I attend UNSW in sydney australia. Currently our architecture program is switching from a 5yr bachelors program into a 3+2 bachelor and masters program. i am currently in 4th yr, and so i have the ability to chose whether i want to graduate with:
a) bachelor of architecture (hopefully with honours, which is given to top scoring students),
or
b) bachelor of architectural studies and a masters of architecture (honours not given).
We are being told that this change is to bring australian universities in line with their european counterparts.
Essentially it comes down to whether honours or masters means more. I plan to work in Europe or america upon graduating.
Does anybody in Europe or America have any feedback/opinion?
it will make no difference to an employer, for office work. for this, the fact that you have 'graduated' is the most important, the quality of your portfolio and any previous office experience.
it would make a difference for teaching work. although it is possible to get sessional work with just a B.Arch in many schools, to have any longer term status you need to have a Masters.
finally, any one really wanting to judge your work will look at the work and gain from an interview. the degree is less of an issue.
i understand the change to meet north american standards. not sure about europe. all of my friends from europe were given diplomas after 5 years ( i think). at my uni it was more or less up to the professors whether or not to accept them as masters or bachelor degrees, so some folks here are doing phd and some are doing a masters degree even though they all have the same diploma (from different countries)...
maybe europe is changing too?
masters sounds better to me. honours doesn't mean so much. almost zero really. i won several awards and even a competition or two in school and not a single employer cared. they cared even less about my grades. but having an m.arch has made a difference.
funny how school seems so important but then suddenly isn't once you graduate... probably the most important thing for you will be whether the degree you receive is 1. professional and 2. accredited and recognised overseas...
europe has already changed actually ... not in everycountry but can confrim for germany holland italy poland croatia spain ... there was a famous bologna convention in the 90's to set a common standard for all the european univeristies to adopt a 3+2 bachelor/master system...
There's an oddity in Scottish university education (though not particular to architecture): The Scottish undergraduate degree takes 4 years.
The course I studied in Scotland, Psychology, offered two different degrees for the exact same paths of study. One could choose between the Batchelor of Science (BSc (hons)), or the Master of Arts (MA), both awarded after four years.
I took BSc, though am slightly peeved some years later when friends who took the same course swan around with the MA, passing it off as a separate graduate degree, rather than the undergraduate degree that it is.
Be sure and take the Masters route. To anyone who doesn't know the story of Australian architectural education and its changes in the late 00's, the Masters is a definite advantage. Also it groups you with the new school rather than the old school, the world (system) rather than the local, and when you end up working as an investment banker, they'll all be impressed with the extra letters.
There's an oddity in Scottish university education (though not particular to architecture): The Scottish undergraduate degree takes 4 years.
The course I studied in Scotland, Psychology, offered two different degrees for the exact same paths of study. One could choose between the Batchelor of Science (BSc (hons)), or the Master of Arts (MA), both awarded after four years.
I took BSc, though am slightly peeved some years later when friends who took the same course swan around with the MA, passing it off as a separate graduate degree, rather than the undergraduate degree that it is.
Be sure and take the Masters route. To anyone who doesn't know the story of Australian architectural education and its changes in the late 00's, the Masters is a definite advantage. Also it groups you with the new school rather than the old school, the world (system) rather than the local, and when you end up working as an investment banker, they'll all be impressed with the extra letters.
certainly, if the same work grants a M.Arch or a B.Arch+Honours, take the M.Arch, cause it sounds better.
unfortunately, this is another sign of grade (degree) inflation. back in the good old days, you did a 5 years undergraduate for a B.Arch (which took me 6 years), and then some years for a M.Arch (3 years at my grad school). now you get the whole thing in 5 or less. doesn't seem right.
Masters or Honours
I attend UNSW in sydney australia. Currently our architecture program is switching from a 5yr bachelors program into a 3+2 bachelor and masters program. i am currently in 4th yr, and so i have the ability to chose whether i want to graduate with:
a) bachelor of architecture (hopefully with honours, which is given to top scoring students),
or
b) bachelor of architectural studies and a masters of architecture (honours not given).
We are being told that this change is to bring australian universities in line with their european counterparts.
Essentially it comes down to whether honours or masters means more. I plan to work in Europe or america upon graduating.
Does anybody in Europe or America have any feedback/opinion?
it will make no difference to an employer, for office work. for this, the fact that you have 'graduated' is the most important, the quality of your portfolio and any previous office experience.
it would make a difference for teaching work. although it is possible to get sessional work with just a B.Arch in many schools, to have any longer term status you need to have a Masters.
finally, any one really wanting to judge your work will look at the work and gain from an interview. the degree is less of an issue.
i understand the change to meet north american standards. not sure about europe. all of my friends from europe were given diplomas after 5 years ( i think). at my uni it was more or less up to the professors whether or not to accept them as masters or bachelor degrees, so some folks here are doing phd and some are doing a masters degree even though they all have the same diploma (from different countries)...
maybe europe is changing too?
masters sounds better to me. honours doesn't mean so much. almost zero really. i won several awards and even a competition or two in school and not a single employer cared. they cared even less about my grades. but having an m.arch has made a difference.
funny how school seems so important but then suddenly isn't once you graduate... probably the most important thing for you will be whether the degree you receive is 1. professional and 2. accredited and recognised overseas...
europe has already changed actually ... not in everycountry but can confrim for germany holland italy poland croatia spain ... there was a famous bologna convention in the 90's to set a common standard for all the european univeristies to adopt a 3+2 bachelor/master system...
There's an oddity in Scottish university education (though not particular to architecture): The Scottish undergraduate degree takes 4 years.
The course I studied in Scotland, Psychology, offered two different degrees for the exact same paths of study. One could choose between the Batchelor of Science (BSc (hons)), or the Master of Arts (MA), both awarded after four years.
I took BSc, though am slightly peeved some years later when friends who took the same course swan around with the MA, passing it off as a separate graduate degree, rather than the undergraduate degree that it is.
Be sure and take the Masters route. To anyone who doesn't know the story of Australian architectural education and its changes in the late 00's, the Masters is a definite advantage. Also it groups you with the new school rather than the old school, the world (system) rather than the local, and when you end up working as an investment banker, they'll all be impressed with the extra letters.
There's an oddity in Scottish university education (though not particular to architecture): The Scottish undergraduate degree takes 4 years.
The course I studied in Scotland, Psychology, offered two different degrees for the exact same paths of study. One could choose between the Batchelor of Science (BSc (hons)), or the Master of Arts (MA), both awarded after four years.
I took BSc, though am slightly peeved some years later when friends who took the same course swan around with the MA, passing it off as a separate graduate degree, rather than the undergraduate degree that it is.
Be sure and take the Masters route. To anyone who doesn't know the story of Australian architectural education and its changes in the late 00's, the Masters is a definite advantage. Also it groups you with the new school rather than the old school, the world (system) rather than the local, and when you end up working as an investment banker, they'll all be impressed with the extra letters.
certainly, if the same work grants a M.Arch or a B.Arch+Honours, take the M.Arch, cause it sounds better.
unfortunately, this is another sign of grade (degree) inflation. back in the good old days, you did a 5 years undergraduate for a B.Arch (which took me 6 years), and then some years for a M.Arch (3 years at my grad school). now you get the whole thing in 5 or less. doesn't seem right.
PsyArch, that's not an oddity. In the US any undergraduate degree other than architecture is a four-year deal as well.
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.