Hi everyone, I am currently a junior in high school and I have been dreaming about becoming and architect ever since I was about 8 years old. Although I have been very serious in drawing and designing, I am really lost in all of the other aspects of architecture.
What kind of degree would be the best choice? I want to be able to get as high as I can later in life. I live in St. Louis and I am wanting to stay in the mid-west. What are some of the top architecture schools in the area? Wash. U. I hear is good, but it is a little on the expensive side. I also hear great things about KU. Any other notable places?
I have a few other questions, but I will let the above roll out a little bit. If you have any input, please contribute as I would really appreciate it. Thanks!!
While I don't know much about mid-west schools, my personal belief, and one which is shared by many other of my colleages, is that an initial, bachelor's degree outside of architecture is the best first step. Then, a masters in architecture. However, this won't save you financially, of course.
I know if you somehow impress Wash U, they will help financially, at least at the graduate level. But I would agree, I really glad that I did something else for my undergrad. In my experience, I feel that those who come from a background outside of architecture have a much wider range of knowledge to bring into their projects. There are a few people in my program who have some sort of architecture background and their projects look slick and they know the words to say. But they tend to be much thinner and less interesting. It's sort of as though they have already come up with what they want to do, and don't really advance past the undergrad level. Many of the more interesting projects come from people who have a past that has NOTHING to do with architecture and have taken some time off from school. Maybe working for a few years.
If your interested in architecture then just go for it. The Kansas schools are good as well as Ohio St. and U. of Cincinnati which are very good schools. U. of Michigan is great as well. As Hasselhoff mentioned some people get a bachelors in something else then get a masters in architecture which takes at least 3 years. Schools are either going to be a 4+2 program or a 5 year program. The 4+2 involves getting a bachelor in science and then getting an MArch. The 5 year is simply a bachelors in architecture with no masters needed. There many discussions about this so do a search for them here. I did the 4+2 and enjoy that I have gone to two different schools that compliment each other well. I have some issues with what Hasselhoff says about students with an architecture degree in undergrad already. That is only from a grad school perspective and would be different if it was undergrad. Yes, an undergrad in another discipline certainly gives you more knowledge to bring in to your MArch but you take less architecture classes overall in school. I've seen some students like that which are very fast at catching on and others that have a harder time. Most in my group of graduate classmates have a degree in art or some related field so architecture isn't a completely new thing for them. So, if want to try architecture now, just go for it and find out what you think of it sooner than later.
I'm not sure I agree with only going for a masters in architecture after another degree. In my own experience I did engineering for two years and then switched to architecture. It took me about 1 and 1/2 to come into my own. Also there is just too much about architecture to learn and experience to try to cram into a year or two. With that said the better students I have noticed tend to be older than average (mid20's-mid30's) for whatever reason. What I would recommend is spending a year if possible taking care of all your university requirements. Doing this will allow to really focus on architecture, this was basically my situation and I loved it. I didn't have to worry about studing for a chemistry test ,preparing a english paper and puting together a midterm presentation all at once. It depends on what kind of student you are but many people can't handle the intense education that starts the first day of architecture classes. Most of the people I come in contact with recommend an architecture undergrad and a masters in a different field. Also Ohio State and the University of Kentucky are two schools to look at.
yeah, I disagree that it's advantageous to get bach in something random, then a Masters benefits you. From my observations, it's just not enough time in grad school to get a grasp of design. All the other stuff is easy or not really that crucial down the road. Design, however, is not something you can rush.
If I were to do it over, I'd just go for a 5 year and see after that if you want to get a Masters later on. I think 5 years of design classes is what'll help you the most, 4 being an absolute minimum (that's 10 design classes, 8 design classes, respectively).
Best would be a 5 year barch, then the MBA. That'll give you tons of options and give you an edge well above the norm.
i did a b.arch followed by m.arch,
and in my experience they are taught much differently.
the b.arch professors seemed to be more well rounded generalists
that specialize in teaching architecture wholistically, and you really
need the extra time as an undergrad to grasp everything they
have to offer. in the masters programs, there is more specific areas of focus/emphasis, which is great for the graduate student who knows the direction they want to take, but not so good for jumping into 'architecture' without an architecture background, you miss a lot of fundamentals about the profession.
if i did it over again, i would get a business degree concurrent with my b.arch: the extra year of architecture school you're there for anyways gives you the time to finish both degrees with high GPA's in advance of either m.arch/mba or both.
architecture can be a great and rewarding profession,
good luck. (to stay in midwest,check out kentucky http://www.uky.edu/Design/ they have a great undergrad program i hear)
I did an unrelated ugrad (business) and am happy to happy to have had the experience. But I also feel like I need more time than 3.5 years to fully grasp the field of architecture. If I were to do it over, I'd do the 4+2 program and get an mba a few years later.
