The Student Room Group

Part 1 Architecture graduates - terrible pay?

Is it just me or is the average salary of a part 1 qualified architect quiet low I see figures as low as 17k common in a number of studies:

1 - https://adremgroup.com/guidance/uk-architecture-salary-guide/
2 - https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/ResearchAndDevelopment/studyoftheearningsofarchitecturestudents201112.pdf

are they misleading? I always thought competitive degrees would pay off..
Reply 1
bump
You thought a competitive degree would pay off? Surely where there is a larger supply than demand hence competative to get in and get a job demand would dictate that the employers need not pay a lot as there are a lot of people willing to do the job. Add to that the work contracts an Architects make mean that there is a ceiling level which the employer can afford to pay. While the construction industry has picked up some companies still may not be getting loads of lucrative contracts in. Some Architects are offering way less than 17k even.

Probably worth considering too that depending on what the Architect's intentions are for the new member of staff and their education to date they may well have to do a fair bit of training. So for some taking someone on may be more of an ordeal. On the other hand they may just get you on cad monkey tasks or looking up materials and stuff with no intention of progressing you on at all.

So no I guess it doesn't surprise me, can probably get a job at the local council/building related companies for just as much or more money.
Reply 3
EDIT: Never mind, stewie has basically summed it up
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 4
bahahahahah he believed he would be making 50k straight out of uni
Reply 5
Original post by Stewie2011
You thought a competitive degree would pay off? Surely where there is a larger supply than demand hence competative to get in and get a job demand would dictate that the employers need not pay a lot as there are a lot of people willing to do the job. Add to that the work contracts an Architects make mean that there is a ceiling level which the employer can afford to pay. While the construction industry has picked up some companies still may not be getting loads of lucrative contracts in. Some Architects are offering way less than 17k even.

Probably worth considering too that depending on what the Architect's intentions are for the new member of staff and their education to date they may well have to do a fair bit of training. So for some taking someone on may be more of an ordeal. On the other hand they may just get you on cad monkey tasks or looking up materials and stuff with no intention of progressing you on at all.

So no I guess it doesn't surprise me, can probably get a job at the local council/building related companies for just as much or more money.


so because the market is so saturated companies can get away with paying graduates less ?
Reply 6
Original post by Plutonian
bahahahahah he believed he would be making 50k straight out of uni


not really, at the very least I thought average salary would be in the low 20k's like most STEM jobs out there
Reply 7
Original post by Chiefe
not really, at the very least I thought average salary would be in the low 20k's like most STEM jobs out there


Architecture isn't STEM.
Reply 8
Original post by Plutonian
Architecture isn't STEM.


I didn't say Architecture is a STEM subject, I was comparing the pay with ''most STEM jobs out there''
Reply 9
Original post by Chiefe
I didn't say Architecture is a STEM subject, I was comparing the pay with ''most STEM jobs out there''


If it's not STEM then why are you comparing it to STEM?
Reply 10
Original post by Plutonian
If it's not STEM then why are you comparing it to STEM?


because I can
Original post by Chiefe
not really, at the very least I thought average salary would be in the low 20k's like most STEM jobs out there


You are not an architect after part 1 though. Once you are a fully qualified architect or have done your part 2 you will most likely see a starting salary in the low to mid 20s.
Original post by Chiefe
so because the market is so saturated companies can get away with paying graduates less ?


Yes, that and company's ability to pay more, if profitability is not good then they can't afford to pay as much. Also skills of candidate come into it and how much work they need to get out of you. Even at graduate level the company may see you as much of a burden to train up than someone that can quickly add to productivity to the level of skills of the work they need done.

Going back to the point raised take engineering for example, a skills shortage subject hence to a point more money bargaining power of applicants for jobs. However, still the company will only have so much money to pay. Plus many jobs are temporary contracts as once the company complete contracted work for a client it often lays of Engineers it no longer has work for. Hence at least part of the reason why there is a shortage in STEM subjects. I mean who wants to study hard on a tough subject get a good degree just to be off to the job centre every few months, a potentially rough life unless permanent work can be found.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending