While I totally agree with your last sentence, dot, I also don't see why you can't do a 5-year degree then vary your education by getting a masters, if you want to get one at all, at a different school.
I personally know three BArchs with no further schooling who are among the best architects out there.
dito liberty. it would do the profesion a huge diservice to cut off some of our best talent from being able to become practicing, licensed architects because of unessessary overeducation requirements.
I've had a lot more positive experiences in working with BArch's than with those with only a 2-year MArch and a 4 year Bachelor's in something else.
Yes, I have a BArch. I felt that my program was very well-rounded with a strong theory background with good technical instruction as well. By the time I was done with my 5th year thesis project, I was ready to start working and learning in the real world.
My personal experience with those that only have a 2 year March is that they're too focused on idealogies in architecture, seem apathetic towards the technical aspects of architecture, and feel that mundane tasks such as picking up redlines are beneath their expertise.
Agreement here....I would've LOVED to get a 5-year instead of a masters. The 4+2 left many people hanging -- no pro degree, can't get licensed, and a masters is just not right for everyone.
clarification dml - don't you have to have a 3.5 - 4 year MArch1 if your undergrad is in another field? from what I understood, the + 2 is only for those of us that have the first 4 in architecture...
my only thought for this thread is to compare our education, internship and respect in the public eye (whatever that is exactly) with the professsions of medicine and law, which both require dedicated graduate degrees.
no comparison AP, we don't get paid like doctor's and lawyer's.
do we really need architect's making $35k a year with $100k in debt?
the 4+2'ers I know that worked in offices in between find it REALLY hard to go back for the 2. most end up unlicensed, or find themselves in a master's program that they don't want to be in (would rather be working).
hmm. i might weigh in on this one....although i do have to say that i also have a 5 yr BArch that i then followed up with a 1 yr Post Pro MArch.....
but i actually must agree with those that would like to see the 5yr go the way of the dinosaur. although i do know quite a few good people with just a 5yr degree, i have to say that a lot more were "graduated" that really shouldn't have had a BArch. i think having to re-apply at the 4yr mark would allow schools to be more critical about who they choose for the final 2yrs. also i agree with AP. the public is confused by our profession's statements about itself. If we want to really prove our worth we need a more coherent argument about our professional capabilities...part of which is stating an educational path that is considered a professional path versus a vocational path (i'm using the term vocational here in a broad sense, but i do believe that most 4yr degrees tend to apply themselves in this way).
i also believe the move to a 4 + 2 would allow a slightly more focussed curriculum in terms of how technical versus managerial or design skills are taught and refined.
to stir the pot some more- I think that 'thesis' projects should be optional for B.Archs and M.Archs.
Only a few students have the maturity and experience to pull off a good thesis project, most arch students would benefit from having another studio with a dictatorial instructor. I've seen too many manditory thesis projects that suck (just look at what comes out of princeton). Leave the optional thesis for students that want to distinguish themselves.
back to the $$ issue: some practitioners think that if we all had M.Archs we'd be more 'competative'. But the route to higher fees is to negociate for them with the client. If you don't ask, then they won't happen.
I don't know how long a law degree takes, but my sister the doctor did four years of intensive graduate work (after getting an electrical engineering undergrad degree - she rocks!).
Maybe it's the four-year BS-Arch degrees that should die out - what good are they really?
Clients don't know what kind of degree I have. I bet they assume I have a masters just because they DO equate architectural education with medicine and law. If I could triple or quadruple my salary with a masters, I'd go back in a heartbeat.
Anyways, isn't negotiating higher fees more to do with us reducing the hours of tedious work in order to get a project out and not taking it in the arse when the project gets out of hand and drags on and on like every projects tends to do (scope creep, clients who need hands held, contractor's who force redesign by way of their own inadequacies, etc.). Think about it this way, we get OK fees, we just tend to blow them pretty easy. We also will jump at any job, even if it is not right for us, making the project harder to deliver and less profitable.
from my experience
-no-one should be allowed to aquire a licence w/out a 5year Barch
-getting a 4bach+2masters comes no where close to a 5 year barch
-people leave there 4year program with barely any computer aided drafting skills and a fat 0 in the design dept. - then jump into a masters to up there design skills(where they use these fancy schmancy 3d programs)
a real basic run-down - - - 4year - you are or will be a bitch in someones office
- - - 5year - could be a bitch - could be a real architect - could do almost anything even teach at some schools
- - - 4+2 master - same as the 1st
- - - 5+2or1 master - you can do it all!
I've had a lot more positive experiences in working with BArch's than with those with only a 2-year MArch and a 4 year Bachelor's in something else.
I was going to come on here to say exactly the same thing. (Except to replace 2-year with 3-year Master's with no other arch. degree.) Many times lately I have found myself disappointed by (lack of) breadth of knowledge of people graduating from arch. masters programs with no prior arch. experience. I agree that older students are generally able to absorb more from arch. schooling; however I just do not think that 4 studios plus a thesis is enough design training. Not to mention all the mandantary courses for B.Archs that just don't fit into the M.Arch curriculum as a requirement.
Why not leave all the programs? They're all accredited, which means they all have to pass muster according to us. You still have to do IDP and ARE afterwards, anyway. I don't think we should get rid of ANY kind of schooling--the more options, the better! And the more diverse types of programs, the more exposure people are likely to get to arch. schooling, and therefore architecture. I would never, ever want to hear that someone wanted to do arch and couldn't fit it into their life-plan because the requirements were so stringent. ...And I heard that just last week!!!
Forget about diversity.
The AIA should take control of architectural education nationally.
The first 3 years should be entirely codes and standards. The next five years should be "AIA DESIGN THEORY (150 years of progress)" and then 1 year for the professional exam. No passy, no architecty.