I jumped into a 3-1/2 year March with almost zero knowledge of architecture - really, Frank Lloyd Wright was all and I wasn't particularly interested in him - I did an undergraduate and masters degree in philosophy, which led me to think I might like architecture (I had done a lot of research into prison architecture & urban planning... in addition to wanting to 'make stuff').
I think not only did I benefit immensely from having 5 years of prior educational experience in something other than architecture (as well as having worked in a few other fields for non-profits, a film company, lots of retail, etc.), but 3-1/2 years was more than enough for me to 'learn' design (at SCI-Arc), even with doing a year-long studio at the Bartlett in London where all I worked on was video installations.
I designed a building as a thesis project, plans/sections etc.(a rarity in my thesis class where a lot of people did graphic projects, theoretical projects/research, etc.), had no trouble finding a job right out of school, and now about 5-1/2 years later I'm licensed and run a design-build company with a couple of partners (both of whom did the undergrad program - one went on to get an MFA in sculpture, the other went to work for a contractor and got his contractor's license).
To make a long story short, there are many different paths you can take, everyone's temperament and skills are different, as are the schools. In my personal experience, I think having a background in philosophy helped me get interesting jobs ( I interned for Denari & Will Alsop, also worked for Michael Maltzan). It also has given me some perspective in what can be a very frustrating field - I know I really love do working on concrete projects, in the built environment, and also that a purely academic career wasn't for me (though I'd still like to teach).
Follow your gut, but don't hesitate to do lots of research, talk to as many arch students and practicing professionals as you can, and not be afraid to change your course if you feel like trying something else - you may only have one chance to do something else before architecture sucks you in!
A bachelors degree will be taught differently than a masters so it is nice to have both perspectives. Also, the older students seem to be much more mature and that plays a role in their success as a graduate student. Chances are that students who get just a masters in architecture probably weren't sure if that was something they wanted to pursue when they were 18. If you want to try it out of high school then do that and you might find you want a masters in a related field or that architecture isn't for you and you can try something else.
Thank you for all of the help and advice guys. Keep it coming!
Curiculum wise hom much physics is involved? I am very strong in math, but I am having a hard time with physics currently.
I am pretty sure that I want to focus on residential architecture for the most part. Do architects do all of the "nut and bolt" work so to speak or is that left up to an architectural engineer? That's the one thing I've never really been clear on.
Probably depends on the school, but sci-arc definitely did not require physics and only very limited math in relation to basic structures courses - I was no wiz in physics, and never even took calculus, but I did very well in structures and passed the structural licensing exams no probelm... so don't worry, unless you're interested in pursuing engineering.
In general, the 'nuts and bolts' work of calculations and sizing of structural members, connections, etc. is done by the structural engineer. The architect will come up with the design and structural system they would like to use, then they will bring in an engineer to work with to help determine if the system they have chosen will work, how it needs to be modified, if a different system would work better, etc.
I think it helps to have a good understanding of the different systems and code requirements for the area you're building in (as well as how all parts of a project go together, including finish work, waterproofing, etc.). It can help you design interesting structures that can be built with a reasonable budget - it can also help you avoid designing impossible structures (although sometimes I do it anyway to see what I can get away with). Working with structural engineers is one of my favorite parts of the job - even though I never liked math in theory, in practice as it relates to buildings it's fairly straightforward. I love negoitiating with engineers, trying to get them to be a little more creative than they might otherwise be (though on the opposite side, I hate negotiating with plan check engineers, who can be extremely conservative and pains in the you-know-what!). These are things you learn by working - having real probelms to solve and asking tons of questions has been the best way for me personally to learn about how buildings go together.
also, some of the older architects might do the calculations and structural design themselves for small projects, but no one I know who has finished school in the last 10 years or so ever does their own engineering... and here in Los Angeles, it would probably be such a pain that it wouldn't be worth it anyway.
You don't need much math. They've eliminated the need for calc at a lot of schools - which is good, as it's 100% useless (I can't recall one thing, even though I got an A).
I agree with some of the other posts. My undergrad experience was stellar and I think that any of us could have easily entered the profession. An additional year would have been perfect, but 2-3 years of grad school was simply a waste of time (generally speaking, as I realized, and others too, that we needed to learn other things than architecture to make the experience fulfilling).
I could not have entered the profession confidently with only my MArch I.
It depends, of course, but in grad school there are agendas and politics (at the better schools, anyway). In undergrad the profs generally care about the students growth. By grad school you are all on your own, so some do well, others stagnate.
Usually, in business, it's more advantageous to be good at what you do and pay others to be good at other things. It's not that you can't learn it, it's not rocket science, but there are only so many hours in a day. It'd be a waste of time to have one person do something two could get done in half the time (again, generally speaking).
That's part of the struggle having your own business. Until you can afford to hire a dedicated business person, you have to do everything from basic accounting, to basic law, to marketing, and finally the actual design. That's one of the reasons I'd suggest thinking about the MBA, it'll help you in so many ways. I've got a minor in business, but it barely scraped the surface.
