It has been discussed, but that's ok.  Sometimes, what happens is that a person goes to a B.Arch. or M.Arch. that was NOT their first choice, or their second, for that matter.  That 1 year M.Arch., which need not be accredited, might be ok for a person who "got their act together" and did really well in school, and can use that short M.Arch. as a "union card" in a region or city.  Guilty as charged.  I felt like doing the same, and feel confident I would have gotten in.  I did NOT do it.  You have to propose a curriculum and area of emphasis, justifying why they should make space for you.  I would have liked to take more theoretical courses in that extra year, had I done it.

I was thinking more along the lines of circumstance. I would like to go to Columbia in general, it is not a fallback/2nd choice, etc.

My concern is that a true "Master's in Architecture" degree from Columbia is something I think is reserved for those who do not have a professional degree already. I am trying to draw a comparison between something like Yale or Harvard ( a true M. Arch II, second professional degree) and Columbia in terms of their programs.

So, since I would like to study further, obtain a master's degree, and forge ahead professionally thereafter, is it unheard of to apply to an M. Arch. I program with my B. Arch? Am I pursuing the same degree twice?

My colleagues that attended did the MSAAD degree. Is anyone here familiar with that program?