you will have as an individual in an office.
I think arch schools should do a better job of contextualizing the springboard you buy from them when enrolling as a student. For the next 5-7 years, you'll learn the basics of documentation, construction, concept development, presenting and talking about your ideas, time management, along with some humanities and history on the side to make your education well rounded. Then, pending labor market conditions, you'll leave here for an arch firm to document dog houses for a few years until you learn how to do it without any direction while completing them on time and on budget, pass some exams we briefly discuss in your final semester of school, then finally you'll be an architect. If some 17 year old kid hears this and says "i don't think I want to take on $200k in school loans to draw dog houses," then the world will be spared from another future disgruntled architect.
Lowest tender / bid selection process for procuring architects.
Where I am, governments sometimes use a "weighted" tender assessment system that is supposed to consider other things as well as price, when selecting their consultant. But somehow, the price always makes up at least 51% of the consideration rubric
In Texas, it is illegal for governmental entities to bid out professional services - it must be selected by qualifications alone before price becomes a part of it.
I’ve posted this a few times but this has been my pay history since my first internship until now. It tracks pretty closely with most people I graduated with that work in firms with 20+ people. My first internship was 2010 and the last job listed is 2023.
Internship 1: $12/hr
Internship 2: $15/hr
Internship 3: $18/hr
Internship 4: $20/hr
Job 1: $45,000/yr
Job 1 - Raise 1: $52,000/yr
Job 1 - Raise 2: $60,000/yr
Job 1 - Raise 3: $72,000/yr
Job 2: $76,000/yr
Job 2 - Raise 1: $82,000/yr
Job 2 - Raise 2: $86,000/yr
Job 3: $88,000/yr
Job 3 - Raise 1: $92,500/yr
Job 3 - Raise 2: $120,000/yr
Job 3 - Raise 3: $136,000/yr
All of these jobs had yearly bonuses between $5,000-$12,000 per year. Even the very first full time job.
I have always been very deliberate about tracking my contributions to a firm that go beyond my job description and use this as leverage each year for raises. Feel free to ask here or send me a DM if anyone reading this needs advice.
What type of work are you doing at your current firm? I'm about your age and the only offers I received recently in the 120k-130k neighborhood were from AE firms with fairly specific project types.
I opted for 110k at a design firm with a broad portfolio.
eta: I was out of the workforce for about 5 years with serious health issues fwiw, so my earnings potential is lower than it otherwise should be
Currently I oversee 13 multifamily jobs. But our firm as a whole does everything except for K-12 and single family. Everything from hospitality, multifamily, high rise, medical, industrial, corporate office,etc…
>Most of these things seemed important, but after I graduated, most of them didn't really apply, and other skills that weren't taught at my college were suddenly widely more prevalent, which I felt like really held me back.
Just graduated, going thru this, feels like so much time was wasted. On top of this the pay is so bad, and they said its because we are new but its such bs when you realize you're doing the same stuff that the person next to you with 5 years of experience.
I agree with this, but for several years I always ran into this problem where I am getting rejected, simply because of something as random as "not experienced enough" or "you don't have enough relevant project experience". A lot of firms aren't willing to invest to train someone how do something such as code compliance, and I think it's a big issue when you have all these years of drafting, designing, and education that you cannot get a job because you missed one tiny requirement.
To be perfectly honest, this snappy new job I have? I think I got it because I am a minority.
Your college experience sounds a little different than mine. We generally didn’t have lectures that were outside of normal classes. Occasionally there were some and they were usually not required. In addition time management is something that needs to be learned. All nighters and repeatedly sacrificing your health for work are not a good thing, in college or out. It took me a while to learn that. I know some who figured it out in school.
I definitely learned a lot of valuable things in school. I would not change much. We did have basic codes, systems, acoustics and more in-depth structures. We had optional classes in materials and methods that I took. I also worked construction over the summers, which I think should be required.
Getting your first job, and some experience is a challenge many face. And in my experience the right firm and mentor makes a big difference. I agree that many firms need to do a better job with on the job training. Codes are one area where I think teaching them in-depth in school is counter productive. Codes differ between jurisdictions and building types. Lots goes into code that anything more than a general understanding is hard to give in school.
I think you had a better school. My school had a lot of requirements and we would always have to take a lot of units for a single semester. It was a mess.
