I'm a high school senior from the Houston area considering different architecture programs. So far, I've been accepted to
Rice University, Columbia University, WashU, UT Austin. From this point on, I'm really confused about where I should go. Although I can definetly see myself as an architect in the future, my commitment to actually going through a B. Arch tends to waver a lot, and I'm worried that a B.Arch would be too limiting. I do have a lot of different interests outside of architecture, like art history and film, but I think that my interest is more academic, while I see architecture as a way to get a good job out of the things I think. If I were to narrow down the list of colleges above to the ones that I'm seriously considering going, I would probably say Rice and Columbia. Financial aid really isn't a worry for undergrad, but I am concerned about loans and stuff if I go to Columbia and have to get an M. Arch. So basically, I'm just wondering about Columbia/Barnard's undergraduate architecture school and whether it will actually prepare me well for graduate school (honestly I didn't do too much research since I didn't think I'd get in :) ) Is there really any professional advantage to getting a B.Arch vs. a M. Arch I, besides the fact that I could go straight becoming an architect faster in B. Arch. I love designing more than I like actually being in charge of building and construction. But if I can really get to design with an M. Arch I then I guess that would be ideal...?
You can't be absolutely sure you want to study architecture yet. Go to Columbia and major in something else. I think I envy their Core Curriculum, and it will serve you well if you want to go on and get an M.Arch.
Otherwise, think of it this way:
B.Arch - 5 years of architecture. BORING.
BA (non arch) + M.Arch - 4 years of something else and only 3 years of architecture. RECOMMENDED.
BA (arch) + M.Arch - 7 years of architecture. NOT RECOMMENDED.
Majoring in architecture at Columbia would be fine too because you also get to do tons of liberal artsy things unrelated to architecture that will make you a better person. At least I think so - do your research on the program because i don't know Columbia's undergrad all that well.
Regardless of what you major in, you can go to a masters in architecture as long as you have a portfolio demonstrating some kind of visual competence.
One thing is for sure though: if you're not positive that you want to do architecture and only architecture, then DON'T do a B.Arch.
Congratulations on your acceptances, those are some great programs.
orEqual is right that you get more time for electives/other classes if you're not in a BArch but that shouldn't be your only criterion. All of those paths work, it just depends on the person.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with designing vs. construction. Your degree doesn't matter much relative to what you do in your career. Whether you are graduating with a BA, BArch, MArch, etc. you still start work as an intern and gain project management & design experience in the same fashion.
I know more than a few that did WashU undergrad + Columbia MArch. Admission to Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, YAle for grad school was so frequent they were basically a feeder school.
Apr 10, 07 8:37 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.
HELP! Rice v. Columbia v. WashU undergrad!!
Hi!
I'm a high school senior from the Houston area considering different architecture programs. So far, I've been accepted to
Rice University, Columbia University, WashU, UT Austin. From this point on, I'm really confused about where I should go. Although I can definetly see myself as an architect in the future, my commitment to actually going through a B. Arch tends to waver a lot, and I'm worried that a B.Arch would be too limiting. I do have a lot of different interests outside of architecture, like art history and film, but I think that my interest is more academic, while I see architecture as a way to get a good job out of the things I think. If I were to narrow down the list of colleges above to the ones that I'm seriously considering going, I would probably say Rice and Columbia. Financial aid really isn't a worry for undergrad, but I am concerned about loans and stuff if I go to Columbia and have to get an M. Arch. So basically, I'm just wondering about Columbia/Barnard's undergraduate architecture school and whether it will actually prepare me well for graduate school (honestly I didn't do too much research since I didn't think I'd get in :) ) Is there really any professional advantage to getting a B.Arch vs. a M. Arch I, besides the fact that I could go straight becoming an architect faster in B. Arch. I love designing more than I like actually being in charge of building and construction. But if I can really get to design with an M. Arch I then I guess that would be ideal...?
HELP!
You can't be absolutely sure you want to study architecture yet. Go to Columbia and major in something else. I think I envy their Core Curriculum, and it will serve you well if you want to go on and get an M.Arch.
Otherwise, think of it this way:
B.Arch - 5 years of architecture. BORING.
BA (non arch) + M.Arch - 4 years of something else and only 3 years of architecture. RECOMMENDED.
BA (arch) + M.Arch - 7 years of architecture. NOT RECOMMENDED.
Majoring in architecture at Columbia would be fine too because you also get to do tons of liberal artsy things unrelated to architecture that will make you a better person. At least I think so - do your research on the program because i don't know Columbia's undergrad all that well.
Regardless of what you major in, you can go to a masters in architecture as long as you have a portfolio demonstrating some kind of visual competence.
One thing is for sure though: if you're not positive that you want to do architecture and only architecture, then DON'T do a B.Arch.
Congratulations on your acceptances, those are some great programs.
orEqual is right that you get more time for electives/other classes if you're not in a BArch but that shouldn't be your only criterion. All of those paths work, it just depends on the person.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with designing vs. construction. Your degree doesn't matter much relative to what you do in your career. Whether you are graduating with a BA, BArch, MArch, etc. you still start work as an intern and gain project management & design experience in the same fashion.
I know more than a few that did WashU undergrad + Columbia MArch. Admission to Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, YAle for grad school was so frequent they were basically a feeder school.
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.