B.Arch vs B.S. in Architecture.

Both are good, but B.Arch degrees are professional 5 year (typically) degrees where as B.S in Architecture are 4 year and not accredited. When you do a B.S, you need to do a masters (4+2) in order to get licensed. So in the case of the 4+2 route, the master's is the accredited program. You should consider however, that most B.Arch programs use trimesters as opposed to semester of a B.S...so really it takes about the same amount of time (of study). You may realize also that "better" ranked schools typically have B.Arch programs, this isn't necessarily because they're better, just that schools may be a lot older than those with B.S programs. As we move onto the future, more schools are implementing B.S programs because they can better implement courses outside of just architecture (technically a more diverse education). I wouldn't worry so much about the path, I would worry more about the content of whichever program you're planning on joining. Not all architecture schools teach the same kind of architecture, so look for something that better matches your interests. Also, that sciences vs art inclination thing you mention...that's not necessarily true either. In terms of employment, I would say the same thing, depending on which program you pick, it can lead you to different studios...

Harvard may land you at Foster & partners..

Sci-Arc may land you at Morphosis...

Cooper union may land you at OMA...

etc...

He wasn't asking about a BArch, he was asking about a BA (bachelors of arts in architecture) Which is usually an unaccredited 4 year program like the BS. 

To Mr Almost's comment though, you might consider a BArch over either of these. I think a lot of it relies on where in the country you are at though, because the popularity of each program type varies by geography. 

Big difference is not so much art's vs science in my eyes, that varies by program, but rather the inclusion of required elements for accredited programs. If you look at required courses for accredited grad programs you'll typically notice less are covered in BA programs. 

Hence, the real advantage to one or the other is time you'll spend in school (and on school) 

Typical routes seem to be: 


BA (4+3) where the 3 year grad program is the accredited degree (you don't even need an architecture degree for this though) 
BS (4+2) where the 3 year grad program is the accredited degree. 
BArch (5) Where you just do a 5 year accredited degree
BArch (5+1) where you do the 5 year accredited degree and a short grad program for gravy 

Less time in school is an advantage, so is more time. It depends how you look at it and what you want to get out of it. 

Personally, I did a 4+2, but that was based on the local programs (midwest). I thought it was a nice balance. 

If I could go back, I'd probably do a BArch at a cheep school and be done with it, because loans. haha. 


Best, 
NM