Michael A. Richards sends us the following email requesting a petition for a 3.5 M.ARCH to D.ARCH Title Change...
As of 2004, the NAAB (National Architecture Accreditation Board) has adopted a new degree entitled D.ARCH (Doctorate of Architecture). The degree requires a minimum of 120 undergraduate semester hours and a minimum of 90 graduate level (professional study/elective) hours. As you may be aware, the 3.5 year M.ARCH track requires well over 90 graduate level credits (107-112 depending on when/where the student entered) in addition to the 120+/-undergraduate credits required prior to entering the program, thus qualifying the title of M.ARCH to be changed to D.ARCH. Most 3.5 year students end up with a minimum of 7.5 years of education and roughly 220 to 250 total credit hours of study. As a comparison, typical PhD programs average between 72 and 90 graduate credit hours and most traditional masters’ programs average between 30 and 45 graduate credit hours. The 3.5 M.ARCH degree has been severely deflated in status due to a matter of semantics.
Although the M.ARCH has traditionally been the terminal degree in architecture, those outside the architectural arena are often unaware of this structure and view it as inferior to a PhD. This is often evident when M.ARCH graduates attempt to teach courses or conduct research in a cross disciplinary manner in related fields such as graphic design, media studies, interior design, environmental design, environmental science, landscape design or sustainable design. These concentrations are often offered in programs outside architecture, but M.ARCH graduates will be viewed as substandard to candidates that carry a “Doctorate” title. As mentioned above, 3.5 year students invest the same – if not more - time, money and energy than most PhD track students in other fields. The M.ARCH thesis is actually more equivalent to a typical PhD dissertation, being that it generally requires three oral defenses, a physical design component, and a written dissertation of the project’s theoretical/conceptual ground and research pedagogy. It should also be noted that M.ARCH salaries are also subsequently under-compensated and are lumped in an income range that is too low to pay back the 7.5 year investment.
According to the NAAB, it is up to the individual institutions to decide on the title changes. I would strongly encourage all former 3.5 year students and universities offering 3.5 year programs to support the title promotion from M.ARCH to D.ARCH both for current 3.5 tract students and retroactively for former 3.5 year graduates. As a precedent, it should be noted that Law programs upgraded their degree nomenclature from the LL.B/LL.M system to the Juris Doctor system in the first half of the 20th century. The doctoral distinction is a necessary component for 3.5 year students to be adequately compensated financially and to obtain the proper stature in their desired career path. Those interested should see the online petition here. Thank you.
- Michael A. Richards
23 Comments
wow- I could be called Dr. Treekilla if Penn jumps on this band wagon!
is this a joke? i sometimes think its insane that one can be a 'master' of architecture after only 3.5 years of study - since an undergraduate background in architecture is not always required.
a phd in most 'related' fields requires a 4 year degree and then 6 years (including course-work and dissertation) of graduate education. if you want a phd in architecture, it usually takes longer, since most people get an MArch first, and then begin the 6-year process of graduate level academic education. additionally, there are strict language requirements, teaching requirements, and a series of qualifying exams that each phd candidate must pass. and a dissertation is NOTHING like a design thesis. also, why would one ever expect to get something like a phd (an academic degree) from a professional education? if you want a doctorate with a professional or design-oriented emphasis, they exist – look at Harvard's Ddes. it takes a lot longer than 7.5 years.
what 'devalues' the MArch (if anything) is the ridiculous semantic game that now makes it possible for places like Tulane to award an MArch after 5 years. if we award doctorates of any kind after 7.5 years – sometimes only 3.5 years of architectural education – we would be doing the same disservice to doctoral degrees.
haha! I'll be Dr. Phreak. i like it. it has a certain "zing", don't you think?
hear hear to ice9's arguments - a master's level thesis, even in more vaunted institutions like the gsd, columbia, etc., requires nowhere near the same level of research, specificity, and defense as a phd dissertation.
besides, along those lines, why shouldn't those of us who did a 5 year b-arch + a 2 year post-professional m.arch degree be entitled to the same distinction? there would have been 7 years of architecturally focused education, including the same thesis requirement, and the same number of credit hours...
methinks this is someone who is having some second thoughts about how 'valuable' their degree/field of inquiry is? "The doctoral distinction is a necessary component for 3.5 year students to be adequately compensated financially and to obtain the proper stature in their desired career path.". hmmm....
I also agree with ice9. The argument is based on using a technicality to gain an "equal stature" to those who have in reality done significantly more work.
or you can just call all of us architects 'howard roark'
I wonder how much more I'd be paid if my MArch was a DArch. I think absolutely NO more. One must remember that we're being paid by other architects and they don't get paid any more for the same work, be they MArch or DArch. The client doesn't give two shiznits about the degree.
Still, I wonder how often architects are devalued by clients with doctoral degrees: doctors, academics, lawyers only because of the degree title. Might such a change actually help perception within the professional community if the title corresponded to the skill, knowledge, blood, sweat and tears that go into the education?
But I don't like DArch. Notice the lawyers went with Juris Doctorate. Maybe we might be Archis Doctorate, to follow suit. Does anyone know latin? It's all Greek to me.
I could be Vincent Van, AD. epic.
I'll be the first to endorse awarding more D.Ork degrees to Architecture students. The field is made up of many highly qualified individuals.
I second ice9's, Liberty Bell's, and others' comments ... do not confuse a PhD in architecture as a professional degree, even if it is provided through the ambit of a professional architecture program. Also, a PhD is, in essence, a Art History degree (for example, the PhD Program in Architecture at Columbia is treated as a "subcommitee" of the History of Art department, not its own department).
