Hold on Discouraged,

Try changing your alias to reflect a change in mindset. You know what worked for you and what didn't. University in an M.Arch isn't necessarily going to have the same fate as the online degree. Some people are simply using scare tactics to discourage people from entering architecture programs. They have an agenda and on a mission because they want to use every strategy and tactic under earth, sky and sea to get people to not attend a University.

First and fore-most, when it comes to Canada recognizing NAAB accredited architecture programs, it doesn't matter which program you choose. If your goal is to get licensed, then find a school that is decent that also supports their students. Choose the path of least resistance. If you really want to become an architect, just do it. Those who are whiny and crying with a pitiful me attitude are going to be approached in a manner where they will discourage you from attending.

You know why you didn't do well in an online program. On-campus programs worked for you. You know why. Therefore, you know what you want in an education. You want approachable instructors/professors, collaborative students that you can bounce ideas back and forth from. You need that synergy to drive you and motivate you. Therefore, those characteristics are going to be something you will want to seek in an NAAB accredited architecture program.

You are more ready than you think. What you need to do is change your mindset. Stop with the naming yourself as discouraged and rechanged your discouraged thinking because some individuals here are on a mission to drive any and every possible student away from architecture because in the business end of architecture, there are far too many students being enrolled and far too many supply of architects than there is a demand. Although, things are better than we were in 2009 and 2010 but we have already been in a problematic supply problem for over 30 years. That is another issue but the problem is United States is becoming too Service sector oriented. It needs diversity but we don't have a manufacturing / production sector anymore. It's a shell of its former glory. There is only so many service oriented occupation and without a manufacturing sector for more and more people to go into and make careers, we are going to continue to have problems where we are with so many people seeking all these service oriented white collar jobs that we have a supply and demand because in the past, we had maybe 1 architect/building designer for 3000 citizens. We have  now, maybe 100 architect/building designer/design-builders for every 3000 citizens. The reason is so many more would not be our competition which would never hire us (architects don't hire architects to design their homes... it just doesn't happen very much if at all). So many more would be people from production and manufacturing.

The reason we lost these is simple. We keep pushing these industries out of the cities and the counties don't want them because they are about preserving the unsettled nature of the counties. Add to that, we keep causing inflation by constantly asking for pay increases with zero production improvement. Add to that, more days off. Well, how can we compete with China where they work 7 DAYS A WEEK, 10-16 HOURS A DAY and NEVER ANY DAYS OFF OR VACATIONS. They never inflated their minimum wage and pay levels ever. Pay increase only if you improve production. If you improve production and sales by 10% then you might get a 10% increase in pay.

That is our problem as a country. US !!!!

We made ourselves noncompetitive. We have to revert pay back to 1960s and deflate the U.S. dollar back to 1960s standards to compete with the world. Our problem began back in the mid-1960s and 1970s and progressively got worse. China hasn't raised minimum wage and standard pays much if any in 30+ years. They keep the quantity of there money constant.

If the U.S. Treasury simply stop printing new dollar bills and literally burn (destroy) 95% of it with a systematic process of deflation over the next 10-20 years then we will become a more competitive country. We have to stop printing money. We have a systemic problem because we want more and more.

Canada although is not the U.S., there are some of the same issues.

Some are simply feeding off your discouraged state of mind and use that to get  you to look to some other occupation. They want them to not pursue architecture. If they had their way, there wouldn't be a single architecture school program in the U.S. They all be shut down and closed for 10-15 or 20 years. Keep in mind that some people simply want to discourage people from enrolling in architecture. If you enroll, just do it. Don't ask for permission. Those individuals that I am referring to are simply going to tell you NO because they don't want to see anyone going into architecture school. 

You can read that vibe every time they write. 

Good luck, if you truly want to pursue architecture - think about the profession, is it something you want to be part of. Is it something you want to do for your career. Think with all the good, the bad and the ugly aspect of the profession. Is it something you want to do. If so, enroll in a school of architecture that Canada architectural licensing will accept that will provide you the path of least resistance that will be providing the appropriate atmosphere of professors/instructors that are approachable for guidance, help in understanding a subject matter, collaborative student environment where students are encourage to interact and collaborate. This is what worked in the past for you so this is what you need to look for.

In your case, don't pursue online programs and most distance learning programs where you must rely on yourself. 

Good Luck.

There are people on this forum that gets off on preying on people in trying to discourage them from architecture.... deliberately and intentionally.

If you don't like architecture than go to some other profession, placebeyondthesplines? 

Sure, I completed an associates degree and a certificate as well as one term from completing a second associates and also one or two terms worth of classes from completing a bachelor's degree with over 7 full times years worth of college education of courses taken and passed. My education is probably a bit more diverse than typical 5 year B.Arch.

My suggestion for the person is if they truly wish to make a career in architecture and willing to enroll at a university program with an approved architecture educational program than do it. Don't ask for permission from people here. Just do it. There are people here on this forum who makes it a personal mission and agenda to scare people away from pursuing architecture education. 

Granted, there are some okay advice given to the original poster.

