So, as far as licensure is concerned, a basic rule is:
4-year architectural degree, 1170 TU's
Masters degree, 700 TU's
While I embrace higher education, how is it that one with two less years experience in the professional realm is more qualified / eligible than another with twice as much time in the field? Never Understood this.
Since I am a licensed Architect, I need not worry about these things anymore, but by comparison, it doesn't seem fair to me when I see employees who are no more experienced than their coworkers achieving licensure after having contributed less, professionally.
Anyone else feel the same way? Take two people, one with a Master's, one with a 4-year pre-prof Arch degree and start them at the same firm at the same time. After two years, one is licensed and the other has to work another wo year before enjoying the same rewards. Is this fair? Is this undergrad less able to grasp the profession than the graduate? We all know the rules, what's the reason for this?
Pre-prof is one thing-I think its the people with a 5yr B.Arch who get screwed. The requirements are more extensive than the masters, yet those with some 2.50-3yr Master's degree (even those who didn't do architecture undergrad) are more qualified? Please!
People with 4-year degrees are only eligible for licensing in certain states, and it's a shrinking list. Taking this route will create problems with reciprocal licensing in other states later. Basically those programs are not regulated by NAAB (except as the "4" component of a 4+2 sequence) so the curriculum may or may not include some or all of what a B.Arch or M.Arch program would include. In many cases the 4-year programs don't have nearly as many credits specifically in architecture as professional programs do.
As far as the 2.5-3.5 year M.Arch program vs. the B.Arch: they have the SAME requirements for accreditation. They have the same minimum hours of studio and all the same core curriculum requirements (except that the M.Arch program is supposed to have slightly more Professional Practice/Project Management content.) There are other threads on this, but basically: the average M.Arch studio carries more credits and consequently meets more hours than the average B.Arch studio. Various B.Arch programs have anywhere from 6 to 9 semesters of studios that carry from 3 to 6 credits each. Studios in M.Arch programs are usually 9 credits. The B.Arch student is also simultaneously fulfiiling all the liberal arts requirements of an accredited college, while the M.Arch student's program is all architecture (with a few electives) so the same architecture curriculum can be completed in fewer semesters.
Besides which, the M.Arch grad either has 6 to 8 years of architecture or design education (if they did an undergrad 4-year architecture, environmental design, or other related design program) , or they have an architecture degree plus a background in another area. Many employers don't indicate any preference for one degree over the other, but those that do usually mention more depth/diversity of education, and more mature, professional employees.
Aluminate,
While I understand how/why the units per studio and total studios taken measurements are taken into account, there's a basic fallacy in this- at least at my school, the graduate students take almost the exact same studio the undergraduates do. We all spend 12 hours a week with our studio professors, and similar amounts of hours on homework. So if one group of students is given 9 units for the same studio that another group of students is given only 6 units for, I'd say that using those unit counts as the basis for anything is a bit of BS.
Credit-hours have to be calculated partly based on the number of hours per week of instructor time, and partly based on the length of the semester. Depending on how long your semesters are, your school may be awarding more credits than it is allowed to if in fact they're giving 9 credits for 12 hours of studio. On the other hand they may be de-valuing the undergrad studios in order to fit in the minimum required non-architecture courses into the curriculum without far exceeding the university's credit limit per semester. This is not uncommon with undergrad architecture programs.
Each time that the NAAB visits for their accreditation updates the school has to prove that it is meeting the requirements for each degree track.
With B.Arch programs there is a huge variation. Some start studios in freshman year. Others not until junior year. Some have 3-credit studios, some have 6 or 7-credit studios (or a thesis.) There is a little less variation with M.Arch programs as they pretty much all have studio every semester (or a thesis.) But on the other hand some first-professional M.Arch programs are 6 semesters, some 7, and a few only 4 or 5. The studios sometimes carry 6 credits in the first year. Most places give 8 or 9 credits per regular semester, and in a few cases they can earn more than that....
