dude if you have a bachelor of science, then there is no dissuading. you're simply not finished with school yet.

this question is way too broad anyway. what are you interested in?

Actually there are about a dozen states you can be licensed in with only a bachelor of science. Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri New Hampshire, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin to name a few. So if you live in, near, or are planning on moving to any of these states, you could easily not go to grad school. Check out the state chart on the NCARB website (www.ncarb.org/stateboards/index.html.) if the answer to question 2c is “YES” then you can replace a few years of internship for a masters degree.

If you can afford to go to Grad school, do it. However, I don't think it gets you ahead of real good work experience (beyond being a CAD-jockey, real design). Grad skool's best attribute is that it will make you feel better about yourself, but it won't necessarily get you better pay.

hey bossman, what if i told you your face was too broad? then what would you say?

actually i want to do urban planing along with architecture which is why im goin to grad school

are you actually a bossman? cause if so, no disrespect inteded with the broad face comment

you could just do it to expand your mind...

mine has helped me to communicate with people that are on a whole different level than i am intellectually and experiencially (<-- not sure of the spelling on that). doesn't help with my boss though.

Only way your getting licenced with a Bachelor of science is after 8 years of internship. Need a Naab acredited degree my freind to get credit for it, and those only consist of 5 yead B. Archs and the various forms of M. Archs. That said it depends on what your intrested in doing, if you want to teach or go into acedamia a masters is pretty much required. Note, thats an actualy masters not one of the B.Arch converted to M. Archs. For planning or a specific area of he feild you wanting to specialize in it could help. I know there are programs devoted to just medical facilitys, golf, etc.

I looked at grad school (while in it and after) as practice. If you have a strong bachelor (I did - it was all architecture from day 1), then grad school is just a luxury (and, due to the absurdity of licensure, needed to get licensed in a reasonable amount of time, although 8 years goes fast, and most I know aren't licensed 5-6 years out). I don't think any that came from my undergrad (UF) needed grad school, nor do I think it tremendously helped anyone (some it hurt, as you were exposed to the absurdity of the politics - the opposite extreme of the licensure absurdity).
You truly do not learn anything practical.

It does get you more respect, though.

But if money isn't falling in your lap, think hard about it. About 80% of my debt is from grad school, and it sucks. But really, I have no regrets. I learned a lot (I knew I wouldn't be following a traditional path, so I used the time to look into other things and learn), just not much about architecture.

Get a MBA if you can, or something in real estate development. That'd be worth it. Then you could do anything.

I AGREE WITH TRACE, the thing is WHAT to do for masters, do you think you really need to learn more about design ? more about architecture ?

the investment you will make for your masters should pay off ASAP, that to me means a masters should be about learning how to make more $$$$ - MBA, construction management, etc.

later a PHD when you've made the money and want to be called prof.EGO

i disagree with the making more money immediately part. if you want to make more money immediately, get a job. by the time the person who gets out with there masters is actually out, you will have made money, and will probably make more than they do with your experience at that point. (granting they come out with virtually none, and you take care of shit at your job.)

either use the time in school as a way to get more varied experience (in the arch field or out), or use it as a time to focus on a subject of interest. if you are just going to go, or just to take a couple more studios, then it is just practice, and you can do that at home using competitions and individual research.

I came into my B. Arch with a prior design degree ( B. L.Arch ) and didn't feel that I needed to go back to a master's on top ( Turns out the same degree and education requirements turned into a masters 2 yrs after I graduated / accreditation issues ) and felt that I haven't suffered education wise, although if you had some theoretical ideas you wanted to pursue don't expect to get to explore them in the working world, a masters is a good place for that.

If all you have is a B. Arch with no prior degreee you may want to consider the M.Arch. I have an employee with just that and I do find she is a little weak on her skills / design knowledge ( not a critic across the board ) but a well rounded education is a good thing. I also think she will be fine in the long term but it has a lot to do with aptitude and passion fo rthe subject.

i am very much the opinion that within the US which has been heavily influenced by ncarb/aia, MArch is only and advanced undergrad degree WHEN you compare it to other true master programs in other disciplines. henry ford factory workers, us all.

