I agree that distance education would not allow me to produce quality work but I'm really just trying to find out more information on all of my options so I don't waste any time. I have heard that the RAIC syallbus is kind of meh so I was looking to obtain a bachelor's so I can apply to an MArch program elsewhere. Would Athabasca give me this option or is it only geared towards the RAIC syllabus? I would have no problem doing a bachelor's in Canada but barely any credits are given for my past education and I'm not looking to sit in on an introductory architecture class.

I would seriously consider the RAIC syllabus right now but what if I get half way through and it doesn't work out? Then I'm back at square one. These are my options:

1) Start bachelor from year 1 to eventually the 4 year + 2 year

2) Get 1 year of university experience to apply to 3rd year entry programs at UBC, Dal, etc.

3) Go to school internationally for 1-2 years for a bachelor's and apply to an MArch in Canada or elsewhere.

4) Obtain quick bachelor's in Canada then apply to 3 year MArch program.

Of course this all depends on a lot of things but did you have any recommendations for the path you see fit best? Also, please don't tell me to reconsider professional accreditation.

From their website, it's a 4+2 degree solely for the Syllabus. A traditional university route is a far better option. As for credits for existing classes, please note that university architecture school is not the same beast as technical colleges. Those intro classes and early studios are critical. I've seen countless techs get turned away due to similar perspective on academia.

Where are there 2y bachelor degrees?

Just note that there are no real shortcuts.

I have visited a lot of architecture schools and those introductory classes produced a lot of the same work I did in our college classes or I have been doing for the past 8 years on my own. The studio classes in the upper years could be a different story but I would glady enrol in all of them. I'm more or less talking about the other classes pertaining to architectural technology, structures, building science, etc. Just because it's a technical school doesn't mean we don't receive an adequate education required to become an Architect.

I can receive advanced standing to complete an undergraduate degree in Architecture in 2 years at schools in UK, Ireland, Australia, and the US. This option would be amazing but of course it's a lot more expensive to study internationally. You're going to assume these degrees aren't valid but they are from institutions that have highly regarded architecture programs.

The other option I mentioned would be using my education to get a quick degree in Canada in a related / unrelated discipline then apply to a 3 year master program. Bachelor of Building Science (Algonquin) in 2 years, Bachelor of Applied Technology in Architecture Project & Facility Management (Conestoga) 2 years, Bachelor of Design in Environmental Design (OCAD) 2-3.5 years.

I've also applied for advanced standing in a professional Bachelor of Architecture program in Ireland that will be eligible for academic certification through CACB.

I would, respectfully, challenge that assertion. There is more than basic building science that is communicated in those classes. Remember that the end goal of architecture school is to produce architects, not drafting staff or spec writers. From my experience, college students with the attitude you display here do very poorly at this level of academia. This is not meant as a snark; it is just a difference in training. Contact your local RAIC group. Chances are you can skip a few of their modules and advance at your own pace without entering a 80+ hour/week university commitment. This way, the experience you're currently gaining will be able to count towards the minimum reqs to write the Canadian exams. If you chase the bachelor + master route, only the experience gained post graduation will be allowed to count.

