Okay thanks for the info! I have read that it will take 7 or more years? Has this been what you have see
n in the past as well?

Have you ever heard of anyone being able to get accepted to a masters program after completing all or some of the sylabus program?

The RAIC is an alternative to the M.Arch... there are no cross-overs and you need to pick either one. The RAIC is typically 7y unless you get some credit for existing coursework. This is a case-by-case thing so can't say much.

Okay good to know. Thanks!

Okay thanks for the advice! Have you ever heard of anyone getting accepted into a masters program for architecture after completing some or all of the sylabus program or is that something that’s not even possible. Just wondering if my two diplomas, work experience at an architecture firm, some sylabus courses and a good portfolio would get me even close to being accepted into a masters program. Or is that stric
tly for university graduates?

M.arch require a bachelor degree (at the very least) for acceptance. The RAIC Syllabus is not a bachelors... not even close.

Okay thanks for the information!

It is equivalent to a M.arch once completed. Don't let NS dumb it down. I have 9 design studio to complete plus the same University theory classes to complete as the traditional route, all while working full time.

Hip, I know you're responding to me because this thread was necro'd by the below comment... but the intent of my comment here was to explain the entry requirement differences between syllabus and a university masters degree. Besides that, the level of difficulty between syllabus and most M.arch is not the same.

As a senior level student in Syllabus at the last part of the program which is the graduating research and design project I would like to know what the difference of difficulty is between syllabus and M.arch that you are claiming? I find lots of people who have not enrolled in Syllabus like to claim they have knowledge about the program without first hand experiencing, leading to misconception of the program to people who actually would benefit from this.

As a senior level student in Syllabus at the last part of the program which is the graduating research and design project I would like to know what the difference of difficulty is between syllabus and M.arch that you are claiming? I find lots of people who have not enrolled in Syllabus like to claim they have knowledge about the program without first hand experiencing, leading to misconception of the program to people who actually would benefit from this.

^ not sure why you redirected this thread, but since you implied I don’t know anything about the syllabus, you’ll be pleasantly surprised to know that my office is heavily involved in the syllabus and even I am personally responsible to supervise one applicant’s prof hours. The syllabus serves a purpose and that is to offer an alternative path to qualify to write the ExACs. The academic level, on average, is not great nor are the projects the studios pump out but that’s expected with mostly self-guided studies. There is more structure and greater academic effort, in general, in most M.arch. Which is why it’s 2y to 3y worth of school vs 7+.

But to add to the above, I constantly flip in favour of and against the syllabus. My main beef is that you don’t get anything after completion other than the ability to write the exams. At least a M.arch is recognized as an advanced design design with many more opportunities beyond architecture. I just hate the thought of a technologist running the syllabus gauntlet and still staying a tech afterwards.