Is your B.Arch accredited? If so, then you have very little to worry besides the crippling economy.

Not too log ago, Masters degrees were intended for students interested in pursuit of academia.

15 years from now only PhD's will be accredited for professional licensure. Somewhere along the way institutions of higher learning forgot what the point of their existence is.

-I have a 5 year Barch
-Most people who get a masters in arch dont have a 4year or 5year bachelors in architecture - its usually from an art program or some random program outside of architecture.
-Most masters programs are 2 or 3 years

I would prolly hire the one with most eduaction.

If someone had a 5year Barch and a 2 year masters in arch - thats amazing and they would prolly get the job if the other 5year Barch person had the same credentials besides school.

At my office, its a mixed bag of professionals -
-half have 5year degrees and the other half have bachelor degree in something non-arch related with a 2-3year masters from a great arch school. I have a 5year Barch from a shitty school.

In terms of design creation - in a 5year arch program you will get a shit ton of more design experience then a 3 year masters program. I took 8 - 5 credit design courses and a 10 credit year long thesis.

But in the end its what you really put into it.

you don't need it to become licensed, and it's not necessary for 'good design creation.' even if you were to get one, it would be an unaccredited post-professional degree. in the world, however, i've noticed that a master's almost always carries more weight. i got tired of watching master's grads get better pay and better positions, so i went out and got one. then i got a 50% pay raise, so it was more than worth it.

most employers and clients seem to still consider a BArch a 'bachelor's' degree. clients are also more impressed by a master's from a good school.

avoid going into serious debt for one, unless you can be assured you'll be able to recoup it later. if you can't, my advice is to save up for a few years and line up some grants/scholarships...get it when you can finance most of it yourself.

In my opinion, the BArch, BA, and BS degrees should be eliminated in favor of a 6-yr professional master's. the BArch is a great degree, but too many people don't seem to know this...

That seems very hard to believe. I just don't see an added professional value to tacking on additional years of school to an already excessive education. Perhaps your thesis was directly related to the topic of your job duties?

"In my opinion, the BArch, BA, and BS degrees should be eliminated in favor of a 6-yr professional master's"

2-3 year Masters tacked to an unrelated bachelors makes sense, but 6 years of academic architectin' is such an overkill. Why would you wish that on anyone? My 5 year BArch could have easily been condensed into 3.5 years. The 'no child left behind' policy made the education crawl at times.

true, i swear. i was on the underpaid side before, but not by much. and i was rehired by the same firm, who seemed to hold the master's in high regard. they didn't care what my thesis was on.

6 yrs. is what you do anyway to get a master's...i did 6.5., and the 'master's' credential seems to make a difference.

i do think it's sad that the BArch is not enough, but that's the way it was in my experience.

i'm also in NYC, where there are dozens of kids with GSD and Columbia master's degrees competing for the same jobs, and they ALWAYS look better to employers. maybe in other markets it's different.

I agree with you rusty, you don't need a masters for good designing, but i also will have to back up Elinor, although we all know that a Barch is a diploma that in most of our opinions is equivalent to a Masters, A lot of employers, don't care that we have a 5 year Barch, and they pay March students who only went to Arch. college for 2 or 3 years at least 10k more. In my last office I was teaching Marchs how to do architecting, and It felt awkward that I was teaching People who were making at least 10k more than i was, and went to number one ranked programs. In the interview I was told I did not have much experience, needless to say I did.

elinor, are you the same person that was getting paid 27k a year then it doubled? I know you are not - but even what I am suggesting is rediculous.



It took me 6 years to finish my 5year cause I wanted to do it right, learn all I could and get the best grades I could. at the 5 year mark it was tourturous - suggesting 6years is out of control but I guess it would weed out all the pussies who squeek through with a 4year...I hated those kids in school. I had nowhere near the design skills needed to enter the real world with after my 4th semester of design...which is all the 4year needed.

and I went to school in NYC - most of my college buddies who also have the same 5year I have, are making over 50k/yr and are still employeed

haha, it took me even longer! when i got out, i didn't even want to hear the word 'school' again. a few years of office work fixed all that, and then i couldn't wait... the bArch will aways be my formative education. the mArch was a fun break and i got to make some new connections.

but yes, 6 yrs. is a long time. you'd have to break it up.

ps. the ivy master's kids are making 80k and they are also still employed.

lol - Have you even been reading any of the other threads in this forum - the Ivy kids dont have jobs either...and they dont make 80k here either. what bubble do you live in?

most of the ones i know (who were already a few years in when the recession hit) are still working. compared to those i know who are still working but with bArchs, they do make quite a bit more.

To answer the OP:

To work in the profession, you do not need any professional education, nevermind a 4 year bachelors of science. You just need someone who will hire you.

To get licenced: Yes, you need an accredited degree. But not a masters.

To teach: Unless there is extenuating circumstances, yes you need a Masters. Or, you should.


As far as PhD is concerned... I think these are reserved for those who really hate themselves and are scared of building. But perhaps that is just me.

I just finished working for a successful firm in LA and was one of the few who did not have a Masters from UCLA, SciArc of one of the Ivy schools. However, I got paid just as well and did a damn good job for them...and they knew it. I did well because I am talented and worked really hard. There was not much of a distinction between the people with Masters and those with BArchs.

