what's an architectural technologist?

Honestly, a Technologists does everything an architect does but does not get credited for it. We are more on the tech side though. So more of the CAD work, and also more concentration of putting the building together via building envelopes, systems, etc. Not so much on the design side...

agfa8x its like a suped draftsman, but it requires formal training and the individuals in the field are expected to understand and know how to put a building together as well as the surrounding technology, more than just draw (ie. CAD monkeys)

though in many cases they are just well paid CAD monkeys. Sometimes they earn as much senior architects.

somegirl. I am unsure if you will be able to transfter to M.Arch program unless it is a 3 year masters degree. But I suspect if you are questioning it may best to stay the course you are in, as it does place one in the field but with much better hours. And if you really don't really really really desire to be an architect you may regret it.

btw if you say that you do the same things as architects you'll find yourself impolitely corrected by the facts

my bad...A LOT of things that architects do...

yea but legally you can't in the countries that formally recognise the architectural technologist profession. You can't sign drawings, either and that accounts for less than 10% of what we can do.

interesting - i've never heard of a technologist either (though i am now going to start calling myself one).
why not just go to work, judge what you know and can do against what your peers can do, and figure out your path? who says a license and a stamp make an architect (other than legally of course). are you interested in designing? what do you know about design, do you want to learn more? why not know the ins and outs of building systems and go to art school?
these are very unprofessional considerations, but there's more to it than degree x or y, in my most humble oinion.
people are valued for all sorts of skills and talents. there are all sorts of careers to pursue.
It would seems though that you have to ask whether you want your name in front or not, someone who needs problem solvers, or do you want to be a highly valued problem solver whose ability and insight are focused on facilitating someone else's visions?
why not both?

Thanx joesixpack, that was refreshing to read. I think i'm just scared that if i don't pursue my M.Arch, I'll just be some Architects bitch and CAD monkey for the rest of my life, when I'd rather be the one calling the shots, designing what I want to, and have my name in front. Furthermore, I am almost terrified of pursuing an M.Arch in the sense that it will just take forever, and I already have been in post secondary education for 6 years. But it might just be necessary...but then again...maybe not?? Urrghh.

p.s. love the name. Should change mine to hockeymom ;)

i worked w/ some kids that went to the RTWH in aachen and the HTW saarland. their degrees were considered kind of bach. in arts w/ focus on the technical, similar to what you are speaking of. the uni-kids were a different breed. i remember at the time having much more respect for the guys that went to those schools than the universities (though the RTWH and HTW are a form of uni, just not as formal) because they knew how to put shit togethor and were more adept at getting stuff done.

i've never heard of an arch technologist in the states, though.

I also have not heard of the term architectural technologist in the US. Supposing you get the 3 year masters, you could find yourself doing the same work you are currently qualified for if you worked in the US. Some places split the profession into two disciplines, take Europe for example, with the architect as designer and the technical aspects delegated to the contractor. That may be a case where the decision to take up another 3 years would have an impact on the work you are selected to do. Again, in the US you wouldn't be precluded from working in an architectural office. One important point for consideration is these troubling economic conditions is the simple issue of supply and demand for your skills. The US labor force is often short on technical degrees and carries an ample surplus of design degrees. So much so that those with masters degrees often find themselves filling a technical role. You might come to an informed answer by working a few years to see if your current qualifications will suffice. As much as one could consider a masters a prestigious asset I was in a conversation with a group of architects recently where one of them said that the ones with masters degrees were by far the biggest morons, implying they couldn't figure it out the first time and that you learn by doing.

i'm pretty sure all recent grads are "morons" in that they haven't made enough mistakes to really have learned anything.

that makes me a dumbass

I'm from Toronto taking the Architectural Technologist diploma. Had no idea that it wasn't an American thing.

oh, right. We call them drafties.

i'm a huge steaming pile of moron some days

well as much as the march folks are morons so are the ones who've only experienced one way of working. Balance its the name of the game. Somegirl I remember Carleton having a degree for a while which was a 4 yr Architecture Science degree and some were able to enter conventional M.Arch degree programs in the US (2yr)

Somegirl, I am in the exact same boat so to speak. I have a Bach. of Sci. in Architecture and I currently work as a technologist in Ontario. I do just as much design work as the partners and I haven't opened ACAD since I started here, so being a technologist isn't a bad thing.

My advice would be to find a job and start getting some experience before deciding. The experience I have gained so far has made my dream of becoming an architect more concrete. I will be pursuing an M.Arch next year.

