It all really depends on the path you feel you want to take in the field. Those who want to pursue a career in teaching and education in regards to architecture benefit the most from graduate school because then they have the chance to gain the experience they need as well as the hightened credentials to get themselves a good position, even if it's just a short stint in a studio.

Those who are pursuing their license do not feel the need to waste anymore time in their efforts and want to get IDP over and done with asap, so graduate school wouldn't directly benefit them. The compensation you receive after graduate school isn't much within the field, although neither is getting your license.

What are your desires and goals upon graduation? Once you establish that it will be easier to help you with your choices.

5 year at a good school will offer as much or more than a MArch I.

The entire education/profession is messed up, imho.

If I had a choice to do things differently, I'd keep my bach in arch (4 yr, non professional), get a dual masters in re development/arch and business.

There are a few good programs that allow you to do this out there, that I was unaware of at the time.

Or do it the other way, get a bach in biz with emphasis on re dev, take a ton of art classes/3D classes/etc, then go get a MArch I.

Eitherway, you end up with a well rounded degree that arms you with the knowledge to do countless things, make a very good living, etc.

Klayman,

I keep hearing that a Barch is enough...and with the way it all splinters into hybrid fields these days...you may just stop there...especially with crushing debt eminent.

Trace,
good points...about that 're' degree
I wonder if that is an overwhelming amount of education though.

I've got about 6 -7 years of school and all I have is a B.Envd and an A.A.S.( 2 yr trade degree). I am still having to be subjected to a full 3 yr March1 standard, if and when I go for my masters .... Ive always been depressed about this.

So I am curious , as to how much more that re degree would help...I wonder if...

As financial concerns develop, I recently have wondered if an MBA or re degree would serve me better at this point.

RE will give you the flexibility to do what you want (and that will change over time).

you could be:

- Architect, regular career path, but you'll know enough to look for more opportunities, talk dev talk, etc.

- Architect/Developer, the best of both worlds. Make money doing architecture. You can do this at a developers office or on your own.



MBA - you can get an MBA with emphasis on RE. Personally, I would look at programs like Columbia's MArch/RE combo program (try a search on here).


School would be tough, for sure, but well worth it. I've considered going back for an MBA, but once you are working, its difficult to find the time.

In all likely-hood when i go to grad school it will be for an MBA, with emphasis (if available) in development or the building construction industry. My idea is to now only learn how to operate a business and be able to communicate with clients on their level, but to make a network of potentially very rich friends who may require my services.

I would love to go to school and get an March, especially something research based but unfortunately cold, hard financial mathematics dictates otherwise...

dang...these kind of ideas are shaking up my MArch ambitions

If you intend to work at a larger "corporate architecture" office and have some semblance of a career path other than "technical coordinator", then a MArch really is needed. The MArch, from a big-name school, will accelerate your career development at a large firm, though design talent and salesmanship personality are equally important. That same career path will be more difficult of you only have a BArch.

Also, larger offices have preconceived notions regarding grads from the various architectural schools. It's easy to get "job-slotted" according to the office's general expectations of your school based on past experience and reputation. If your undergrad school has a "plain vanilla" reputation, it'll will be that much harder to overcome the stereotyple. If you're a student intern, check the staff architects' degree levels, schools, and career status, and draw your own conclusions.

If you want to work for a "star architect", I suspect an Ivy MArch is mandatory. What are other people's opinions?

I'd have to agree wtih chicagowoman on the corporates. At above a certain level, you scarcely meet anyone who didn't get the respective professional master's degrees (M.Arch, MUP/MCP, MLA or some combination thereof) following a professional or non-professional undergrad degree in architecture. If you do, they tend to be older people, whose career paths developed before the current set of expectations did.

I don't think I agree with the notion that the same applies to all starchitects... a history of winning competitions and having a bodied of published/exhibited work is often more critical and can make up for a deficiency in education.

Whta was the question?..."How important is it to got to grad school?"...well the short answer is that it is not important at all. Many successful people have degrees...many successful people do not have degrees...and vice versa. Only time will tell for you

Fuckin' nose hair...

i followed the b.a.+m.arch route, so a completely different experience, but i will say that if nothing else, grad school puts you in a club. when you meet other alumni from your school or keep in touch with your former classmates, you do hold these people in a regard that you wouldn't for just anyone in the profession. it can definitely help you find work whether it's a job or a client. that may sound elitist, but it is how much of the professional world works.

...just for fun

A start of a list of pretty good architects without ANY! architectural degree. I'm in Phoenix and can think of a few around here. I'm sure there are many more.

will bruder
wendell burnette
...of course frank lloyd wright

thakns guys this is really helpfull for me. i dint plan on following march right yet even though i would want to work more on my design skills. geting some office experience and really knowing how this thing works is what im going to work on for the time being, till i know a bit better what is going on in the field.

the thing i noticed though is that there was a lot of confusion in my classes towards what architecture really is, granted i went to a heavily desing and art oriented school so it was kind of a given. so wouldent getting a job and taking a look at things from the inside be more benefitial to a further desision later on? not only in architecture. some of my friends are already doing their doctorates and still have not worked a single day ( what thats like 4+3+2 years?). im just curious as to what they will do if they cant find some tihng that fits their very specific edducation...

this is good though i had not though of doing a masters in some thing else, so that is some thing to look forward in the future once i know. development sounds kind of interesting.

ryukyova, im not shure but i think ando mentioned at a speach that he had not had any or little schooling to beginwith. but that was a while a go. i just remember his first building design and it was kind of retarded... in a good way.

'the thing i noticed though is that there was a lot of confusion in my classes towards what architecture really is'...

oh boy

yeah i know...

but what is architecture? that's where all these theories come into play (modernism, pomo, structuralism, etc). It's not as though that is an easy question to answer...