The specifics are such that some B.Arch programs have more hours of studio than some M.Arch programs, and vice versa (regardless of credits awarded.) But: the NAAB requirements are nearly identical - the only exceptions are in certain non-studio issues.
An person with a B.Arch from a school that has studios starting in freshman year could potentially end up with more total studio courses/hours/credits than an M.Arch from a 3-year program. On the other hand, a 3-year M.Arch ends up with more studio hours/credits than many B.Archs from programs with less studio semesters and/or hours....
Then you also have to factor in that about a third of all people in 3 or 3.5-year M.Arch programs came from non-professional undergrad architecture programs, and another third came from other design fields. So cumulatively these people can come out of school having considerably more design education than someone with a B.Arch.
I did a 4-year architecture major prior to my M.Arch. I had a total of 12 semesters of architecture studios as well as a year of studio art. I also have another degree in a peripherally-related field. I'm not atypical of the people from my M.Arch program. Most of us, by the time we graduated with our M.Archs, had quite a lot of professional experience - sometimes established careers in architecture or other fields prior to going back for the M.Arch - and an average age of about 30. I think the age/experience issue was as much the reason for any bias toward M.Archs that I've experienced as the education itself.
Grad students get more credits because they pay more money, as much as 2 to 3 times more per hour, than undergrad. Therefore, the university will bump up the hours to get more money.
Also, I don't buy the B.Arch as having more professional experience. The B.Arch has at least 1 1/2 years of liberal arts requirements that anyone has to have, and is architecturally unrelated. So, the M.Arch with an unrelated Bach. ends up with 3 1/2 years of intensely architecturally related Architecture education, while the B.Arch has 2 1/2 years of architectural education (subtracting the other curriculum from arch. ed.).
I suspect the real issue is the attitude of B.Arch graduates versus M.Arch students. There probably is an ego bump with the M.Arch, and it probably rubs others the wrong way. Being an M.Arch myself, I say deal with it.
jitter12, what school do you attend that charges grad students 3 times as much per hour?
That is not the case in most private universities. Actually the published tuition for most of the top-rated M.Arch programs is lower than undergraduates pay at those universities. And in some of these programs M.Arch students (at least US citizens) routinely get at least half (if not more) of the tuition covered in university grants.
Schools cannot award credits based on cost per credit (obviously this would make degrees from most public schools worthless, besides having other ridiculous consequences.) There is a standardized system for minimum per-credit hours of class time. Schools can award fewer credits than the max allowed if they choose, but they can't award more than the max allowed.
Getting back to the original post:
The 1170 units for someone with a pre-professional degree is a local (state) requirement that is not even an option in many places. NCARB doesn't currently consider a person with a pre-professional degree to be eligible to participate in IDP in the first place.
But in states that do allow this track: essentially they're saying that architecture education does have some value in and of itself as a qualification. In other words, as far as the state is concerned, two people with the two different degrees you listed are NOT equally qualified just because they have the same number of years in a firm, because the one with the professional degree was more qualified when he/she started working there.
It is the same reason that a person with a post-professional M.Arch can currently earn 117 IDP units for that coursework (or twice that, prior to 2002), and so needs only 583 units earned in a firm setting to fulfill IDP.
Jitterbug-no one said that the B.Arch has more professional experience-we are talking credit hours here. I also don't buy your translation of the B.Arch as having 'only' 2.5 years of arch curriculum.
I have a B.Arch and a M.Arch- I had studio more often in undergrad and I took studio every semester while I was there-this is the case with most of the B.Archs that I know. Also, out of 176 credits something like 150 of them where required architecture courses or electives. Id say that translates to an intense architecture education pretty much the whole time.
I think that it is a problem that the requirements for the B.Arch are the M.Arch are virtually the same. Anyone in an M.Arch II program knows what I'm talking about-they can't even give us requirements because we did them already. You can't have people getting the same architecture education and giving them different degrees. Its like 'punishing' students who decided they wanted to do architecture while they were in undergrad.