Oh, and if you haven't already, look into the RAIC (Royal Architecture Institute of Canada) Syllabus program. From what I understand, it is an online diploma program to acheive a B.Arch. A guy from my office has an Architectural Technologist Diploma and is now enrolled in Syllabus. It's not exactly as prestigious as some other schools, but it will put you on track to become licensed.

Bennji,

I've heard of the RAIC program. Do you know how long it is? I guess u kinda do it at your own pace, which can take forever.

Ya, it's at your own pace. The guy I work with will be in the program for 6-7 years because he is only taking 2 classes a semester. His once a week studio class is in Toronto (1 hour drive), and he works here full time so it limits how many he can take. I'm sure you could finish in 2 years if you went full time.

my brother has building technology degree. it is a shorter degree 4 years instead of 5. Also, construction managers have much higher salaries and better benefits than architects. but they have to move to different job sites for the first few years in their career.

but it's much better to get an architecture degree than just a cad degree. You will not be able to go as far in an architecture firm and gain respect from architects. It will be much harder you if you only have a cad degree.
I have an march. I didn't realize until later in my life that salary is very important.
In architecture, when you are just starting out the work itself is probably more enjoyable than most other careers. but as other friends in other careers start to be able to build a real life with vacations, houses, and cars, you'll be struggleing to just pay all your bills...
If I had known I would probably have gone into the construction industry.

just become an Engineer....and re-engineer architecture.

A good technologist is worth their weight in gold. You don't have to spend all your time explaining to them how a building goes together because they've been taught about buildings rather than just how to use poly-lines and chew gum at the same time.

Agfa, back in NZ it's taken for granted that a draftsman knows all that stuff anyway...

Somegirl, why do you want a masters so badly? Surely your experience would cut out a large chunk of a bachelors degree and then you're ready to register no?

I'm just afraid of being a CAD monkey my whole life, and afraid that if I don't do my Master's, I'll regret it. But from the looks everything posted here I think I am in good condition :)

yea the best of both worlds

i worked in an office in winnipeg for awhile before leaving canada, so my experience is kind of limited....

but i think we had a guy in office who was a technologist or whatever. I hadn't heard of the title/position before now (which just underlines my ignorance in spite of 6.5 years at canadian archi-school), but if that was what he was then his place in the hierarchy suddenly makes sense.

he was...

well respected
the go to guy
very competent


also...
treated as someone outside of the loop


i couldn't quite work out why this guy who knew so much and was so respected was never running the show. in fact the person in charge was a m.arch student, more often than not. The tech-dude was essentially placed below the architects in training. given his dues and never treated badly, but never ever in charge. i understand he had been in that position for 15 years, so probably he will not ever be an architect...inertia is such a powerful beast.


of course this is from about 1o years ago now, and it is entirely possible that i am retroactively misinterpreting what i saw...


as a tangential observation, in offices i have worked at since then, in london, and here in tokyo too, the architects were expected to be able to do ALL of that stuff. there were no technical staff. or rather WE were all the technical staff, with the boss working as chief technician. That is probably because of the small size of the offices, but i had sort of come to assume that technicians in architecture were basically architects in training. it would feel odd to me to work in office where people are slid into little compartments like that.

morally i see no reason why a tech can't become an architect. but realistically there are enough barriers already in place to become an architect. i am not sure how easy it is to get license by placing yet another one in the way - and a big one since your education is not professional degree. if an M.Arch. takes some of those barriers away, for better or for worse, I would not dismiss the idea too quickly.

like many of the people above have said it is probably easier to know what the possibilities are once you have begun working. i am going to guess that in north america a pro-arch degree will make it easier, but would be delighted to hear it isn't necessary at all...

Well, I'm reviving this thread almost 6 years later...

I'm in a similar situation. I did a BA, moved to Israel and did an architectural technologist degree (Israel doesn't have professional M.Arch degrees, and I didn't want to do another 5 years to get a B.Arch.) Now I'm concerned about always being the lowest on the totem pole and always being like a "half" architect (in Israel we're allowed to sign on up to 4 story buildings). I'm worried about not being respected even though I know I'm as intelligent as anyone else. I don't want to get paid less than others for equivalent work. Though yes I know, if I go out on my own I can charge whatever I like and my reputation will mean more than my degree. But still, if I want to work for larger firms, my degree will impact my standing. And no, they don't give a hoot about the BA.

So, @Somegirl- what did you do in the end? Go straight into working or go for an M.Arch?

Benjamin_, what's been your experience so far?

