Regardless of where you go, from the sounds of it you shouldn't get your M.Arch at Miami.  Might as well do your best to get your BS there and graduate at the top of the class; no point in jumping around any more, then go somewhere else for the masters.

I'll ask this honestly: do you consider yourself an academic?  Do you think, in 3-4 years, you will be self-motivated enough to research and explore ideas within a fairly defined area of the architecture discipline?  Or are you eager to get into practice and actually do the work of being an architect?

The 4+2 route has been a huge mistake and detriment to our profession, in my opinion.  People who really don't need a Master's degree are spending several years and TONS of money getting a degree that probably does not improve their job prospects but leads them into financial servitude for a decade.  Five year programs seem, in my experience, to turn out grads who can either start working or continue into a focused academic setting if that's what they desire.  if you just want to be an architect, getting a Master's is, IMO, a waste of time IF you go to a good 5-year program instead.  IIT is a good program.  Go back there.

transferring is a pain, and you will probably lose credit, prolonging your studies/loans.  but perhaps you can consider other options within your current program.  I think one of the things I didn't really find out until 2nd or 3rd year is that you can very much personalize your education.  Hopefully you get to sit with your professors on a one on one basis 2-3 times a week to discuss your projects.  Even though the goal of the studio might one thing, you can through yourself any number of interesting parameters that interest you.  And because you have that one on one interaction, any topic is fair game.  So, if the project is a house, and your interested in something like passivhaus, you can give yourself the extra parameter/research project.  your professors aren't there to push you, but rather to guide you.

Lackey- I will most likely NOT go to Miami for Grad school.  All of the better known architects of this generation seem to go to an Ivy for grad school.  As I am only a sophomore- grad school is a far thought away, but at this point I want to aim for Cornell or Columbia.

Donna- I do consider myself an academic.  I feel that I will not truly enjoy what I am doing unless I am greatly challenged, and at Miami I feel as if I am worlds above everyone else.  At IIT, I did nothing but Architecture, but the end result definately paid off.  

On a second note, I do not know if you know this, but many architecture programs are doing away with the 5 year program- it may be because schools want students to be overall more well-rounded.  At IIT I took all architecture classes and my non-curriculum classes were a joke.  Here at Miami, more opportunities present themselves to give me a more well rounded education.

As a practicing architect, I just want to ask you if I even should be worried about this?  I mean both schools are NAAB accredited programs.  When I graduate and start going into the real world- is where I go to undergrad really going to matter?  Although at this point I feel that if I was to continue at Miami, and eventually go into the working world with an IIT graduate, then i would not be able to compete with them what-so-ever.

postal-obviously transferring is a pain.  I really do not want to do it again, but I feel that I might not have a choice.  Yes, you are right, I can try to go above and beyond on my projects, and be a big fish in a small pond.

Though, I feel that even if I do this then I will still not be challenged.  Here at Miami, I am not learning anything new.  I feel that even if I do a super job on a project it will not be as if I will be progressing.

It is kinda hard to describe, but the students here at Miami were basically taught nothing. Many of the basic skills I was taught last year (on model making and drafting) I realize now, that I took for granted.  At IIT, everything was very well structured.  I now understand why they kept us on a short leash as baby freshman.  There were strict guidelines, specific due dates, and well planned schedules, and specific materials we were allowed to use.  At Miami the professors just let you do anything- there is no structure what so ever.  I have been using this analogy a lot lately- but, you have to learn how to color in the lines before you can paint the mona lisa.  At Miami they want us to paint the mona lisa without teaching us to color first.

i don't think this is a 5yr vs 4+2 issue; it's specific to the schools. there are certain people who thrive in structured ways of learning and others who need something else.

i had a very structured undergrad, but then i taught in a very non-structured undergrad. i realized that, by 3rd or 4th yr, in the non-structured program, those who were self-motivated had learned what they needed and the rest just didn't stick. built-in attrition.

this same program, however, has now become much more structured, reintroducing foundation studio work that they abandoned about 10yrs ago. they realized that there were certain skill-sets missing, even among those who had excelled on their own initiative. 

