it varies from firm to firm, and there are completely valid reasons to get it, and also to not get it

there isnt necessarily a standard to judge if you will be passed over for a position or not, though i dont think you can make a blanket statement that someone with an M.Arch should be chosen over someone with a B.Arch

A bigger judge of if you will be passed over for a job will depend on your experience and skills you bring to the firm.

It often depends on how the firm bills their clients.  Most firms have a higher billing rate for a "licensed architect" vs. "intern architect".

If it's between studying abroad vs. studying in the states, do what you want to do.  Pursue the program you feel will give you the education/experience you want.  You can worry about licensing later or not at all.  Who knows what you'll want to do after grad school.  You may not even want to move back to the states because of that new swedish girlfriend.

If you've got an accredited degree, it's a no brainer to get licensed.  What's it like $1500 now?  6 months of pain.  The flexibility and opportunity that it will afford you is well worth that.  

and like marmkid said, I think MArch vs. BArch vs. foreign MArch really will have little to do with your advancement.  

"...just hire someone else to stamp the project for them."

This is illegal, of course.

"... passed over for a position because some B.Arch grad has their licence"

This sounds so elitist.  Someone doesn't "just" get their license on a whim because they have a BArch.  Getting registered isn't HARD, but it's a huge commitment.  The first commitment is in running the annoying obstacle course of getting NCARB, IDP, learning the test software, scheduling the exams, etc.  This can be very challenging to commit to when one is also struggling on intern wages, most likely also trying to start a life, maybe get married, renovate a house (which we ALL should do), have kids...

The second commitment is that once you are a registered professional you're not just a regular person anymore.  That's a broad and dramatic way of saying it, but the laws in the US right now (this could change and probably will) provide a significant measure of legal responsibility on a licensed architect vs. a designer.  If you're willing to make that commitment, good, please use your powers well.  If you're not, please don't feel like your Master's degree gives you some magical superiority over someone who did.

For me, the sense of lifelong closure that came with my license is priceless, even if the license itself brings more economic risk than power.

Why do you think you can't get licensed with a foreign m.arch? I am in the process in California, seems like it's possible.

Also see this news item Will there be a lost generation of architects?

If you ever want to be an Architect, you must be licensed...otherwise you are just a draftsperson, project manager, designer, etc.....Either you are an Architect or you are not. Period.

Unless you are a Network Architect. 

I have a BS degree in Arch ...(hhaha BS degree) ...and I just got back from taking my structures exam ...Depends on the state your in ...but in NY you can get licensed with what you have

postal - "6 months of pain"  ..really?? i dont know anyone who has done it in 6 months... if you fail 1 out of the 7 you have to wait another 6 months to re-take it ...it takes like 2-3 months each exam ...even if you have no life it still takes like 1.5 months each exam ..most people do it in 1 1/2 - 2 years

Cyber....that is one way round it I guess..of course it doesn't really mean anything, though.

Considering that most of the professional world relies on the simple fact that claiming more control of liability and risk = claiming a bigger piece of the fee, it would behoove you to get licensed from a financial perspective.

of the three firms i worked for, they all encouraged us to get licensed because they preferred to have us in the proposals listed as licensed if/whenever possible.  don't know if this is generally true, but it certainly has been my experience

I'm not going to deny it takes most people longer than 6 months to take the tests, but that's usually due to a lack of motivation, time, or fear.  This isn't the thread to discuss strategy, but I don't think 6 months is out of the question for most aspiring architects.  You can stretch it out as long as you like, but relative to the length of your career it's a pretty brief hurdle.  Didn't your mom tell you how to take off a band aid?

Dude you could change your Name to "Brad Pitt" and then you would be and ARCHITECT...ya that is with Capital Letters.

legally, you can't 'just hire someone' to stamp your drawings...you can hire an architect of record, who will then be the legal architect on the project and CHARGE A FEE.  and where is this fee going to come from?  your fee, of course.  so if you want to share your fees with someone else forever and ever, then don't worry about it.  if you want to design furniture, or exhibitions, or teach, then don't worry about it.  but here are some things to think about--in NY where i live, you can't be a partner in an architecture firm unless you are an architect.  that's even if the other partners are architects.  you can't do anything but a very minor apartment renovation without an architect.  and usually, even if you want to do a serious international competition, you will need an architect who is licensed somewhere.  so that's quite a few limitations to place on yourself later on.  i'd go ahead and start logging those idp hours, just in case.  it's not that big a deal, and you may be glad you did later.  as for going to school in europe, keep in mind that you may graduate with a degree and a lot of useful connections in a country where it may be difficult to obtain a work permit.  not that this should dissuade you, but it's something to keep in mind, especially in a recession.  do what interests you now, but make sure you don't back yourself into a corner doing it.

TaliesinAGG: FYI Zaha Hadid is just a designer... she seems to make it work.