Part of my suggestion is for the person to change their mindset and outlook. Take a optimistic outlook because if you have a pessimistic outlook then it is not the right time to pursue ANY college/university. 

Optimism is a basis of hope and perseverance which is a necessity to have in college.

placedbeyondthespline,

I could begin taking the ARE in like 3-4.5 years and be licensed over the next 5 years after that. Depending on where I get initial license. 

What do you got, a fucking art degree that is worth less than a 1 year certificate at a community college in absolutely every occupation outside the AEC industry.

I'll be clear as a bell. You can't get employed outside of the architecture, engineering, and construction profession/industry with a B.Arch or M.Arch except a teaching job.

If you want to get a job in computer programming, you better have a computer programming background. Oops, they don't teach that as part of the B.Arch. You need additional education or self-learning. I had substantially completed the equivalent of bachelor's degree. If I was able to combine the credits of the historic preservation program at clatsop community college and also at UO, it would be equivalent to major. They just don't officially have a OUS bachelor level major. It would be a custom bachelor's degree if you think about it. But it doesn't exactly work that way. On the other hand, I also have completed a major part of my official major which wasn't signed into until the last term of my second year and I was only there for three years. 

Completing it is more money than my academic ability. Although, I am not exactly interested in Geography. I wasn't studying for the previous 10 FUCKING YEARS in architecture before hand. It was more on the last minute. I had more credits behind my name in architecture and related subject matter than you would find in a B.Arch minus the general ed courses which I also had completed the requirements for at UO.

So taking the few courses and going to some ceremony in a green cap & gown and yellowish stole isn't going to be any different or special. I did that twice already at Clatsop Community College.

Pay a few shingles at the registration & academic records for a graduation petition and so forth isn't going to make any more difference. There isn't any special magic. You guys take getting a bachelors and make it more 'special' than it really is. Jesus Christ, man. Get real.

When I get done with my bachelor's degree is up to me to when I decide to do it. 

What is left doesn't change and won't change my outlook on what the damn thing is. Whoop-e-fucking-doo!

Having said that.... STOP TRYING TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM ARCHITECTURE !!!!

np, 

point is, ALL occupational fields be it computer programming, engineering, law, medical/healthcare or any other will only hire people with documented knowledge and skills in the particular field they are in. 

Degrees with specific majors are just a piece of paper documenting knowledge and skill in a certain area. So is a transcript. I already have an associates degree, a certificate in CAD and one term's worth of courses to complete a second Associates. I have maybe two terms (not semesters... terms) from completing the bachelors degree with a major and a minor. 

This doesn't mean the classes I already taken are not valid. They are valid the day I completed and passed those classes. Each and every single one of them. I have already done more and passed more classes than most people do to get a bachelor's degree. I have nearly as many credits as someone with a doctorates degree.

Therefore, what is the issue? It isn't like a never looked at the requirements for a Master's degree. 

You know for a fact that I have.

If the person has a bachelor's degree then the person has options. Some require a 3.0 GPA. Some don't. It comes down to meeting their requirements and just do it if the person wants to pursue it. It isn't likely they have an issue with money.

If they had money issues, they wouldn't be bringing up the subject matter.

JBeaumont, 

There is no legal qualification for anything regarding this discussion. I will talk on this forum in accordance with my Constitutional right of the freedom of speech so go fuck off.

null pointer,

People don't hire you unless you have something more than just architecture degrees because that isn't something they will even consider you. You have to have something more than a B.Arch. It is like expecting to work in a law office on a B.Arch. Good f---ing luck. Sure, you can get a job being the bitch that picks up the coffee for the law office principals. 

The degree won't get you the job. No UI/UX job looks for anyone with a B.Arch. You need portfolio of work but in that role, you are a graphic designer not a programmer. You don't program the code that underlies all that. I done all that myself. 

Law office: Specialized support personnel in what? Getting the coffee? Reading the codes? Perhaps if the person is a certified plan reviewer or building official/inspector in having passed the ICC certification. Sure. You need more than the B.Arch. B.Arch alone won't get you the job.

placebeyondthespline:

The Constitutional right of the freedom of speech allows me to say, "You can go f--- a donkey." and legally you can't do a damn thing about it. I can state my opinion on any topic whatsoever. 

It is my opinion. So is yours.

Bench,

respond your post to the OP.

I wasn't forcibly removed from architecture school. At least not how you try to imply. I am not barred from applying to the program. After a certain point, I stopped applying for the programs. I'm not applying to programs or enrolling in classes unless money is secured. 

It comes down to money at this moment in time.

His story is skewed. First, I wasn't removed from the building. In fact, because I didn't have all my enrollment forms with me when I was at the AIAS meeting, the UO Police after the end of the AIAS meeting talked to me and suggested that until my evening class to leave the Architecture building while they verify my enrollment at the UO registrar office. I could have verified it much sooner but it was a matter of civility and I agreed as my issue isn't with them. It wasn't until later that I had to talk to the Director of student conduct & affairs who was brought into the situation.

The bottom line: She failed to verify or had talked to the Dean of the School of Architecture & Allied Arts. If she had only bothered to ask me if I had a class in the department, there wouldn't have been an issued.