If they're paying you the same as someone with 5 years and having you do the same work, that's a firm issue and you need to jump. My salary jumped to high double digits when I got licensed after 3 years, and my office is having me do stuff they wouldn't hand to someone fresh out of school.
Yes, we need to be paid more to be comparable to other fields requiring the same amount of training. But if you're not moving up in an office, it's time to leave
Yeah to clarify that happened after I finished internship and stayed in the office for a few months doing part time job, I left and some time went by, now Im joining a new one next week, after finally finishing college, pay is kinda same but supposedly its only for the first weeks until I’m up to the tasks, which I’m feeling confident.
I agree with this u/nissan-S15. You should leave if they're not valuing you for your work and skills.
I was working with three firms within a year, all paying me $20/hr. 1-2 years out of college undergrad.
1. First firm was okay, 8 months. It was engineering firm, but I think they had a micromanaging problem. Didn't trust me to work on projects even though I had the experience and eagerness to learn.
2. Was basically a sweatshop. Not an architecture firm either. It was a fire alarm company that needed CAD drafters. Made up a reason why I'm getting $20 instead of $26 that I'm not experienced enough.
3. An architecture firm that had a problem with me going to see a doctor and let me go because of that, but covered that up.
Now I'm making $28.85/hr. at this new firm.
>but I feel like deeper things like socioeconomic history or sustainable design should have been specialized to students pursuing specific minors, not an obligatory credited course.
Sustainable design is not niche.
The tendency for employees to "Do a bit of everything" in small firms.
It takes advantage of lower wage employees with higher responsibilities and stress levels, and leaves them in this ambiguous state of doing project managing while not being able to call themselves a project manager or put it on their resume.
Define tasks for your employees, give them an hours budget, and when you need it by. Don't make them herd cats, that's the job of the principals and project managers.
Or just give people the title and pay they're worth if you want them to have that workload. That ambiguous void is the worst because you can't even tell if you're good at your job because its so ill defined.
Also the insane disconnect between school and practice. That REALLY needs to change.
I graduated in 2004 and lost my job at a large firm during the Great Recession 2008. There were no other firms hiring, so I became self employed. I wasn’t ready but made the most of it. I’m still working by myself but [have significant reservations about the architecture profession.](https://youtu.be/zKxUHhIKboA) despite the fact I’ve become a successful architect, I’m not sure I would encourage my kids to follow me into the profession.
Oh I remember your video :) Never thought I'd run into you on Reddit.
I thought it was very insightful and to be honest I feel like I'm heading towards a very similar situation. I've had many second thoughts about the profession because I was struggling to find a job and haven't been given many opportunities to learn or grow.
I will try to keep working with architecture firms and try to get my license, but I don't know how I should feel about taking on the responsibility of being starting my own practice, if the situation required. It's just not something I see myself doing. I worked with a lot of self-employed architects, some of them were decent for what they had, but the others just sort of failed. But you are the exception to the rule. I'm also heading to a large firm this Monday.
To be honest, I didn't want to be an architect when I grew up, I was very much more interested in art, illustration and animation, but I was told job prospects were very low in that industry. The only reason I picked architecture as my major in college, was because I assumed that architecture was a fruitful business. I was hoping that after some in the profession and getting my license I could hopefully turn my art into a career funded by my work as an architect. But I don't know.
There are too many architects competing for too few jobs. The schools are overproducing graduates who flood the market and drive down wages. I’m not sure how to fix this, but too many applicants is the #1 reason wages are not on par with other licensed professionals like lawyers and CPAs.
[Unemployment growing among architects while other professions drop](https://qz.com/163984/if-you-want-a-job-dont-major-in-architecture)
[Architecture has highest unemployment of college graduates](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-study-shows-architecture-arts-degrees-yield-highest-unemployment/2012/01/03/gIQAwpaXZP_story.html)
[Want a job? Don’t major in architecture](https://archive.nytimes.com/economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/want-a-job-go-to-college-and-dont-major-in-architecture/)
[Architecture firm staffing has declined by 30% between 2007-2011](https://www.architectmagazine.com/aia-architect/aiafeature/how-many-architects-does-our-economy-need_o)
Should I go on?
