Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
Hello to all,
I live in NYC and have a B. Arch. I dream of attending Columbia for a Master's (for 75% personal fulfillment, 25% career prospect enhancement) but, to my knowledge, they only have an M. Arch. I program.
Is it unheard of to attend an M. Arch I program rather than an M. Arch. II if you have a B. Arch. already?
If this has been discussed already then I apologize. Any guidance is most graciously appreciated. Also, please correct me if I'm grossly misinformed.
It has been discussed, but that's ok. Sometimes, what happens is that a person goes to a B.Arch. or M.Arch. that was NOT their first choice, or their second, for that matter. That 1 year M.Arch., which need not be accredited, might be ok for a person who "got their act together" and did really well in school, and can use that short M.Arch. as a "union card" in a region or city. Guilty as charged. I felt like doing the same, and feel confident I would have gotten in. I did NOT do it. You have to propose a curriculum and area of emphasis, justifying why they should make space for you. I would have liked to take more theoretical courses in that extra year, had I done it.
I was thinking more along the lines of circumstance. I would like to go to Columbia in general, it is not a fallback/2nd choice, etc.
My concern is that a true "Master's in Architecture" degree from Columbia is something I think is reserved for those who do not have a professional degree already. I am trying to draw a comparison between something like Yale or Harvard ( a true M. Arch II, second professional degree) and Columbia in terms of their programs.
So, since I would like to study further, obtain a master's degree, and forge ahead professionally thereafter, is it unheard of to apply to an M. Arch. I program with my B. Arch? Am I pursuing the same degree twice?
My colleagues that attended did the MSAAD degree. Is anyone here familiar with that program?