Masters at any level reflects a personal intent of research to be developed and pursued at a very specific level. one only has to look at the ncarb criteria and issues and it forces schools to spoon feed fodder to the cattle.

anyone who also stateS within the uk, the diploma is = to us MArch is equally wrong. the dip is again influence by licensing critieria. one needs time to reflect and pursue ones interest.

only look at various post on archinect where questions such as 'well all, what do you think if i do such and such for my thesis???'

you should know what you want to do well beyond the day you start school and the programs should be purely self-directed in ALL senses. else your spoon fed my child.

I felt the same as TED when doing MArch, especially when comparing to what my friends geting a masters degree with chemistry, etc.

on the other foot though it seemed to me i was required to work quite a bit harder than folks in the sciences even, if it warn't as rigorus and the results as defensible. i guess that all gets back to the worry many architects have about legitimacy...

so, academically the output is a bit hard to nail down.

in the real world? most important, it is becoming one of the hoops to jump on the way to getting a licence in almost all of NA, and pay scales are often nuf attached to finishing that first professional degree. pretty good reason to go on with the schooling...

where that ain't an issue it depends on your ambition...personally i think educaion in office or school is all good, and not so divided as many are want to bemoan here in this bit of the ether. any education is worth the investment if you have the time and money, and no chance you will come out of the deal less of an architect than when you went in...

One thing that happened at UCLA was that some of us didn't like what we learned about the profession. First, we were idealistic and confident when we arrived, then, quickly, you see the ass kissing, the politics, etc., and realize that talent does not equal fame.
Then came the $$.
Then came many deciding they did not want a traditional path, or even anything related to architecture.

So perhaps it was just an eye opening experience, but if it were not for grad school, myself and many others would have most likely stuck to our original dreams and pursued a career in architecture.

I'd say 60% of my education was in undergrad, 20% in grad, 20% on my own (although most of that 20 in grad was also on my own).

My experience differs from trace's in that I felt that I did learn quite a lot of practical subject matter in grad school: everything from project management to construction. Also 80% of my student loan debt was from undergrad, because I was fairly well funded by my grad program. So in that sense it made the decision to attend a little easier. Every job I've had since grad school has come through my alumni network, so I know my career would be on a completely different track if I hadn't done it - but who knows if that would have been for the good or bad...

If in fact you do only have a 4-year undergrad degree I'd be careful about someone's earlier recommendation about getting registered in states that allow this with a 4-year degree (even though in some of those states it would only take a 5-year internship - not 8 as someone else stated.) If you take that route you're likely to get stuck working in those states forever, because reciprocity in most other states will be difficult or impossible to obtain.

If, as you say, you want to do urban planning along with architecture then consider a dual-degree graduate program, such as those offered at Wash. U or SUNY Buffalo.

Yeah, the 8 year working thing before getting licensed with a B.A. is flat out wrong. Aluminate has more of the idea. I have a B.A. and I am starting the ARE after 7 years. I could have done it probably 2 years ago if I got my shit together. Some states you only need 1 more year of experience (4 total). You don't have to be in the state you get licensed in either.
But, if you want to do urban design, then it sounds like going back to school may be what you need to do.