If you're attracted to architecture, as you've described, go with your gut. Studying architecture as an undergrad, for 4 years, in depth, is an unparalleled experience. You will develop a perspective that is otherwise un-achievable.
What I mean is, college is truly where many people develop themselves (I hesitate to say "find themselves", I don't believe that's the case)...A university setting allows you to be immersed in the pursuit of knowledge. More important than that, it helps you develop your position in life, an [educated] stance on issues and a better understanding of how to pursue the essence of your goals.
I hope that makes sense...i spent 2 years undeclared, studying a variety of things, eventually getting an AA from one University and then switching to another to pursue a Bach. of Design in Architecture (the 4 of a 4+2). Those four years of architecture school impacted my mentality in a very strong way.
When I talk to family or friends that are in your position (about to go to college, interested in arch), I encourage them to go for it, because I believe that my four year architecture undergrad has prepared me to solve any problem thrown at me, architecture specific or not.
so, that's my 2 cents. You will sleep less and work harder than many of your non-arch friends (while in school), but if you love it, you'll see no other way of being.
Great comments guys, you are really helping me out!!
So if I were to get a B.Arch what are advantages of going on and getting a M.Arch? Also, would you normally get the M.Arch from where you received your B.Arch? Thanks again!
Check out previous posts in terms of whether people feel it's worth it or not to do the March after a Barch - those I know from sci-arc who went on for a masters were very career oriented, very talented, had funding and went to top name schools for connections as well as a chance to experiment and really push themselves... I also know several people who just started working after the march and are doing well, generally they've stayed in LA and didn't have the luxury of being funded for grad school - though there are always exceptions and some people feel after working for a few years that they'd benefit from going back to grad school and make it work with loans etc.
this is what i believe you should do- go to a two year trade school. learn something valuable like carpentry. also, learn welding. work for a bit and develop some skills. also, make paintings or do sculpture on the side. also, read up on aesthetics. move to the area where you want to go to school. get a job at that university as a carpenter etc. get enrolled with discounted or sometimes free tuition offered to staff. get accepted to architecture school. work at high paying trade jobs while doing architecture and espousing your superior aesthetic viewpoints. scoff at professors who have never held a hammer. tell the hotties how you were almost buried in a trench. also, impress them with your welding and carpentry know how. thats what you should do and i am not kidding.
Well said vado. The routes to Architecture are many and varied. The creativeness of the craftsman is a skill that touches many professionals from the cabinetmaker to the blacksmith through the sub divisions of design and construction, product to sculptural design and ‘art’.
It all depends on how close to the creative purity you want to get.
Self build, compulsory exam for all architects, home residence optional?
As much as we love to list the best colleges out there any architecture program in the mid-west should do you just fine in the professional world. You need to ask yourself those big questions of how much can I afford, and how many years do I want to devote to education? College is mostly what you make of it, so tour them all and go to the one you like the best. St. Louis is a great central location for many schools. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Iowa State, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oaklahoma & Arkansas are all fairly easy on the pocket book. Texas has a plethora of schools from Texas Tech, UT at Austin, Houston, Rice. I'm a personal fan of Univ Minnesota but it has gotten expensive in my opinion. I do fly from Minneapolis to St. Louis all the time for under $100. Something to think about. Good luck with your decision. Seems like yesterday I was touring colleges as a high school student. I couldn't wait to build a kick ass model. What the hell was I thinking?!?
vado - I like your idea but it would take a very dedicated person to follow through with that plan. Say perhaps this person meets someone and starts a family. Life events can completely change the outcome of that plan while said person spends a lifetime being a welder. I say, go to college right out of high school. Make mistakes. Everyone does. Enjoy the experience and get your architecture degree. Later in life if you need something more, get your masters, or get that trade degree. Whatever. You can never replace being a young college student. It's a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
...but if you go to a decent architecture school, you should be learning carpentry, welding, perhaps glass-blowing, etc. Also, I hate to say it but craftsmen have typically awful aesthetic sense. Despite how cool it is to work with your hands--and I'm sure we all love it--actually getting a *primary* education from craftsmen and then attempting to supplement it with architectural education I feel would be a gyp on the design side. On the other hand, *architecture* supplemented by *craftsmanship* is ESSENTIAL, perhaps more essential than many of the crap things we're expected to show mastery of. (Memorizing CSI formatting? Come on. My brain space could really be used better than that.)
something i thought we missed in teh earlier posts.
for the record, i have a b.arch and then an m.arch2....and frankly, i value the growth and education that i recieved in the b.arch much more than the m.arch. Possibly because the m.arch was shorter, but nevertheless if mkell wants to pursue architecture so passionately i would not advise him to do a bachelors in something just because some people feel that they brought a lot "more" into the field of architecture because they had an undergrad in philosophy etc., or tread another path! At some level that is blasephemous to me.