don't imagine that any school has it all figured out. curricula are always shifting and adjusting to address issues that the school's leadership sees. or to promote a different vision from new (or old) leadership. schools develop their own personalities, a function of who is directing the agenda and what priorities they have. 

if miami (fla, right? not ohio?) is not giving you what you want, find a mentor in the school who can either help shepherd you toward the resources and challenges you need OR tell you clearly that you're not going to find what you want at miami. someone with whom you feel your interests are aligned.

there must be some reason you transferred, right? what drew you to miami and who's in charge of that initiative? 

it sounds like you need that structure that IIT gave you, that Miami's open-ended curiculla doesn't gel with you or the way you learn.  As an IIT graduate myself, I know the benefits of my 5 yr BArch degree as well as the drawbacks (I didn't get to take Badminton as an elective.)  Do I feel that you've made an irreversible mistake to the detriment of your archi-career?  That you need to get back to IIT?  No.  After your 4 years you will able to reset your archi-trajectory in life.  But if you feel like Miami is not the place for you, that you're going to be miserable for the next 3 years, get out.  You already said you hated everything non-arch about IIT, the lack of electives outside of arch, the fact that shoeboxes pass as dorm rooms, and 7e is the only food on campus (though i think they have a jimmy johns now right?).  I know IIT has a habit of turning out brick-drafting masochists, but there's more to school than the wonderful release that comes with archi-torture.  I'm not encouraging you to go either way, I'm sure you'll make the right decision.  And i highly doubt whatever you do, you will feel like your education was a waste.  Even this year/semester spent at Miami, by the end of your education you'll probably see some value in it.  

Postal- Actually IIT's prime place to eat is now the Commons dining hall-which is located in the McCormic Tribune Campus Center- by Rem Koolhaus, which I am sure you already knew.  They do have a Jimmy Johns and a Starbucks (off campus) right across the street from IIT tower.  They also have an Einstein Bagel (in Herman Hall), as well as a 7- Eleven, coffee place, and what is called center court-all located in the MTCC lol.

But besides limited food options, and of course living in a shoe box, which the school likes to call MSV, yes I do miss the structure that I got at IIT.  And yes of course college is more than architorture-which is one of the main reasons why I chose to transfer in the first place- so that I could actually get the "college experience".

I agree with you that Miami has not been a waste, but I only think that because it provides more opportunities, which seemed to be lacking at IIT (internships, honors program, leadership opportunities, honor societies, not living in sketchville, "a real college" and etc.), but overall the architecture program does not seem to be sufficient.

It is funny that I think that if I did not attend that school which turns out "brick-drafting masochists" then I probabily would not have known the flaws in Miami programs at all, but (unfortunately?) I do.  

As an IIT graduate and a practicing architect? I just want to ask you if in the work world- do you see any difference between yourself and maybe other people who came from a 4+2 education background.  I don't know, but it seems as if I was continue on the path that I am currently on, and I was to have to work or compete with a person from IIT, that there would be no competition.  These Miami kids would clearly be blown out of the water.

you could get a degree in a totally different field, too.  it may let you:  a)enjoy undergrad more; b) broaden your knowledge base; c) give you marketable skills that both offer you a chance at an alternate career and prepare you to bring an interesting background to a 3 year MArch.  With 2-1/2 years left of undergrad and some of your core courses done already, you can probably swing any BS or BA from art to engineering to business or computer science and intern for a couple architects and work on your portfolio so you have a kick-ass application to a three year MArch ready in two years. 

i think the BArch is a solid way to go.  I don't know that the 4+2 (based on my limited experience) offers anything more than the BArch (or any other first professional degree, for that matter).  I think the 4+3 makes a lot of sense but only if you use the time wisely. 

