Which is more financially beneficial: being in a firm or teaching in an architecture college?
To determine which path is more financially beneficial between working in an architecture firm and teaching in an architecture college, here are some key points to consider:
Working in an Architecture Firm
- The median annual salary for architects, excluding landscape and naval architects, is $93,310 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)1.
- Salaries can vary widely based on experience and position:
- Architect - Level I: $73,620 (base pay) + $3,670 (additional cash compensation)1.
- Senior Architect: $118,860 (base pay) + $9,270 (additional cash compensation)1.
- Director of Design or CEO/President roles can earn significantly more, up to $155,780 or $165,000 respectively, plus additional compensation1.
Teaching in an Architecture College
- The mean annual wage for postsecondary architecture teachers is $114,900, according to the BLS5.
- Salaries can also vary by location and institution:
Comparison
- Median Salaries: Teaching in an architecture college generally offers higher median salaries, with a mean annual wage of $114,900 compared to the median annual salary of $93,310 for architects in firms15.
- Top End Salaries: While senior roles in architecture firms can be highly lucrative (e.g., Director of Design or CEO/President), top-paying positions for architecture teachers, especially in certain states, can also be very high, sometimes exceeding those of senior architects15.
- Stability and Benefits: Teaching positions often come with more stable employment and better benefits compared to the cyclical nature of architectural firms, which can be heavily influenced by economic conditions3.
In summary, teaching in an architecture college tends to offer higher median salaries and potentially greater job stability and benefits compared to working in an architecture firm, although top-end salaries in firms can be competitive.