I think that NAAB needs to make a clear decision and make ONE degree to become an architect. I think that they should just turn the undergrad B.Arch programs into 5 or 6 yr. Master's programs and continue with the 3.5 masters.
I agree entirely with kissy_face. Out of the 171 units I'll have when I graduate in May, only 28 of them are not architecture. I've had studio every semester, and have generally regarded those 28 units of general education as a nuisance. The arguement that undergrads spend so much time on 'other requirements' doesn't hold water with me because a) there really isn't that much other coursework, and b) we generally don't put much time into that other coursework because we're so busy with studio! I've actually had people in the three-year M.Arch program in my structures, lighting, and history courses because they didn't take that for their unrelated major in undergrad. This indicates to me that not only are they doing some of the same stuff we are, but that their studios are probably LESS advanced, because out of the six studios they take, they are only able to incorporate elements of structure, environment, and historical relevancy into 2 or 3 of them, whereas an undergrad takes ten studios total, and is able to fully incorporate all of these issues into 5 of them. In addition to that, since 12 units is considered a 'full load' for grad school, while 16 units is a full load for undergrad, undergrads probably take more architectural elective courses than grad students do. Based on these issues, I would actually guess that someone with a B.Arch is a MORE capable designer than someone with a 3 year M.Arch and unrelated bachelor's degree. Someone from a 4+2 would probably be equivilant to someone from a 5 year, since in a 4+2 students tend to have fewer architectural requirements in their undergrad, but probably make up for that with their graduate studies.
Rationalist: some of what you've written is exactly the reason that some employers prefer those who did not major in architecture as undergrads. B.Archs often have little education/experience outside of architecture. Writing skills in particular are one of the typical complaints of employers about the undergrads they hire.
I have to take issue with some of your assumptions in your most recent post: The required credit load in my M.Arch program was a minimum of 18 credits per semester in the first 5 semesters and 19 in the last (12 was the minimum to maintain "full time" status and not lose financial aid - but dropping below 18 in all but 1 semester made it impossible to graduate on time.) All the programs to which I applied had similar course loads.
The regular credit load in my undergrad college was also 18 or 19 credits per semester.
Only a small number of B.Arch programs have 10 semesters of studio. About two thirds have 8 semesters, and about 20% have only 6. (Visit various programs' websites or peruse their catalogs to confirm this.) I taught for a few years in school with a B.Arch program in which students don't enter the department at all until sophomore year, take only drawing studios and core requirements in that year, and don't have architecture studios until junior year. This is a highly regarded/ranked undergrad program and not especially unusual in its sequence.
Studios usually count as 9 credits in M.Arch programs. My M.Arch program had a 6-credit studio the first semester and 9-credit studios in each after that.
Yes, some undergrad B.Archs have 10 semesters of studio - for instance I think Cornell is another example of that, and I know there are a few others too. Most do not.
I feel that a person with only 21 credits (5 courses??) of liberal arts does not have a college education so much as a trade.
I understand the sentiment of the 4+2 having more exposure than the 3.5 year masters. There is no denying it. However, I have not met anyone who has felt prepared for the workplace out of school regardless of their exposure. Let's face it. A majority of architecture is on-the-job training.
Old McDonald, i went to UT-Arlington, where graduate tuition was routinely double the undergrad. If we could take a elective under the senior number rather than the grad number, we would have. Triple may have been exaggeration, but then factor in the expectations of grad studio and expense. It could easily escalate from there.
Rationalist,
28 credits of non architecture classes? Is this a Bachelor's program? Sounds way out of whack. The Bachelors I got required 4 courses in most subjects (english, history, economics, math, science, foreign language) as well as electives related but not in the same school. I sure hope you love architecture, because it sounds like changing career paths would be a bitch.