I have  BSc from an American University and an MArch from a European University. I can still get licensed in California (or New York after a certain number of hours working in that State). I am not overly concerned about being licensed. It is something I probably want to do someday but I am more focused on being a sustainable designer which focuses mostly on the conceptual design.. basically the point is its all about what you want to do in your career.

I want to teach and integrate sustainable design and environmental modelling into professional practice, so I don't realy need to be licesned while I do this. I get paid pretty well despite not being licesned and can rack up my IDP hours just in case.

If you want to have the title architect or do projects on your own then you would need to be licesned.

I want to be "Licesned"....just incase I want to be and Archinect~~~~~~~

Would it even be that much more money or worth the like 5 years of tests and all that you need to go through?  I understand you cant legally be called an "Architect" unless you are licenced, that's fine with me, I just am worried that Ill have like an M.Arch and passed over for a position because some B.Arch grad has their licence.

there is more to having your license than just legally being called an architect.  If thats the only benefit of it that you can think of, you should do some more research into your profession.

If part of the reason you are passed over for a position by some B.Arch with a license is because that particular job opening requires someone to legally sign off on drawings and take on that responsibility, then you will be out of luck no matter how kick ass your M.Arch degree looks.

It's one of those things that gets exponentially harder to fit in as time goes on, so do it early or it really will become a pain to do later.  I am not saying everyone needs it or anything, but make sure you have your reasons for not doing it down more than you not caring about being able to legally call yourself an "architect".

it's not that big a deal to get it, it is mainly time consuming.  It wont be 5 years of tests, unless you spread it out over the full allowable limit.  I am 1.5 years in, which includes a 7 month break , and have 4 tests passed, 2 failed, and it is painfully obvious when you fail that its because you just didnt fully prepare and devote the necessary time.  It's not really the impossible or incredibly hard goal that it can sometimes sound like

I think the trend in the profession is that progressively more practitioners are either consciously choosing or simply becoming more apathetic about negating liability and responsibility and all the hard work, tedium, risk, and reward they entail.  

To me, it's alarming that so much of what architect's used to do has been fractured off and split into completely separate disciplines.  Surely, some of that is because the world in general is becoming more specialized, but I think some of it is to do with architect's allowing it to happen.  

Surely there's great worth for a competent generalist to manage complexity and drive innovation by being able to make connections most specialists simply aren't able to see due to their narrow focus.

Certainly, there's a necessary place for people who want to theorize and do research, but if the competent-generalist-who-accepts-liability-and drives-innovation goes away then all that theory and research never makes the leap from academic exercise to reality.  

I found the most alarming statistic in the article Nam pointed out to be that only 30% of professors are licensed architects.  Of course, if a professor isn't practicing [in the full sense of the word] he or she isn't likely to put much emphasis on it's worth, and even might actively downplay it's necessity.  

.."I understand you cant legally be called an "Architect" unless you are licenced, that's fine with me, I just am worried that Ill have like an M.Arch and passed over for a position because some B.Arch grad has their licence."

Just what do you think that M.Arch is worth??? More than a license? You will find that your degree will account for less and less as you progress in the industry.

Taliesin - everyone knows that BArch grads are boorish, from the lower classes, and went to a podunk community college like Cornell.  this is why we scoff at them.  pshaw.

Yeah! Those B arch grads and their 5 years of architectural studies are so weak compared to the M archs with their 3 years of, er, wait, nevermind.

I got the BArch and at times wondered if i had shorted myself or if it would be looked down upon.  it never hindered my ability to find work or to get into graduate school.  Now I've been a GTA in an MArch studio and a couple of seminar classes, and have participated on several MArch juries and my view has changed completely.  A first profession degree seems to be just that, whether it is the BArch or the MArch.  I have not seen anything produced by an MArch student so far that BArch students don't also produce. A one year post-professional masters or a master of science is  a separate matter and may stand out in comparison to a BArch or an MArch, depending on what is done with the opportunity, but so far I have not seen a difference between the BArch and MArch work. 

As far as curriculum goes, i think the BArch and MArch are similar.  my BArch required a minimum of 5-1/2 years of curriculum averaging I think 15-18 credit hours per term and a thesis project with just a few (literally) electives over that time.  Almost no one did it that quickly unless they did not intern during the summers.  most people it took the full six years.  The number of history, theory, structures, drawing, and means and methods classes seems the same, too, so i don't think a first professional MArch student is necessarily getting more HTC or structures or drawing than a BArch.

From a totally boring practical point of view I think in this economy its good to be licensed. My last firm went under and I found myself out of work and with 7+ years of experience and a masters degree but no license. There are definitely job descriptions that are looking for licensure.. especially at a certain level of experience. I'm sure you can get around it  but when someone is sifting through stacks of resumes of qualified candidates with a similar experience level a license might be the deal breaker to getting an interview.