I can see the points about life experience contributing to making a better architect, therefore the masters being a good way to go. But on the flipside, like myriam maybe touched on, is that those masters graduates with unrelated backgrounds don't fully immerse in the architectural education. They often have preconcieved notions of architecture and what their role as an architect is, which is typically rather childish. Ironic, isn't it? During my 5 year B Arch, I went from a-z and back again and again, exploring, applying, making errors. The masters students I interacted with weren't as willing to explore, didn't want to make mistakes, the concepts tended to be one-liners and they were more worried about acing structures than having a rigorous studio project.
Some of the better students were the older students in the B Arch program. Some of whom had prior bachelors or even masters degrees. These guys are probably the best architects by now.
Yes, Strawbeary, I agree entirely, and echo your experiences. I find far more copy-cat type masters' students (hey, look what rem just did! let's do that too!) than I ever see in B.arch programs. We barely knew what was out there TO copy, at age 20. I remember a freshman year project that was essentially building the barcelona pavilion out of a kit of parts, except that none of us knew it was the barcelona pavilion, or had ever heard of the barcelona pavilion. the stuff that we made was wildly divergent. Also, i echo about the older students in B-arch programs--the kids that transferred in from other majors after 1 or 2 years were by far the best in the class. I've thought about this a lot, and I really think that that's probably the best way to go, education-wise (clearly not finance-wise). I kinda wish I'd done that, because it's true that there's a certain amount of 18-year-old immaturity you need the first couple years of college to work through, and it would have been better to slough those off before entering an arch. program.
There are some misconceptions in some of these posts.
First off: a B.Arch program doesn't necessarily have more design, more CAD, or more anything than a 4-year architecture major. Some B.Arch programs do start with architecture studios in the first year, but many don't start any studios until the second or even the third year. Some 4-year architecture majors don't have any studios at all (though these people never qualify for the "2" components of 4+2 programs) but other 4-year majors start studios in 1st or 2nd year. I did a 4-year undergrad architecture major and had 6 semesters of studio. And not that I think that CAD skills are something that is critical to acquire during college, but I had strong 2D and 3D CAD skills before finishing my undergrad program.
Second, regarding the lengths of graduate programs: a person without any undergrad architecture major (or who comes from a program with no design studios in the curriculum) usually has to do either a 3 or 3.5 year program. There are a couple 4-year programs out there, but there are also a couple 2.5-year first-professional M.Arch programs too.
A person with a 4-year undergrad architecture major will typically do a program ranging from 2 to 3 years, depending on the school. Some M.Arch programs don't have "2" programs, or don't allow advanced standing.
Post-Pro M.Archs for people who already have B.Archs range from a low of 1 semester (currently or recently offered at Roger Williams to their own B.Arch grads) to 2.5 years. These average 1.5 to 2 years.
Thirdly: if you read the NAAB requirements for B.Arch vs. M.Arch curriculae, there is absolutely no required architecture content in the B.Arch that is not also required in the M.Arch. The difference in lengths of the programs is due to the way that the courses are scheduled (M.Arch programs typically have many more architecture-specific credits per semester than do B.Arch programs) and the liberal arts distribution requirements for the B.Archs. Most M.Arch programs have greater offerings in project management and business coursework, though these are not always required courses.
So there is lot of variation in how long any route could take...
I don't really think that either program should be "phased out" or that either is inherently better than the other. There are so many variables that would make one route better for one person than another...
One issue that is a continuing problem with many of the B.Arch programs is that the drop-out rate is phenomenally high in some schools - sometimes with as high as 60% to 75% of the people who start the program eventually leaving or changing majors. Studies of what becomes of the students after graduation also show that it's much more likely for a B.Arch grad to have left the field within 7 years of graduation than for an M.Arch grad - but this is consistent with most other fields. In general a fairly small minority of people are still working in a field related to their undergrad major even 5 years after college, whereas people who seek advanced degrees do tend to continue in those fields more often than not.
What's wrong with dropping out? I find the arch. curriculum amazingly adaptive to going into other fields--that's one of the beautiful things about architecture. And I love the fact that a lot of people do a couple years and then do something different--the more people educated about architecture, the better! And the more people forging their own path, the better, too.
The grad program I went to (at an un-named Ivy) had more stringent admissions then the undegrad program I went to (at a big ten school- also ranked very high). Overall, the grad students were:
1) smarter then my undergrad classmates
2) had more diverse experiences that enriched their designs
3) better workers
4) more dedicated - only one or two washed out, versus the 30-50% of undergrads who washed out.
5) had better people skills
If I hadn't taken a detour through hollywood between undergrad and grad, I would be a really boring architecture geek who couldn't talk about anything else (oh, yeah, I still can't talk about anything else). My explorations outside of architecture have made me a better architect- so I really, really recommend that most architect wannabes do something else first and take a few years to live life before starting their architectural education...
myriam: nothing at all is wrong with dropping out - for the people who do it (well, it's probably bad for some of them, for various reasons, but that could go way off topic in a million directions...)
But it can be a serious problem for the programs themselves and for the people who choose to stay. If the upper years of the program shrink substantially then some bad things sometimes happen. For example, it becomes difficult for the school to justify providing multiple studio options, if there aren't enough students. I was teaching in a program several years ago in which I was the only person teaching 4th-year studio - because there were only enough students for one studio - but many of the students had already had me as their critic in a previous year. This lack of choice made the students unhappy. It also sometimes results in a lack of funding for the deparment, especially for resources for the upper years - because this is often based on head-count. It also can result in the university "redistributing" classroom and studio space, equipment, etc. to other departments. It also can result in a huge push to enroll transfer students, visiting and exchange students, etc. into the upper years - which is not something that is usually encouraged.
I've just seen a lot of disruption in the upper years of 5-year programs - and a lot of unfairness to those students who stick it out - especially at smaller schools.
But like I said, both types of programs have their good and bad points. I can't see a good reason to eliminate either one.
