i've been thinking about this for a while, about the necessity for some states to require a B.arch or an M.arch for licensing purposes. after receiving a bachelor of science and then a masters degree, i am somewhat perplexed as to why this is at all necessary. my feeling is that the licensing boards would like to maintain some level of prestige in the profession such that architects can stand alongside lawyers, doctors, accountants and the like, which i don't entirely disagree with. however, i also know that i've had six solid years of design. i know a lot of people though who had no ugrad experience in art, design, or engineering, and still got masters degrees in architecture, with only 3 years of design experience. that's fine with me, but i'm not sure why it is considered entirely beneficial for someone who has already been through 8 design studios, taken several structures courses, construction and building design courses, to simply study for two more years in these areas. even if you get a 3+ degree, you can never get as much architectural design as someone whose done an undergrad in architecture, so it must be that 3 years of design education is satisfactory for architects to be licensed. so here's my proposal: if a graduate with a bachelor of science in architecture wants to become licensed, why not allow for that individual to persue a masters in another related arena, such as business, engineering, or planning? cognates could then be required to be taken in architecture, perhaps structures, systems, or a studio. while i understand that academics would resist this notion, i feel that it would be a boon to the profession in terms of eliminating the intellectual isolation that tends to persevere in the way that architects relate to others in related professions, in addition to the way that architects approach engineering design or do business. a thesis would still be done, perhaps one which frames an architectural problem in the context of the area of discussion the alternative masters degree would focus on. i wonder if architects rely to strongly on the educational models of other professions when our own area of expertise requires its own special needs to be accomodated. i wouldn't call my post-graduate studies worthless or uninteresting, but as a professional, i'm not completely certain how the experience i had gained necessarily puts me to any better of an advantage, save for the extra degree that is printed on my CV, and that i am two years more mature.