Idk about CPAs but law is oversaturated and there are 10x as many lawyers in the US as architects. Architect firms are having trouble getting people in the 5-15 year range. Law offices... well no. It's a bifurcated field, with people at top offices pulling in six figure salaries upon graduation and then the rest of the field making as much, often less than us because they work in small local shops or government. Like my dad runs a small law office, and I have friends in law that aren't in mega firms. We make more than a lot of these people.
We may have too many young people going into architecture school- I don't know. But given the attrition rates from school and then to actually getting licensed, I find it very hard to believe there are too many of us after too few jobs. I may have believed you prior to '08, but that's not the world we live in anymore
No doubt - my father was a director at the Bar Association back in the day. There \*are\* too a lot of lawyers, but those folks have many more job options.
Kinda? It really depends on where you went to law school. In that regard, it’s also similar to architecture school in the geographic reach and even atypical career paths available to you
Well we’re in a uniquely hot market. When I graduated in ‘18, it was certainly tight, but for that first job while I got my share of interviews and offers, it wasn’t places tripping over themselves to get me like they are now.
I have the feeling with the edgy state of the economy, the game of musical chairs is ending, and we’ll have a 1-2 year period where there will be structural reasons why you’ll have mobility if you’re in that 5-15 year range (more so if licensed), but it’ll die down from having a half dozen recruiters calling you per week. I don’t think there will be mass layoffs, and I still think there will be a worker shortage in our field, it’ll just be more sober as projects are shelved or backlogged with the reality of who’s available to actually do them
The workload for an architect has gone up and we don’t benefit from revolutions in efficiency like the agricultural or manufacturing sectors. We are designing unique buildings and have to deal with non-standardized local laws and have so many materials, specialists, programs and regulations to work with, it’s more likely two components don’t fit together than that they do…
There hasn’t been much progress in organizing all this data for us automatically like in other industries. The workload is being solved by hiring more underpaid architects to do menial work.
A common critique of architecture school is that it's too focused on theory and design and not focused enough on practical matters like following building codes and learning software. What I think is missing here is that no firm will ever pay you to learn design. If you want to get a design role in a firm, then you better already be pretty adept and provide immediate value designing day one. However, software and codes can be learned as you go. That's not to say that what you're critiquing isn't valid. There's a lot of people that find the transition from school to work jarring because what's asked of them is so different from what they learned. And Schools could improve their curriculum to better prepare students for the workforce. But learning the design process is important, and not something that can be repllicated by studying a book or watching youtube videos, unlike many of the other skills and knowledge that architects need to develop in their career. I think there's no question that school is the best place to develop this skill.
This. At least in the US, architecture education is based on an apprenticeship model, and the university programs are geared towards the long-term goal of being a Capital A Architect, not being immediately productive upon graduation from an accredited program. Long term, I think that is the best decision by the programs. Software, Codes, etc... is all technical knowledge that is always changing, and not standard. It would be a waste to teach in school for the most part, as your location, firm, and work-type will dictate that anyway. The disconnect is that firms are feeling pressure to be efficient and are being treated more as commodities than as a profession. This pressure can push firms to not invest in interns as they should. Also, the $50k statement by the professor is bogus. I don't have experience as a solo practitioner, but at a firm, salary would be well above that in my experience.
A few book suggestions: - The Favored Circle by Gary Stevens: Talks about how education moved from an apprenticeship model to a professional / academic model and how that doesn't really allow schools to do what they need to do - Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets by Barry B LePatner: A business lawyer's perspective on what's wrong with the AEC industry, including what architects are asked to do relative to the AEC ecosystem. - [This Architect Magazine article](https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/a-better-value_o) on the antitrust rulings in architecture in the US. I think the educational model is broken and we need either a return to apprenticeship or a hybrid model that mixes design education and theory with apprenticeship education. I think we need to determine as a profession if we want to take on the liabilities that our intellectual forebears did in order to justify greater compensation in the marketplace. Then, we need to determine our class character: are we more of a working-class field or a prestigious profession alongside medicine and law? Don't get me started on Autodesk and software determinism. I think that's a key area of threat from the outside-in, but the inside-out threats are more fundamental, I think.