Aluminate - I was shocked with the drop out rate at some schools (60% to 75%). Could you provide any light on what attributes to this high drop out rate?
If the dropout rate is causing that much of a problem at a school then I would venture to say that the school is doing something wrong, not the inherent nature of the program requirements.
Katze- I went to one of those schools, and the main factor contributing (for us) was the immersion in studio and other architecture courses from day one, and the sheer amount of workload required. In a four year program that didn't start studio until junior year, many of those people would have stuck it out and gotten their B.S. and then moved on to something else. But in a B.Arch program when they were hit with this on the first day of college, and knew they were in for five more years where it was just going to get worse, they crumbled. For the most part, this wasn't a problem for the school, as they expected it and were used to it. However, for my particular class, about 90% of the dropouts occured first year, and very few after that, whereas most classes still experienced dropout second, and even some amount in third year. This made our year undersized in second and third year, and it gave the school financial problems. Most schools will be prepared for a certain amount of dropout, but an anomoly in the pattern like that can really throw them.
Yup, my BArch program started with studio and other architecture coursework from Day 1. Our very first day of studio, we were presented with a weeklong, department wide design charette. Happy times!
We started with 72 students and only 23 of us graduated with a Barch five years later.
I think there's a fair amount of resentment that BArch-ers have towards those that only have a MArch. We BArch-ers wear it like a badge of honor. 5 years of all-nighters and a committment to the work and work ethic required to get there.
Keep in mind that a Barch student completes a lot more academic projects than a March student. This gives many more opportunities and exposure to experiment with ideas, media, methodologies, etc. Using my Barch as an example, I did 24 design projects in my five years. That's a lot of design, drawing, model building, etc. in comparison to a MArch.
Rationalist – this makes perfect sense. Thanks for your feedback. I assumed workload attributed to the large dropout rate! It is a shame that schools suffer financially because of it; wouldn't you think that the school would use past statistics, patterns or metrics to adjust admissions accordingly? Meaning – why not accept more into the program initially with the intent of keeping more in the program for concurrent years? Or maybe, like myriam said, maybe it is something that the school is doing wrong. I wonder if all schools provide an "exiting-interview" for folks that drop out of a particular program/school – this might be helpful? I do not know about the rest of you, but my previous school(s) required each student to complete a mandatory "report card" or feedback, if you will, about each class we completed and a final critique about the program as a whole. I assume that this information would be invaluable for schools wanting to improve on their programs.
My school prided itself on the dropout rate--no kidding--which I think was a symptom of a serious problem. Something that does attract me to the masters programs is that once you're in, you're in--the schools seem, in general, very committed to fostering your learning--not to kicking you down enough times to "teach you how hard the real world is." The 'badge of honor' some B.Arch schools wear with pride is a sort of twisted, sadistic one that can get in the way of real learning, if you ask me.
On the other hand, if the school isn't actively trying its damnedest to make as many people drop out as possible in order to lodge some chip on its shoulder to make it feel more "legitimate", and people drop out anyway, well I don't see any problem with that in and of itself.
A girlfriend of mine is applying to various med schools at the moment, some of which have no grades--once you're in, you're in--the goal is to learn as much as you can, not feel pressured to achieve some random letter note or compete with your peers, but grow together toward the common goal of becoming a good doctor. (And besides, like in architecture, everyone has to pass a test at the end anyway). I honestly feel that architecture school would benefit ENORMOUSLY from this approach.
It is twisted, but as soon as I saw those words I knew that's the right way to express exactly how I feel about it. It is a badge of honor that despite over half my class dropping out, I made it through.
They definitely do admit more, knowing they'll only graduate a certain percentage of them. But the numbers are based on averages- when the dropout rate spikes, they have trouble with money, and when the dropout rate dips, they have trouble with space! Within a large university, the school of architecture is such a small player that the numbers balance can be very delicate. Another school is like, "eh, one more dropped, it's only 12k a year", whereas a school of architecture is like, "jesus, another one dropped- that's 12k a year! There goes the new plotter we wanted to get..."
It is a badge of honor that despite over half my class dropping out, I made it through.
I think this is a natural reaction. What I take exception to is schools actively taking a role in TRYING to achieve the result of a very high dropout rate, in order to flatter their own egos. ("the harder it is for them, the better a job we're doing, and the more valuable our program must therefore be" is pretty much exactly the line of reasoning I've heard some administrators at my alma mater express.)
And, the financial argument makes sense, but it works at any level--it is predicated upon guessing in advance how many will drop out--not in having large numbers of dropouts. It's a ratio thing, sure--but that doesn't mean the ratio has to be 1/3.
my undergrad program lost 50% of the kids in the first year. after that it was smooth sailing.
There are two administrative options, let everybody in and then give them hell so you cut down to the optimum program size, or make getting in really hard and do what it takes to keep everyone once their in.
The big public schools tend to favor the first approach (and have most of the b.arch programs), while the private/grad programs tend to be way more selective.
did both, like the second method better. If you're in, then you know your classmates are just as good as you are. in the big school everybody has a chance, their were too many idiots wasting the critics time in the first few studios.
Again: the idea that all B.Arch students complete more design projects than all M.Arch students is just not true. Most people who go through 4-year undergrad architecture majors have either 4 or 6 semesters of studio by the time they graduate (though some have none, and others have 8 semesters.) The students who had no studio at all as undergrads do not go directly into 2-year M.Arch programs - they go into 3, 3.5, or 4 year programs and thus end up with 6 to 8 semesters of studio. The students who did have studio as undergrads go into anywhere from 2 to 3.5 years of M.Arch and gain an additional 4 to 7 semesters of studio. B.Arch students have anywhere from 6 to 10 semesters of studio, depending on their program.
So the M.Arch people end up with anywhere from 6 to 14 semesters of studio, with 8 to 10 being about the avergae, while the B.Arch people end up with anywhere from 4 to 10 semesters, with 8 being the average.