Hovever, I have also been interested in getting my Masters for two reasons. 1/ I could get a degree that could help me expand my architectural education and aspirations by allowing to incorporate something like development or business into my repertoire. 2/ It would give me all kinds of academic and professional contacts that can be really important for a young professional like myself.

I have a 6 years diploma in architecture (diploma architect riba part 2), and now i am applying for a master in arch simply because i feel under educated. it took me 4 years to realize where i was and what i needed to do, i was clinically depressed and on heavy alcohol. anyway the thing is that you'll never stop learning as an architect. that's the job description.

So instead of feeling under-educated you want to feel under-paid/valued.

It requires no more than a 4 year college degree to perform architecture competently, even though many states require the 5 year B.arch now. The only reason the M.arch should be persued is because your lib arts degree or other completely unrelated to architecture 4 year degree won't get you into the field of architecture and you feel like throwing away some more of your parents money or sadlebagging yourself with even more loans for a job that will pay you $30k a year.

So merry Christmas.

it doesn't hurt to apply. maybe you'll get a free ride, and that's the best reason ever.

liviu--spor la treaba!

holy crapola! mersi!

to OP... don't get a master's in architecture if you decide to go back. and don't get it in the periphery of architecture (landscape, urban planning, etc). get it in business.
spoken from experience, i have an accredited 5yr B.Arch and went back for a post-professional M.Arch. yeah, it looks good on the resume. that's about it. the only reason why i make more money now than i did before is because (1) i changed jobs, (2) my resume looks good because i did other things while i was in school, like publications, etc, and (3) i know revit like the back of my hand.

but recently i've been seeing a lot of jobs that are looking for architects with experience in business or an MBA. damn, i wish i had done that instead.

Isn't an MBA ridiculously expensive? From what I know companies send their employees out for MBA training and it's all on the company bill.
Tuition I think is like 10K / year for an MBA. I live in the EU and that's uber expensive to the point of disgusting.

MBA is one year and M.Arch is 1.5-3, depending. Tuition is usually about the same per year, depending on the school. And you're looking at more like $20k - 45k per year, not 10k.

+i, what kind of jobs are looking for the mba? i'm almost positive i'm getting one. heard that you can understand developers better.

I got a M.Arch only because I was in the so called 4+2 program where you get BS in Arch in 4 years and M.Arch professional degree in additional 2. Many schools still have 4+2 programs and it is not that uncommon. Someone mentioned that BS and BA in arch should be abolished. I can see the logic in that but some states, such as Texas, allow licenture for BS Arch graduates. However, that was some 10 years ago and I am not sure if anything changes since than.

jobs I've seen looking for MBA's include higher level architect positions- specifically working with clients, writing proposals, etc. Basically propelling you up the ladder without the legwork. And yes, you're looking at $30-45k/year... but it's only 1-2 years- and you can use it for SO many other professions.

if its just down to an extra year (bs to barch, like my school), i think thats just ridiculous . honestly, there is no reason why a person who graduates a four year program and passes a bunch of tests shouldn't be able to call themselves a registered architect.

all it comes down to is one more year of making impossible to build fantasy buildings and paying an extra 40k.

the guy at work with a bs and 20 years experience isn't qualified enough to be an "architect", but the new barch grad with 3 years of idp is, apparently.

To the OP:

As other's have said, a master's degree is not really required when you have a B.Arch but what kind of degree you have will make you more/less competitive in the job market depending on what kind of firms you are seeking work with.

Certain firms highly value M.Archs, especially from theoretically oriented, mostly Ivy-league, colleges. Asymptote (if they're still in business) is one good example. Many of the firms that place alot of weight in M.Archs however are on the more "starchitecty" side of the business and generally pay their interns little and force them to work long hours. However, career wise, these firms can be good places to start because if you survive to make your way up the ladder you can leave those firms with a rolodex full of clients who value "high" design and start your own firm in Capital-A-Architecture land.

The majority of firms however, favor technical competency over the ability to make pretty renderings and cut foam into nice shapes. With these firms, your degree matters little as long as you bring the adequate skill set to do the job. The most competent, highly paid guy in my office after the principal does not even hold a B.Arch but his ability to get the job done fast speaks volumes and every job he leaves gives him stellar references. Employers looking for technically competent interns value the B.arch as opposed to an M.arch with an undergrad degree in a non-related field, because the B.arch is a more technically oriented degree and B.arch students spend more time in studio honing their skills. At my school, the B.arch program involved numerous engineering, buildings systems, building construction, construction documentation and professional practice courses. As the M.arch is only 3 years, and most curriculums add considerable theory requirments to get the degree, many of the technical courses are condensed, watered down, or non-existant. There are variations to this, as naturally between two otherwise equally matched candidates who both hold B.arch degrees, having the M.arch will make one candidate stronger than the other. Also, these firms may give more weight to someone who holds a 4-year non-accredited B.S. Arch / B.S. Arch Tech degree and an accredited M.Arch degree over someone with just a B.arch.

It all really depends on who you want to work for and what you want to do with your carrer.

Thank you all for posting your opinions. For me it was a tough decision to make whether I should get a master degree or not. Still I couldn't make that decision. Probably, I will hang onto my current job until I get laid off or until I sit for the ARE exam.

Thanks again, everyone.