skip the MArch....you can always stamp Architectural drawings as an engineer, save your money.

I think time would be more important money...Getting both M.Arch & M.Eng would take about 6 years I think, right? In that time, you could probably get a PhD in one of these fields.

I want a structural eng. degree mainly to supplement my M.Arch. I really like both fields. I wouldn't want to be studying for six years straight. I'd get one degree work and then go back to school part time (if that's possible). It might open up some interesting/well-paying job opportunities. Wouldn't taking some structural eng. classes also allow me to opt out of similar M.Arch classes latter?

send your resume to cecil balmond...

I like that... Arup's Advanced Geometry Unit - sounds fun... I have a strong math background, but I'm probably under-qualified from an engineering or architectural standpoint.

Well if you want to do your second degree part-time, you should look at which degree allows for part-time attendance.

no' architecture. thas for sure.

depends on where you are living, but you do know that if you are in north america after you finish pro degree you will need about 3-5 years to get licence right?

not sure why you want to have both degrees. all architects in japan, where i work/live, are licenced structural engineers and doesn't seem to improve quality of architecture...even toyo ito hires cecil balmond...

not that having both degrees is bad, but you might want to think about why both are required for where you wanna be in ten years...

good point jump - I'm just not sure how rigorous the structures training in most M.Arch programs will be. I know it's good enough for most people. In my undergrad I took a good deal of fairly advanced math courses - beyond what most engineers would need. I'd just feel like I was wasting four years of math if I didn't pursue something that wasn't more math/physics based.

But I also like the artistic element of architecture. I wouldn't go as far as to say that being an architect requires more creativity. I think that good engineers have a lot of creativity; they just use it in a different way. But it seems easier to express creativity as an architect. It seems that an architects are more directly connected with the aesthetic, emotional, and social and human needs aspects of building - and I'm also interested in that.

being an engineer hasn't stopped calatrava. If you do chase after becoming a PE only, give archinect a shout when your licensed - I'd love to have you as a collaborator based on the 513 words you've posted today.

structure in architecture school when i began were minimal. we had calculus and numericl mathematics, but just baby-courses, and then followed that up with three years of statics, which ususally involved nothing more than solving quadratic equations. kid stuff, literally.

when i went back to get march we had structures course taught by former arup engineer, who taught us graphic methods and very few equations...and instead focused on understanding systems. the pedagogy has shifted to belief that architects don't need to understand how to calculate structures but should understand the purpose in systemic way. subtle kid stuff.

the approach does makes sense to me though. we hire an engineer to do our projects, and in my old office there were two architects who did the engineering. not because we didn't all know how to do the work, but rather because someone had to specialise as it is a full time job. doing both architecture and engineering is not easy.

i have friends at arup and similar high-wire act type of offices who are very creative but who themselves don't feel qualified to do architecture. i would say that in general the basic structural ideas can come from those guys, but usually we take the ideas, architectural and structural, to them. then they make it work. the impetus is almost always from Arch side...which is to me still kind of surprising...

anyway...engineering will not hurt you as a 2nd degree, but i don't think it is necessary. unless you want to be an engineer....

well thats my two bits.

"But I also like the artistic element of architecture. I wouldn't go as far as to say that being an architect requires more creativity. I think that good engineers have a lot of creativity; they just use it in a different way. But it seems easier to express creativity as an architect. It seems that an architects are more directly connected with the aesthetic, emotional, and social and human needs aspects of building - and I'm also interested in that."

Having worked in an architecture firm before working in a structural engineering firm, let me tell you - without having actual experiences in these fields, its easy to have false perceptions about both. From what I've seen, being an architect does require more creativity (many on practical levels that aren't interesting/fun and in ways you may not even be aware of) and it is in fact not easier/easy. But I don't mean that in a bad way for the engineers.

A good engineer is one that can provide solutions with verified data (based conceptually on physically tested and quantified materials, geometry, & techniques). That is more difficult than it sounds. But they need a defined problem to solve to begin with. No matter how creative they are, it is within the confines of the "problem" in relation to the verfiable data. Also progress in the structural engineering field is easy to quantify and the path is singular; to increase the data base in the predictability of material/geometry/method behavior, and increase its efficiency. And if you're not in the business of that kind of research (most of them do this during masters or phD - or as research careers), you're pretty much working within the existing data base - limiting "creativity".

