• Why would an online M.Arch ever be someone's only option? No one is requiring you to get an architecture degree.
• Graduate school is supposed to take years. 
• Surely these short online programs are meant for students with 4-year architecture degrees. Those programs are typically 3.5 years, so getting that done in 15 months is absurd.

That said, if you don't care about the quality of your education (and you clearly don't), just get the cheapest piece of garbage degree you can.

LTU is a not for profit program I would go there if you have the chance also I think SIU has an online program now that is short. Also the Boston Architectural college has an online M.arch. Do you have an architecture undergrad? Both the BAC and LTU requires an architectural degree or coursework completed for admission, they do not offer the online M.arch for unrelated majors I believe. But I would run away from the for-profit college as fast as you can and go to a real program, the other schools listed are not-for -profit schools at least, even if it is not Harvard it will be a much better education.

link to SIU

Only those with a BS in Arch [4 year degree] can take the LTU 30 credit 1 year option. 

With a BA in Art, I am surprised you would be able to find anyone who would let you do it in less than 3.

You would be better off doing this degree in computer science online then you might make the money back...

http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/online-degrees/undergraduate/computer-science/

First, I do care about the quality of the degree, I just don't want to pay double for it if I can get just as good of a quality education somewhere else. That's why I'm asking the questions. It doesn't make sense why one accredited school takes double the credit hours of another. If you compare apples to apples - a student who goes to LTU with a BArch works through their program of 33 credits while the AAU student (with the same BArch) takes 63? That doesn't make sense. I was hoping someone who had been to either of these schools or knew much more about it could explain.

Secondly, of course I do have options, I'm just choosing to stay married and living where I do with my husband and 4 children in an area that doesn't have a school with a MArch program.

Third, I'm not concerned with getting my money back. I'm actually working towards this degree for two reasons: 1. I have a passion for design and building -always have. 2. Ultimately, I'd like to provide "pro bono" architectural services for non-profits and other organizations in the Southeast. I'm not doing this to provide for a family or retirement.

Fourth, I'd just like to hear from other people, who had an undergrad degree in a field other than Architecture, what route they took

TED - I think your answer makes the most sense. I probably misread and I'm now trying to re-look the LTU info. I'm guessing that you do have to have a BArch to complete their program of 33 hours. But does it make any sense why there's is 33 while AAU's is 63 for the same undergrad?

Thanks..............

Personal Opinion: I don't think the online or in person LTU options are good for a lot of students. Their undergrad is very dense and should really be changed into a 5 year BArch. So the super short MArch degrees are appropriate for their own students, but not necessarily the best choice for someone coming from another program, even if it is a four year program.

This was extraordinarily easy information to find. You'll need to be much more resourceful if you want to succeed in a graduate program.

From LTU's website (emphasis added): 

Qualified, pre-professional architecture students with a Bachelor of Science degree in Architecture are eligible for admission to the program and may complete as few as 36 credits to earn the Master of Architecture (M.Arch) degree.

This Master's in Architecture (3+) program is for people who have a Bachelor's degree in a field other than architecture.  The program can be completed in three years plus two summers.  

From AAU's website (emphasis added): 

Applicants who graduate from a 4 or 5 year non-NAAB accredited Bachelor’s program in Architecture are eligible for Track I (63 units). Final placement will be determined after portfolio review.

Applicants who graduate with an unrelated undergraduate degree will be placed into Track II (87 units).

At either school, you're looking at the latter option. AAU's degree plan in 87 credits; LTU's is 90. 

Links to each degree plan:

http://www.ltu.edu/cm/attach/b1215422-bddf-4c26-90c8-73cb845b0d44/LTU-CoAD-3-MArch.CURRICULUM-2012-13.pdf

http://www2.academyart.edu/architecture-school/outline.html?AP=MARCH-ARH&ASP=MARCH-ARH2

Also it's worth noting that the 36 hour degree plan is a complete anomaly. The lengths of architecture programs don't have much variation. 

BS.Arch - 4 years

B.Arch - 5 years

M.Arch (with BS.Arch) - 2-2.5 years

M.Arch (with bachelor's in another discipline) - 3-3.5 years 

Which is just to say that the longer program isn't some kind of cash grab relative to the bizarre 36 credit degree plan; that's just how long that degree usually takes, and the 36 credit one is the outlier. Frankly, I don't understand how that can possibly meet NAAB standards.

Like I said, this is supposed to take years. 

not sure the 36 hr plan is that unusual

Detroit mercy is 34 hrs with their undergrad

both were once 5 year B. Arch, they added a couple classes and became M. Arch. 