I added more to my comment after posting, not sure if you saw. I understand that the education is different and I'm not saying it isn't. There is absolutely courses that will go over stuff I have already learned, if you think that is the case or not. It's also fairly ignorant to lump all college students into one category. There were many many students who would never be able to become architects that I graduated with, but there are absolutely students at the top of the class that can excel in the profession. Just like I'm sure there are students at the bottom of the class in university that will not become architects. If people with an education not in architecture shouldn't be architects then there wouldn't be an option to enter a 3-year masters program. I know this doesn't speak for all colleges but one of my main professors was a licensed architect and graduate of Waterloo's BArch program, so almost the same education you received. Anyways, he structured our classes / studios in a similar manner to how he was taught and although it may have been more difficult and different than a typical college class, I believe it provided a solid understanding of the basics of Architecture. Yes the end goal is to produce Architects and not something else but how is that a viable reason to not allow viable candidates to study in the profession they want to pursue. Professional accreditation was split up into a pre-professional degree and a professional MArch for a reason. Students that do not wish to pursue professional accreditation can stop after receiving their undergraduate degree and begin to work in the industry as something else. The undergraduate portion allows students to focus on a related discipline (Architectural Design, Architectural Science, Architectural Studies, Environmental Design) and then gives them the option to continue studies if they wish. Many other countries that have adopted the 4y + 2y option have very defined undergraduate programs to fit this change. Canada is nowhere near this stage and it's because there are so few undergraduate programs to choose from, only some of which that grant you access to a 2 year masters. If my education does not satisfy the requirements to pursue professional accreditation then why can I complete the requirements in 3-4 years in the United States or Australia then begin my internship hours in Canada? If I am not up to par with other Architects in Canada then you should have no problem ensuring I don't receive any jobs.

Yeah as soon as I hit enter it submits my reply.... Umm yeah sorry if I'm agitated but it's incredibly frustrating to be put in a situation like this without any viable way to continue my education and to receive credits for prior learning. If I grew up in another country this would not be an issue because there are many more institutions to choose from that offer pre-professional programs. Many of the universities I visited in the States talked down about the education system in Canada and for good reason. They understand that the real professional education experience comes from the Masters program and internship experience, and that the profession should not be incredibly selective at the undergraduate level. The reality is is that the majority of jobs do not require an Architect. It's a common opinion of many in this industry that some Architects have no real grasp on how a building is actually built and all this does is lengthen the time a project should take and increases the cost of the job. If this is something that I see EVERY day where I work then don't you think that the education system for architecture in Canada is in need of a little fine-tuning? You frequently express your distaste for some programs in Canada because it doesn't give graduates a real understanding of the technical aspects in construction, thus making them unemployable. So if there are students that very much understand how a building is put together, don't you think there should be more options for them to continue their studies and receive professional accreditation? Having more Architects that understand this will reduce the headache that is apparent in so many jobs in Canada. As for jobs that require an Architect's design, it will still be given to the best design so there should not be any worry there. Sorry again for the agitation but I'm sure you can understand my frustration to some extent, if you disagree with me or not. I figured you of all people would better understand that the individual student is in charge of their education and not so much the institution, although the institution is incredibly important as well. Anyways I hope some of this can change your opinion on the undergraduate portion of Architecture in Canada. Thanks for all the information!!!!

Paragraphs would certainly help... Hey Grand Archinect Wizard, how about a carriage return option in the reply comments? But back to the subject, I am not necessarily in disagreement with you, I am just listing the process. What irks me is that the undergrad schools in Canada have vastly different programs but yet everyone of them boosts itself as "highly ranked", or "one of the top" when in reality, few actually produce students who can adapt well to the real world. I would however refrain from statements such "architects have no grasp of building construction" because you would loose that argument 9 times out of 10. If that is the environment you work in, you'd better move to greener pastures. The education and licensing process in canada is actually ahead of our friends in the USA. For example, the intern period is shorter and the exams much streamlined for practical experience testing (as opposed to memorization and design problems). More to the point, there is, through the RAIC, a path that requires no university credentials. I run into people like yourself often enough and it's always the same story. I can sympathise to some extent, but options are available. Where are you located anyways?

