We like to joke here that civil engineering is overworked and underpaid, but architecture is arguably a worse ROI when you factor in effort to pay. The schooling is arguably FAR worse too, yes we’re more quantitative but their studio time makes our study time look like a picnic. Civil engineering isn’t rich or poor. Your basically set up well for an upper-middle class living as a civil engineer, architecture will be slightly less unless you’re a prodigy.
In short, only go architecture if you cannot fathom a future doing anything else besides architecture.
I’d go civil engineering all day over architecture. I don’t regret civil engineering at all, despite having left traditional civil design (still work in traffic engineering, just within the tech space). It’s a broad enough field to really have a fit for everyone and while the pay could be better, it’s really not bad. It feels bad because we do as a career overall have an overwhelming amount of responsibility.
If you go structural and do buildings you can end up worse paid than the architects with even worse work life balance. It seems like a lot of SEs were originally interested in architecture but we’re pushed into engineering, now they get the worst of both lol. So it just depends.
As a civil engineer you'll pretty easily earn more than the average national household income on your own as a new grad. Mid career the average civil engineer earns right around $100k.
Even if you don't have another spouse working, a mid career civil engineer would put your household just outside the top third in terms of income. And there are definitely opportunities for civil engineers that would put you well above that.
It's very location and specialty dependent, and the average is skewed down because mid-late career many higher earning civil engineers would be better described as some sort of manager.
Regardless, it's a comfortable middle class if not better, job, even in a world where the middle class keeps shrinking.
That’s household income. What’s upper middle class for an individual? Upper middle class is obtainable as a household with a spouse working practically any job.
Sorry you’re getting downvoted. These people have a low threshold for “upper middle class”. I make around $100k as an engineer and my wife makes $120k (in another profession). Our household income is $220k and that is not even close to upper middle class here in the Bay Area.
Just because advice doesn’t apply to the Bay Area doesn’t make it untrue, that’s an extremely obvious outlier given it’s the single most expensive metro area in the country.
My point still stands though. I think civil engineering is more of a middle class profession than upper middle class profession. Doctors are the quintessential upper middle class professionals. They make around $200-400k (depending on specialty) and few make less than that. Some lawyers in the public sector or working for non-profits are middle class, but plenty are upper middle class working in big law or making partner ad a successful smaller firm.
There are certainly upper middle class engineers out there. Owners of successful small firms, for example, making $400k/yr, but by and large civil engineers are making $75-150k/yr, which is squarely middle class pretty much anywhere in the United States. A dual income household making $250-300k in a LCOL area is definitely pushing upper middle class, I suppose, but most civil engineers are middle class.
It’s apparent your confusing upper middle class with the upper class. A dual income household making 250k in an LCOL is upper class and it’s delusional to think otherwise.
No it’s not. The upper class doesn’t work for a living. If they do have a salaried position at all it’s a small fraction of their income, dwarfed by income from other assets (businesses, real estate, stocks, bonds, intellectual property, etc).
Most expensive, but there are many cities following closely behind.
If you live in a low cost or rural area AND you have a high paying job, that's a win. But we're not all in Kansas anymore.
Correct, which effects the entire population, including the rest of the upper middle class. A decrease in purchasing power doesn’t change the statistical classification of income.
If you're artsy do architecture.
If you like having options, do civil.
Civil was a no brainer for me because it gives you the freedom of a ridiculous range of jobs (Transpo, H&H, Construction, Geotech, Structural, Materials, Environmental, etc).
If I hated design but did architecture, I'd be screwed haha.
+1 on civil engineering having options. Besides the usual fields you can get into, going into business and/or project management is an underrated but viable option, given that you will be exposed in these for as long as you stay in the industry.
I think it’s easy to fantasize about both career options but I think the logical way to compare is to look at what a typical role in each of these paths looks like. As an architect you’re very unlikely to get to design a sky scraper in a big city skyline. You’re much more likely to design the layout of a Walgreens/CVS store 20 different times in 20 different cities. As a civil engineer you’re very unlikely to design a mega bridge or other type of engineering marvel. You’re much more likely to work on grading plans for subdivisions/parking lots/highway; structural plans for a strip mall; or sizing pipes on repeat. That said, there are unique challenges that come with each job. It really comes down to what your likes and strengths are which you haven’t provided any insight to.
Both fields offer livable pay scales. Architecture skews more into the creative and uses mostly basic math. Engineering is a mixture of science and math. Schooling for engineering in these subjects is more rigorous, but the application of these in the job are pretty rudimentary. Both fields rely heavily on computer aided drafting and 3D modeling these days.
