No, not all states require an NAAB degrees.  There are alternate routes in about 20 states - but they can take much longer, and other states will not necessarily grant reciprocal licensing to those without NAAB accredited degrees.

The extent to which you can design buildings without an architect or engineer license also varies widely by state.  There are a very small number of states that require a license even for single-family residential work.  The majority allow residential work without a license.  Some allow quite a lot more than that - in some cases 2 or 3 story buildings up to 20,000 or 30,000 square feet, depending on the construction type and use group - though much more limited in other cases.

Some states allow a licensed engineer to do anything that requires a licensed architect - but others don't.

You'd really need ot check the laws of the state(s) in which you're interested in practicing.  

An M.Arch would be a 2 to 3.5 year undertaking, depending on how your related undergrad degree is evaluated.  There is then an internship requirement which in theory takes 3 years or less of full time experience - though in reality the average time to complete that is about 6 years.  So you'll need to evaluate whether the shorter haul to the engineering license would be more valuable to you or not, depending on what it is you want to do in practice, and in what state.

Thanks for your reply. I did some digging and found out that more states than I thought don't require an NAAB accredited degree. Now there's the question. Of IDP hours: could working in a structural / architectural engineering firm fulfill the requirements? Does the work experience for IDP need to be strictly architecure related or cold it be in a closely related area?

Working for an engineering firm can fulfill some of the IDP experience, but not all of it.  If it's both an architecture and engineering firm then it could potentially fulfill all of it, if your role encompassed all of the required IDP content areas.  Go to www.ncarg.org and read the IDP guidelines.

Note there are a few states with differing or more stringent requirements than NCARB's.  New York in particular has a lot of additional rules about acceptable internship settings, timing of the internship, etc., but several other states also have their own quirks regarding supervisor qualifications, timing, duration, supervision, state residency, etc.

Yes there are a lot of states that don't require an NAAB degree.  But most of them require longer internships if you don't have the NAAB degree - some up to 9 years or more.

Richard the reporting method for the extra hours also varies state to state.  In some of the Direct Registration states the extra years of experience for those without NAAB degrees do have to be reported through NCARB's system. 

As for requiring more "internship": some states with extra experience requirements for those without NAAB degrees do in fact require additional prescriptive internship experience.  I didn't say they required more IDP specifically - I said additional internship.  My state has its own experience requirements with its own experience categories, reporting forms, etc. for those who are applying through the longer experience route, which is specifically referred to as "internship" in the state regs.

Again to the original poster: go directly to the state's regulations for any state in which you're interested.  Nobody on archinect has comprehensive knowledge of every state's requirements. 

Here there's DPE for the extra years beyond IDP.  There's a matrix with 20+ types of experience and skills and minimum % of time to be spent on each, and minimum hours per week, minimum weeks worked at a job, acceptable types of firms: so it's not called IDP but it has actually more rules than IDP.  If you want to split hairs ours isn't called internship but it still doesn't let you just rack up random FTE hours in a firm until you reach x years' worth. If you don't finish the matrix it could still take you however many more years until you do.

I'm in PA currently, but I've also been considering practicing in California, Oregon, or New York. Did some more looking, according to the CA Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists: "a structural engineer may design any building of any type." If I'm remembering this correctly, an SE license is required in addition to a PE in California. That may be my best bet, though, if I want to begin practicing as quickly as possible.

Do you want to be an architect or an engineer? Engineering within the architectural scope will pay better, be more challenging and requires nothing more than the B.S/M.S you will be getting. I suggest working in engineering...many have become quite design heavy with advanced geometry and technology teams such as at ARUP or facade engineering and structural firms working on interesting buildings. Try out a few different firms try to get into a design heavy engineering firm that works with leading architects. I think that you will find as much or  more interesting work in AE most architectural jobs anyone can do...drafting making some renderings... not brain busters.

I agree that my career prospects would almost certainly be better in the engineering route, but ideally I'd like to do both. The dream is to start my own full-service design & engineering practice. If I stay on track I should be able to earn my PE before I turn 30, so depending on the state I choose to practice in I may be able to make that dream happen sooner rather than later.

naive...you should focus on one or the other...there are good engineers and good architects..never both.  architecture takes a lifetime to master, to become a good structural engineer you need a least 5-10 years in the field, even then, so many are so bad, typical detail guys, sloppy, lazy engineers...

to do both would mean that you excel in one and fall behind in the other..know a guy like that, SE and architect, sad fact was, he was an engineer to the core, shitty designer and never got any better...

Chigurh, you're probably right, but I'd like to try and fail before I give up for good. I still have a long time before I need to make that decision anyway, but it doesn't hurt to sort out my goals ahead of time.

if your end goal is to be an architect, working in structural for a handful of years will help, if you decide architecture is not for you, having a PE is a good goal to set to give you some flexibility down the road...

It is extremely difficult to practice both, from the skill sets needed to the ins and outs of running a practice, liability etc.  I know a structural practice that was successful, added in-house architects, went out of business, cause all the architects quit hiring them for trying to infringe on their market...there are weird political things like that you would never think of.

You might be able to do both, for smaller scale projects...nobody can design and engineer a high-rise on their own...a home...fine.  If your intent is to do larger more complex projects...you should pick one or the other.

Romantic idea to be the lone practitioner...but you will need other consultants at some point...it is never a solo effort.