Have you visited their website or been in touch with the program? Contact them and ask for referrals to current students in the program. If possible visit the program.

If the program just started, not many individuals within Archinect will have much insight. You want to talk with the source.

I imagine you would have to do a three year rather than a two year grad program with a BA in architectural studies. You will spend less time in studio which means less work for your portfolio and you might find the 4th studio a little more challenging than your fellow seniors in a normal 4 year arch school tract. That said, you will have more diverse interests, and maybe a different perspective to bring to architecture than your fellow students who might come off as a little more "indoctrinated"

I'm sure the program is still good and would compare to most liberal arts programs. Of course, talking to sources at the school will offer the most perspective.

Sounds fairly comparable to what the Ivies (well, Yale and Princeton at least) have for their undergrads. I think they have 3 semesters of real studio. They always have enough good stuff to get into good grad schools, although they do generally have to do 3 year masters, just like everyone who didn't major in architecture. UCLA's program is new so it has no reputation yet, but I would assume it'd be pretty good.

Sorry to thread hijack, but just wanted a little clarification.

Some/most US and european firms have an architecture course that is 3 (undergraduate, bachelors) / 2 (graduate, masters) split, correct?

Is the undergraduate part ever a BA or is it always a barch?

Here we have a 5yr bArch, but im considering doing the 3yr BA(arch) and then transfering to a foreign university for the final 2 years.....think this would work?

what does one do with a BA in architectural studies.... besides work at Starbucks????

what does one do with a BA in anything besides work at Starbucks?
the BA is the new High School Diploma. get used to it.

ulterior:

most us places you will do a 4 year undergrad that is a BA or a BS in Architecture. Then, depending on what undergrad school you went (how much they to and what graduate school you are going to, you will have to do 2, 3, or 3.5 years for your masters).

The program is designed to give a more general degree in architecture which isn't solely focused on producing graduates who will go on to work in typical architectural firms. Most architects end up completing a masters degree as well, and I think the idea behind UCLA's BA program is to give a better general education with the understanding that most graduates will go on to get a masters degree.
Many BS programs in architecture only offer 2 years of actual design studios, University of Michigan for example as well as several Ivies from what I understand.
As far as reputation, this is the first year of the program so there really is no reputation to speak of. It is very small and selective, they only allow 25 students per year and you have to apply after completing your two years of general education. There is also a portfolio requirement for acceptance. UCLA undergraduate programs in general have very low acceptance rates, so I think this program will develop a very good reputation after a few years.

drizzler, you say that the idea is that most of this new degree will go on to complete a masters - but would that be a March or a Marts? Sorry, just further clarifying for myself

It gives you the option of either one. If you wish to practice architecture professionally, you can go on to get a M.Arch degree, but for teaching or curatorial work it might be better to get an MA. I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but a fairly significant minority of UCLA's M.Arch program is made up of people without a background in architecture, and I know there are several other respected masters programs which don't have a separate track for people with and without architecture undergraduate degrees. You can get a masters in whatever field you choose, but I think the idea of the BA program is to give one a strong general education with a more theory heavy approach to architecture.
You get three design studios, three technology classes (which are design classes, but more technique heavy), and also several history and theory classes. Compared with a BS program you are not going to get construction and structures classes, a few less design studios, but more history and theory classes.
Here is a link to the program requirements: http://www.aud.ucla.edu/undergradstudyprogram.pdf

Ah k, thanks drizzler

to clarify, i believe that the program schedule has been rearranged to introduce the first design studio in the winter term of your first year in the program (junior yr). the first year would be comprised of two technology seminars and one design studio and visa versa in your last year (senior year).

thanks for all the info

because I am studying in community college and I am applying as a transfer student, if I am accepted by this program, would you all recommend me to go for it or go to a 5-year program in other schools instead? (start from a freshman)

for sure go to UCLA... think about it this way. you can either do 2 at UCLA and 3 more in Grad school or 5 at a 5yr program and 1 more at a grad school. the 3 yrs in grad school will be much, much, much more beneficial for you considering your situation.

>43N88W:
so do u mean the education in grad school is better? wt is the difference actually? and isn't that M.Arch programs are 2-year for students who has a BA/BS in Arch?

most schools (the better schools in my opinion) have adopted a three-year graduate program that integrates those with non-architecture backgrounds and those with 4-year BS/BA degrees. i can't speak much to the quality of the 5-year B.Arch programs but I find it hard to believe that the same rigor, quality, talent, etc could be found in the B.Arch programs when compared to a longer graduate program. i felt that i had a great undergraduate education (BS Arch), but upon coming to graduate school found out just how little i had been exposed to. the quality of faculty will be better and the work will be better from those around you. this is, of course, assuming you can get into a top 10 program (top 10 based on your interests).

'The program is designed to give a more general degree in architecture which isn't solely focused on producing graduates who will go on to work in typical architectural firms'

what the fuck???

I am going to go on a little rampage right now....

I am getting really pissed off at the architectural eduacational system offering worthless degrees to 18yr olds who dont have a clue about what they are getting into. These schools are charging huge amounts of $$$ for an essentially worthless service. Sure, you can get this degree and then have to go back and get a masters and then teach (even though you will not have practiced and will essentially be perpetuating the stream of 'academic' architectural bull-shit).