I have an undergrad background in architecture with 6 semesters of studio, with a total of 16 projects, and an M.Arch with 6 semesters of studio and a total of 10 projects. (The number of projects is a program-specific thing and doesn't have as much to do with what degree you do as with the school's particular philosophy.) Some have multiple projects in every semester while others only do that in the first one or two semesters. I also have another degree in an unrelated field. That's more or less typical of the M.Archs that I know.
I haven't perceived any major differences between B.Arch and M.Arch grads who've worked for me, except that the B.Archs are younger and so have less experience in ANY field, and they also have a tendency to leave in order to go to grad school...
As for the idea that the school is doing something wrong that's causing the dropout rate: probably true, though most of the schools bend over backward to try to keep enrollment up. But much of the mass exodus just seems to have more to do with undergrads wanting to have the well-rounded college experience (whether that means taking the occasional course in something unrelated and actually having time to devote to it, or whether it just means having the time for partying and extracurricular activities.) Also the environment of constant criticism and competition can be a bit much for some people right out of highschool, whereas it's a little easier for people who've had some time and life experience to learn how to take things less personally/more objectively.
There are also many more issues of parental involvement with undergrads. You get students who are in the program because it's what their moms want, while they themselves don't necessarily have the interest and devotion to architecture. There are others who are there against their parents' will - being told all the time that they're "smart enough" to study something more lucrative like medicine. And there are the ones whose families expect them to come home every weekend for some family event and don't understand the time commitment. Many of those issues have been dealt with by the time people get to grad school (though then there can be issues of spouses and children and careers left behind....)
I have a lot of admiration for anybody who gets through either type of program. And I don't really blame the schools for most of those who don't.
alright. just to be clear, I personally have no problem with the existence of the 5 year BArch. none what-so-ever. The list of amazing BArch-having Architects is far too long for me (with my relative lack of experience and knowledge) to take opposition. my earlier point regarding law and medicine was merely a tangent regarding pay and public respect - a pair of issues often complained about on this site.
Aluminate, I appreciate you taking the time to spell all of that out.
treekiller, just to illuminate your comment regarding the 2 administrative options:
my undergrad (big state school) lets anybody who gets into the University give architecture a try. +/-200 usually start the first semester. This number drops each semester for the first year and a half. At the beginning of the 4th semester, there are usually about 130-140 left. At the end of the 4th semester, there is a selection process - "pin-up." You have a 4'x8'x18" space on a hallway wall to arrange your [edited] work. 96 students are admitted to upper division. of these 96, 80 or so will graduate on time with their Bachelor of Design in Architecture.
of the 40 or so students who don't get in to upper division, some will try again the following year. Most that do this get in on the 2nd try.
of the 80 or so that graduate each spring, who knows....some go straight into grad school. some take time off to work in the field. some go to china to teach english, some join the peacecorps, some go to law school, some run for the hills, never to be seen or heard from again.
oh, we have 8 studios, 2 M&M courses, 2 ET courses, 1-2 structures courses, 2 arch history, 2 theory, at least one "digital media" course, a few electives, blablablu
Ah rationalist, I can certainly relate to the "jesus, another one dropped- that's 12k a year! There goes the new plotter we wanted to get..." Sad but true!
dml955i – I was quite amazed at your statistics " We started with 72 students and only 23 of us graduated with a Barch five years later" WHAHHH!
And myriam – how sad is it for a school to pride itself on the dropout rate to flatter their own egos? WHAHHH!
treekiller – agree with the selective approach. I guess I would prefer the later as well - no use wasting the critics time on folks that don't belong in the program.
Aluminate - "As for the idea that the school is doing something wrong that's causing the dropout rate: probably true, though most of the schools bend over backward to try to keep enrollment up". Could you provide an example of how schools accomplish this?
And I couldn't agree with you more in regards to " You get students who are in the program because it's what their moms want, while they themselves don't necessarily have the interest and devotion to architecture". I couldn't agree with you more – I attribute a high dropout rate because of this.
well, just to re-enter this discussion. i think that addictionbomb's comment is quite apt in relation to pay. my point earlier relating to why a 4+2 might allow this higher level of pay is:
1. students develop connections in other majors
2. students have the ability to take other courses that can be beneficial in their architecture careers (i never had a professor that was very business savvy...or if so they are very few and far between)
3. although the 5 year immersive program is great for developing architects, it also fosters a warped world view in relation to the profession and the role of collaboration within it. i feel that 4+2 programs allow a stronger divide between technical and design understanding and the management and collaboration that allows more sophisticated projects to evolve....this is really going off of meeting a few very stellar people who have done a 4+2 that really had their shit together more so than i felt i did after graduating at the top of my class with a 5 yr BArch.
and just to reiterate. 4+2 is not something that should include any less than 8 (preferrably 10) semesters of studio. if you are coming out with a degree in architecture and don't have bet. 6-8 semesters of studio you are not going to be accepted to a 2 yr masters program....would then be in the 3 yr program at most schools. totally different animal. with it's own issues.
as for my story. first yr we went from 90 to 45. second yr 45 to 35.
consistent till fifth yr. then from 35 to 25. and of those 25 i would have to say that at least 5 of them really shouldn't have walked out with a degree...but i feel like they had to keep them in just to keep the doors open.
as for those who stayed within the profession after graduation (i can't speak for everyone from the 25), but probably 20 are or are becoming registered.
the B.Arch lives on
I would have preferred to see it die. 5 years just seems like a long time to be in one place, but that's just me.
i guess you'd rather be in school 6-9 years for the masters then?
Long live the B. Arch.
BRING BACK THE 4 YR. BARCH AS WELL.
I really wish my B.Arch would get converted to an M.Arch.... fat chance, though.
strawbeary, i'm a fan of the 4+2 because you get the option to vary your education by going to another school, and you can work inbetween.
plus from what i've seen, there is a distinct maturity to a masters thesis dissertation vs a bachelors.