Does anyone know of any programs to "convert" an Architectural Technologist degree into an M.Arch? Thank you. 

can a foreign registered architect migrating to Canada work as an architectural technologist 

will the person need for certification to work in that capacity 

sorry meant further certifications 

I am an architectural technologist with 15years experience.   Last year I applied to the RAIC syllabus program.   They gave me credit for 3 coarses.    I still have about 9 years of the syllabus left to go.   I need to log 9800 hours working under direct supervision of a registered architect and also log hour with my provincial association.  On top of 9 design studios and also online technical classes. 

I am about to go  to university ,but I am confused whether to do my bachelors in architecture or arch tech.I definitely enjoy designing .So between the two which is more  rewarding, time consuming,informative?What are the pros and cons of both ?

I am assuming the person who started this post is Canadian. I am American living in Canada, and it’s a  term used in Ontario where you can get licensed and you are able to stamp drawings under a certain square footage. I am licensed in Ontario and feel that technologist really are not out on the same level as an architect even though they are equal if not better than a licensed architect

That prob doesn’t maske any sense... it’s time for bed

I have not gone to post secondary school yet, but I am interested in architecture. I have been looking at architectural technologist programs that are offered at colleges here in Ontario. Once I finish that program would I potentially be able to go to a university full-time in a M. Arch. program and become a full Architect? Or would doing the Syllabus program offered by the RAIC after college be a better way to go? Or would I be better off to just go to university straight away? I am very interested in the design aspect of architecture and thats what I see myself doing, I just don't know the best way to get there. What amount of qualifications and degrees are needed to be the one designing the projects at a firm? 

OK thanks, good to know. And yeah the Syllabus program sounds frustrating from what I read above in the thread. So it really doesn't make sense to go for the college level program if thats my goal, I was thinking that college program was a way to get my feet wet without taking too big a chance with university, I'm a good artist and I love drawing and designing but I struggle with math, so university seems intimidating. 

But so what can you do with a M. arch degree that you couldn't do as an arch. technologist? If you were to start your own business or firm couldn't you in theory operate like a full architect, just having to have a licensed architect sign off on your bigger projects?  

This is very very helpful, thank you. 

I had a feeling there wouldn't be a way around it haha, and no I'm glad I asked because I had no idea about the legal workings in that sense. But so what counts as a firm then? Because I've read about architectural technologists doing things like this;

"'We like to refer to ourselves as CAD monkeys,' says Crystal Bueckert, a 2008 graduate of Saskatchewan Polytechnic who started Bldg Studio Inc. in 2010 and now does about 85 projects a year, mostly designing sustainable residential infill homes and small commercial buildings. She also launched a subsidiary company called Laneshed, designing and building stylish modular “sheds” that can be used as backyard studios, nap rooms or even guest rooms."

"Also note that the quality and discipline required to finish most undergrad and graduate programs will set you on the right path for career development." This is a very good point, you get what you give I guess. 

And as for college or university, I'll have to do some soul searching and decide what I want, thanks for your insight. 

Ok I see, and yeah thats a good point. 

And yeah I might do that as well, thanks again!

I have sort of a similar issue...I completed my hons. B.A . in art history, and am sort of stuck on how to proceed. On the one hand there is a three year advanced college diploma in Architectural Technology, and on the other is a 3.5 year M.Arch program. I am most interested in architectural design and I would like to work specifically in that area. The college route would be easy to enroll in, and is less expensive and I feel that it would provide a career path and knowledge that could eventually lead me to completing an M.Arch later in life. Applying straight to an M.Arch program would position me as a licensed architect, but is much more expensive. With M.Arch applications I feel quite out of my depth as I have no experience with CAD or any drafting, and I am not sure how to put a portfolio together that could adequately portray my ideas and potential. 

The college program has a design stream, which I would opt for, but I guess I just don't understand the difference between the type of work an architect does, and the type of work an architectural technologist does. If I want to work on the creative, design side of architecture will I be unhappy with the role of technologist?

I'm having trouble with the same decision... I own a 5 year bach in my country, I'm planning to move to canada and I'd love to continue in the architectural path. Since my degree is not completely valid there, I thought about applying for a 2 year arch tech co-op program or a 2.5 years M.arch program in ontario.

I have the same opinion McVee20 pointed "The college route would be easy to enroll in, and is less expensive and I feel that it would provide a career path and knowledge that could eventually lead me to completing an M.Arch later in life. Applying straight to an M.Arch program would position me as a licensed architect, but is much more expensive" aaand...

Sometimes I feel like I'd be taking a shortcut with the M.arch, not sure if a good or bad one. I think I may have the knowledge and ability that it takes, but maybe the arch tech would provide me more of some basic and essencial knowledge about canadian construction techniques, building codes, everything that is different from my country that I’ll have to learn one way or another.

