Hi Non Sequitur, 

Yes, unfortunately I realized a little too late that my technical diploma wouldn't launch me very far if I wanted to be a full licensed architect. Hopefully that diploma will be a value add in the future, but I'm not counting on it. But yes, I am aiming for an M.Arch and full licensed architect. 

 Maybe I've been misinformed then. I've heard that if I took UofT's program I would then have to take an extra year in any master's program I got into because UofT is unaccredited. Is this not the case?

 I've heard the bad rumors about UofT, but I've also heard some positivity given their recent investment into their program. Could you elaborate on your experience with UofT grads or the program itself?

 I completely recognize that you are correct in that I would be better off attending RYU or Carleton. However, can you play devil's advocate to an overly impassioned plea? Feel free to rip this all to shreds - it would only help motivate me to strive harder for RYU or Carleton. 

 My theory is that Carleton and Ryerson put out far better results because the barrier for their programs is quite high. I put myself in the shoes of someone coming out of high school with good grades but no particular passion, and naturally UofT is the one to gravitate towards. As we all know, Architecture requires a very specific type of person, and I think they probably don't have much love for it, but they continue onward simply so they can say they finished. That's the part where people pick up these UofT grads and find them to be very sub-par compared to those who had to target Ryerson's program and work hard to put everything together for it.

 Now, I recognize that it may be the height of foolishness to think that I am not one of those people given that I am stumbling on those same entry requirements. But I would like to think that my experience in Architecture thus far, looking at the often perceived "lows" of the profession in project management, contracts, building codes, and estimates, validates me as someone who loves the craft holistically. I would also like to think that whatever high-minded concepts they throw at me will be able to be filtered through my understanding of the technical nature of building construction. And I would also hope that I would be able to thrive so long as I get a reasonable sustenance in an education about architectural context and ideation.

I see now. As per your description, you are correct that those with a UofT undergrad require an additional year in any master program. This is because the under is far enough removed that it’s equivalent to any under grad degree. Completing an undergrad at Carleton, McGill, Loo, for example, allows the students to take the shorter 2y path because they do not need that extra year to teach applicants the basics.

As for employee quality, it really depends on the student. Good students will exist even in the worst of programs so all hope is not lost, however, the crux of design education is the studio and inter-peer relationships / critiques. And bottom programs don’t necesarily attract high quality folks to discuss concepts at 2am. Before jumping into a 4 + 3 year program, have you considered the RAIC syllabus? I don’t often recommend it because it’s long and mostly self-guided, but you’re likely to benefit from it instead of spending $100k on school and losing on 7 years of full time income.

I completely agree about the peer group thing. Gestating good ideas is really hard without someone to bounce things off of.

I haven't taken a good look at the RAIC syllabus. I've heard that it's an extremely long process, and judging by my slow progress with these high school credits the self study part might be tough.

I have an opportunity to be funded for the bachelors, and that's kind of on the line too if I miss this year's application - hence why I'm so anxious about this.