While I totally agree with your last sentence, dot, I also don't see why you can't do a 5-year degree then vary your education by getting a masters, if you want to get one at all, at a different school.
I personally know three BArchs with no further schooling who are among the best architects out there.
dito liberty. it would do the profesion a huge diservice to cut off some of our best talent from being able to become practicing, licensed architects because of unessessary overeducation requirements.
I've had a lot more positive experiences in working with BArch's than with those with only a 2-year MArch and a 4 year Bachelor's in something else.
Yes, I have a BArch. I felt that my program was very well-rounded with a strong theory background with good technical instruction as well. By the time I was done with my 5th year thesis project, I was ready to start working and learning in the real world.
My personal experience with those that only have a 2 year March is that they're too focused on idealogies in architecture, seem apathetic towards the technical aspects of architecture, and feel that mundane tasks such as picking up redlines are beneath their expertise.
Just my .02
Agreement here....I would've LOVED to get a 5-year instead of a masters. The 4+2 left many people hanging -- no pro degree, can't get licensed, and a masters is just not right for everyone.
clarification dml - don't you have to have a 3.5 - 4 year MArch1 if your undergrad is in another field? from what I understood, the + 2 is only for those of us that have the first 4 in architecture...
my only thought for this thread is to compare our education, internship and respect in the public eye (whatever that is exactly) with the professsions of medicine and law, which both require dedicated graduate degrees.
no comparison AP, we don't get paid like doctor's and lawyer's.
do we really need architect's making $35k a year with $100k in debt?
the 4+2'ers I know that worked in offices in between find it REALLY hard to go back for the 2. most end up unlicensed, or find themselves in a master's program that they don't want to be in (would rather be working).
that's exactly the point.
hmm. i might weigh in on this one....although i do have to say that i also have a 5 yr BArch that i then followed up with a 1 yr Post Pro MArch.....
but i actually must agree with those that would like to see the 5yr go the way of the dinosaur. although i do know quite a few good people with just a 5yr degree, i have to say that a lot more were "graduated" that really shouldn't have had a BArch. i think having to re-apply at the 4yr mark would allow schools to be more critical about who they choose for the final 2yrs. also i agree with AP. the public is confused by our profession's statements about itself. If we want to really prove our worth we need a more coherent argument about our professional capabilities...part of which is stating an educational path that is considered a professional path versus a vocational path (i'm using the term vocational here in a broad sense, but i do believe that most 4yr degrees tend to apply themselves in this way).
i also believe the move to a 4 + 2 would allow a slightly more focussed curriculum in terms of how technical versus managerial or design skills are taught and refined.
so salaries would increase with all arch's having master's? I'm confused.
to stir the pot some more- I think that 'thesis' projects should be optional for B.Archs and M.Archs.
Only a few students have the maturity and experience to pull off a good thesis project, most arch students would benefit from having another studio with a dictatorial instructor. I've seen too many manditory thesis projects that suck (just look at what comes out of princeton). Leave the optional thesis for students that want to distinguish themselves.
back to the $$ issue: some practitioners think that if we all had M.Archs we'd be more 'competative'. But the route to higher fees is to negociate for them with the client. If you don't ask, then they won't happen.
I don't know how long a law degree takes, but my sister the doctor did four years of intensive graduate work (after getting an electrical engineering undergrad degree - she rocks!).
Maybe it's the four-year BS-Arch degrees that should die out - what good are they really?
Clients don't know what kind of degree I have. I bet they assume I have a masters just because they DO equate architectural education with medicine and law. If I could triple or quadruple my salary with a masters, I'd go back in a heartbeat.
Anyways, isn't negotiating higher fees more to do with us reducing the hours of tedious work in order to get a project out and not taking it in the arse when the project gets out of hand and drags on and on like every projects tends to do (scope creep, clients who need hands held, contractor's who force redesign by way of their own inadequacies, etc.). Think about it this way, we get OK fees, we just tend to blow them pretty easy. We also will jump at any job, even if it is not right for us, making the project harder to deliver and less profitable.
I said "negotiating higher fees" in first sentence of second paragragh, I mean "increasing profits".
don't blame me. I'm just drawing what you told me to (for the Nth time).
We know that projects take lots of time, so we need to bump up them fees.
from my experience
-no-one should be allowed to aquire a licence w/out a 5year Barch
-getting a 4bach+2masters comes no where close to a 5 year barch
-people leave there 4year program with barely any computer aided drafting skills and a fat 0 in the design dept. - then jump into a masters to up there design skills(where they use these fancy schmancy 3d programs)
a real basic run-down - - - 4year - you are or will be a bitch in someones office
- - - 5year - could be a bitch - could be a real architect - could do almost anything even teach at some schools
- - - 4+2 master - same as the 1st
- - - 5+2or1 master - you can do it all!
this is how it should be!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was going to come on here to say exactly the same thing. (Except to replace 2-year with 3-year Master's with no other arch. degree.) Many times lately I have found myself disappointed by (lack of) breadth of knowledge of people graduating from arch. masters programs with no prior arch. experience. I agree that older students are generally able to absorb more from arch. schooling; however I just do not think that 4 studios plus a thesis is enough design training. Not to mention all the mandantary courses for B.Archs that just don't fit into the M.Arch curriculum as a requirement.
Why not leave all the programs? They're all accredited, which means they all have to pass muster according to us. You still have to do IDP and ARE afterwards, anyway. I don't think we should get rid of ANY kind of schooling--the more options, the better! And the more diverse types of programs, the more exposure people are likely to get to arch. schooling, and therefore architecture. I would never, ever want to hear that someone wanted to do arch and couldn't fit it into their life-plan because the requirements were so stringent. ...And I heard that just last week!!!
thank you!
Forget about diversity.
The AIA should take control of architectural education nationally.