I am located in London currently. Yeah I'm sorry I don't mean to say the majority of architects don't have a grasp on how a building is built, I'm just using those examples to show that even with the proper education, experience, and testing, a person can still not be 100% fit for their profession. This happens in every single profession though so I'm not trying to single out Architect's. This profession is difficult. As I said before, the reason I do not want to pursue the RAIC syllabus is because it's a lengthy process and if I do not complete it, I will have nothing to show for it. Going with the education route will at least reward me along the way by obtaining an undergraduate degree. Once I obtain that degree I can choose what I want to do. Maybe I have decided to get my BCINs to begin working in the field. If I have my degree it opens me up to all job postings that require a degree as a minimum and it also gives me the option to pursue a Masters at some point in any given area. If I spend two years doing the RAIC but give up for whatever reason (probably not a good point for this arguement but you get what I mean) I will have none of the options that having a degree will give me. I don't have an issue with having to do a 3 year masters program but the most viable option to do that would be to obtain a degree in a similar or unrelated field. I would much rather receive an education more focused on Architecture and not Building Science or something else if it still meant I had to do a 3 year masters. If I eventually want to obtain an MArch in Canada, my best options right now are to obtain a 1-2 year bachelors then do the 3-3.5 year masters. It just seems incredibly odd that for me to pursue professional accreditation in the least amount of time, I will need to step away from Architecture entirely when I could be spending that exact amount of time studying Architecture, which will only benefit me, don't you think?

The BCIN path is why I asked for you location. I trust other provinces have similar systems but I only know of the Ontario one. It is a worthwhile certification to pursue and although you're not an licensed architect with a BCIN, you can still offer design services in a wide range of building scales. Putting that aside, I see how frustrating it is that ANY B.A qualifies for an M.Arch while a related tech diploma does not. With that said, I would take a look at carleton's program and see if there is some sort of middle-ground you can jump into. I know their system was recently broken into several parallel paths (Design, Technology, Conservation) and perhaps, you can negotiate something using your existing academic background. Also, avoid OCAD... man, I've bumped into some students and faculty there a while back and their architecture design program at that time was painful. I wonder if they are still fighting for accreditation?

That's funny that you say that because OCAD was one I was looking into more, mostly because I know for sure I can receive advanced standing but also because I thought it would be a nice change to focus solely on design for once. I already have a solid understanding of the technical side so I figured this could be a good learning experience. By accreditation do you mean to allow graduates to enter into a 2 year masters? I know for sure some graduates have entered into 2 year masters programs abroad but in Canada I think they are stuck with the 3 year option only. What makes you think OCAD is something I should avoid? I have never visited so I don't have a real opinion to give. Honestly, I am just going to avoid trying to pursue an undergraduate degree in Architecture in Canada. Carleton could be a viable option but at this point I think finding the quickest route to a 3 year masters might be my best option. I am waiting to hear back from schools in UK, Ireland, US, and Australia, and if I can get a pre-professional degree in less than 2 years at one of these institutions, this will be the route I take. Plus I think studying abroad is a whole new learning experience on it's own.

I'll retract my OCAD comment...with th following caveat: It's a graphic design school, not a building design program. I find their focus, last I checked in, to be too far removed from professional practice and tectonic design. It's more of an interior design than architecture focus. I do know, from my time on the admission review panels at waterloo, that OCAD grads applying to architecture programs often have a hard time.

As for Canadian MArch lengths, Waterloo, McGill and Carleton range from 1y to 2y but outside students, who qualify, will often get an additional semester or two tacked on prior to thesis work. The 3+ y option are for those without a strong BAS or B.Arch, but I think you knew that already. I only mentioned Carleton because IF you qualify for a reduced undergrad, you COULD get into the 2y M.Arch. Timewise might be equal or less that what you describe. My 2 cents.

Yeah I sort of got that feeling when looking into some of the student's projects. It also has the option of an interior design specialization so there's that. I would be worried about going into this program straight out of high school because of what you mentioned but thankfully that isn't the case as I am already employable. Do you have any experience with graduates from Australian universities? They seem to be highly regarded in the rankings but I know that always isn't the case. The reason I'm asking is because there are two institutions where I can receive a Bachelor of Architectural Design in 2 years, and I believe this would allow me to enter a 2 year Masters globally. I very much appreciate all the information you can give me. Your second comment there might have just argued against what I said about doing a 2 year Masters but I guess it all depends on the individual. The extra time between a 2 year and a 3 year masters is not a huge deal to me because funding is only getting better and better and the extra studio classes couldn't hurt.