Architecture programs across the world provide coherent learning in fields as varied as psychology, philosophy, carpentry, building construction etc.The list is long. It is up to the individual to define their path and interests within the undergraduate (b.arch) curriculum, and the b.arch degree is an excellent step in that direction. I went through 12 design studios, numerous structures and construction classes, building permitting, professional practice, photography, graphic design, building economics, building services, workshops on metal welding, glass blowing, pottery..and much much more, besides a research thesis directed towards western philosophic thought....
No M.arch program (as mentioned earlier) will give you that in-depth a curriculum.
Like I've said before, thank you very much for all of the advice and ideas.
To be honest, the only thing that is really harping on me is the amount of work out in and how little (comparitively) you make. I mean, I know money isn't everything, but it's definately something considering I come from a very comfortable life. Not trying to gloat or anything, but I do consider myself to be very talented in design and architetcure, considering I have no instruction (I actually came up with the basic design of our current house). Would there be hope to making alot more money than what an average architect makes? I know that I talked to an architect out in Cali. that pretty much got hit in the face with luck and now regularly charges 6 firgures for his designs...he does do the engineering himself though. Any elaboration on this?
re: but I do consider myself to be very talented in design and architetcure
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
wait till you get to school.
;)
anyway, the money isn't THAT bad. It totally blows in comparison to the other professions, but if you WANT to MAKE MONEY you can. If you want to make good designs you can do that too. And you can own your own firm, too. Generally you won't be doing all three of those things at once. If you own your own firm, for example, doing high design, you'll probably be struggling for at least a good long while. But hey, whatever. It's worth it if you love it.
Yea, talented compared to most who are my age and at my position. I would consider myself at a slight advantage. I'm not saying I'm the almighty God of design. I just know that I am capable of excelling greatly.
re: Yea, talented compared to most who are my age and at my position. I would consider myself at a slight advantage. I'm not saying I'm the almighty God of design. I just know that I am capable of excelling greatly.
Great! That's a good attitude. You need to believe in yourself strongly to get through arch. school. On the flip side, you'll find that first year is a great leveler for those who are plus or minus on the design background. You probably do have talent. But don't be surprised if you suck it up in school... Almost everyone does. Actually pretty much everyone does. It's just good to be prepared for that. I didn't mean to be derisive.
re: Yea, talented compared to most who are my age and at my position. I would consider myself at a slight advantage. I'm not saying I'm the almighty God of design. I just know that I am capable of excelling greatly
Dude, you already sound like an architect....pretentious yet honest, full of self praise (but claims to lack in the higher scheme of things), ..you already have the qualities dear pompous yet down to earth mkell.
No offense here, truthfully, nearly every architect i've met, and i've met many, has the abovementioned virtues (including myself)..
Anyone care to disagree?
mkell:
i'm currently in my 5th @ KSU. my only request would be for you to check it out. if your already drifting to the midwest...compare them all. sadly we just lost our design build studio for the semester...but student rally for the next generations is in the works.
re: Yea, talented compared to most who are my age and at my position. I would consider myself at a slight advantage. I'm not saying I'm the almighty God of design. I just know that I am capable of excelling greatly
mkell, the words 'talented' and 'advantage' in the world of architecture is very different to how we (without an architectural education) perceive of the words. architecture will change both of us (assuming that we both go into architecture)
and yeah, wait til crits...but it's good to be optimistic i guess.
i do love it. glad to depart soon. i did. ksu is 5yr + better opportunities in program and post graduation. downside...KU has more funding + closer proximity to some form of built-up conditon. (if you call KC urban @ all) but the students here are very determined (much like yourself i hear) and i believe the work speaks.
Im kind of in the same boat, mkell, except im already in my third year of college. I started college as a bio major but have since switched to art history in prep for arch school. I honestly wish I had done arch school from the beginning, i felt the calling towards it for years.. since i was honestly 10 or perhaps earlier? But in high school i was geared towards the practical studies.. academia.. ugh, i hate it. The one advantage ive had over the past few years is ive spent a lot of time designing by myself, just for fun, as well as observing things in different cities without being an actual design student. Naivete has its upsides (is this statement too Ayn Rand for y'allt?). Cheers! Paul
Nov 8, 05 2:14 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
High School Student In Need of a Little Help
Hi everyone, I am currently a junior in high school and I have been dreaming about becoming and architect ever since I was about 8 years old. Although I have been very serious in drawing and designing, I am really lost in all of the other aspects of architecture.
What kind of degree would be the best choice? I want to be able to get as high as I can later in life. I live in St. Louis and I am wanting to stay in the mid-west. What are some of the top architecture schools in the area? Wash. U. I hear is good, but it is a little on the expensive side. I also hear great things about KU. Any other notable places?
I have a few other questions, but I will let the above roll out a little bit. If you have any input, please contribute as I would really appreciate it. Thanks!!
Hi mkell,
While I don't know much about mid-west schools, my personal belief, and one which is shared by many other of my colleages, is that an initial, bachelor's degree outside of architecture is the best first step. Then, a masters in architecture. However, this won't save you financially, of course.
good luck.
