your peers and friends are right, pick one and focus on it. It is good to have an understanding of the other disciplines as a supplement to your work, but don't get caught up in the idea of trying to do both at once.

See this post for further discussion on the topic.

you should check out schools that offer both, as there are ways to integrate the two besides just noting "Calatrava"- check out this program...its not a major design school, more of a practice oriented school, with a dual masters in engineering option which is with one of the best civil programs in the country.
http://www.arch.uiuc.edu/programs/degree/march/dualdegree/structures_msce/

a masters degree means you are a beginner.

Agreed Vado, atleast in engineering terms, the real skills you'll need are developed while working, not in the classroom. In class you learn a very broad base of skills, but truly mastering these takes years of repetition and practice that comes from encountering them in different none theoretical contexts. On homework assignments, you'll typically be given all the information you need up front, but in practice there is a lot more intuition and decision making to be done before you ever even start crunching any numbers. I've been working for a few years now and often think about how far I have come since graduating, but I still recognize I have a long way to go.

UIUC is a very highly respected program, typically ranked #1 or #2 in the entire country for civil engineering (UC Berkeley being the other), if you care about such things. One possible draw back is that you are down in Champagne Urbana, If you want a more urban context, I would highly recommend my alma matter, IIT, on the south side of Chicago.

yes, some firms even require masters as a minimum to start working and I agree that the academic is a lot different from the professional field.

Maybe I could do the dual degree and then focus on one after I graduate? Since firms would like to see an understanding of both engineering and design.


redward - thx for the tip, i did not know UIUC had a formal program set up for the dual degree like berkeley

as employer...if you had a m.arch and a degree in engineering i would ignore the latter - unless you had practice in field for about 5 years i would assume you knew only enough to be dangerous. i would give no special position and treat you as any other intern architect.

understanding structures is great, but i wouldn't expect to get so very far ahead with it as an architect. i can do the engineering in our office, but we hire someone instead cuz of time more than anything. and also cuz the engineers we work with are just brilliant.

but if you wanna do it just for you and not as a career move, absolutely go for it. at some point though you will have to make a choice...

right on, that is what I was trying to get across in my earlier post. Under normal circumstances, you will never find the time to develop as an architect and engineer, both take your full attention and time.

If you really want to be the next Calatrava, do like he did, become a great, ambitious engineer, and slowly stretch out into the design side of things. By the way, even Calatrava is not without his critics, so be ready.

Engineers design, too.

you are right, I should have said architectural design to be more clear.

synergy - why did you choose the engineering path rather than the design path?

Eternal,

I started out as an architect and engineer dual degree, thinking I wanted to be primarily an architect, but it did not take me long to realize that architecture school, and architecture practice wasn't what I thought it was. I realized that my skills are much better suited to engineering than architecture. I prefer the way engineering problems are presented when compared to architecture problems, but that is totally a personal preference.

I really enjoy getting into the gritty engineering problems, For example, I love it when an architect wants to do a long span with a low profile member and I have to really sharpen my pencil and come up with something that will work. That isn't to suggest that I don't do any designing, it is just different in nature. Sometimes and architect will present with their idea and I'll immediately see that a better solution could be built and it becomes my job to convey this alternative solution This ability comes with time and practice.

Try and think hard and honestly about what you are really good at and what you like to do. I'd like to reiterate that you should decide, not because you don't possess the skills to be both an architect and engineer, but because their isn't enough time. Becoming a licensed engineer or architect takes years of full time practice, and if either profession is neglected, you'll lose the skills anyhow.

Structural engineering is a lot more than designing a few beams and columns in text book problems that you have done in class. Eventually answering those questions becomes the easy part, the real challenge becomes asking the right questions (ie. are you modeling this shear wall correctly? is that connection really a pin condition? are you assumptions reasonable? etc etc etc). You won't find the answers to these types of questions in text books, it only comes from practicing under more experienced engineers on real world projects.

yes i've noticed it too...

after a year or so of no studio and just all engineering and math, i noticed my architecture skills (ps, illustrator, autocad, rhino, design, etc.) began to fade. I was hoping once i start doing both engineering and architecture that the skills would keep fresh. But then again, even if I am able to handle both in school, I would have to get into one of the few firm that allow me to practice both when i get into the professional field.

if it came down to it, its going to be engineering b/c at least i can do calculations and do some architectural design.

b/c if i choose architecture i'm probably not going to do any engineering (which was one of the reasons i started looking in to civil even though im arch major)

sigh

"if it came down to it, its going to be engineering b/c at least i can do calculations and do some architectural design"

Architectural design? I think when people are saying "engineers design too" they mean design on a different level as synergy stated.