The first 3 years should be entirely codes and standards. The next five years should be "AIA DESIGN THEORY (150 years of progress)" and then 1 year for the professional exam. No passy, no architecty.
I can see the points about life experience contributing to making a better architect, therefore the masters being a good way to go. But on the flipside, like myriam maybe touched on, is that those masters graduates with unrelated backgrounds don't fully immerse in the architectural education. They often have preconcieved notions of architecture and what their role as an architect is, which is typically rather childish. Ironic, isn't it? During my 5 year B Arch, I went from a-z and back again and again, exploring, applying, making errors. The masters students I interacted with weren't as willing to explore, didn't want to make mistakes, the concepts tended to be one-liners and they were more worried about acing structures than having a rigorous studio project.
Some of the better students were the older students in the B Arch program. Some of whom had prior bachelors or even masters degrees. These guys are probably the best architects by now.
Yes, Strawbeary, I agree entirely, and echo your experiences. I find far more copy-cat type masters' students (hey, look what rem just did! let's do that too!) than I ever see in B.arch programs. We barely knew what was out there TO copy, at age 20. I remember a freshman year project that was essentially building the barcelona pavilion out of a kit of parts, except that none of us knew it was the barcelona pavilion, or had ever heard of the barcelona pavilion. the stuff that we made was wildly divergent. Also, i echo about the older students in B-arch programs--the kids that transferred in from other majors after 1 or 2 years were by far the best in the class. I've thought about this a lot, and I really think that that's probably the best way to go, education-wise (clearly not finance-wise). I kinda wish I'd done that, because it's true that there's a certain amount of 18-year-old immaturity you need the first couple years of college to work through, and it would have been better to slough those off before entering an arch. program.
There are some misconceptions in some of these posts.
First off: a B.Arch program doesn't necessarily have more design, more CAD, or more anything than a 4-year architecture major. Some B.Arch programs do start with architecture studios in the first year, but many don't start any studios until the second or even the third year. Some 4-year architecture majors don't have any studios at all (though these people never qualify for the "2" components of 4+2 programs) but other 4-year majors start studios in 1st or 2nd year. I did a 4-year undergrad architecture major and had 6 semesters of studio. And not that I think that CAD skills are something that is critical to acquire during college, but I had strong 2D and 3D CAD skills before finishing my undergrad program.
Second, regarding the lengths of graduate programs: a person without any undergrad architecture major (or who comes from a program with no design studios in the curriculum) usually has to do either a 3 or 3.5 year program. There are a couple 4-year programs out there, but there are also a couple 2.5-year first-professional M.Arch programs too.
A person with a 4-year undergrad architecture major will typically do a program ranging from 2 to 3 years, depending on the school. Some M.Arch programs don't have "2" programs, or don't allow advanced standing.
Post-Pro M.Archs for people who already have B.Archs range from a low of 1 semester (currently or recently offered at Roger Williams to their own B.Arch grads) to 2.5 years. These average 1.5 to 2 years.
Thirdly: if you read the NAAB requirements for B.Arch vs. M.Arch curriculae, there is absolutely no required architecture content in the B.Arch that is not also required in the M.Arch. The difference in lengths of the programs is due to the way that the courses are scheduled (M.Arch programs typically have many more architecture-specific credits per semester than do B.Arch programs) and the liberal arts distribution requirements for the B.Archs. Most M.Arch programs have greater offerings in project management and business coursework, though these are not always required courses.
So there is lot of variation in how long any route could take...
I don't really think that either program should be "phased out" or that either is inherently better than the other. There are so many variables that would make one route better for one person than another...
One issue that is a continuing problem with many of the B.Arch programs is that the drop-out rate is phenomenally high in some schools - sometimes with as high as 60% to 75% of the people who start the program eventually leaving or changing majors. Studies of what becomes of the students after graduation also show that it's much more likely for a B.Arch grad to have left the field within 7 years of graduation than for an M.Arch grad - but this is consistent with most other fields. In general a fairly small minority of people are still working in a field related to their undergrad major even 5 years after college, whereas people who seek advanced degrees do tend to continue in those fields more often than not.
What's wrong with dropping out? I find the arch. curriculum amazingly adaptive to going into other fields--that's one of the beautiful things about architecture. And I love the fact that a lot of people do a couple years and then do something different--the more people educated about architecture, the better! And the more people forging their own path, the better, too.
I meant that as a serious question, btw.
The grad program I went to (at an un-named Ivy) had more stringent admissions then the undegrad program I went to (at a big ten school- also ranked very high). Overall, the grad students were:
1) smarter then my undergrad classmates
2) had more diverse experiences that enriched their designs
3) better workers
4) more dedicated - only one or two washed out, versus the 30-50% of undergrads who washed out.
5) had better people skills
If I hadn't taken a detour through hollywood between undergrad and grad, I would be a really boring architecture geek who couldn't talk about anything else (oh, yeah, I still can't talk about anything else). My explorations outside of architecture have made me a better architect- so I really, really recommend that most architect wannabes do something else first and take a few years to live life before starting their architectural education...
myriam: nothing at all is wrong with dropping out - for the people who do it (well, it's probably bad for some of them, for various reasons, but that could go way off topic in a million directions...)
But it can be a serious problem for the programs themselves and for the people who choose to stay. If the upper years of the program shrink substantially then some bad things sometimes happen. For example, it becomes difficult for the school to justify providing multiple studio options, if there aren't enough students. I was teaching in a program several years ago in which I was the only person teaching 4th-year studio - because there were only enough students for one studio - but many of the students had already had me as their critic in a previous year. This lack of choice made the students unhappy. It also sometimes results in a lack of funding for the deparment, especially for resources for the upper years - because this is often based on head-count. It also can result in the university "redistributing" classroom and studio space, equipment, etc. to other departments. It also can result in a huge push to enroll transfer students, visiting and exchange students, etc. into the upper years - which is not something that is usually encouraged.
