I basically have two options- do a BArch followed by an M.Arch (5 years in total) or do a two-year graduate entry BLA, work for a few years in landscape architecture, and then do the M.Arch (~6 years in total). I'm leaning towards the latter, as I am 23 and another solid five years at university isn't do appealing, no matter how enjoyable the subject is. I am genuinely interested in landscape architecture, but ultimately aim to be an architect.
Would I be more employable in design architecture taking the landscape route, or should I do it the conventional route? Also, would being qualified in contact law be of any advantage to me at all?
Thanks in advance for answering my semi-incoherent architectural education question.
What I've seen is BSLA (4 yr, I think) to M.Arch, in fact I think it would be 3 and not 2 - there is no 2 year M.Arch. for previous landscape architects. The only course which is common to both is site planning, and sometimes not even that. When I was on the cusp of graduate school, there was a MLA offered at a good nearby state school from a city I was living in and liked very much, which wasn't that glutted, and the per semester load was easier than in architecture. I thought about it. Cheap tuition, stay in my place ...
I think that if you were initially attracted to buildings, you should pursue architecture. I think if you were initially attracted to parks, gardens, and the planning of outdoor spaces, you should pursue landscape architecture. Sure, get training in both, but make your desired career your terminal, and professional, degree. Do you have a degree in the works at this point?
Feb 17, 13 10:44 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.
BLA or B.arch?
I basically have two options- do a BArch followed by an M.Arch (5 years in total) or do a two-year graduate entry BLA, work for a few years in landscape architecture, and then do the M.Arch (~6 years in total). I'm leaning towards the latter, as I am 23 and another solid five years at university isn't do appealing, no matter how enjoyable the subject is. I am genuinely interested in landscape architecture, but ultimately aim to be an architect. Would I be more employable in design architecture taking the landscape route, or should I do it the conventional route? Also, would being qualified in contact law be of any advantage to me at all? Thanks in advance for answering my semi-incoherent architectural education question.
Can't be both, that easily. Again, people pick.
What I've seen is BSLA (4 yr, I think) to M.Arch, in fact I think it would be 3 and not 2 - there is no 2 year M.Arch. for previous landscape architects. The only course which is common to both is site planning, and sometimes not even that. When I was on the cusp of graduate school, there was a MLA offered at a good nearby state school from a city I was living in and liked very much, which wasn't that glutted, and the per semester load was easier than in architecture. I thought about it. Cheap tuition, stay in my place ...
I think that if you were initially attracted to buildings, you should pursue architecture. I think if you were initially attracted to parks, gardens, and the planning of outdoor spaces, you should pursue landscape architecture. Sure, get training in both, but make your desired career your terminal, and professional, degree. Do you have a degree in the works at this point?
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.