I know if you somehow impress Wash U, they will help financially, at least at the graduate level. But I would agree, I really glad that I did something else for my undergrad. In my experience, I feel that those who come from a background outside of architecture have a much wider range of knowledge to bring into their projects. There are a few people in my program who have some sort of architecture background and their projects look slick and they know the words to say. But they tend to be much thinner and less interesting. It's sort of as though they have already come up with what they want to do, and don't really advance past the undergrad level. Many of the more interesting projects come from people who have a past that has NOTHING to do with architecture and have taken some time off from school. Maybe working for a few years.
If your interested in architecture then just go for it. The Kansas schools are good as well as Ohio St. and U. of Cincinnati which are very good schools. U. of Michigan is great as well. As Hasselhoff mentioned some people get a bachelors in something else then get a masters in architecture which takes at least 3 years. Schools are either going to be a 4+2 program or a 5 year program. The 4+2 involves getting a bachelor in science and then getting an MArch. The 5 year is simply a bachelors in architecture with no masters needed. There many discussions about this so do a search for them here. I did the 4+2 and enjoy that I have gone to two different schools that compliment each other well. I have some issues with what Hasselhoff says about students with an architecture degree in undergrad already. That is only from a grad school perspective and would be different if it was undergrad. Yes, an undergrad in another discipline certainly gives you more knowledge to bring in to your MArch but you take less architecture classes overall in school. I've seen some students like that which are very fast at catching on and others that have a harder time. Most in my group of graduate classmates have a degree in art or some related field so architecture isn't a completely new thing for them. So, if want to try architecture now, just go for it and find out what you think of it sooner than later.
hey if brad pitt can do it you can too.
At KU , they are changing their program from a B.Arch to a 5yr M.Arch. Any thoughts on this?
http://www.saud.ku.edu/gen/SAUD_generated_ns_pages/KU_BArch_to_be_replaced_by_MArch_p2285.html
I'm not sure I agree with only going for a masters in architecture after another degree. In my own experience I did engineering for two years and then switched to architecture. It took me about 1 and 1/2 to come into my own. Also there is just too much about architecture to learn and experience to try to cram into a year or two. With that said the better students I have noticed tend to be older than average (mid20's-mid30's) for whatever reason. What I would recommend is spending a year if possible taking care of all your university requirements. Doing this will allow to really focus on architecture, this was basically my situation and I loved it. I didn't have to worry about studing for a chemistry test ,preparing a english paper and puting together a midterm presentation all at once. It depends on what kind of student you are but many people can't handle the intense education that starts the first day of architecture classes. Most of the people I come in contact with recommend an architecture undergrad and a masters in a different field. Also Ohio State and the University of Kentucky are two schools to look at.
what are some other graduate fields that can compliment a barch? business? engineering?
I've noticed alot of interest lately in realestate developing
yeah, I disagree that it's advantageous to get bach in something random, then a Masters benefits you. From my observations, it's just not enough time in grad school to get a grasp of design. All the other stuff is easy or not really that crucial down the road. Design, however, is not something you can rush.
If I were to do it over, I'd just go for a 5 year and see after that if you want to get a Masters later on. I think 5 years of design classes is what'll help you the most, 4 being an absolute minimum (that's 10 design classes, 8 design classes, respectively).
Best would be a 5 year barch, then the MBA. That'll give you tons of options and give you an edge well above the norm.
i did a b.arch followed by m.arch,
and in my experience they are taught much differently.
the b.arch professors seemed to be more well rounded generalists
that specialize in teaching architecture wholistically, and you really
need the extra time as an undergrad to grasp everything they
have to offer. in the masters programs, there is more specific areas of focus/emphasis, which is great for the graduate student who knows the direction they want to take, but not so good for jumping into 'architecture' without an architecture background, you miss a lot of fundamentals about the profession.
if i did it over again, i would get a business degree concurrent with my b.arch: the extra year of architecture school you're there for anyways gives you the time to finish both degrees with high GPA's in advance of either m.arch/mba or both.
architecture can be a great and rewarding profession,
good luck. (to stay in midwest,check out kentucky http://www.uky.edu/Design/ they have a great undergrad program i hear)
I did an unrelated ugrad (business) and am happy to happy to have had the experience. But I also feel like I need more time than 3.5 years to fully grasp the field of architecture. If I were to do it over, I'd do the 4+2 program and get an mba a few years later.
I jumped into a 3-1/2 year March with almost zero knowledge of architecture - really, Frank Lloyd Wright was all and I wasn't particularly interested in him - I did an undergraduate and masters degree in philosophy, which led me to think I might like architecture (I had done a lot of research into prison architecture & urban planning... in addition to wanting to 'make stuff').
I think not only did I benefit immensely from having 5 years of prior educational experience in something other than architecture (as well as having worked in a few other fields for non-profits, a film company, lots of retail, etc.), but 3-1/2 years was more than enough for me to 'learn' design (at SCI-Arc), even with doing a year-long studio at the Bartlett in London where all I worked on was video installations.