'pends on what you want to do and the kind firm you want to work for.  At my (large corporate) firm, among those with less than 15 or 20 years of experience, pretty much everybody I've met has a graduate degree from a brand-name program (making a B.Arch essentially pointless).   I also think that something can be said about having a period of time as an undergrad to have a more general education, so my preference would be the 4+2 or 3 or whatever it is, if it leads to an M.Arch or equivalent professional masters from a reputable program.

urbanist, i respectfully disagree.  i used to think that i missed out by getting a BArch.  But I don't any longer.  Granted, my experience is limited, so maybe it is not representative of the larger body of MArch programs.  But I have been a GTA in MArch studios and sat on MArch juries and it seems to me that an accredited first professional degree is just that, whether the BArch or the 4+2 or 4+3 model.  Conversely, I do see a difference with post-graduate degree MArch students. 

well, no, i wouldn't feel comfortable saying that IIT RULES ALL Y'ALL BITCHES.  It's a very different type of program and the education is geared towards a more technical side of architecture.  And as you've seen the variety of architecture programs, architectural practices are just as diverse.  And you will be more comfortable at one firm versus another, just as you may be more comfortable in one school program or class vs. another.  A lot of firms tend to hire from programs they are comfortable with, it's not uncommon to see certain firms hiring from UIUC and other firms IIT.  I know the first archi-gig I got after high school was probably just because I said in my letter that I was going to attend IIT in the fall.  Also, not everyone is happy with their IIT education.  There are past threads on the 'nect about the program that you can take a look at.  4+2 programs do afford a student to be a bit more well-rounded.  Whilst you were busy drafting away scarfing go-go taquitos and reveling in the single night big-gulp record, they probably took a few more art + architectural history classes or some cool humanity elective. There's no telling what college experience will shape you in the "best" way. (It might not even be in a class.)  Do I feel like I've got mad skillz compared to my 4+2 colleagues.  No, we're different.  We have different strengths.  I feel like there is no "better" only "better fit" and even then your college education will be what you make of it.  also, i want to reiterate Steven's suggestion about seeking out a mentor who can challenge and teach you what you want to know or help with your decision.  (especially instead of taking any advice from me.)

I will say that what IIT lacks as far as on-campus opportunities, Chicago makes up for 10 fold.  The Commons used to house a little pizza joint and the 7e before Koolhaas snuggled up to it.  It's a great place to watch a storm with the glazing bowing in and out.    

Brick Drafting Masochists Anonymous meets on Wednesday nights at Cavanaugh's Restaurant & Bar ;)

and i was assuming you were talking about miami ohio, If its Coral Gables, I don't think I'd come back to IIT after a heavy dose of beaches and pork sandwiches.  plus, i've been in their dorm rooms, i have never lived so good as my wife did in those miami dorm rooms.  well, i spent way to much time on this rambling post.

To clarify, the school I currently attend is Miami University (of Ohio)

From what everyone has said I understand, yes college is what you make of it, and I guess when it comes down to the end-specific firms like to hire from specific schools.

Although Miami is wonderful socially, is a beautiful school, and is basically what you dream of what college would be like since you were a little kid-ultimatlely IIT has scar-ed me for life.  

I feel now that I will not truly be happy unless I am able to have the best of both worlds- have the "college experience", but yet be in a rigid program where I am challenged.  I want my architecture experience to be like IIT- where we were expected to turn in basswood models, have terrific craft, and be proficient in shop, as well as know how to draft, and be educated in computer programs such as Rhino, Revit, 3DS Max, Photoshop, Illustrator, and etc- no google sketch-up crap.- i guess basically be a "brick drafting masochist"

Though I still think that to transfer again would be ridiculous- or maybe the type of schools which have the best of both worlds-maybe cornell?- I would have no chance of getting into.  

