Yup, lots of us got stuck with that one.  Keep your analyst job, grass is not always greener.

Also, you don't have to have a license to do architecture.

The point was to phase out the 5 year program which would ensure that you would pay them for an extra year of tuition/fees.  In your case it didn't work, cuz you apparently didn't stay for the masters program.  But they sure do catch a lot of fish with this bait.

no you don't but it sure does limit the kinds of architecture you can do.  also what kind of career you can have.

so you need an m.arch.  you can save up and do it later if you feel like getting back onto the treadmill.  in meantime enjoy the break !  architecture is not an easy business right now.

the reason for the weird 4+2 split eludes me.  maybe it is an artifact of the system at universities not matching the needs of a professional program?

I think it's to be more like other professional degrees, but with the portfolio instead of a specialized exam to get in.  But then maybe they should call the 4-year degree a "pre-architecture" degree.

I think you have to also consider what else schools did when they went to the 4+2.

It used to be that someone who didn't have a lot of money could go to community college for two years.  Knock out two full years of courses, then transfer into a five year program and be done three years later.

Not anymore.  Now, you can do two years at a community college (cheaper), and then transfer into the four year pre-prof program.  The difference is that now you have to do 8 semesters of studio at the university.  These have to be done sequentially.  So even though you have 60 college credits or two years worth of education, you have to do 4 years more at the university in order to get the studio courses done. 

As to the comment about being like other professional degrees, having worked inthis field I can assure you that it just isn't required to have 6 or 7 years of college education to perform good consistant quality architecture.  Some people may benifit from the extra years but most use it solely in order to compete for a job paying $35k a year.  This comment made above is the same one you hear when they compare themselves to doctors and lawyers.  We aren't neither of those.

All in all it's kinda depressing. If I could do things again, I totally would of just done a a 5yr school. I applied to Virgina Tech and they wanted to dick me around by making me do a year of probation, which would of turned that 5yr degree into a 6 yr degree. So I didn't really have that many options.

I applied like 2 weeks ago for an architecture analayst job in DC, seemed like a perferct fit for me. But I never heard back :( . I feel like if I dont get into architecture by end of this yr, it's a lost cause. So much for dreams...

What is an architecture analyst job? What do you analyze?

move to new york: prof degree not required to get a license...subject to board approval of course :)

well quentin, sometimes the grass is always greener on the other side so it seems,
for example i have a 5 yr Barch, but at my last office they valued people with an March more highly, even though I trained a lot of them, and they were about the same age I was, some of them were placed in positions of power and one of them even said to me "why didnt they put you in their instead of me? you are better than I am".  I think it also has to do with who your managers are, whether they are 5 yr Barch's, or 6 yr March's, and as you know their are a lot of people with an March but their undergrad degree wasnt even in architecture, all in all I think you should strive to do your own thing, save up money and open up some kind of business doing what you love to do, and gradually build it up to the point that you can offer architecture services.

Thanks for the advice CE.  Yea I definetly don't wanna lose hope. I just know I don't want to make career out of being a business analyst. I'm trying to see where I could use my skills and do something that is at least related to the arch.

However, they also recognize that regional accrediting bodies, which largely drive the push to hire only PhDʼs, will defer to professional accrediting bodies that have defined their minimum standards. They (NAAB) state that they could help the cause by better defining the definition of a terminal as the B.Arch, M.Arch, or D.Arch, as each is designed to give access to the profession, and that the minimum degree for teaching architecture at any level can be the B.Arch. The problem is that regional accrediting bodies rarely defer to professional accrediting bodies and still view a degree title without the term “doctor” in it as a substandard.

Richard, Michael A. Architecture Degree Structure in the 21st Century. Multi: The Journal of Plurality and Diversity in Design, Vol 2, No 2. 2009.

well this regional body is free to think of my Barch as substandard,  just like I believe that having a Phd in architecture is not needed unless you don't want to leave the campus setting, or be a fruity designer like eisenman.

my canadian access to not so expensive education must be skewing my perspective a bit, but can't you save money and go back to do an m.arch? 

not to belittle the b..arch but if you don't have a license and a m.arch at least seems odd to me that teaching is possible.  i've said before but here (japan) the standard is phd AND license, and it doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch.  everyone is a practising architect and everyone knows all the theory and how to do analytic research.  there are exceptions of course, but such folk are exceptional in other ways usually.  shouldn't standards be higher, not lower?

