Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
I've scoured archinect and couldn't really find anything on how useful or ideal it would be pursue a duel/concurrent degree. But given the extra year it would require along with additional costs really make me wonder.
Any thoughts? Or to those that do own a dual degree, how has pursuing an extra one benefited you today?
I would think it depends what the other degree is in, doing a dual degree say b. arch and bfa might not do much, but say you do b. arch and Bach admin (ba) that might be. I have a couple of friends who did the dual one a m. Arch with master of environmental design and the other m arch and master of urban design, they felt it was a good experience. Myself if I had to do it over again I'd combine my m. Arch with a MBA or LLB
On that, what are your friends doing after graduation? Are they seeing themselves with more opportunity compared to those who haven't pursued a concurrent degree?
I'm considering a dual degree in M.UD (concentration in transportation) for this coming Fall, but given time + extra tuition, I want to know if it's worth it down the road. And really, this isn't just for me to say that I have another degree, but rather a clear interest in how degree very much related to an M.Arch I could be ideal in achieving my career goals.
I see no benefit to a dual degree. It's mostly a marketing strategy, it seems. If you go get a dual arch./MBA, it's useless if you want to be an architect, and overkill if you end up running a small to medium firm. If you want to be an architect, you won't need it. They also blend up urban planning, engineering, and IT. Which do you REALLY want to be? If one lives in an urban area with good universities, they can always pick up certificates to make you more well rounded, in management, facilities, sustainability, or interior design. The fact that one is already an experienced and licensed architect gives him or her the credibility to become facilities managers, construction project managers, or work in real estate asset management ... or even run a larger firm.
I think its a waste of time and money to get two degrees one after the other. Do it if you can do both at the same time, perhaps one as a part-time curriculum and on the side when you're on internships or so.
I had a classmate who earned two degrees by the time she graduated - one was a B.Arch and one in B.Arts (philosophy). I barely survived undergrad architecture. I can't fathom how she did really well in architecture and got the philosophy degree too. Her degree certificate does look nice when it states two degrees in one page.
To be an architect in the conventional sense, yes. A dual degree wouldn't prove any more useful. But I'm sure there are reasons why institutions set up particular degrees to be tied with one, and not another. Doesn't that suggest there is greater opportunity for those do pursue it?
Well concurrent degrees often have courses that are very much related to one another. Once you're accepted into each program, they work out a time table for you where you can complete requirements for both in a way that's "manageable".
I can't speak for your friend who managed to complete two Bachelor's degrees simultaneously, especially in two fields that seem vastly different (to some extent). But I know UCLA offers their M.URP/M.Arch I that opens up course credits that satisfy both requirements. What's tricky is, you'd be missing out on some parts of each program (maybe even some studios), but it's that greater breadth of knowledge that I'm interested in, and hoping that translates into greater opportunity and fluidity between what kind of role I can have in the DISTANT future...
But this thread has more to do with how practical it really is down the road...
^ when I did internships as a student, a few principals gave me advice to take real estate, marketing, developing, macro economics courses in university if I could. There is always a benefit in enriching yourself with courses not directly related to architecture. Some like those I mentioned above will help you directly in the profession, while other courses more on an unconscious level.
Cool, thanks guys!
I completed a ba in arch 2008. Worked for two years at a medium/large sized firm in nyc. Returned to school to pursue a joint M.Arch & MBA in Finance and Real Estate. After a month in the M.Arch program I ended up dropping the m. Arch half. I couldn't bring myself go thru an additional 2 years or architectural education hell.
Anyway.... the MBA opened many more doors than my degree in architecture. You get a degree in architecture you can basically only work in architecture. Here come all the storied about everyone's second-hand friend who managed to become a developer, etc... But the truth of the matter, is the rest of the world just sees architects as a technical skill that doesn't translate into any other job.
My MBA landed me interviews with real estate departments in almost every major insurance provider and eventually a job in a large real estate consulting firm making more than double what I did in architecture.
Get a degree in business or finance if you can to make yourself more marketable to other professions as a safety net, in case you decide you don't like architecture as a profession.
Commence anti-business trolls.
I agree with the above. Not an anti-business troll at all, since I majored in it as an undergrad. The problem is that it's not usable in architecture. The only thing it does is enable you to see things more holistically, from a higher level, while you are doing the most micro of tasks - drafting, sketching, RFIs, shop drawing reviews, plan check letters, site visits. The person who might appreciate it, even if you don't divulge you have that background, is a developer or a client who zeroes in on the fact that you understand their issues and concerns, but doesn't know why. It does not endear one to principals and other peers who have only studied architecture because it's impossible to strip off the maturity and knowledge that comes with that education, unless you make an artificial and unnatural effort to dumb it down.
For those pursuing a dual M.Arch./MBA, they are best served by leaving architecture altogether and working in development, construction, and real estate. Most do, though some license first and then leave. Those staying in architecture are "over-papered" with that combination, and that's up to them. As an undergrad, it's less "foreboding," if you will, and many BS Bus. + M.Arch actually do well in school and practice, largely because most of them wanted to be architects in the first place. I've talked to many while in school: "Yeah, I wanted to be an architect, but here I am." Typically, they were in marketing (because it affords some creativity, only while in school) or in accounting (because it affords the anal-retentive structure). A well-rounded person with a u.g. business degree who has worldly interests, and not the dolt who majors in it because it's a well-worn path, has excellent preparation for any graduate study, because it is a host of applied social science classes that jog your brain both quantitatively and qualitatively, in addition to constantly requiring one to make evaluations and decisions.
The schools who offer the M.Arch./MBA are actually more open-minded than they are closed. There are schools of architecture who would view that combo as near prostitution. Looking back at it, the schools which accepted me for M.Arch. either had dual degree options, a CM wing, and/or a stronger technical bent, so my u.g. did NOT turn them off.
If you want to stay in architecture yet want to KNOW about business or related topics, enough to help run a firm or be conversant, then I recommend the certificate programs given by good universities in business, real estate, construction management, and facilities management, among others.
Dual MLA/MArch. It sure helped open some doors looking for work. I don't foresee getting liability in both (licenses), but it's useful in discussion with the other side (LA office to architects/ architecture offices to landscape architects).
It's useful doesn't necessarily equate to cost effective in rate of return however. It makes it easier to land certain types of jobs, but they don't necessarily pay better.
One thing I considered was an MS degree, engineering or applied science (as they often covered tuition costs, and use part of that time to cover MArch).