I'm in a 4+2 program now. I've been looking at grad curriculum and I'm a little confused about some things. It seems that most have an M.Arch for people with B.Arch degrees, and the only other option is an M.Arch for career change, which is 3.5 years. Are there only specific programs that conform to the 4+2 program? If I attended the schools that do not do 4+2, would I enter the M.Arch for the B.Arch or the career change with advanced placement? It seemed to me that a few schools were offering a 3 year degree to people in my situation which seems a little weird.
By the way, my aim is to be licensed, which would negate the Masters of Environmental Design degrees. (My bachelor's will be in Environmental Design - Architectural Studies)
Bloopox, you stated that someone with a 4 year pre-prof. degree cannot enroll in IDP. If, it's a NAAB accredited program, you can start logging IDP units after your 3rd year (provided that you meet the mininum "continuous time employed" requirements. And, it's actually cheaper to enroll as a student, than as a professsional - provided that your firm doesn't pick up the tab.
Hutch, that's correct (partially. IDP isn't actually cheaper if you start early - it's just that they allow students and new grads to pay only part of the fee and defer the rest until later.)
However: to complete IDP one of the requirements is that you have an NAAB-accredited professional degree. In other words, NCARB is assuming that the person who starts IDP after their 3rd year in a 4 year program is then going to go on and complete a professional degree.
You can't complete IDP without a professional degree - though some states will allow an IDP record with 1170 training units to satisfy their state's training requirements for registration. In other words, they are accepting what NCARB still considers to be an incomplete record.
One other thing: it's usually more expensive in the long run to start your IDP record while in school. Here is why:
NCARB's fee for compilation of your record only covers services for 3 years from the date that you start the record. If you are in your 3rd year of a B.Arch or of a 4-year program when you start your record you will probably ultimately have experience that spans more than 3 years, since most of the experience you earn while in school will only be part-time or summers. A person with either degree will still most likely be completing IDP after graduation, and the total years since opening the record will be more than 3 (especially for the 4-year guy, since he won't graduate from the M.Arch for a couple more years.) So if you start your record after 3rd year you'll ultimately be paying a fee annually for each year that your internship exceeds 3 years. My own began after my 4th year in a 4+2 program, but I chose to attend an M.Arch program that doesn't have advanced standing, so that took 3 years, and then it took more than 3 years to get all the IDP units in the required categories - total 7 years worth of fees. Let's hope you do it more quickly.
Who made NCARB the boss anyways? Isnt this a states rights issue? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but did our architecture heros such as Frank or Mies, even have an architecture degree? I think not.
It is a states rights issue. And there are many states that still allow people to become registered without following NCARB's rules. The problem is that most states - even some that will allow initial registration without following NCARB's rules - will not allow reciprocal registration without an NCARB certificate.
And you can't get the NCARB certificate without following NCARB's rules.
And the list of states that will allow reciprocity without it keeps shrinking.
And even some states who appear to allow it will do so only under certain circumstances - often a grandfather-clause situation, meaning if you were registered before such and such date, or have x years of experience you can use different rules, but if you're newer than that you can't.
So if your plan is to stay wherever you are now, or to pick and choose among states that will let you practice there, then no need to follow NCARB's rules.
eeay...you're correct on all of that. I was thinking more of "first-costs" rather than long-term. But you're right, I will have to re-new my Council Record while it is sitting stagnant and i'm finishing the 2 of my 4+2...not looking forward to that....
I read somewhere that the brain drain of new talent into the proffesion will cause a shortage of architects. Is it possible some of the "ramping up" of the requirements for licensure was work protection for those in the proffesion already? A control valve? Could a removal of the limits be comming? I noticed plenty of people my own age leave the rofession simply because it didnt pay enough to justify the time spent getting there - and they were some of the better thinkers who would have made great principles and managers.
Mar 6, 05 6:09 pm ·
·
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.