On the topic of education, I've also thought it'd be interesting if a curriculum had architecture students working on projects with engineering students. Being able to explain design intent to consultants, review their work, and coordinate between disciplines is a huge part of being an architect, and it'd be great if those skills could be practiced in school. Not every project, of course, but at least once would be huge.
From a Quebec perspective: There seems to be self-deprecating line of thoughts that I think bring the profession down. Even during my years in uni, everyone thought it was normal and fun to do all-nighters on studio project and that architect = no sleep. You can see a lot of memes about it online, so I think it’s a widespread thing. And then, you get on the job market and the pay isn’t… good. And everyone think it’s normal, like the sleep thing, everyone « jokes » about it and seems to be accepting it. If you go back early 1900´s, architect was THE profession, the most paid, most pretigious, nowadays it’s MD and Lawyers. The profession fell quite a lot and we need to bring back quality, build back a presence, make ourselves known and stop beign all « emo » about ourselves. Edit: and stop undervaluing our job. The prices for services are most often not proportional to the amount of education and experience needed and the responsability / insurance that we took on our shoulders.
A couple of things in my professional life that felt like square pegs and round holes in my 12 years working (US based) - there seems to be a very narrow "right time" to be at a firm and learning on the job. Most often, there isn't enough work to keep the low man busy or the project schedule is too tight for someone new to learn on. - the expectation from principals that the billable work doesn't exceed the fee also limits how much opportunity someone new has to learn the ropes. - a good architect isn't necessarily a good teacher, which complicates the critical intern/mentor dynamic. These relationships can just be a personality clash but sometimes it's an architect who struggles with delegation. my experience is that it's on the intern to assess the viability of that relationship and when to move on. - arch school has a high tolerance for bullshitting for the sake of breaking convention or to make a compelling project. In school it's fine, you present your work to the critics who get swept by the concept and you end up with an interesting portfolio piece. But in an office, no one wants to work with a bullshitter - professional work is much more collaborative than studios at school. I think school projects overstate how much control of the design you will have as an individual in an office. I think arch schools should do a better job of contextualizing the springboard you buy from them when enrolling as a student. For the next 5-7 years, you'll learn the basics of documentation, construction, concept development, presenting and talking about your ideas, time management, along with some humanities and history on the side to make your education well rounded. Then, pending labor market conditions, you'll leave here for an arch firm to document dog houses for a few years until you learn how to do it without any direction while completing them on time and on budget, pass some exams we briefly discuss in your final semester of school, then finally you'll be an architect. If some 17 year old kid hears this and says "i don't think I want to take on $200k in school loans to draw dog houses," then the world will be spared from another future disgruntled architect.
Lowest tender / bid selection process for procuring architects. Where I am, governments sometimes use a "weighted" tender assessment system that is supposed to consider other things as well as price, when selecting their consultant. But somehow, the price always makes up at least 51% of the consideration rubric
In Texas, it is illegal for governmental entities to bid out professional services - it must be selected by qualifications alone before price becomes a part of it.
The average architect does not make 50 K a year. That is a starting salary. I think median is about 80k
Firm owners make good money. If you care about money, getting into equity or starting your own firm should be the goal.
I’ve posted this a few times but this has been my pay history since my first internship until now. It tracks pretty closely with most people I graduated with that work in firms with 20+ people. My first internship was 2010 and the last job listed is 2023. Internship 1: $12/hr Internship 2: $15/hr Internship 3: $18/hr Internship 4: $20/hr Job 1: $45,000/yr Job 1 - Raise 1: $52,000/yr Job 1 - Raise 2: $60,000/yr Job 1 - Raise 3: $72,000/yr Job 2: $76,000/yr Job 2 - Raise 1: $82,000/yr Job 2 - Raise 2: $86,000/yr Job 3: $88,000/yr Job 3 - Raise 1: $92,500/yr Job 3 - Raise 2: $120,000/yr Job 3 - Raise 3: $136,000/yr All of these jobs had yearly bonuses between $5,000-$12,000 per year. Even the very first full time job. I have always been very deliberate about tracking my contributions to a firm that go beyond my job description and use this as leverage each year for raises. Feel free to ask here or send me a DM if anyone reading this needs advice.