An architect on the other hand works very differently. We don't have a singular path as the engineers do, kind of unrestricting our creativity. Structure is only one aspect of the building, and even now I hear engineers talking as if that is the only thing that matters. Obviously it is critical, but just because the other aspects are not critical it doesn't mean they're less important. And "aesthetics" - architects never talk about buildings purely for its aesthetic qualities and it is much more complex than what you might think about "aesthetics" of buildings now. Its more about scale, intellectual & emotional response to the spaces, materiality, quality of light, heirarchy/movement trhough of spaces, clear vs. ambiguous thresholds & etc, and less about the "pretty picture." We're not simply decorating the functional structure as what some engineers perceive architects to be doing.

Hope that helps. By the way, it seems like you do understand some of this anyway, so you're ahead of some engineers already.

Philarch, great points - I totally see what you're saying about the differences in the types of creativity.

Any good reading ideas/websites on structural expressionism in architecture (not necessarily talking about the style of structural expressionism). I am particularly interested in the how expressing structure can be harmonized with the functionality of a building instead of working against it (when possible). And anything on the geometry of built space would also be great - doesn't have to be from a structural standpoint? Just trying to get some ideas on things.

cecil balmond has a few monographs that tackle his work from that perspective... very interesting work...not sure where i saw it but he has also tried his hand at architecture on his own...i'll let you judge for yourself, but is good as example of how engineering education prepares one to be architect....

jump - Sorry to disagree with you on this one but - I think Cecil Balmond (and Calatrava) are exceptions to the rule. Cecil Balmond has only recently turned to designing on his own in his 60s after gaining a reputation by being able to work with a lot of famous architects. Calatrava is just pure talent - in designing and convincing people to get sculptural objects built. I mean following that reasoning cou2 should go into boxing because of how Tadao Ando turned out. (That was not intended to be argumentative as it might have sounded)

I know some architectural engineering undergrads that were required to take studio and architectural history as part of their curriculum so you might want to look into grad programs like that. And personally, I see "Structural Expressionism" as an architectural theory and has been historically directed by architects. Without the historical background you'd get from a M.Arch, ideas about it could be mis-guided. It might be a good idea to research it now before your next 6 years of graduate studies, since you have some time before you have to apply.

Thanks for the ideas everyone. In the last few days I have been looking into schools with a dual masters degree in engineering and architecture. This might save me some time. It seems like you can enter the program as an architecture or engineering student and then after a year in the program that you are accepted to, you can start taking classes in the other program. Two schools that I've been looking at have this progaram are UMich and University of Illinois. Those schools seem very strong in both fields. It would probably be easier for me to get into the engineering program first since they seem to pay more attention to grades and GRE scores.

oh no, philarch, you are totally correct. i didn't know how to offer the idea up without being rude so just mentioned that Balmond is architectural designer now too, so is possible if interested enough...if i were offering an opinion i would have to say balmond is remarkably awful at architecture design on his own.

ando did boxing but what he really did best was have a twin brother who went into real estate development. smart.

maybe that dual degree is a good way to do it. good luck, mate.

cou2, I'm a similar situation to yourself, however I already have a mechanical engineering degree and 5 years in the workforce. I'm working on a master's in eng and am considering an M.Arch in the future.
I can tell you that design work and creativity does exist in engineering, although it depends on the field. Mechanical is less structured and regulated than structural, so more freedom of design is available in mechanical.
That said, I've done very little creative work and spend most of my time pushing paper and talking to people. Personally I'd rather be doing the job of some of the people I've supervised (welders, installers, machinists) at least they are creating something with their hands (I have been fortunate in that respect, because a lot of the blue collar guys I've worked with have taught me a bit of their craft).

Also, engineers as a group are not the most interesting of people, which is probably why I spend most of my time with architects and artists.
The profession is also well suited to mechanical minds and detail oriented people, creativity and imagination is valued, but not necessarily supported.
That being said, all the architects I know are big picture types and that is something that most engineers lack. An ability to see the big picture is what alot of engineering firms look for and will generally mean a ticket to management. Engineering management is where you get paid a little bit more, to push much more paper and shout AT people (instead of talk to people) ;-)

Anyway, I hope this brief intro to engineering helps. Pardon my cynicism ;-) , but it can be a bloody boring job.