Can someone please comment on this:

a) Is it ridiculous to transfer twice?  Would schools even accept me?

b) What schools do provide the best of both worlds education -preferiably 5 yr B.Arch

c) How difficult is it to get into those sorts of programs- I am a hard worker, am in the honors college currently at Miami, and had a high GPA at IIT (I have only been at Miami for less than 1 semester, so do not have grades yet), but I am in no way a super genius nor have that terrific of a resume (though I am only a sophomore) I feel to get into one of these really selective schools

d) also, on a side note, I can draw- I mean I am not really really amazing, but I would consider myself to be well above average- I have a drawing portfolio.  It would be good to go to a school where I am not just an SAT score + GPA.  

jmanganelli,

I can only speak to the hiring biases of the firms I've worked at... which is why I qualified my comment with the disclaimer that it applied only to certain firms.  If the bosses want to say all of their staff have GSD, MIT, Columbia, Princeton, Yale, etc degrees and none of those schools have B.Archs, then they're pretty much only going to be hiring M.Archs.  I fail to see what there is for you to disagree with.  I mean, you can disagree with my bosses in the partnership, but not with the fact that they make the choices they make.  

I never claimed that M.Archs are better prepared.  I made two claims: that my particular bosses want their staff to come from a particular type of institution (possibly for reasons of image and marketability, and not for reasons of perceived competence.. I wouldn't know) and that I personally believe that undergrads should have some room for electives outside of architecture.  Don't see how you can disagree with either point, quite frankly, as one reflects a hiring reality and the other reflects my personal belief that, by and large, 18 year olds don't really know enough to commit, in good conscience, to our profession ;P.  

I see your points, Urbanist.  A masters degree is generally considered more prestigious than a bachelors degree.  Going the 4+2 route to have the title is understandable.  But the OP asked Postal, "...in the work world- do you see any difference between yourself and maybe other people who came from a 4+2 education background..."  I offered that in my experience, a first professional degree is a first professional degree, whether BArch, 4+2, 4+3 --- i have a BArch, I've worked with plenty of people with a first professional degree masters and now, back in school, i sit on their juries and have even taught them and I don't see the difference.  There may be other marketing reasons why some firms want people with graduate degrees or degrees from elite institutions.  But if difference is understood as capability, skillset, intelligence, competitiveness, then I do not see a difference with respect to the depth or breadth of architectural knowledge or design skills imparted to them.

then you responded, "... At my (large corporate) firm, among those with less than 15 or 20 years of experience, pretty much everybody I've met has a graduate degree from a brand-name program (making a B.Arch essentially pointless)." and I replied that i disagree that a BArch is pointless, because I understood the OP to ask about whether there is a material difference in the capabilities of someone with a BArch versus an MArch, not about the marketability of a BArch, and in my experience, 4+2 students do not learn more about architecture than BArch students.  MArch students are generally a little older and have more life experience, and there is value in that.  And I'm aware that some firms may want to project an image that everyone in their firm has a graduate degree or, as per your last comment, only one from an elite institution, but in my experience, that is the exception and not the rule.  In my experience, people with only BArch's, even from non-elite institutions, are employed (even in NYC, LA, Boston, & Chicago), get bonuses, healthy raises, earn leadership positions, are in the upper percentiles of earning relative to peers, and work on interesting and award-winning projects --- not that my experience is necessarily generalizable, so take it for whatever you think it is worth.

I take your point jmanganelli, and, again, my comments are restricted to my particular context.  I'm sure there are other places that treat B.Arch's better or even prefer them.  Separately, I still encourage 18-22 year olds to go out and 'see the world' if you will, before they totally commit to something a labor of love like our profession.  Again, my bias.  I like the idea of a liberal arts or sciences education.   Just what I believe in.

what do you think all that jumping around will say to a future employer?  to me it would say you can't commit to anything.  why would i invest time and money in training a relatively useless college grad if he's probably just going to leave in a year?

also, the name of your degree isn't as important as you think.  some firms care, some don't.  at the end of the day your status in the workplace will not be based on what you did between the ages of 18 and 22.  a couple years out and it won't even matter anymore.

also, bring up the "college experience" thing at an interview (because your triple school jumping will be a topic in every one you go to) and they'll just see someone who's immature.  i commuted 2 hours twice a day for four years and slept on desks and couches, and i still got an education.  college isn't supposed to be a vacation, so grow up.

the time and money most people lose transferring and switching majors/schools could easily have been a masters degree.

---

fyi sketchup is practically as standard.