In a few states you DO have to reside in that state to become registered in it.
And if you're NOT in the state in which you're getting registered then you need to understand that the registration is only allowing you to do projects within the state you're registered in - so it will put you in a limited situation. For example: yes, you could be living in Connecticut and get registered in Vermont because it is easier to get registered there. But: you'd only be able to work on projects that are located in Vermont. Registrations aren't portable, and reciprocal licensing is not automatic - and it's basically impossible to get registered in many states without a professional degree, regardless of whether you're registered in some other state already....

answering the original question.....

i think it definetly helps BUT depending on what you chose to do it will help more or less.

something that is a 100% help is the networking you create

in my previous post i think i was clear enough to make my point, GRAD school to learn to make money and to learn about the financial part of architecture i think is one good way to go.

design for grad school .........i really dont know

research.........about technology ?
research about history ?

dunno either

and all those other requierements for registration dang !

i personally feel that its going to be time and $$$ investment and i should invest where i feel weakness in my overall education so i can make money out of that in the future, everyone must do that reflection and find their future interests i guess.

it is true that there are states which allow licensing with a b.s. and usually 8 years exp. however, most people choose not to do it. your license won't transfer to a state with higher standards, and the masters or barch are generally the route to take if you wish to command respect among your peers. i don't personally think there's anything wrong with not getting a masters, but i think life will be easier for you later on if you have a professional degree of one form or another.

i am the boss of my own bodily empire...

I'm doing it for the networking, and to help break out of my shitty job pragmatic mindset and do some real design, and start crafting the career that I want,k not what my current job can provide. I guess I'm also addicted to learning.

I guess you could say that it's buying your way into an exclusive club, well, that's how many people make lucrative connections.

you cant beat the work experiance. The licensure requirements will prob be relaxed in the future anyways as the replacement rates for architects is trending downwards.

Although, NCARB would like to go the opposite direction, and close down avenues for licensure that don't include a professional degree. So I wouldn't count on anything.

I think that an MArch degree helps you more in the short term than the long term. I have been interviewing potential employees for the past year or so and have hired 3 people. For the younger interviewees, I am always a little nervous when they only have an undergrad education, because of the potential that they are just trying to get a year or two experience and then will go to grad school. A year or two does nothing for me or my business, because a recent undergrad graduate costs the firm money and it takes a good solid year to two years until they know enough to make the firm money.

This concern would not be a problem for someone with more experience. After a number of years of experience, schooling means less and less and the quality of experience means more and more (to me at least).

well for myself, I have to go to graduate school because I didn't get a BArch. Although it is taking a few years more, I am glad that I started with a different focus for undergrad- I got a Business Management degree from a AACSB Business School and also did architectural design as a minor. I think the business aspect has been great because I would eventually want to start a firm. Although I may not be an accounting wiz or a marketing genius, I have taken advanced accounting such as Cost and Managerial to know enough about what needs to be done...etc...so anyhow, I think it was worthwhile. Now in my graduate program, I will be able to waive classes that I took in undergrad such as Arch History and basic CAD courses and can replace them with things such as real estate development, real estate law, and construction business classes to further my exposure to knowing what it might take to be successful.

(currently applying for the helper loan to cover all thats left after fed loans for the two years of grad school im about to enter.
scared out of my mind cause the numbers are so big.)
ive had friends do the grad school thing straight out of a b.arch program, and it was a little easier to get a first job, although thats really more economically driven, and helps if youve had previous work experience. and it seemed to justify them as more of a designer/thinker/intellectual and the connections were amazing. (im talking about east coast here . . . ny, philly, dc. dunno what its like out west) i found that it was really easy to get into the cad-monkey category armed with just a b.arch and less than exciting portfolio for some people i know. i also had friends who worked for a year or two and then made the decision to go back. they wanted to get a jump on the work experience part, licensing, etc. i worked for two when i figured out i needed to go back. its a personal thing, but i dont really think you should go back unless there is something specific you want to figure out, or obtain, that you can only do, or is most appropriate to do through school. otherwise its a huge committment of time and money for ? i wouldnt do it for a better office job. your experience (work, volunteer, professional) counts more there. but if you want to teach, or shift your focus (like diverting into the world of planning or interiors or ???), its helpful, if not essential. so i guess if you eventually want to work, and can get licensed with a bs in your state, dont waste your time. try to work on stuff that goes along with your intrest in the profession. but if you want to teach, explore a different direction, write books, get the masters.
i dont know if if im trying to justify this to you, or me? its so freakin expensive . . .