I haven't been barred or removed from the School of Architecture & Allied Arts. In fact, my minor is actually in that school. Ironic, isn't it.

You see, my last year there, she was not there. By that point, I didn't care to apply to a B.Arch at that school as I do not care to pursue more of my time on them.

If I do bother to pursue an M.Arch, it will probably be after I have an architect license.

Just so you know, I did attend the evening class. The UO Police merely suggest that if I didn't have anything going on until then to not be at the building so as to make there job easier for that time being. We mutually had nothing against each other and they were doing their job and keep things civil.

It doesn't make their job easier to escalate conflict. I was heading out anyway after the AIAS meeting.

I don't hold anything personal with the officers. 

splinelessweenie,

Ask yourself this, after GED, 247 credits and 10 years of college, why in the world would you take the SAT?

When you are taking college and financial aid money, you can not just back out and not enroll. SAT isn't designed for architecture. The things they test on the SAT, I never had to use ever. You don't even use in engineering calculations. We don't do calculus in architecture practice. The most math an architect uses is basic algebra not calculus. The last Math course being Math 111 was back in 2006 or something like that. 

Calculating and sizing structural beams don't involve calculus in practice. Sure, in scientific theory of structural dynamics. You aren't going to do that in practice. You aren't going to spend the 6 -12 hours it takes to calculate abstract calculus by paper & pencil. It would be a total waste of office time. SAT will test on lambda calculus or abstract algebra. Seriously. Therefore, why the hell would I torture myself on that shit that will never be used in architecture. We don't do that stuff. In practice, we essentially use Elementary Algebra as we always in some form or another will be working with underlying real numbers and complex numbers because every value in the engineering equations used in architecture is determined either from the geometric design (structural layout dimensions for example), or the building codes or otherwise determined. Once you have numbers to plug into the equations, then you can calculate every equation as it is the elementary algebra that we use in applied application of structural design and engineering of buildings.

Asking me to subject myself again to that sh-t is f---ing inhumane. Only a portion of what you learn in school or college is ever going to be retained because of its use. That stuff isn't even something that architecture students are ever going to really be using unless that particular student if extraordinarily interested in abstract algebra and calculus. If a person is into that stuff, sure.

If they were going to test me on something architecture subject related, then I would be more than willing to take and do. I am aware of the architecture program and even their limited engineering oriented courses don't really involve abstract algebra for example. They are much more applied to real and complex numbers as the students needs to understand the application of engineering equations to structural design.

The more you play in the abstract, the less time the student is going to see how the calculations apply to the structural design and understand the equation components to the structure of a beam, load area, etc. It isn't so much about understanding the nitty gritty about the theories behind the algebra so much as understanding the equation and its application. Otherwise, students will quickly lose track and become lost in the baffle of information / theory overload. 

When the SAT requires mastering of abstract algebra to have remotely a decent SAT score on the subject matter of abstract algebra when the architecture program doesn't even involve that stuff is largely a cheat. SAT is good if you are testing the students aptitude for general ed. There are areas in the algebra domain that I am rather foggy with because it isn't something I have applied ever in building design or even calculating structural members. I studied structural design and calculation from books like Architect & Builder's Handbook, Parker-Ambrose's Simplied Engineering for Architects and Builders.

When you work with the equations in connection with building code consultation and building design, in practice it is more elementary algebra and working with real numbers because through procedural steps you take to determine numeric values to the algebraic / engineering equation symbols, it becomes math not abstract algebra.

I know how to do that. The SAT is a bit of a cheat when I have to be tested on something that isn't even relevant to or applied in the profession or the degree.

They use an invalid method of testing aptitude to the program.

If I wanted to know all that shit, I would be a physicist / algebra-calculus professor. I'm not pursuing such. I already had most of the general education requirements for the university which varies from year to year. At this time, I already have the general ed. 

At this point, I would only need to complete the major's requirements. If I pursued a B.Arch, I would only need the courses for the major not the general ed. 

When I study historic preservation or other architecture related courses, it applies to what I do now and in the future. It applies to my field. I'm already past the point of entering the field. I'm already neck deep into this pool. 

Now, do you understand my main core issue. Add to that, why on earth would I want to take a stupid test which I would have to spend a disproportionate amount of time studying for while also on a full-time class load or just about and also with work and other course load. Even if I could have taken the SAT while I was at the community college as I could get to the high school. I'm working as well and most of my work is at night during the time. So lets ask myself, I have classes or my business work in the day and work at night. I need to sleep, too. It would put an undue burden on my time to do all that shit.

If I am investing money on classes which are college credits, I'm not going to miss class for this which is exactly what it would do during the school year which jeopardizes my grade. Lets think about it for a moment. The classes I take are things I can use and do use. The SAT is a waste of time. It's short-lived usefulness for what? 

The more a person or you stay in college earning degrees, there's a good chance you will have bad classes, events in your life, etc.. Alot of times, you'd just quit. That's not good. I stick things out a bit longer. Perhaps, longer than I should. Maybe... I can't just quit at the first sign of having struggle whether because of life or otherwise. 

You got your answer. Now you can go stuff it up your ass.