Grads versus Undergrads
So, as far as licensure is concerned, a basic rule is:
4-year architectural degree, 1170 TU's
Masters degree, 700 TU's
While I embrace higher education, how is it that one with two less years experience in the professional realm is more qualified / eligible than another with twice as much time in the field? Never Understood this.
Since I am a licensed Architect, I need not worry about these things anymore, but by comparison, it doesn't seem fair to me when I see employees who are no more experienced than their coworkers achieving licensure after having contributed less, professionally.
Anyone else feel the same way? Take two people, one with a Master's, one with a 4-year pre-prof Arch degree and start them at the same firm at the same time. After two years, one is licensed and the other has to work another wo year before enjoying the same rewards. Is this fair? Is this undergrad less able to grasp the profession than the graduate? We all know the rules, what's the reason for this?
Pre-prof is one thing-I think its the people with a 5yr B.Arch who get screwed. The requirements are more extensive than the masters, yet those with some 2.50-3yr Master's degree (even those who didn't do architecture undergrad) are more qualified? Please!
People with 4-year degrees are only eligible for licensing in certain states, and it's a shrinking list. Taking this route will create problems with reciprocal licensing in other states later. Basically those programs are not regulated by NAAB (except as the "4" component of a 4+2 sequence) so the curriculum may or may not include some or all of what a B.Arch or M.Arch program would include. In many cases the 4-year programs don't have nearly as many credits specifically in architecture as professional programs do.
As far as the 2.5-3.5 year M.Arch program vs. the B.Arch: they have the SAME requirements for accreditation. They have the same minimum hours of studio and all the same core curriculum requirements (except that the M.Arch program is supposed to have slightly more Professional Practice/Project Management content.) There are other threads on this, but basically: the average M.Arch studio carries more credits and consequently meets more hours than the average B.Arch studio. Various B.Arch programs have anywhere from 6 to 9 semesters of studios that carry from 3 to 6 credits each. Studios in M.Arch programs are usually 9 credits. The B.Arch student is also simultaneously fulfiiling all the liberal arts requirements of an accredited college, while the M.Arch student's program is all architecture (with a few electives) so the same architecture curriculum can be completed in fewer semesters.
Besides which, the M.Arch grad either has 6 to 8 years of architecture or design education (if they did an undergrad 4-year architecture, environmental design, or other related design program) , or they have an architecture degree plus a background in another area. Many employers don't indicate any preference for one degree over the other, but those that do usually mention more depth/diversity of education, and more mature, professional employees.
Aluminate,
While I understand how/why the units per studio and total studios taken measurements are taken into account, there's a basic fallacy in this- at least at my school, the graduate students take almost the exact same studio the undergraduates do. We all spend 12 hours a week with our studio professors, and similar amounts of hours on homework. So if one group of students is given 9 units for the same studio that another group of students is given only 6 units for, I'd say that using those unit counts as the basis for anything is a bit of BS.
There are a lot of factors involved.
Credit-hours have to be calculated partly based on the number of hours per week of instructor time, and partly based on the length of the semester. Depending on how long your semesters are, your school may be awarding more credits than it is allowed to if in fact they're giving 9 credits for 12 hours of studio. On the other hand they may be de-valuing the undergrad studios in order to fit in the minimum required non-architecture courses into the curriculum without far exceeding the university's credit limit per semester. This is not uncommon with undergrad architecture programs.
Each time that the NAAB visits for their accreditation updates the school has to prove that it is meeting the requirements for each degree track.
With B.Arch programs there is a huge variation. Some start studios in freshman year. Others not until junior year. Some have 3-credit studios, some have 6 or 7-credit studios (or a thesis.) There is a little less variation with M.Arch programs as they pretty much all have studio every semester (or a thesis.) But on the other hand some first-professional M.Arch programs are 6 semesters, some 7, and a few only 4 or 5. The studios sometimes carry 6 credits in the first year. Most places give 8 or 9 credits per regular semester, and in a few cases they can earn more than that....