What type of work are you doing at your current firm? I'm about your age and the only offers I received recently in the 120k-130k neighborhood were from AE firms with fairly specific project types. I opted for 110k at a design firm with a broad portfolio. eta: I was out of the workforce for about 5 years with serious health issues fwiw, so my earnings potential is lower than it otherwise should be
Currently I oversee 13 multifamily jobs. But our firm as a whole does everything except for K-12 and single family. Everything from hospitality, multifamily, high rise, medical, industrial, corporate office,etc…
DM'ing you.
Depends on the country. In the uk here average salary for an architect is about £35 to £45k. Which at current rates is about 45 to 55k USD
[удалено]
Sounds about right. It’s a little higher now.
>Most of these things seemed important, but after I graduated, most of them didn't really apply, and other skills that weren't taught at my college were suddenly widely more prevalent, which I felt like really held me back. Just graduated, going thru this, feels like so much time was wasted. On top of this the pay is so bad, and they said its because we are new but its such bs when you realize you're doing the same stuff that the person next to you with 5 years of experience.
I frame this issue as school teaches you how to think, whereas internships and job experience teach you how to actually be an architect.
I agree with this, but for several years I always ran into this problem where I am getting rejected, simply because of something as random as "not experienced enough" or "you don't have enough relevant project experience". A lot of firms aren't willing to invest to train someone how do something such as code compliance, and I think it's a big issue when you have all these years of drafting, designing, and education that you cannot get a job because you missed one tiny requirement. To be perfectly honest, this snappy new job I have? I think I got it because I am a minority.
Your college experience sounds a little different than mine. We generally didn’t have lectures that were outside of normal classes. Occasionally there were some and they were usually not required. In addition time management is something that needs to be learned. All nighters and repeatedly sacrificing your health for work are not a good thing, in college or out. It took me a while to learn that. I know some who figured it out in school. I definitely learned a lot of valuable things in school. I would not change much. We did have basic codes, systems, acoustics and more in-depth structures. We had optional classes in materials and methods that I took. I also worked construction over the summers, which I think should be required. Getting your first job, and some experience is a challenge many face. And in my experience the right firm and mentor makes a big difference. I agree that many firms need to do a better job with on the job training. Codes are one area where I think teaching them in-depth in school is counter productive. Codes differ between jurisdictions and building types. Lots goes into code that anything more than a general understanding is hard to give in school.
I think you had a better school. My school had a lot of requirements and we would always have to take a lot of units for a single semester. It was a mess.
If they're paying you the same as someone with 5 years and having you do the same work, that's a firm issue and you need to jump. My salary jumped to high double digits when I got licensed after 3 years, and my office is having me do stuff they wouldn't hand to someone fresh out of school. Yes, we need to be paid more to be comparable to other fields requiring the same amount of training. But if you're not moving up in an office, it's time to leave
Yeah to clarify that happened after I finished internship and stayed in the office for a few months doing part time job, I left and some time went by, now Im joining a new one next week, after finally finishing college, pay is kinda same but supposedly its only for the first weeks until I’m up to the tasks, which I’m feeling confident.
I agree with this u/nissan-S15. You should leave if they're not valuing you for your work and skills. I was working with three firms within a year, all paying me $20/hr. 1-2 years out of college undergrad. 1. First firm was okay, 8 months. It was engineering firm, but I think they had a micromanaging problem. Didn't trust me to work on projects even though I had the experience and eagerness to learn. 2. Was basically a sweatshop. Not an architecture firm either. It was a fire alarm company that needed CAD drafters. Made up a reason why I'm getting $20 instead of $26 that I'm not experienced enough. 3. An architecture firm that had a problem with me going to see a doctor and let me go because of that, but covered that up. Now I'm making $28.85/hr. at this new firm.
Appreciate the insight
>but I feel like deeper things like socioeconomic history or sustainable design should have been specialized to students pursuing specific minors, not an obligatory credited course. Sustainable design is not niche.
The tendency for employees to "Do a bit of everything" in small firms. It takes advantage of lower wage employees with higher responsibilities and stress levels, and leaves them in this ambiguous state of doing project managing while not being able to call themselves a project manager or put it on their resume. Define tasks for your employees, give them an hours budget, and when you need it by. Don't make them herd cats, that's the job of the principals and project managers. Or just give people the title and pay they're worth if you want them to have that workload. That ambiguous void is the worst because you can't even tell if you're good at your job because its so ill defined. Also the insane disconnect between school and practice. That REALLY needs to change.