you're doing better than i was at your age, quentin -  I was working at a bookstore.

jump - it depends on the quality of the education.  My 4 yr undergrad was plenty (UF), grad was 'fun practice' (UCLA), but really nothing more than that.  So 3 more years of playing with design.  Great experience, though, just saying I certainly didn't need it and it didn't do a single ounce of goodness for the real world (although I did learn things outside of architecture).
Personally, I  can't see why anyone needs more than 4 years to teach.  If you are a good teacher, you are a good teacher.  I've had horrible ones with phd's and amazing grad student ta's (that taught).

i agree trace.  anyone can teach.  my feeling though is that it takes experience, either in the real world, or just plain old time spent dwelling on the issues, to become particularly good at it.  a license and or an advanced degree is pretty good evidence of at least the time put into a subject. 

4 years is probably not enough to teach anything is it?  it is on the face of it a bit absurd - only countenanced in architecture, perhaps because we are masochistic ?

i mean, while i  am sure richard feyman was great after he finished his bachelor degree  i have this idea he had more to say after his time working on the manhattan project and coming up with QED.  Our teachers should all be taken from that level of accomplishment and experience as far as i am concerned.   otherwise why bother?

anyway, sorry to get off topic....

sorry, just want to put it in reverse a few posts.

jj - I had no idea what the difference was, didn't ask.  I assumed I needed my master's anyway.  No one tells you, shit, you have no idea what a license is !

No, no brochure, counselor, professors (no websites back then) told you anything, including the 5 year schools I looked at.


jump - I hear ya, but I'll play devils advocate (surprise!)...just my experience that education level, as well as professional accomplishments, does not necessarily translate into skills to teach.  I had fellow students that would talk a lot at crits (commenting on other's projects) that I had to think "wow, this guy is gonna be a great teacher!"

I just think this profession is over educated, generally speaking.  Too much bs, not enough real world knowledge (mostly business related). 

I don't know how to address your theory, though.  It is relevant to all education, right?  How do you make a better teacher?

Probably just pay them more!  ;-)

yeah it is a tuff thing, trace.  i don't have the answer, but i do notice that experience and a point of view to go with it makes for better teachers.  i couldn't say that architecture is as complicated as quantam mechanics, but it is complicated enough that a bit of perspective should be mandatory.

They should phase out 4-year undergrad programs. Since we have to spend 4 years in arch school, then do another 3 in grad school when people are coming into the same program without an arch degree is defeating. What if all architects spent four years studying other things before getting into architecture? I wonder what architecture would look like.

i always thought 4-yr. programs were for students who come to architecture later than high school...most 5-yr. programs expect you to apply directly, and many people aren't so sure at that point in their lives.

i think the 5-yr. bArch is a great degree, but i think that's the one that will be eliminated.  A master's is just more powerful these days, so the 4+2 seems to make more sense. 

it's true that the added year costs more, but it does come with the added credential....

ps there shouldn't be a set education requirement for teachers.  in my opinion, hiring should be at the discretion of the department...could be based on experience, education, written work, etc.--all equally valuable.

Jobjob, no one told me anything. Granted if I was smart I would of done my own research. But I was 17 and just happy to be going to college. I figured I just needed a degree. I wasn't thinking about licensing and all that. And I know that 5 years existed but didn't understand the point. No counselor in HS or teacher told me difference. Back then everyone was just encouraged me to go to college (maybe they didn’t have fait I stick with arch since most kids change their majors 2 or 3 times).

"So whats the point of a 4 yr degree" To make more money of course. I made the exact same mistake too and coming from another country I didn't have many opportunities in researching schools and learning more about the programs. I think people who graduate from the 4 year programs should be licensed too. In my school only difference between a 4 year degree and a 5 year degree was 21,000$ seriously. Granted most people who finished the 4 year program found good or sometimes even better jobs than the people with 5 year degrees (in NY) but since more and more employers are asking for more education we're still at a disadvantage. I have feeling the 4 year degree has a bad reputation out there.
Have you ever asked if you could apply for the 5 year program at the school you graduated from? Other schools definitely won't accept your credits and will ask you to start from scratch.I talked to some professors and I guess I could do that if my GPA was higher but every school is different of course.