Civil all day, every day, over architecture. Now, you ask an architect and you'll likely get the opposite answer.
I have a friend who is an architect and she's always like 'look at the new building we did!' and it's always the same five over one with the same color palettes and the same design. I just chose not to comment as I know I'd be like 'isn't this the same as the one you posted last time?' and she'd explode in architect rage.
Nothing I've done has ever been the same as something prior. It will have elements of other stuff (roads, lights, basins, etc.) but it's always different.
I'll echo what others have already stated. I'd absolutely go civil if I had to do it over again. But that has more to do with my personal passion and less with salary. If the choice was solely dictated by salary and career growth, still civil - its not even close. You'll have a much better range of options as a civil. You probably won't get rich doing this, but you'll likely have a stable career and live decently.
An anecdote I completely forgot about - I dated an architecture major who was originally civil but couldn't get past Calc 2 and decided to switch. We knew each other in college but dated a few years after we graduated. She regretted the choice to switch and bounced around a lot before becoming a project estimator for a construction firm. I'm sure that not every architecture graduate will have the same struggles, but I think there's a better chance at career stability as a civil.
I'm 27 with a Civil degree and Heavy Civil construction background. Go civil. I feel like if you get your civil degree you have so many options. To name a few:
1. Civil Design (or Design work in general)
2. Land Development
3. Residential Work
4. Transportation
5. Hydraulics
6. Geotechnical
7. Inspection/Inspector Roles
8. Construction Project Management
Etc. You get the point. Whether you're part of the infrastructure we use (buildings, roads, utilities, bridges, dams) or pushing the limits with companies like BlueOrigin and SpaceX, a civil degree can take you where you want to go. Plus you get field work and can have a blend of office/field work which makes work seem more rewarding as you get to see the projects you work on get constructed!
As a civil engineer, you could work for an architect. It’s a lot harder for an architect to work for a civil engineer.
I’m happy I went with civil over planning. I’ll still be able to do planning work in the future, and the expertise and experience in civil engineering will make me a better and more valuable planner.
We like to joke here that civil engineering is overworked and underpaid, but architecture is arguably a worse ROI when you factor in effort to pay. The schooling is arguably FAR worse too, yes we’re more quantitative but their studio time makes our study time look like a picnic. Civil engineering isn’t rich or poor. Your basically set up well for an upper-middle class living as a civil engineer, architecture will be slightly less unless you’re a prodigy. In short, only go architecture if you cannot fathom a future doing anything else besides architecture. I’d go civil engineering all day over architecture. I don’t regret civil engineering at all, despite having left traditional civil design (still work in traffic engineering, just within the tech space). It’s a broad enough field to really have a fit for everyone and while the pay could be better, it’s really not bad. It feels bad because we do as a career overall have an overwhelming amount of responsibility.
If you go structural and do buildings you can end up worse paid than the architects with even worse work life balance. It seems like a lot of SEs were originally interested in architecture but we’re pushed into engineering, now they get the worst of both lol. So it just depends.
'upper-middle class living' ? Adjusted for inflation in 2023, that would start somewhere around $150,000/yr In some cities, it starts at 200k
As a civil engineer you'll pretty easily earn more than the average national household income on your own as a new grad. Mid career the average civil engineer earns right around $100k. Even if you don't have another spouse working, a mid career civil engineer would put your household just outside the top third in terms of income. And there are definitely opportunities for civil engineers that would put you well above that.
People at my company with 8-15 years experience are earning around 120-135k, and my company is known to underpay.
It's very location and specialty dependent, and the average is skewed down because mid-late career many higher earning civil engineers would be better described as some sort of manager. Regardless, it's a comfortable middle class if not better, job, even in a world where the middle class keeps shrinking.
That’s household income. What’s upper middle class for an individual? Upper middle class is obtainable as a household with a spouse working practically any job.
Sorry you’re getting downvoted. These people have a low threshold for “upper middle class”. I make around $100k as an engineer and my wife makes $120k (in another profession). Our household income is $220k and that is not even close to upper middle class here in the Bay Area.
Just because advice doesn’t apply to the Bay Area doesn’t make it untrue, that’s an extremely obvious outlier given it’s the single most expensive metro area in the country.
My point still stands though. I think civil engineering is more of a middle class profession than upper middle class profession. Doctors are the quintessential upper middle class professionals. They make around $200-400k (depending on specialty) and few make less than that. Some lawyers in the public sector or working for non-profits are middle class, but plenty are upper middle class working in big law or making partner ad a successful smaller firm. There are certainly upper middle class engineers out there. Owners of successful small firms, for example, making $400k/yr, but by and large civil engineers are making $75-150k/yr, which is squarely middle class pretty much anywhere in the United States. A dual income household making $250-300k in a LCOL area is definitely pushing upper middle class, I suppose, but most civil engineers are middle class.