I can't say I've seen anything from the Australia schools. Just make sure the university is on the list of accredited schools on the CACB's Canberra Accord website. It is my understanding that schools on this list was acceptable to register as intern architect and earn exp towards license.

http://cacb.ca/en/accredited-programs/

Can you expand on that? Because it's a syllabus program, not an academic one. How can it be accredited? Unless you mean that completion allows you to sit for exams, in which case that's true. I work with a woman who's been enrolled for about 10 years - longer than it took me to get my education and license.

Athabasca isn't accredited, it's neither an architecture nor a Masters program. I don't understand.

It's not. Look up the CACB list of accredited architecture schools. It's not there.

thanks. I could not remember exactly how it worked. Back when I was an undergrad at carleton, it was known that the admin faculty would dismiss an entry portfolio if all it contained were college course stock plans/elevations. I've seen the discarded piles and at least back then, it was very true.

College graduates would absolutely not be prepared for the extended M.Arch, but they would still fair better than applicants that hold a degree in kinesiology. Both college graduates in Architectural Technology and holders of an unrelated degree would have to work very hard to prepare a portfolio that can be used for admission. So yes, college graduates would not immediately have what it takes to enter a Master of Architecture program but after spending a year dedicated to assembling a legitimate and acceptable portfolio, they could. The courses we take may focus more on the technical side but there are plenty of lectures, classes, and discussions that are devoted entirely on the design aspect of the built- environment. That's not to mention the countless hours of information you are taking in on your own time if you choose to. I can open up a web page any time I want and listen to lectures from the best architecture schools and architects in the world. Yes, this may not be as immersive as being in the studio yourself but it is still a form of education. Generally a 4-year degree in Canada will require the completion of 120 credits. Now, as a college graduate, I may not have received the same amount of credits as a university graduate in humanities or other arts & science courses but I have completed 144.5 credits with the majority of my classes related to Architecture in some sense. I also graduated with 4 semesters (16 months) of co-op where I had the opportunity to work in the industry and get real world experience for what the profession may be like. I am not advocating at all that graduates such as myself should be able to apply an M.Arch program, I wouldn't even want to because I know I am not nearly prepared as of yet. I think it's quite ignorant for you to suggest that college graduates do not have what it takes while completely disregarding the fact that students with a bachelor degree in any discipline can take the extended program and eventually become successful Architects. Maybe that's because you think the way we are taught only makes it more difficult but I can assure you that regardless of your past education, a person can and will always be changing the way they take in information and what they do with that information.

college credits =/= university credits.

Tell that to my two friends that were my roommates during school. One majoring in history and the other in geography, at a good university. They would laugh in your face for saying such a thing because they both skipped half of their classes and managed to graduate in good standing while only working on school work once every two weeks. Not to mention they had 10 hours less of class time each week. So you're right when you say university credits =/= college credits because in university you can pass a class while going through the slideshows on your own time and staying up to date on readings, more of just teaching yourself. How does this sound like a real education to you. Until you have attended a college to actually experience how it's structured, you should refrain from making assumptions. There are many university and college programs/courses that are incredibly easy, as there are many university and college programs/courses that are incredibly difficult. Another example to further explain the ridiculous disconnect between colleges and universities in regards to transferring credits would be that when I received offer letters from universities I was only given credit for the two general elective classes that I took: Mystery & Suspense and The Environment & the Economy. I know these are your regular humanities classes or whatever but you have to be insane to think the both of these classes should be weighted above all of my other courses. It makes it even more ridiculous because I had core classes that had similar course structures in terms of assignments and so on except in my core classes it was much more advanced and much more difficult. I honestly cannot understand how you have that sort of logic but it makes sense if you have never taken a college class. Making it a requirement for students to take classes that overlap their prior education is only a negative for everybody involved except that the university makes more money off you. That spot you are taking up should be given to another student that wants and needs to be there. All this is doing is making students graduate with even more debt which is fucking horrible.

I maintain my assertion. I have attended college as well.