To "The Co-Op Guy" :
The University of Detroit Mercy offers a 5-year combined under/grad/uate M.Arch. In the 90's it was a typical 5yr B.Arch but around the millennium Detroit upped credit hours by nearly 30 and it became a M.Arch. 

The point is so they can keep their "architecture" academia jobs longer and have you max out your borrowing potential.

Let's take the biggest school in the country - Michigan (supposedly #1 this year) , for example. The 4 yr degree is a two yr general studies and 2 yr arch. Then you will be enrolling in the another 2 yr to get an M.Arch. So after 6 yrs you will only have 4 yrs of architecture, and the core requirements for the 4+2 is actually less than what you have from a 5 yr B.Arch program. So go get an M.Arch and help their school grow, pretend like the M.Arch is more than a B.Arch.

Why let someone out in 5 years when you can charge them an extra year and educate them even less:)

not less, just different.

i don't know, i find the excuses a bit week.  if you want to get a license there are hoops to be jumped and it isn't like they are particularly secret.  if you didn't know in HS, fine, but now you do, so you have to make a choice. 

maybe the hard part is to make a choice and not regret it. 


@ elinor, i agree about the teachers thing.  i went to school where ando tadao was teaching and he never bothered getting a license nor a university education and he was a good professor by all accounts.  but i think he is the exception that proves the rule. 

but jump - architecture education is a checklist of courses you are required to take and pass.  absolutely nothing to do with pursing studies that broaden one's perspective before eventually specializing in a very specific curriculum.  you can't have architecture students taking, say, anthropology or philosophy courses because those aren't even remotely related to learning how to do proper waterproofing details.  Why would you want to understand the development of cultures or how to write logical arguments?  not needed for architecture - besides it's a complete waste of money.  if it isn't directly related toward a specific section of the ARE and you aren't handed an architecture job immediately upon graduation then you're getting ripped off.

hah, i almost thought you were serious there toast ;-)

the idea of working with someone who only has studied technical side of architecture and nothing else is horrifying.   architecture is bad enough already....

Jump, maybe the hard part is to make the choice to get the March with a debt of $150,000 for that $35k/year job and then really regret it.  Some people here think this weeds people out, which is true to an extent, but a lot of those people are the ones with real passion and desire and ability.  The ones who remain, may very well just be a lot of people with either rich parents or an ability to get scholorships or people who move to America coming from a country who had very low tuition rates.  Not saying these people don't have talent but that without that edge, would have also been eliminated. 

Yeah, they should just do a 6 year general studies and a few design classes, and then hand you an arch degree. It's not like it makes any difference in preparing grads to become an architect. My favorite was sex ed in college, slide after slide of naked chicks four three straight hours, couldn't wait til happy hour. It was more useful as any arch theory class I took.

Paradox, I don't believe any 5yr programs will accept someone with a 4yr degree and let them earn their 5yr degree after one year (hopefully that makes sense) but if you know a program like that, let me know. I still think the 5yr degree is best b/c even if you want a Masters it’s only a year more.

I just wish Virginia was more lenient and would just require more years of experience to get licensed if you don’t have a professional degree. And wished  jobs would stop making it a requirement to have a professional degree.

i am impressed by how little you all value your education.

no offence quentin but you aren't qualified for the jobs you want, so you wish the standards were lower, not that you were qualified?  something wrong with that picture.

Jump, to be fair, our combined total cost of schooling was less than what a typical student pays in a year at a decent institution these days. I'd be bitter too.

4/y non-accredited arch degrees are just dishonest.

I hope you mean in a global/ lifelong learning sense and not specifically to courses taken at a university.

It would be foolish to write of what someone could have learned on their own through personal pursuits and discovery simply because it wasn't recorded as a grade on their transcripts.

I knew many carpenters who were just as fluent in design theory and technical issues as architects and engineers were. Knowledge gained in school is not exclusive to those who went to school.

[Disregard if this isn't what you meant]

Bullsh...  Complete your IDP and get your license in a state that will allow you to.  No client is going to give two rips whether you have an M.arch or not if you're licensed.  You just can't stamp in VA.  I don't know their rules, do they allow you to transfer your license over from another state?