I designed a building as a thesis project, plans/sections etc.(a rarity in my thesis class where a lot of people did graphic projects, theoretical projects/research, etc.), had no trouble finding a job right out of school, and now about 5-1/2 years later I'm licensed and run a design-build company with a couple of partners (both of whom did the undergrad program - one went on to get an MFA in sculpture, the other went to work for a contractor and got his contractor's license).
To make a long story short, there are many different paths you can take, everyone's temperament and skills are different, as are the schools. In my personal experience, I think having a background in philosophy helped me get interesting jobs ( I interned for Denari & Will Alsop, also worked for Michael Maltzan). It also has given me some perspective in what can be a very frustrating field - I know I really love do working on concrete projects, in the built environment, and also that a purely academic career wasn't for me (though I'd still like to teach).
Follow your gut, but don't hesitate to do lots of research, talk to as many arch students and practicing professionals as you can, and not be afraid to change your course if you feel like trying something else - you may only have one chance to do something else before architecture sucks you in!
A bachelors degree will be taught differently than a masters so it is nice to have both perspectives. Also, the older students seem to be much more mature and that plays a role in their success as a graduate student. Chances are that students who get just a masters in architecture probably weren't sure if that was something they wanted to pursue when they were 18. If you want to try it out of high school then do that and you might find you want a masters in a related field or that architecture isn't for you and you can try something else.
Thank you for all of the help and advice guys. Keep it coming!
Curiculum wise hom much physics is involved? I am very strong in math, but I am having a hard time with physics currently.
I am pretty sure that I want to focus on residential architecture for the most part. Do architects do all of the "nut and bolt" work so to speak or is that left up to an architectural engineer? That's the one thing I've never really been clear on.
Probably depends on the school, but sci-arc definitely did not require physics and only very limited math in relation to basic structures courses - I was no wiz in physics, and never even took calculus, but I did very well in structures and passed the structural licensing exams no probelm... so don't worry, unless you're interested in pursuing engineering.
In general, the 'nuts and bolts' work of calculations and sizing of structural members, connections, etc. is done by the structural engineer. The architect will come up with the design and structural system they would like to use, then they will bring in an engineer to work with to help determine if the system they have chosen will work, how it needs to be modified, if a different system would work better, etc.
I think it helps to have a good understanding of the different systems and code requirements for the area you're building in (as well as how all parts of a project go together, including finish work, waterproofing, etc.). It can help you design interesting structures that can be built with a reasonable budget - it can also help you avoid designing impossible structures (although sometimes I do it anyway to see what I can get away with). Working with structural engineers is one of my favorite parts of the job - even though I never liked math in theory, in practice as it relates to buildings it's fairly straightforward. I love negoitiating with engineers, trying to get them to be a little more creative than they might otherwise be (though on the opposite side, I hate negotiating with plan check engineers, who can be extremely conservative and pains in the you-know-what!). These are things you learn by working - having real probelms to solve and asking tons of questions has been the best way for me personally to learn about how buildings go together.
also, some of the older architects might do the calculations and structural design themselves for small projects, but no one I know who has finished school in the last 10 years or so ever does their own engineering... and here in Los Angeles, it would probably be such a pain that it wouldn't be worth it anyway.
You don't need much math. They've eliminated the need for calc at a lot of schools - which is good, as it's 100% useless (I can't recall one thing, even though I got an A).
I agree with some of the other posts. My undergrad experience was stellar and I think that any of us could have easily entered the profession. An additional year would have been perfect, but 2-3 years of grad school was simply a waste of time (generally speaking, as I realized, and others too, that we needed to learn other things than architecture to make the experience fulfilling).
I could not have entered the profession confidently with only my MArch I.
It depends, of course, but in grad school there are agendas and politics (at the better schools, anyway). In undergrad the profs generally care about the students growth. By grad school you are all on your own, so some do well, others stagnate.
Usually, in business, it's more advantageous to be good at what you do and pay others to be good at other things. It's not that you can't learn it, it's not rocket science, but there are only so many hours in a day. It'd be a waste of time to have one person do something two could get done in half the time (again, generally speaking).
That's part of the struggle having your own business. Until you can afford to hire a dedicated business person, you have to do everything from basic accounting, to basic law, to marketing, and finally the actual design. That's one of the reasons I'd suggest thinking about the MBA, it'll help you in so many ways. I've got a minor in business, but it barely scraped the surface.
mkell,
If you're attracted to architecture, as you've described, go with your gut. Studying architecture as an undergrad, for 4 years, in depth, is an unparalleled experience. You will develop a perspective that is otherwise un-achievable.
What I mean is, college is truly where many people develop themselves (I hesitate to say "find themselves", I don't believe that's the case)...A university setting allows you to be immersed in the pursuit of knowledge. More important than that, it helps you develop your position in life, an [educated] stance on issues and a better understanding of how to pursue the essence of your goals.