The specifics are such that some B.Arch programs have more hours of studio than some M.Arch programs, and vice versa (regardless of credits awarded.) But: the NAAB requirements are nearly identical - the only exceptions are in certain non-studio issues.
An person with a B.Arch from a school that has studios starting in freshman year could potentially end up with more total studio courses/hours/credits than an M.Arch from a 3-year program. On the other hand, a 3-year M.Arch ends up with more studio hours/credits than many B.Archs from programs with less studio semesters and/or hours....
Then you also have to factor in that about a third of all people in 3 or 3.5-year M.Arch programs came from non-professional undergrad architecture programs, and another third came from other design fields. So cumulatively these people can come out of school having considerably more design education than someone with a B.Arch.
I did a 4-year architecture major prior to my M.Arch. I had a total of 12 semesters of architecture studios as well as a year of studio art. I also have another degree in a peripherally-related field. I'm not atypical of the people from my M.Arch program. Most of us, by the time we graduated with our M.Archs, had quite a lot of professional experience - sometimes established careers in architecture or other fields prior to going back for the M.Arch - and an average age of about 30. I think the age/experience issue was as much the reason for any bias toward M.Archs that I've experienced as the education itself.
Grad students get more credits because they pay more money, as much as 2 to 3 times more per hour, than undergrad. Therefore, the university will bump up the hours to get more money.
Also, I don't buy the B.Arch as having more professional experience. The B.Arch has at least 1 1/2 years of liberal arts requirements that anyone has to have, and is architecturally unrelated. So, the M.Arch with an unrelated Bach. ends up with 3 1/2 years of intensely architecturally related Architecture education, while the B.Arch has 2 1/2 years of architectural education (subtracting the other curriculum from arch. ed.).
I suspect the real issue is the attitude of B.Arch graduates versus M.Arch students. There probably is an ego bump with the M.Arch, and it probably rubs others the wrong way. Being an M.Arch myself, I say deal with it.
jitter12, what school do you attend that charges grad students 3 times as much per hour?
That is not the case in most private universities. Actually the published tuition for most of the top-rated M.Arch programs is lower than undergraduates pay at those universities. And in some of these programs M.Arch students (at least US citizens) routinely get at least half (if not more) of the tuition covered in university grants.
Schools cannot award credits based on cost per credit (obviously this would make degrees from most public schools worthless, besides having other ridiculous consequences.) There is a standardized system for minimum per-credit hours of class time. Schools can award fewer credits than the max allowed if they choose, but they can't award more than the max allowed.
Getting back to the original post:
The 1170 units for someone with a pre-professional degree is a local (state) requirement that is not even an option in many places. NCARB doesn't currently consider a person with a pre-professional degree to be eligible to participate in IDP in the first place.
But in states that do allow this track: essentially they're saying that architecture education does have some value in and of itself as a qualification. In other words, as far as the state is concerned, two people with the two different degrees you listed are NOT equally qualified just because they have the same number of years in a firm, because the one with the professional degree was more qualified when he/she started working there.
It is the same reason that a person with a post-professional M.Arch can currently earn 117 IDP units for that coursework (or twice that, prior to 2002), and so needs only 583 units earned in a firm setting to fulfill IDP.
Jitterbug-no one said that the B.Arch has more professional experience-we are talking credit hours here. I also don't buy your translation of the B.Arch as having 'only' 2.5 years of arch curriculum.
I have a B.Arch and a M.Arch- I had studio more often in undergrad and I took studio every semester while I was there-this is the case with most of the B.Archs that I know. Also, out of 176 credits something like 150 of them where required architecture courses or electives. Id say that translates to an intense architecture education pretty much the whole time.
I think that it is a problem that the requirements for the B.Arch are the M.Arch are virtually the same. Anyone in an M.Arch II program knows what I'm talking about-they can't even give us requirements because we did them already. You can't have people getting the same architecture education and giving them different degrees. Its like 'punishing' students who decided they wanted to do architecture while they were in undergrad.