I've just seen a lot of disruption in the upper years of 5-year programs - and a lot of unfairness to those students who stick it out - especially at smaller schools.
But like I said, both types of programs have their good and bad points. I can't see a good reason to eliminate either one.
Aluminate - I was shocked with the drop out rate at some schools (60% to 75%). Could you provide any light on what attributes to this high drop out rate?
If the dropout rate is causing that much of a problem at a school then I would venture to say that the school is doing something wrong, not the inherent nature of the program requirements.
Katze- I went to one of those schools, and the main factor contributing (for us) was the immersion in studio and other architecture courses from day one, and the sheer amount of workload required. In a four year program that didn't start studio until junior year, many of those people would have stuck it out and gotten their B.S. and then moved on to something else. But in a B.Arch program when they were hit with this on the first day of college, and knew they were in for five more years where it was just going to get worse, they crumbled. For the most part, this wasn't a problem for the school, as they expected it and were used to it. However, for my particular class, about 90% of the dropouts occured first year, and very few after that, whereas most classes still experienced dropout second, and even some amount in third year. This made our year undersized in second and third year, and it gave the school financial problems. Most schools will be prepared for a certain amount of dropout, but an anomoly in the pattern like that can really throw them.
Yup, my BArch program started with studio and other architecture coursework from Day 1. Our very first day of studio, we were presented with a weeklong, department wide design charette. Happy times!
We started with 72 students and only 23 of us graduated with a Barch five years later.
I think there's a fair amount of resentment that BArch-ers have towards those that only have a MArch. We BArch-ers wear it like a badge of honor. 5 years of all-nighters and a committment to the work and work ethic required to get there.
Keep in mind that a Barch student completes a lot more academic projects than a March student. This gives many more opportunities and exposure to experiment with ideas, media, methodologies, etc. Using my Barch as an example, I did 24 design projects in my five years. That's a lot of design, drawing, model building, etc. in comparison to a MArch.
Rationalist – this makes perfect sense. Thanks for your feedback. I assumed workload attributed to the large dropout rate! It is a shame that schools suffer financially because of it; wouldn't you think that the school would use past statistics, patterns or metrics to adjust admissions accordingly? Meaning – why not accept more into the program initially with the intent of keeping more in the program for concurrent years? Or maybe, like myriam said, maybe it is something that the school is doing wrong. I wonder if all schools provide an "exiting-interview" for folks that drop out of a particular program/school – this might be helpful? I do not know about the rest of you, but my previous school(s) required each student to complete a mandatory "report card" or feedback, if you will, about each class we completed and a final critique about the program as a whole. I assume that this information would be invaluable for schools wanting to improve on their programs.
My school prided itself on the dropout rate--no kidding--which I think was a symptom of a serious problem. Something that does attract me to the masters programs is that once you're in, you're in--the schools seem, in general, very committed to fostering your learning--not to kicking you down enough times to "teach you how hard the real world is." The 'badge of honor' some B.Arch schools wear with pride is a sort of twisted, sadistic one that can get in the way of real learning, if you ask me.
On the other hand, if the school isn't actively trying its damnedest to make as many people drop out as possible in order to lodge some chip on its shoulder to make it feel more "legitimate", and people drop out anyway, well I don't see any problem with that in and of itself.
A girlfriend of mine is applying to various med schools at the moment, some of which have no grades--once you're in, you're in--the goal is to learn as much as you can, not feel pressured to achieve some random letter note or compete with your peers, but grow together toward the common goal of becoming a good doctor. (And besides, like in architecture, everyone has to pass a test at the end anyway). I honestly feel that architecture school would benefit ENORMOUSLY from this approach.
It is twisted, but as soon as I saw those words I knew that's the right way to express exactly how I feel about it. It is a badge of honor that despite over half my class dropping out, I made it through.
They definitely do admit more, knowing they'll only graduate a certain percentage of them. But the numbers are based on averages- when the dropout rate spikes, they have trouble with money, and when the dropout rate dips, they have trouble with space! Within a large university, the school of architecture is such a small player that the numbers balance can be very delicate. Another school is like, "eh, one more dropped, it's only 12k a year", whereas a school of architecture is like, "jesus, another one dropped- that's 12k a year! There goes the new plotter we wanted to get..."
I think this is a natural reaction. What I take exception to is schools actively taking a role in TRYING to achieve the result of a very high dropout rate, in order to flatter their own egos. ("the harder it is for them, the better a job we're doing, and the more valuable our program must therefore be" is pretty much exactly the line of reasoning I've heard some administrators at my alma mater express.)
And, the financial argument makes sense, but it works at any level--it is predicated upon guessing in advance how many will drop out--not in having large numbers of dropouts. It's a ratio thing, sure--but that doesn't mean the ratio has to be 1/3.
my undergrad program lost 50% of the kids in the first year. after that it was smooth sailing.
There are two administrative options, let everybody in and then give them hell so you cut down to the optimum program size, or make getting in really hard and do what it takes to keep everyone once their in.
The big public schools tend to favor the first approach (and have most of the b.arch programs), while the private/grad programs tend to be way more selective.
did both, like the second method better. If you're in, then you know your classmates are just as good as you are. in the big school everybody has a chance, their were too many idiots wasting the critics time in the first few studios.
Again: the idea that all B.Arch students complete more design projects than all M.Arch students is just not true. Most people who go through 4-year undergrad architecture majors have either 4 or 6 semesters of studio by the time they graduate (though some have none, and others have 8 semesters.) The students who had no studio at all as undergrads do not go directly into 2-year M.Arch programs - they go into 3, 3.5, or 4 year programs and thus end up with 6 to 8 semesters of studio. The students who did have studio as undergrads go into anywhere from 2 to 3.5 years of M.Arch and gain an additional 4 to 7 semesters of studio. B.Arch students have anywhere from 6 to 10 semesters of studio, depending on their program.