I hope that makes sense...i spent 2 years undeclared, studying a variety of things, eventually getting an AA from one University and then switching to another to pursue a Bach. of Design in Architecture (the 4 of a 4+2). Those four years of architecture school impacted my mentality in a very strong way.
When I talk to family or friends that are in your position (about to go to college, interested in arch), I encourage them to go for it, because I believe that my four year architecture undergrad has prepared me to solve any problem thrown at me, architecture specific or not.
so, that's my 2 cents. You will sleep less and work harder than many of your non-arch friends (while in school), but if you love it, you'll see no other way of being.
Great comments guys, you are really helping me out!!
So if I were to get a B.Arch what are advantages of going on and getting a M.Arch? Also, would you normally get the M.Arch from where you received your B.Arch? Thanks again!
Nevermind my last question, I just saw the thread above this :)
you should check out the Summer Discovery Program at WashU.
or the cornell summer program if you can afford it. i loved it
Check out previous posts in terms of whether people feel it's worth it or not to do the March after a Barch - those I know from sci-arc who went on for a masters were very career oriented, very talented, had funding and went to top name schools for connections as well as a chance to experiment and really push themselves... I also know several people who just started working after the march and are doing well, generally they've stayed in LA and didn't have the luxury of being funded for grad school - though there are always exceptions and some people feel after working for a few years that they'd benefit from going back to grad school and make it work with loans etc.
this is what i believe you should do- go to a two year trade school. learn something valuable like carpentry. also, learn welding. work for a bit and develop some skills. also, make paintings or do sculpture on the side. also, read up on aesthetics. move to the area where you want to go to school. get a job at that university as a carpenter etc. get enrolled with discounted or sometimes free tuition offered to staff. get accepted to architecture school. work at high paying trade jobs while doing architecture and espousing your superior aesthetic viewpoints. scoff at professors who have never held a hammer. tell the hotties how you were almost buried in a trench. also, impress them with your welding and carpentry know how. thats what you should do and i am not kidding.
Well said vado. The routes to Architecture are many and varied. The creativeness of the craftsman is a skill that touches many professionals from the cabinetmaker to the blacksmith through the sub divisions of design and construction, product to sculptural design and ‘art’.
It all depends on how close to the creative purity you want to get.
Self build, compulsory exam for all architects, home residence optional?
As much as we love to list the best colleges out there any architecture program in the mid-west should do you just fine in the professional world. You need to ask yourself those big questions of how much can I afford, and how many years do I want to devote to education? College is mostly what you make of it, so tour them all and go to the one you like the best. St. Louis is a great central location for many schools. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Iowa State, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oaklahoma & Arkansas are all fairly easy on the pocket book. Texas has a plethora of schools from Texas Tech, UT at Austin, Houston, Rice. I'm a personal fan of Univ Minnesota but it has gotten expensive in my opinion. I do fly from Minneapolis to St. Louis all the time for under $100. Something to think about. Good luck with your decision. Seems like yesterday I was touring colleges as a high school student. I couldn't wait to build a kick ass model. What the hell was I thinking?!?
if you're interested in wustl check out the fitzgibbon scholarship. full ride. read http://www.arch.wustl.edu/index.lasso?pgID=162
if you're interested in wustl check out the fitzgibbon scholarship. full ride. read http://www.arch.wustl.edu/index.lasso?pgID=162
vado - I like your idea but it would take a very dedicated person to follow through with that plan. Say perhaps this person meets someone and starts a family. Life events can completely change the outcome of that plan while said person spends a lifetime being a welder. I say, go to college right out of high school. Make mistakes. Everyone does. Enjoy the experience and get your architecture degree. Later in life if you need something more, get your masters, or get that trade degree. Whatever. You can never replace being a young college student. It's a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
vade, cool idea...
...but if you go to a decent architecture school, you should be learning carpentry, welding, perhaps glass-blowing, etc. Also, I hate to say it but craftsmen have typically awful aesthetic sense. Despite how cool it is to work with your hands--and I'm sure we all love it--actually getting a *primary* education from craftsmen and then attempting to supplement it with architectural education I feel would be a gyp on the design side. On the other hand, *architecture* supplemented by *craftsmanship* is ESSENTIAL, perhaps more essential than many of the crap things we're expected to show mastery of. (Memorizing CSI formatting? Come on. My brain space could really be used better than that.)
something i thought we missed in teh earlier posts.
for the record, i have a b.arch and then an m.arch2....and frankly, i value the growth and education that i recieved in the b.arch much more than the m.arch. Possibly because the m.arch was shorter, but nevertheless if mkell wants to pursue architecture so passionately i would not advise him to do a bachelors in something just because some people feel that they brought a lot "more" into the field of architecture because they had an undergrad in philosophy etc., or tread another path! At some level that is blasephemous to me.