The thing is: should I do the arch tech program, start working in the field, feel how it is and what job opportunities I will have (since I have no Canadian experience) and maybe,  if I feel like I need to, apply for the M.arch in the future? (and pay way less for it as resident) Is it a good path? 

Or I’ll be ok going straight to the M.arch and trying the licence process right after? Without Canadian experience I’m finding it very hard... it seems like it would take forever... And if I do the M.arch but don't have enough experience to be licensed, what am I? It's wothy to do it anyway, even if I can't get a licence?
Some advice from Canadian or non-canadian residents?

I am a South African and I hold a 3 year diploma in Architectural Technology which makes me an Architectural Technologist with 7 years experience at this moment in time. In SA, everyone who hold any qualification (in Architecture) is an Architectural Technologist until you earn a masters in the form of M.Arch or Mtech (Masters in technology with focus in Architecture). 

I am really intrigued by what other countries and the world of architecture consider my current academic standing and experience to be. I don't see much positivity here and wonder how I would go about 'upgrading' my qualifications when going out there.

Have any of you in architectural offices come across Architectural Technologist who have become registered Architects?

WhollyC, I started, but didn't finish, and Architectural Technology program, got a job as a draftsman, and have worked my way up to a principal architect, so it can be done, but it depends a lot on where you are. I'm not sure about Canadian provinces, but in US states it varies whether you can get licensed without an accredited degree.

On  top of the licensure issue, I've found that each place has it's own architectural culture - there are some places I would never have gotten above a job captain, license or not, so I've had to move around some to get where I am.

What’s the key difference in being a Architectural Technolgist and a Architecture? I personally like designing clients buildings and being able to put a design into CAD/REVIT. What are the pros and cons for both?

I can provide better clarity between the two as I've personally been on both sides of the pond:

I started out with a 2 year diploma and 2 year technology bachelor in architecture. It is a great education and truly undervalued in the "studio" environment in modern practice. Simply put, architecture technologist "know their shit" when it comes to how buildings are built and are very comportment in producing drawings right after graduation. Many offices see them as glorified drafts people simply there for production, but that is totally not the case. Any respectable firm should be treating their technologist on the same level as intermediate "architects/designers" and some technologist even know heck of a lot more than the senior architects. The downside is that if you do want to transition to becoming a licensed architect, you do need to attend Masters or the Syllabus program.

Only attend Masters if you are truly interested in design theory and conceptual thinking, graduate university experience, and/or if you want to work towards becoming a licensed/registered Architect.

Personally, I chose to pursue Masters because I figured that if I am going to be stuck working as a CAD monkey for the first 2-4 years in a juniour position as a architectural technologist, I might as well have those hours count towards a licence. It is nice to have a "Master's Paper" should you transition to positions of leadership, project management, executive, or even opening up your own practice. If these are your particular goals, I recommend choosing the shortest Master's program - I completed mine in 2 years.

Before pursing your Masters, you should think about the "opportunity cost". Master's education will ALWAYS be there, but job security and the health of the economy is unpredictable. The unfortunate reality is that "Time is Money" and time spent in school is time spent not making money or gaining relevant work experience. Masters DOES NOT teach you the skills to be successful in the workforce. Let me repeat that again... Masters DOES NOT teach you the skills to be successful in the workforce. Most of your practical skills are learned at technology institutes, on the job training, and/or gained while working.

I have friends and classmates that have student loans from $50k to $100k because they have unrelenting passion for design. However they are absolutely ignorant of the practical realities of building and construction and can't draft up a construct-able set of drawings worth a dam. Pretty pictures don't get things built, construction drawings do.

Why would you spend so much money on a glorified "Arts Degree" with a "Master's Title" when a technologist diploma + work experience would get you hired much faster and advanced quicker? It is analogous to fresh undergrads who have BA degrees with no relevant experience while expecting high compensation for an office job which they are under-qualified to perform. This is the definition of insanity!

Lastly, the reality is that the "Architect" as a profession is a dying/stagnant career... but I'll leave that for a different discussion.

If you have any doubts, don't be an architect. Your ambition and passion is just not there. Don't waste your time or money.

What's the earliest way to complete M.Arch? either through Architectural technology program or Advanced Architectural technology program ? need some clarity between these two courses please..

Hi!

I'm planning to take up Architectural Technology, but would also want to become a licensed architect. I can only apply for the Arch. Tech. course so I would like to ask how can I proceed to get a license after graduating Arch. Tech?