I think that NAAB needs to make a clear decision and make ONE degree to become an architect. I think that they should just turn the undergrad B.Arch programs into 5 or 6 yr. Master's programs and continue with the 3.5 masters.
I agree entirely with kissy_face. Out of the 171 units I'll have when I graduate in May, only 28 of them are not architecture. I've had studio every semester, and have generally regarded those 28 units of general education as a nuisance. The arguement that undergrads spend so much time on 'other requirements' doesn't hold water with me because a) there really isn't that much other coursework, and b) we generally don't put much time into that other coursework because we're so busy with studio! I've actually had people in the three-year M.Arch program in my structures, lighting, and history courses because they didn't take that for their unrelated major in undergrad. This indicates to me that not only are they doing some of the same stuff we are, but that their studios are probably LESS advanced, because out of the six studios they take, they are only able to incorporate elements of structure, environment, and historical relevancy into 2 or 3 of them, whereas an undergrad takes ten studios total, and is able to fully incorporate all of these issues into 5 of them. In addition to that, since 12 units is considered a 'full load' for grad school, while 16 units is a full load for undergrad, undergrads probably take more architectural elective courses than grad students do. Based on these issues, I would actually guess that someone with a B.Arch is a MORE capable designer than someone with a 3 year M.Arch and unrelated bachelor's degree. Someone from a 4+2 would probably be equivilant to someone from a 5 year, since in a 4+2 students tend to have fewer architectural requirements in their undergrad, but probably make up for that with their graduate studies.
Rationalist: some of what you've written is exactly the reason that some employers prefer those who did not major in architecture as undergrads. B.Archs often have little education/experience outside of architecture. Writing skills in particular are one of the typical complaints of employers about the undergrads they hire.
I have to take issue with some of your assumptions in your most recent post: The required credit load in my M.Arch program was a minimum of 18 credits per semester in the first 5 semesters and 19 in the last (12 was the minimum to maintain "full time" status and not lose financial aid - but dropping below 18 in all but 1 semester made it impossible to graduate on time.) All the programs to which I applied had similar course loads.
The regular credit load in my undergrad college was also 18 or 19 credits per semester.
Only a small number of B.Arch programs have 10 semesters of studio. About two thirds have 8 semesters, and about 20% have only 6. (Visit various programs' websites or peruse their catalogs to confirm this.) I taught for a few years in school with a B.Arch program in which students don't enter the department at all until sophomore year, take only drawing studios and core requirements in that year, and don't have architecture studios until junior year. This is a highly regarded/ranked undergrad program and not especially unusual in its sequence.
SCI-Arc BArch has 10 semesters of studio, totally 162 units in related to architecture, plus extra 21 units for general education..
Studio count as 6 units, same as MArch..
Studios usually count as 9 credits in M.Arch programs. My M.Arch program had a 6-credit studio the first semester and 9-credit studios in each after that.
Yes, some undergrad B.Archs have 10 semesters of studio - for instance I think Cornell is another example of that, and I know there are a few others too. Most do not.
I feel that a person with only 21 credits (5 courses??) of liberal arts does not have a college education so much as a trade.
I understand the sentiment of the 4+2 having more exposure than the 3.5 year masters. There is no denying it. However, I have not met anyone who has felt prepared for the workplace out of school regardless of their exposure. Let's face it. A majority of architecture is on-the-job training.
Old McDonald, i went to UT-Arlington, where graduate tuition was routinely double the undergrad. If we could take a elective under the senior number rather than the grad number, we would have. Triple may have been exaggeration, but then factor in the expectations of grad studio and expense. It could easily escalate from there.
Rationalist,
28 credits of non architecture classes? Is this a Bachelor's program? Sounds way out of whack. The Bachelors I got required 4 courses in most subjects (english, history, economics, math, science, foreign language) as well as electives related but not in the same school. I sure hope you love architecture, because it sounds like changing career paths would be a bitch.