Architecture programs across the world provide coherent learning in fields as varied as psychology, philosophy, carpentry, building construction etc.The list is long. It is up to the individual to define their path and interests within the undergraduate (b.arch) curriculum, and the b.arch degree is an excellent step in that direction. I went through 12 design studios, numerous structures and construction classes, building permitting, professional practice, photography, graphic design, building economics, building services, workshops on metal welding, glass blowing, pottery..and much much more, besides a research thesis directed towards western philosophic thought....
No M.arch program (as mentioned earlier) will give you that in-depth a curriculum.
dammit Vado, where was your advice 7.5 years ago when I was still in high school...
word.
right on, ret, my thoughts exactly.
mkell, if you already know you want to be an architect, then do what you love in college. Take the b.arch, it's intense, and intensely rewarding.
Like I've said before, thank you very much for all of the advice and ideas.
To be honest, the only thing that is really harping on me is the amount of work out in and how little (comparitively) you make. I mean, I know money isn't everything, but it's definately something considering I come from a very comfortable life. Not trying to gloat or anything, but I do consider myself to be very talented in design and architetcure, considering I have no instruction (I actually came up with the basic design of our current house). Would there be hope to making alot more money than what an average architect makes? I know that I talked to an architect out in Cali. that pretty much got hit in the face with luck and now regularly charges 6 firgures for his designs...he does do the engineering himself though. Any elaboration on this?
re: but I do consider myself to be very talented in design and architetcure
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
wait till you get to school.
;)
anyway, the money isn't THAT bad. It totally blows in comparison to the other professions, but if you WANT to MAKE MONEY you can. If you want to make good designs you can do that too. And you can own your own firm, too. Generally you won't be doing all three of those things at once. If you own your own firm, for example, doing high design, you'll probably be struggling for at least a good long while. But hey, whatever. It's worth it if you love it.
Yea, talented compared to most who are my age and at my position. I would consider myself at a slight advantage. I'm not saying I'm the almighty God of design. I just know that I am capable of excelling greatly.
Also, 8888: Are you familiar with WashU or the scholarship program you posted? If so, what kind of academic accomplishments are they looking for?
good "go-get'em" attitude,
I like you already
just dont go all Howard Roark in school and become obnoxious.
I'm the furthest away from obnoxious :)
re: Yea, talented compared to most who are my age and at my position. I would consider myself at a slight advantage. I'm not saying I'm the almighty God of design. I just know that I am capable of excelling greatly.
Great! That's a good attitude. You need to believe in yourself strongly to get through arch. school. On the flip side, you'll find that first year is a great leveler for those who are plus or minus on the design background. You probably do have talent. But don't be surprised if you suck it up in school... Almost everyone does. Actually pretty much everyone does. It's just good to be prepared for that. I didn't mean to be derisive.
re: Yea, talented compared to most who are my age and at my position. I would consider myself at a slight advantage. I'm not saying I'm the almighty God of design. I just know that I am capable of excelling greatly
Dude, you already sound like an architect....pretentious yet honest, full of self praise (but claims to lack in the higher scheme of things), ..you already have the qualities dear pompous yet down to earth mkell.
No offense here, truthfully, nearly every architect i've met, and i've met many, has the abovementioned virtues (including myself)..
Anyone care to disagree?
oh and i'm the furthest away from obnoxious too..but just got a little closer!
mkell:
i'm currently in my 5th @ KSU. my only request would be for you to check it out. if your already drifting to the midwest...compare them all. sadly we just lost our design build studio for the semester...but student rally for the next generations is in the works.
re: Yea, talented compared to most who are my age and at my position. I would consider myself at a slight advantage. I'm not saying I'm the almighty God of design. I just know that I am capable of excelling greatly
mkell, the words 'talented' and 'advantage' in the world of architecture is very different to how we (without an architectural education) perceive of the words. architecture will change both of us (assuming that we both go into architecture)
and yeah, wait til crits...but it's good to be optimistic i guess.
I understand that there are two different meanings now to the words I used above. Let's just say that I am very determined :)
rootseven: How do you like K-State? Did you look at any other schools like KU at all?
i do love it. glad to depart soon. i did. ksu is 5yr + better opportunities in program and post graduation. downside...KU has more funding + closer proximity to some form of built-up conditon. (if you call KC urban @ all) but the students here are very determined (much like yourself i hear) and i believe the work speaks.
Im kind of in the same boat, mkell, except im already in my third year of college. I started college as a bio major but have since switched to art history in prep for arch school. I honestly wish I had done arch school from the beginning, i felt the calling towards it for years.. since i was honestly 10 or perhaps earlier? But in high school i was geared towards the practical studies.. academia.. ugh, i hate it. The one advantage ive had over the past few years is ive spent a lot of time designing by myself, just for fun, as well as observing things in different cities without being an actual design student. Naivete has its upsides (is this statement too Ayn Rand for y'allt?). Cheers! Paul
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.