Also, the comparison with the JD/LLM/LLB is also a little misguided. First of all, the JD is not ever considered a doctorate degree. It is the equivalent of a professional masters' degree. The LLB/LLM designation was abandoned due to reconfigurations in professional/licensing requirements in the United States. Also, the JD was adopted to disntinguish law schools from their European and Oceanian counterparts -- especially those that are Common Law jurisdictions. Also, American law schools do have a "PhD" equivalent -- it's called the "Doctor of Juridical Science" or S.J.D.. L.L.M. programs are the equivalent of post-pro programs in Architecture Schools: they offer foreign-trained architects or JD-holders advanced training in American jurisprudence or specialized topics in public/private international law. Trust me, I know. I am a lawyer. I have a JD, and I would never call myself a doctor.
The solution to the problem that pains you does not lie in changing the name of the program.
I agree with Smokety and Ice9. My personal view is that this petition can be mostly attributed to the unwarranted self-importance that the architectural discipline is engrained with.
I don't think this guy is saying that all M.Archs should be converted to Ph.Ds. Instead, he's saying that if there is something called a D.Arch being offered for equal or less credit hours as an M.Arch, the professional designation should change. This would be equivalent to when many 5-year B.Archs were converted to M.Archs with the proliferation of graduate programs. For example, I know several older architects who, after having completed 4 year degrees in the liberal arts, went back to school for three years to get their B.Arch. When their institutions started granting M.Archs, the degrees were converted. This guy just wants to make sure that two people with the same academic training are degreed in the same manner. Academic architecture Ph.Ds would remain separate.
While the proposal poorly conveys these distinctions, I think a semantic elevation is a great idea - no other academic or professional masters degree requires the amount of time and money invested as an M.Arch. In fact, most are only 1 year (including a Master of Science in Architecture). Smokety, your point only solidifies this: in Law, the same education (in time) grants you a doctor level degree without a) the right or expectation of title (dr. droog) b) precluding the higher academically focused study of the discipline. To say that the M.Arch replaces the Ph.D is ludicrous. To say that the 3 year Master of Architecture is in some way equivalent to every other professional masters degree that is 1 year (master of social work, master of education, master of journalism, etc.) is just self-defeating. You think the public understands these nuances?
There is no detriment to architects for elevating their degree title to an equitable level of other professions. I can't understand why anyone who has invested the time and money in a 3 year M.Arch would be against it.
Just my $.02
Here's my formula:
3.5 M.Arch. = M.Arch.
B.Arch + M.Arch. = D.Arch.
gbrownm-
that makes no sense whatsoever.
should a Doctor with a biology BS and MD be valued differently than an english BA with an MD?
maybe just simplify it? no more 5 year b.arch. just a 3.5 year m.arch after an undergraduate degree. wouldn't that establish loftier standards across the board? i think so. then everyone would know that a registered architect would be someone who went to grad school and engaged in advanced academic study.
to me a doctorate implies a more academic direction of study whereas a masters is more aptly suited for a professional path, which i think is appropriate. should the MBA become a DBA? i don't think so...
Whoever wrote "The M.ARCH thesis is actually more equivalent to a typical PhD dissertation" clearly has no idea what a PhD dissertation is.
There is a new petition with updated information at: https://www.change.org/p/national-architectural-accrediting-board-changing-master-of-architecture-m-arch-to-doctor-of-architecture-d-arch?recruiter=552778358&utm_source=petitions_show_components_action_panel_wrapper&utm_medium=copylink
It is important to note that this is how the NAAB defines the degrees. The NAAB does allow for nomenclature changes, just not retroactively...that is what the petition is for. So for all of the haters, I really don't want to hear it.
A Doctor-level degree should be awarded for doctorate-level work. I can guaran-damn-tee you that not a single NAAB-accredited university offering a MArch is requiring doctorate-level work.
Seriously. There aren't that my M.Arch programs that are requiring M.Arch level work!
The big problem with this is that students loses access the Federal grant money that is ONLY available to undergraduate programs which in turn will make your student loan amounts increase. Lets also not forget that they have to complete a Bachelors degree to before entering these 5 YEAR M.Arch. You might as well go with existing 4+2. The reason we have a B.Arch and why it is popular is because students can A) attend it straight out of high school, B) have 5 YEARS plus 150% rule (7.5 YEARS) of Financial Aid grant support and C) they enjoy a lower tuition rates.
Converting B.Arch to M.Arch would mean that students would be attending a 3+ YEAR M.Arch and they would have to complete a BA/BS degree in something. You might as well attend a 4+2 program.
Discontinuing undergraduate professional Architecture degrees would simply cause the cost of attendance to skyrocket.
Someone proposing this has their head so far shoved up their ass that they don't have a clue. The loan debt is bad enough for B.Arch.
I think the real intent behind that idea is to try to stifle and limit people from enrolling into architecture schooling when they are just out of high school. Most people don't continue on into Masters degrees right after a Bachelors. Most people would be in their late 20s or into their 30s when enrolling into an M.Arch program. Then they would be in their 40s when they graduate and get started with their AXP.
Is this really about forcing people to be older by the time they get licensed?
I'm just kind of perplexed and trying to understand the rationale.
Never mind what I said above. I am re-reading the Petition to try to understand it. So please ignore what I wrote above.
" please ignore what I wrote above " Richard Balkins
This is just dumb, unobservant, and eerily similar to the argument equating an architecture degree with an architecture license. "Me want want you have! Waaah!"
I enjoyed junior high, too, but at some point we have to grow up.
Even a D.Arch isn't the same thing as a PhD. Overlap? Sure, but different degrees.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.