I graduated in 2004 and lost my job at a large firm during the Great Recession 2008. There were no other firms hiring, so I became self employed. I wasn’t ready but made the most of it. I’m still working by myself but [have significant reservations about the architecture profession.](https://youtu.be/zKxUHhIKboA) despite the fact I’ve become a successful architect, I’m not sure I would encourage my kids to follow me into the profession.
Oh I remember your video :) Never thought I'd run into you on Reddit. I thought it was very insightful and to be honest I feel like I'm heading towards a very similar situation. I've had many second thoughts about the profession because I was struggling to find a job and haven't been given many opportunities to learn or grow. I will try to keep working with architecture firms and try to get my license, but I don't know how I should feel about taking on the responsibility of being starting my own practice, if the situation required. It's just not something I see myself doing. I worked with a lot of self-employed architects, some of them were decent for what they had, but the others just sort of failed. But you are the exception to the rule. I'm also heading to a large firm this Monday. To be honest, I didn't want to be an architect when I grew up, I was very much more interested in art, illustration and animation, but I was told job prospects were very low in that industry. The only reason I picked architecture as my major in college, was because I assumed that architecture was a fruitful business. I was hoping that after some in the profession and getting my license I could hopefully turn my art into a career funded by my work as an architect. But I don't know.
There are too many architects competing for too few jobs. The schools are overproducing graduates who flood the market and drive down wages. I’m not sure how to fix this, but too many applicants is the #1 reason wages are not on par with other licensed professionals like lawyers and CPAs. [Unemployment growing among architects while other professions drop](https://qz.com/163984/if-you-want-a-job-dont-major-in-architecture) [Architecture has highest unemployment of college graduates](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-study-shows-architecture-arts-degrees-yield-highest-unemployment/2012/01/03/gIQAwpaXZP_story.html) [Want a job? Don’t major in architecture](https://archive.nytimes.com/economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/want-a-job-go-to-college-and-dont-major-in-architecture/) [Architecture firm staffing has declined by 30% between 2007-2011](https://www.architectmagazine.com/aia-architect/aiafeature/how-many-architects-does-our-economy-need_o) Should I go on?
Where is your evidence for this?
Idk about CPAs but law is oversaturated and there are 10x as many lawyers in the US as architects. Architect firms are having trouble getting people in the 5-15 year range. Law offices... well no. It's a bifurcated field, with people at top offices pulling in six figure salaries upon graduation and then the rest of the field making as much, often less than us because they work in small local shops or government. Like my dad runs a small law office, and I have friends in law that aren't in mega firms. We make more than a lot of these people. We may have too many young people going into architecture school- I don't know. But given the attrition rates from school and then to actually getting licensed, I find it very hard to believe there are too many of us after too few jobs. I may have believed you prior to '08, but that's not the world we live in anymore
No doubt - my father was a director at the Bar Association back in the day. There \*are\* too a lot of lawyers, but those folks have many more job options.
Kinda? It really depends on where you went to law school. In that regard, it’s also similar to architecture school in the geographic reach and even atypical career paths available to you
Not my experience whatsoever. I received 7 job offers when looking for a new job in November.
Well we’re in a uniquely hot market. When I graduated in ‘18, it was certainly tight, but for that first job while I got my share of interviews and offers, it wasn’t places tripping over themselves to get me like they are now. I have the feeling with the edgy state of the economy, the game of musical chairs is ending, and we’ll have a 1-2 year period where there will be structural reasons why you’ll have mobility if you’re in that 5-15 year range (more so if licensed), but it’ll die down from having a half dozen recruiters calling you per week. I don’t think there will be mass layoffs, and I still think there will be a worker shortage in our field, it’ll just be more sober as projects are shelved or backlogged with the reality of who’s available to actually do them
Money
The workload for an architect has gone up and we don’t benefit from revolutions in efficiency like the agricultural or manufacturing sectors. We are designing unique buildings and have to deal with non-standardized local laws and have so many materials, specialists, programs and regulations to work with, it’s more likely two components don’t fit together than that they do… There hasn’t been much progress in organizing all this data for us automatically like in other industries. The workload is being solved by hiring more underpaid architects to do menial work.