You'll more likely want to do the 3 year program for the sake of developing your design eye, but if you are adamant about trying to get in to the 2 year programs, you'll certainly need a spectaculer portfolio for applying. They'll want to believe that you are up-to-par with the other 2 year program students' design capabilities, and most of them will be coming from 5-year undergrad programs.

I don't know much about UK or DEU Schools, but I'm a fan of Bartlett (UK), AA (UK), Technische Universitat Dresden (DEU)

Question for all: If you have a Bachelor in Environmental Design, or a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the US (4-year degrees, not 5), considering to apply to an M.Arch I vs M.Arch II program, is it wrong to assume that you'll have "less competition" by applying to M.Arch I where many students don't have design backgrounds? And if you DID apply to the M.Arch I, but the admissions board felt you deserved advanced standing into the M.Arch II program, do they consider the transfer automatically rather than denying your application all-together?

Someone with an arch. degree already would be wasting an extra year fiddling around with novices exploring fundamentals. Seeing how expensive tuition is nowadays plus costs of living, why? The cheaper competition aspect is a negative point because if prior background is no better than a non-related major, you be the judge of potential. The caliber of those trying this "safer entry" route aren't going to be that high. 

As for if they bump you up, it probably depends on the program. The applicant should know what they're doing. Some programs consider as part of the application process, others seem to have separate tracks that likely needs a sure mind to select during filing time.

@BR.TN

The M.Arch II is a 'second professional degree' intended for someone with a first professional degree (a B.Arch or M.Arch). Some programs will look at a Bachelor in Environmental Design or the Bachelor of Science in Architecture as sufficient qualification to give you advanced standing in an M.Arch I program, e.g. GSD's M.Arch I AP (Advanced Placement), which inserts you into year 2 of a 3.5 year program. At GSD, you have to choose to apply for the AP program if you feel you qualify for it, but if the admissions board doesn't believe you're ready for year 2, they won't penalize you for applying for AP...they'll just drop you down to year 1. At other places, like UVA, you're automatically considered for Advanced Placement. They put you into the track they feel you'll fit best.

fechtel, thank you. Helpful info!

"Seeing how expensive tuition is nowadays plus costs of living, why? The cheaper competition aspect is a negative point because if prior background is no better than a non-related major, you be the judge of potential. The caliber of those trying this "safer entry" route aren't going to be that high.

kickrocks, This makes sense and I see what you mean. What I meant, moreso, is that you apply to an extremely competitive Top 5 program with a 4-year B.ED or BS.Arch degree...and hypothetically this student feels confident they're a thoughtful designer with a great portfolio and a cohesive letter of intent. But they're applying to their dream school, and they want nothing more to get accepted here than anywhere else. So the two plausible programs this student could get admitted to are the M.Arch I and M.Arch I-AP. This student, proficient as they may be, would be honored to recieve advanced placement, but its not imperative because this particular school means so much to them, they want to make sure they have the best shot of acceptnace as possible, so they apply to the non-AP track with the assumption that they'll have a better chance getting accepted since the quality of design portfolios might be at a lower caliber, helping this student stand out among the application class. This is an assumption. For all I know, the portfolios are all at high calibers regardless of academic backgrounds.

I had a friend get a full-ride and advanced placement at a Top 5 program for their M.Arch - they rejected the AP offer and wanted to voluntarily do 3.5 years. I thought they were crazy for that, so I asked, "why?". The candid response was, "I don't want to leave school!". What they meant on a deeper level was that academia of this caliber is a very inspiring place to be and hone your skills, and its fun. If I were accepted to GSD's 2.5 year AP vs. 3.5 years, I'd probably take it, but an extra year of developing various skills (specifically talking about proficiency with fabrication and computer software) would be extremely appreciated. Worth $60k for the year? I suppose not...but maybe theres some of that $60k going towards solidifying their chance at acceptance, and some more of it is going towards using the extra time to clearly focus as they get older, and maybe some of that is going towards being in that campus's design scene in general which offers many peripheral benefits, etc. I guess its just how you post-rationalize it...

It's more than just $60k a year. You have to factor in living expenses and graduate student debt starts accruing interest right away. Granted you can write off some of the interest come tax time but it's unlikely for any significant payments to be made. For people with free-flowing money or don't really understand why debt is talked about here, it's a rather shallow point and they couldn't care less about it. 

"I don't want to leave school" means more than just having fun. Some people know the dire reality of leaving academia and hope to stay there forever. That's another thing too, the debatable usefulness or uselessness of academia and that bubble world. Of course school is fun when they're not paying for anything and have little to no responsibilities other than to turn in projects and appease a few taking heads. It's a simple lifestyle that has a very predictable and structured schedule. In your personally accountable dime, you'd think differently about any extra time spent there; on someone else's, it doesn't matter.

The admission committee isn't dumb nor are most applicants with drive. Realistically, if someone with a background did not feel confident in the +2 programs with their stuff, they would fit in the +3 fine. A bit more into their studies but not so far above and beyond as to be some top dog in the pile. There's a line of self-assessment here that separates the borderline applicant who tries to game the system and the applicant who simply knows (or should know) not to bother with the advanced placement option because their work is mediocre. Compared to those with experience and sometimes even overshadowed by non-related backgrounds.

What a student thinks of themselves is irrelevant. Self-delusion is so easy nowadays with the IDGAF attitudes and special-flower expectations. There's always a few of them each year in the application topics here, obviously subpar work (with a background) but very high ambitions for future studies. How do you close the gap? Schools don't just magically inject some miracle juice to bridge banal mediocrity to the potential needed for the next drivers of this field.

I don't think we're in disagreement, merely clearing up points.

Without a design degree (B.S.Arch, B.E.D, etc.) you almost certainly won't be eligible to enter any 2-year program. Your engineering degree might get you waived from some of the 3-3.5 year program's construction/structures/environmental controls courses, but I can't imagine a circumstance where you'd be waived from any design studios, not to mention the courses in drawing, history, and theory.