I'll bet most are similar

5 yr BArchs are professional degrees and you do not need to take a MArch to get NCARB  - so the MArch is a post-professional degree and really can be any credit -

@shuellmi It's obviously different if it's a B.Arch that decided to reorganize their curriculum. That's very unusual and there are only a handful of schools that have gone this route. They are massively outnumbered by 2-2.5 year M.Arch programs. Please don't spread misinformation about things you don't know. 

@ted First-professional M.Archs are professional degrees as well. None of the programs we're talking about are post-professional. 

Please don't spread misinformation about things you don't know. 

5 year B. Arch degrees were once far more numerous than M. Arch degrees.  Schools realized that students prefer the prestige of a Masters degree especially when the difference in credits is minimal.  Additionally the 4+2 and 4+3 programs are more flexible for students who come to architecture late or who drop out early

found this but no way to verify: 

"Between 1965 and 1990 about 25% of American architecture students graduated with a masters. In 2010, nigh on 40% of American architecture students wore a masters gown to graduation day."

and this from the NAAB:

2012 annual report: 

"As of the end of the 2011–2012 academic year, there are 151 accredited programs housed in 120 U.S. institutions. Of the 151 programs, 33% (50 programs) are Bachelor of Architecture programs, 66% (99 programs) are Master of Architecture programs, and 1% (1 program) is a Doctor of Architecture." 

2008 annual report:  

"As of the end of 2008, there are 151 accredited programs at U.S. institutions. Of the 151 programs, 56 (37%) offer the Bachelor of Architecture, 94 (62%) offer the Master of Architecture and one (1%) offers the Doctor of Architecture. It is noted that five of the Bachelor of Architecture programs are in the process of being phased out."

I'm very sorry that I just spent half and hour on this - I hope this fits an IDP category!

http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/credentialinflation.html

this guy has a pretty obvious agenda, but I've no reason to believe his numbers are incorrect

I apologize to everyone, this got under my skin for some reason - plus i'm a but slow at work this morning

not this again...

None of what you posted is at all relevant to what we're talking about here. You said:

both were once 5 year B. Arch, they added a couple classes and became M. Arch.  I'll bet most are similar

Your suggestion that "most are similar" is blatant misinformation. Those five-year M.Arch programs that once were 5-year B.Archs are very few and far between. Whether B.Arch programs are being phased out is not the issue. No one is saying they weren't. The overwhelming majority of M.Arch degrees (for students with a pre-professional architecture bachelor's) are 2-2.5 years. 

A little reading comprehension goes a long way. 

I agree that the original poster has no choice but to take several years to graduate with an M.Arch. I assume that LTU would not accept many of the AAU credits, meaning it may be better to stick with the original plan and not transfer.

Regarding my blatant misinformation about the number of schools who have switched from offering a b.arch to m.arch and the number of credits it takes to graduate from those schools with an undergrad degree from that same school,  I guess i just don't feel like taking the time to prove myself since it really doesn't matter to anyone but placebeyondthesplines

I don't consider any US or most UK BArchs-MArchs which lead to licensure proper 'Masters' programmes no matter how many credits, no matter if you go to AAU or GSD.  There aims are too slanted by professionalism - making more sheep. :-)

I guess i just don't feel like taking the time to prove myself since it really doesn't matter to anyone but placebeyondthesplines

Translation: I'm wrong, I wasted a shitload of time typing a bunch of misinformation, and I'm going to attempt to save face by pretending to be above it all. 

Which online M.Arch did you get?

Great, now I have to laboriously go through 150 websites to compile information for an online hardass or lose face to other online people who i generally respect. 

I don't have an online m.arch and don't believe that they are an adequate replacement for traditional arch school.  If they must be offered they should at least be significantly cheaper than the on-site classes

Thank you for making my point. If you "have to laboriously go through 150 websites," then you don't know what you're talking about well enough to be implying that you do.

There's no reason to make online classes cheaper if suckers pay for them. Doesn't work out? Well here's another one in the convenience of your home. It's proven over and over again that regardless of facts and advice against such things, people still line up to attend them. 

Maybe struggling architects should just operate a for-profit online college. Lure a half dozen desperate folk in and that's enough to float by a few months.

@bugsmetoo Agreed. Why not demand a premium for that convenience? If idiots want to throw their money at something useless, why not let them throw as much as possible?

Paradoxical: Architecture schools aim for creativity, innovation.... requiring interdisciplinaryness. You don't have to be an 'A'rchitect to be an architect....