this is not true specifically when the BS is from a 4+2 and requires the M.Arch to get registered (admittedly something the OP says he's not concerned with). Also, most schools expect a PhD (can be in progress) for teaching, not just an M.arch, unless your name as a designer is good enough to teach the studios.

Finally, being registered does hold clout at higher levels for some firms both in pay structure (small bumps upon registration) and even from the IT department.  Not all firms will care, but some will always view OP as the "hired help to fix computers who couldn't hack it" without that registration.  Obviously OP would want to steer clear of those companies later in life, meaning Engineering and Construction led firms would be better fits.

jose, what's not true that i said about BS vs March? i'm not following your point (i have both btw).

in regards to teaching, you're pretty off there- i and several of my colleagues teach, masters only. phd is reserved for fully tenured history and theory track- in order to teach most studios and seminars, a masters is the base requirement, and most common among faculty.

i think you can expect a pay bump at larger corporate firms for a license and maybe a master, but not at most regular sized firms.. maybe a small one for bs vs masters, but definitly not for barch vs masters. it's moot really though since op isn't interested in license, let alone a traditional arch path.

you said the M.Arch is only valuable for teaching... first, the M.arch is needed for registration... and registration may be needed in order to segway into a more managerial IT position at architecture firms. 2nd, while one can adjunct for less money than your time is worth at an M.Arch level, with your own experience and writing you get at my point, without a PhD you're never going to get tenure. Both my points above are directed at the OP's longterm career goals. A lot of people here are recommending "go for the quick money, drop out of school". I'm not saying school is the answer, but OP should be making this consideration based on where they want to be 10 years from now, not tomorrow

i know several tenured professors, and even more full-time, who have masters only. i know many fewer who have phds. like i said, for history/theory what you say is true, but most positions aren't that in architecture schools.

my comments re:march are specific to the op's post, that they are not interested in getting licensed or working in a traditional firm, therefore the march isn't necessary.

I agree with Square that an MArch (but too often only from a handful of "elite" schools) is the prevailing standard credential for a teaching job in the US. PhDs in architecture are a fairly new thing and I think it will be a long time before there are enough of them around to fill all of the teaching jobs. US academia is all about barriers to entry, so I'm sure PhDs will be a minimum teaching credential 50-60 years from now.

In OP's case, the lack of a Masters is a significant barrier to licensure. Not impossible, but way more arduous to get there. I know because I have the same BS degree (pun intented). 

That said, they don't seem particularly interested in becoming licensed, so the MArch - imo - is not really necessary. Plenty of non-licensed professionals have long and successful careers in the field, and for what they seem excited by, the best training & development is going to happen in an professional setting, not an academic one. 

My advice would be to quit, or at least pause until you have a better idea of your trajectory.

Got it. That said, I would still finish the master's degree. Going into building technology and creating Dynamo scripts for wood framing aint the next Facebook (and will never be). So Id urge the OP to pause, think, NOT imagine you themselves to be the next Zuckerberg. The last thing one wants is to be a IT guy at some dumb architecture firm down the road.

Not really trying to change the world honestly. Being the IT guy at an architecture firm does not sound bad to me haha.

Setting your sights high!

the correct business model is to sell software at loss/for free until your fan base is large enough to get bought out by autodesk... which doesn't help any of us of course. Take plangrid for instance, now ACC build... pretty simple .pdf manager software with less markup options than bluebeam... but hey, I can place photos on a plan! Plangrid then gets bought for $875M

I am aware of this haha

The school aint going anywhere, but doing any continued education with "life" takes over is super difficult. Case in point, yours truly - still unlicensed dealing with 20 years of "life"

University of Texas - Austin. I have a good TA gig so I don't pay tuition, but I'm still accruing significant debt since I have living expenses and no actual income. The biggest name school I applied to was Rice and I turned them down to come here for location and quality of life reasons. I intend to stay in Texas regardless of what I do wrt school.

Just get the Master's done, and keep working at this summer gig in the meantime. You will make up the money you spend living in Texas in a year or two after landing this job.

The FK is University of Texas doing making someone with a BS degree take a 3 year masters degree, that's outrageous. That should really only be a 2 year degree, or less realistically.

Most UT students with a BS get advanced standing for a 2 year degree. But MIT undergrad program only has 4-5 studios and they want you to have at least 6 undergrad studios for advanced standing. Rice would've put me on a 3 year track too. Places like Tulane accepted me into a 2 year program. It is what it is.... I did get to waive out of a lot of the technical classes (structures, MEP stuff, etc). So my program is basically 6 studios and a LOT of electives (which mostly exist in history and theor
y).

You didn't meet the pre-reqs, i get it. That's a dumb problem with MIT then. A lot of the ivies make people do 3 year programs no matter what, so maybe that's why they don't care.

MIT freshman year everyone takes basically the same classes (not in their major)

They paid me a monthly stipend of $6500/month. And I ended up only doing about 30 hours of work per week for that pay. Their full time salaries are more than their internship offerings. It's a lot more than I'd expect to make in a traditional professional architecture role, especially starting out.

Obviously they're only one company, so how much that translates to similar companies I'm not yet sure.

Also would add it was a small company so I was working on a team of about 6 people and making real decisions, not just executing menial tasks. So at that company specifically I have a very good idea of what day to day would look like full time.

They paid me a monthly stipend of $6500/month

uh yeah quit school, now. this "stipend" is higher than any starting salary you will get in any architecture firm.

Are you being classified as an employee or independent contractor? Are they withholding taxes from the stipend or are you going to have a big tax bill come April 15th?

They withheld the taxes upfront, so I didn't actually take home $6500/month. But I should get most/all of it back next year because I only made that for 3 months and don't have income while in school.

In that case I agree with square.

Don't suppose that includes benefits either? But regardless. if you're able to make that much or more as your pay, and there are presumably some benefits on top for being a full time employee, it sounds like a real good gig for a an arch degree.

Exactly what I said. Especially since the OP is only spending on living expenses while doing masters

is the march really that transferable though, to other opportunities? if the op isn't interested in getting licensed, or doing traditional arch, or teaching, can the march really get you much else? especially while missing out on wages, not factoring in the negative wealth of paying for living expenses. imo just seems like a waste of time and money if they are intent on sustainability tech or construction.

i think i would recommend a more focused technical degree in sustainability, environmental science, etc... maybe UT has a focus or minor or something.

And the MArch doesn't exactly lead straight to a license. If the The OP stays in school, they will then have to submit to accepting some kind of job where they can complete AXP. That would rule out the tech industry and put them in a low-paying entry level architecture job for at least 3 years.

There's no sense in putting more money (even if it's just living expenses) toward an M.Arch if they aren't going to pursue licensure. That was the original intent of enrolling in the program and they've since changed their mind. No harm in dropping it and pursuing what they are really interested in at this point. Continuing to pursue something they aren't interested in is just going to frustrate them more and more.

in this instance and specific to architecture-related firms... he did say dynamo, not just general programming, correct? I know many firms who would put a ceiling on his contributions without the M.arch and eventually without being registered. Think of it like an MBA for a narrow section of potential employers. Does the MBA help you get a job? that's hard to answer. Are their potential promotions that some companies make you jump through an MBA hoop to get? Definitely yes.

If it was any ivy with over 100k in debt, i would advise against it. I cant imagine living in Austin to be TOO expensive.