I'm in a 4+2 program now. I've been looking at grad curriculum and I'm a little confused about some things. It seems that most have an M.Arch for people with B.Arch degrees, and the only other option is an M.Arch for career change, which is 3.5 years. Are there only specific programs that conform to the 4+2 program? If I attended the schools that do not do 4+2, would I enter the M.Arch for the B.Arch or the career change with advanced placement? It seemed to me that a few schools were offering a 3 year degree to people in my situation which seems a little weird.
By the way, my aim is to be licensed, which would negate the Masters of Environmental Design degrees. (My bachelor's will be in Environmental Design - Architectural Studies)
Bloopox, you stated that someone with a 4 year pre-prof. degree cannot enroll in IDP. If, it's a NAAB accredited program, you can start logging IDP units after your 3rd year (provided that you meet the mininum "continuous time employed" requirements. And, it's actually cheaper to enroll as a student, than as a professsional - provided that your firm doesn't pick up the tab.
Hutch, that's correct (partially. IDP isn't actually cheaper if you start early - it's just that they allow students and new grads to pay only part of the fee and defer the rest until later.)
However: to complete IDP one of the requirements is that you have an NAAB-accredited professional degree. In other words, NCARB is assuming that the person who starts IDP after their 3rd year in a 4 year program is then going to go on and complete a professional degree.
You can't complete IDP without a professional degree - though some states will allow an IDP record with 1170 training units to satisfy their state's training requirements for registration. In other words, they are accepting what NCARB still considers to be an incomplete record.
One other thing: it's usually more expensive in the long run to start your IDP record while in school. Here is why:
NCARB's fee for compilation of your record only covers services for 3 years from the date that you start the record. If you are in your 3rd year of a B.Arch or of a 4-year program when you start your record you will probably ultimately have experience that spans more than 3 years, since most of the experience you earn while in school will only be part-time or summers. A person with either degree will still most likely be completing IDP after graduation, and the total years since opening the record will be more than 3 (especially for the 4-year guy, since he won't graduate from the M.Arch for a couple more years.) So if you start your record after 3rd year you'll ultimately be paying a fee annually for each year that your internship exceeds 3 years. My own began after my 4th year in a 4+2 program, but I chose to attend an M.Arch program that doesn't have advanced standing, so that took 3 years, and then it took more than 3 years to get all the IDP units in the required categories - total 7 years worth of fees. Let's hope you do it more quickly.
Who made NCARB the boss anyways? Isnt this a states rights issue? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but did our architecture heros such as Frank or Mies, even have an architecture degree? I think not.
It is a states rights issue. And there are many states that still allow people to become registered without following NCARB's rules. The problem is that most states - even some that will allow initial registration without following NCARB's rules - will not allow reciprocal registration without an NCARB certificate.
And you can't get the NCARB certificate without following NCARB's rules.
And the list of states that will allow reciprocity without it keeps shrinking.
And even some states who appear to allow it will do so only under certain circumstances - often a grandfather-clause situation, meaning if you were registered before such and such date, or have x years of experience you can use different rules, but if you're newer than that you can't.
So if your plan is to stay wherever you are now, or to pick and choose among states that will let you practice there, then no need to follow NCARB's rules.
eeay...you're correct on all of that. I was thinking more of "first-costs" rather than long-term. But you're right, I will have to re-new my Council Record while it is sitting stagnant and i'm finishing the 2 of my 4+2...not looking forward to that....
I read somewhere that the brain drain of new talent into the proffesion will cause a shortage of architects. Is it possible some of the "ramping up" of the requirements for licensure was work protection for those in the proffesion already? A control valve? Could a removal of the limits be comming? I noticed plenty of people my own age leave the rofession simply because it didnt pay enough to justify the time spent getting there - and they were some of the better thinkers who would have made great principles and managers.
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.