My second favorite class after sex ed was drug ed. I love listening to the professor talk about how high he use to get and all the stories he had of getting shitfaced and how that was the norm; that he needed to get shitfaced to function normally instead of being sober. Nothing like hours of seeing slides of naked chicks and stories of shooting up. Man, I couldn't wait to get high after hearing his lectures or head to happy hour.

In all seriousness, a BS or BA is bs. Then you have to move to a different state or go back to get an MArch. Too late to complain, they already have your money.

What's makes even less sense is someone who gets a BArch then gets an MArch. I was just reading about a GSD grad who 20 years later, went through his second recession, is living off his retirement fund, and haven't found work in 2 years.

Move to CA for a few years, enjoy  yourself and get your license done and move back.  Debt is forever! The hell with more useless arch schooling (unless it involves sex and drug ed:)

Jump

You do know you are addressing everyone who took part in this? These exercises in vague judgements make you sound like a moron. Good for you.

Keep your commentary direct: "Quentin, you and that loser burningman do not value your educations, and that is why..."

If that GSD grad has been out 20 years he's been through more than 2 recessions!

I value my education.  It's just that firms don't seem to these days.  If they don't value it, then my education does me no good, and becomes of no value to me, either.

"Keep your commentary direct: "Quentin, you and that loser burningman do not value your educations, and that is why...""

Tell that to the GSD grad who is out of work again and has no retirement left to speak of. Maybe  you can find him a job, job job along with the 50% of grads today who can't find work - racking up massive student loans and all that "parametrics" bs is really applicable to earning a paycheck.

Oh, the geniuses these schools produce who come on here asking if 27 or 30k is enough?... Go back and put yourself another 150k in it, by all means, have a ball.

Well, I went with the 4 yr degree because it was the only program offered in my state (other than the M. Arch), and I couldn't afford to go even more into debt at an out of state school.  I supposed I could have gone to Minnesota, but I hate winter and theirs are even worse than ours.

Right now my plan is to try to save up some money at my job unloading boxes at the mall for $8.30/hr and try to go back for an M. Arch.

burningman, you make EXACTLY  the same comment on almost EVERY thread on this forum...we GET it already.  please move on.

Elinor, you make EXACTLY  the same comment on almost EVERY thread on this forum...we GET it already.  please move on.

a carpenter who could design a school or an office building would be totally awesome.


@ rusty, that is a good point.

personally even my canadian education was not within my financial resources.  i couldn't afford 4 years of schooling all at once never mind 6 or more.  how folks in america manage is a bit of a mystery sometimes.  i guess there are always choices to make.

The point of the 4 year degree was to make you a licensed Architect able to perform basic building planning including programing, basic structural design and mechanical systems layout.  It worked quite brilliantly for a few generations affording Architects the chance to build buildings, earn a decent living, have families and be leaders within their communities.  I dont mean Architects today thinking they are special because they have a house in a somewhat up and coming suburb with two cars at 45, but president of the welcoming committee at the country club type of pull.  Architects were movers and shakers.  I'd like to plot the educational requirements and cost by year versus the Bad Assness of Architects by year just to see the inverted correlation.  We cant deny it anymore that what we are producing just isnt valuable.  Yes people will always pay us for our visions but thats not going to earn us their respect, or top dollar. 

Jump, all I'm saying is I wish there were more opportunities, I see a few but they are rare. Moving to another state is an idea. I’ll try to figure everything out by end of this year. I just don’t see myself going another $25k in debt for a M.Arch. I know people who have done it but usually their parents took care of the bill. I don’t have that luxury.

But let's not lose track of why I made this thread, it was why offer a 4yr if you can't do anything with it. And I thank the people who have answered my question.

yeah i get that.  it is a strange thing this 4 yr degree that is more or less useless.  i think the point is that you take the degree with the understanding that you will do the m.arch.  otherwise its just a glorified arts degree.

i feel the pain of not having cash.  it took me three years of working as a cook  to pay for my first year of architecture school and i had to take a few years off to work and save to finish up the last year as well.  luckily i got a job in an office after that to pay for m.arch, but it still took several years to scrape the money together before i could go back.  i don't regret that it wasn't easy.  few of my friends had it any easier as i recall. 

I figure life is supposed to be just a wee bit difficult so we pay attention to how lucky we are.