So the M.Arch people end up with anywhere from 6 to 14 semesters of studio, with 8 to 10 being about the avergae, while the B.Arch people end up with anywhere from 4 to 10 semesters, with 8 being the average.
I have an undergrad background in architecture with 6 semesters of studio, with a total of 16 projects, and an M.Arch with 6 semesters of studio and a total of 10 projects. (The number of projects is a program-specific thing and doesn't have as much to do with what degree you do as with the school's particular philosophy.) Some have multiple projects in every semester while others only do that in the first one or two semesters. I also have another degree in an unrelated field. That's more or less typical of the M.Archs that I know.
I haven't perceived any major differences between B.Arch and M.Arch grads who've worked for me, except that the B.Archs are younger and so have less experience in ANY field, and they also have a tendency to leave in order to go to grad school...
As for the idea that the school is doing something wrong that's causing the dropout rate: probably true, though most of the schools bend over backward to try to keep enrollment up. But much of the mass exodus just seems to have more to do with undergrads wanting to have the well-rounded college experience (whether that means taking the occasional course in something unrelated and actually having time to devote to it, or whether it just means having the time for partying and extracurricular activities.) Also the environment of constant criticism and competition can be a bit much for some people right out of highschool, whereas it's a little easier for people who've had some time and life experience to learn how to take things less personally/more objectively.
There are also many more issues of parental involvement with undergrads. You get students who are in the program because it's what their moms want, while they themselves don't necessarily have the interest and devotion to architecture. There are others who are there against their parents' will - being told all the time that they're "smart enough" to study something more lucrative like medicine. And there are the ones whose families expect them to come home every weekend for some family event and don't understand the time commitment. Many of those issues have been dealt with by the time people get to grad school (though then there can be issues of spouses and children and careers left behind....)
I have a lot of admiration for anybody who gets through either type of program. And I don't really blame the schools for most of those who don't.
alright. just to be clear, I personally have no problem with the existence of the 5 year BArch. none what-so-ever. The list of amazing BArch-having Architects is far too long for me (with my relative lack of experience and knowledge) to take opposition. my earlier point regarding law and medicine was merely a tangent regarding pay and public respect - a pair of issues often complained about on this site.
...
Aluminate, I appreciate you taking the time to spell all of that out.
treekiller, just to illuminate your comment regarding the 2 administrative options:
my undergrad (big state school) lets anybody who gets into the University give architecture a try. +/-200 usually start the first semester. This number drops each semester for the first year and a half. At the beginning of the 4th semester, there are usually about 130-140 left. At the end of the 4th semester, there is a selection process - "pin-up." You have a 4'x8'x18" space on a hallway wall to arrange your [edited] work. 96 students are admitted to upper division. of these 96, 80 or so will graduate on time with their Bachelor of Design in Architecture.
of the 40 or so students who don't get in to upper division, some will try again the following year. Most that do this get in on the 2nd try.
of the 80 or so that graduate each spring, who knows....some go straight into grad school. some take time off to work in the field. some go to china to teach english, some join the peacecorps, some go to law school, some run for the hills, never to be seen or heard from again.
oh, we have 8 studios, 2 M&M courses, 2 ET courses, 1-2 structures courses, 2 arch history, 2 theory, at least one "digital media" course, a few electives, blablablu
Ah rationalist, I can certainly relate to the "jesus, another one dropped- that's 12k a year! There goes the new plotter we wanted to get..." Sad but true!
i love the fact that i had a life as an undergrad before i became trapped in this studio [i love the work, don't misunderstand me].
+ those contacts i made by having a life, will most definitely prove useful in the future.
it's kind of sad and amusing at the same time that people in my first year studio are betting on who will drop out first....
dml955i – I was quite amazed at your statistics " We started with 72 students and only 23 of us graduated with a Barch five years later" WHAHHH!
And myriam – how sad is it for a school to pride itself on the dropout rate to flatter their own egos? WHAHHH!
treekiller – agree with the selective approach. I guess I would prefer the later as well - no use wasting the critics time on folks that don't belong in the program.
Aluminate - "As for the idea that the school is doing something wrong that's causing the dropout rate: probably true, though most of the schools bend over backward to try to keep enrollment up". Could you provide an example of how schools accomplish this?
And I couldn't agree with you more in regards to " You get students who are in the program because it's what their moms want, while they themselves don't necessarily have the interest and devotion to architecture". I couldn't agree with you more – I attribute a high dropout rate because of this.
well, just to re-enter this discussion. i think that addictionbomb's comment is quite apt in relation to pay. my point earlier relating to why a 4+2 might allow this higher level of pay is:
1. students develop connections in other majors
2. students have the ability to take other courses that can be beneficial in their architecture careers (i never had a professor that was very business savvy...or if so they are very few and far between)
3. although the 5 year immersive program is great for developing architects, it also fosters a warped world view in relation to the profession and the role of collaboration within it. i feel that 4+2 programs allow a stronger divide between technical and design understanding and the management and collaboration that allows more sophisticated projects to evolve....this is really going off of meeting a few very stellar people who have done a 4+2 that really had their shit together more so than i felt i did after graduating at the top of my class with a 5 yr BArch.
and just to reiterate. 4+2 is not something that should include any less than 8 (preferrably 10) semesters of studio. if you are coming out with a degree in architecture and don't have bet. 6-8 semesters of studio you are not going to be accepted to a 2 yr masters program....would then be in the 3 yr program at most schools. totally different animal. with it's own issues.
as for my story. first yr we went from 90 to 45. second yr 45 to 35.
consistent till fifth yr. then from 35 to 25. and of those 25 i would have to say that at least 5 of them really shouldn't have walked out with a degree...but i feel like they had to keep them in just to keep the doors open.
as for those who stayed within the profession after graduation (i can't speak for everyone from the 25), but probably 20 are or are becoming registered.
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.