Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
University of Southern California (USC)
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
Kansas State University
M. Arch II VS MS. Arch
I know that M. Arch II is a first professional degree and MS. Arch is a post professional, but which would be advised? In many universities, MS. Arch is clubbed into the M. Arch II itself, so I basically want to understand the advantages that each of them hold over the other.
If you do not need a professional degree go for a specialist degree that is NOT part of the architecture programme itself. You will grow more than have two different degrees making it easier to shift from one to the other in the future.
MArch I is a first professional degree, MArch II and MS Arch (and MSAAD and SMArchS etc etc) are post-professional degrees. These usually require that you already have a professional architecture degree, an MArch I or BArch. As far as what advantages each of these post-professional degrees grant over each-other, that depends on the school and what you want to learn. Do you have any particular schools in mind?
Yeah, I've gotten into Pratt M. Arch. And I'm currently wondering if I should shift to their MS. Arch program(As I have a B.Arch), but it's only a 3 semester course. I was thinking that 3 semesters wouldn't be enough for the exposure and learning. Which course would be better advised? (M. Arch at Pratt is NAAB accredited as well as STEM whereas MS. Arch is only STEM accredited).
Congrats! It's an interesting choice to have to make, and since you've already been accepted, I wouldn't hesitate to contact advisors at Pratt directly. However, I can say that if you enroll in the MArch, you will likely have to repeat a lot of information, which can be frustrating. Personally, I wouldn't do it unless it was absolutely necessary to become licensed in the US. If you choose the MS route, you'll have a chance to specialize your skillset and advance your representational abilities. You'll also pay half the price of the MArch. It really boils down to cost, whether or not NAAB recognizes your BArch, and if you care about becoming licensed in the US.
I am applying for Masters program and I'm really confused between MS in Arch and M.Arch II. Both the programs are not NAAB accredited. But 1 year is quite less time to explore things. Will it be beneficial to pursue MS if I have done my 5years B.Arch Program. I am interested more in specialised field like architecture and entertainment. But i am unsure if I m making the right decision of choosing MS because of program's duration.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.