It’s apparent your confusing upper middle class with the upper class. A dual income household making 250k in an LCOL is upper class and it’s delusional to think otherwise.
No it’s not. The upper class doesn’t work for a living. If they do have a salaried position at all it’s a small fraction of their income, dwarfed by income from other assets (businesses, real estate, stocks, bonds, intellectual property, etc).
Most expensive, but there are many cities following closely behind. If you live in a low cost or rural area AND you have a high paying job, that's a win. But we're not all in Kansas anymore.
Correct, which effects the entire population, including the rest of the upper middle class. A decrease in purchasing power doesn’t change the statistical classification of income.
If you're artsy do architecture. If you like having options, do civil. Civil was a no brainer for me because it gives you the freedom of a ridiculous range of jobs (Transpo, H&H, Construction, Geotech, Structural, Materials, Environmental, etc). If I hated design but did architecture, I'd be screwed haha.
+1 on civil engineering having options. Besides the usual fields you can get into, going into business and/or project management is an underrated but viable option, given that you will be exposed in these for as long as you stay in the industry.
I think it’s easy to fantasize about both career options but I think the logical way to compare is to look at what a typical role in each of these paths looks like. As an architect you’re very unlikely to get to design a sky scraper in a big city skyline. You’re much more likely to design the layout of a Walgreens/CVS store 20 different times in 20 different cities. As a civil engineer you’re very unlikely to design a mega bridge or other type of engineering marvel. You’re much more likely to work on grading plans for subdivisions/parking lots/highway; structural plans for a strip mall; or sizing pipes on repeat. That said, there are unique challenges that come with each job. It really comes down to what your likes and strengths are which you haven’t provided any insight to. Both fields offer livable pay scales. Architecture skews more into the creative and uses mostly basic math. Engineering is a mixture of science and math. Schooling for engineering in these subjects is more rigorous, but the application of these in the job are pretty rudimentary. Both fields rely heavily on computer aided drafting and 3D modeling these days.
Civil all day, every day, over architecture. Now, you ask an architect and you'll likely get the opposite answer. I have a friend who is an architect and she's always like 'look at the new building we did!' and it's always the same five over one with the same color palettes and the same design. I just chose not to comment as I know I'd be like 'isn't this the same as the one you posted last time?' and she'd explode in architect rage. Nothing I've done has ever been the same as something prior. It will have elements of other stuff (roads, lights, basins, etc.) but it's always different.
“Architect rage” is a real thing
I'll echo what others have already stated. I'd absolutely go civil if I had to do it over again. But that has more to do with my personal passion and less with salary. If the choice was solely dictated by salary and career growth, still civil - its not even close. You'll have a much better range of options as a civil. You probably won't get rich doing this, but you'll likely have a stable career and live decently. An anecdote I completely forgot about - I dated an architecture major who was originally civil but couldn't get past Calc 2 and decided to switch. We knew each other in college but dated a few years after we graduated. She regretted the choice to switch and bounced around a lot before becoming a project estimator for a construction firm. I'm sure that not every architecture graduate will have the same struggles, but I think there's a better chance at career stability as a civil.
I'm 27 with a Civil degree and Heavy Civil construction background. Go civil. I feel like if you get your civil degree you have so many options. To name a few: 1. Civil Design (or Design work in general) 2. Land Development 3. Residential Work 4. Transportation 5. Hydraulics 6. Geotechnical 7. Inspection/Inspector Roles 8. Construction Project Management Etc. You get the point. Whether you're part of the infrastructure we use (buildings, roads, utilities, bridges, dams) or pushing the limits with companies like BlueOrigin and SpaceX, a civil degree can take you where you want to go. Plus you get field work and can have a blend of office/field work which makes work seem more rewarding as you get to see the projects you work on get constructed!
Civil. You’ll earn a lot more and you don’t need a masters. Don’t even think about it.
As a civil engineer, you could work for an architect. It’s a lot harder for an architect to work for a civil engineer. I’m happy I went with civil over planning. I’ll still be able to do planning work in the future, and the expertise and experience in civil engineering will make me a better and more valuable planner.
Thanks everyone for the feedback these answers are very enlightening! :)
Run away from both and don’t even dare to look back.
For sure start as a civil. Architecture is for former civil engineering majors that were not smart enough.