For some buildings, the "structure" is mostly unseen. For others, "structural design" would be limited to exposed trusses or interesting connections. Not to pump the architects' ego, but it is very rare for structural design to fall outside of the "big picture" (and not just on an aesthetic level) as defined by the architect.

As I mention on all "engineering vs architecture" type threads, I now work at a structural engineering firm after having worked at an architecture firm. By 2009 though, I should be back to the Arch side again. Its been a great learning experience, but it also confirmed for me engineering would not have been for me. I often questioned myself about my path on architecture during school but those doubts are gone. I think its crucial to know the type of person you are (what you thrive under, what would satisfy your professional career/intellect, etc) before you make this choice. Also, if at all possible gain some professional experience on both sides to see it in real life, not pre-conceived notions of what architects/engineers do.

I think you should go for it. I am going to be doing that dual degree thing this fall. I have already taken a some engineering classes. Since I have about five electives in my M.Arch program, I intend to fill these with structural engineering classes. I will also be able to opt of one or two other architecture classes and take civil engineering classes. After that it shouldn't take to long to finish up my master's in structural engineering. My school doesn't officially have a dual degree program, but both departments work together closely and said they would work with me on this.

As far as the difference between engineering design and architectural design, the end goal of the design is probably the biggest difference. Both require creativity to reach that end goal or product. The parameters are usually much more clearly defined in engineering design. So the creativity must be used to work towards a very specific goal. The end product in architecture is much more subjective. In the case of architecture it seems creativity can be used to create that end goal to a certain extent - of course there still parameters.

I have a question for those that already have studied both and have started working that might help 'Eternal' along with my curiosity - Do you feel that being educated on both architecture and engineering actually broadens your opportunity in both fields or actually narrows the opportunity due to the specialized knowledge? I can see arguments on both sides, but I have personally seen only the latter.

To follow Philarch's questions, - what type of positions would be available to someone with both degrees? Something that may combine both fields. How about pay?

Philarch...It definitely broadens your opportunities when looking for a job, but once at a job (especially an architecture job) it narrows the opportunities at that job. Many times you will say you do not want to do engineering/detailing work, but when all is said and done, I do much more detailing than I do designing. Which is fine with me because that is what I like. I think it has to do with the availability of people with experience and knowledge in firms, there just isnt that many architects (atleast in my own experiences) who have an active knowledge of how to structure and detail difficult designs. And it takes time, much more time than actually designing the building.

GET BOTH. THERE IS NO VIABLE REASON TO LIMIT YOURSELF. ARM YOURSELF

THE MORE YOU KNOW THE BETTER OFF YOU ARE, IT MAKES NO SENSE to argue OTHERWISE

Jayness, no one is arguing against educating yourself, the question is just wether or not you'll actually utilize it. By your logic, should we all ahead and and get ourselves twelve degrees, maybe marine biology? obviously not. In the end you'll still most likely pick a single career and rarely, if ever, utilize the additional training, the additional classes can take up extra time and money, which may delay your progress in your career.

It's fine to pursue additional education for any number of professional or personal reasons, we are simply trying to lay out some possible misconceptions and issues that we are aware of when it relates to pursuing this two paths simultaneously.

Another thing to consider is wether or not you'll truly get to put in your best effort if your time is so divided. In my opinion, it is better to apply yourself fully as an architecture student and really delve deep into your studios and other courses or to apply the same complete effort into your engineering progress.

I'd rather be an A+ architect or an A+ engineer, than a B+ Engineer+Architect combo (I'm not suggesting that grading should be your only metric for success in school, but I hope you get my point).

bump

I'm in the second year of a career change M.Arch program (4 years), and I'm completing a structures course this summer. This will be my last structures course, but I'm finding the information very interesting.

I've been intrigued by Calatrava and others who have backgrounds in engineering and architecture, and I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to take some engineering courses to fulfill my elective credits.

Has anyone taken engineering during M.Arch? If so, did you see any changes in your designs? Better/worse?

NoSleep - Not yet, but I will this fall. I'll let you know how it goes. I think it will be a nice balance taking a math based engineering course along with the studio and two other arch classes. I took one civil eng class as part of my undergrad and liked it - though I probably wouldn't want to be taking four classes like that at the same time.

I look at trusses, beams and frames in a different way after taking that course. It's kinda cool, because I actually have some idea why there are put together in certain ways. I never really did before. However, that was only one class and I'm still far from an expert on them.

Synergy,
"I'd rather be an A+ architect or an A+ engineer, than a B+ Engineer+Architect combo"

I agree with you completely...only in reverse, I'd rather be a B+ in both than an A+ in only one and have little to no knowledge of the other field. But that's also b/c I can never be interested enough in a single topic to bother trying to be A+ at it.

If eternal likes both why not try it, the fields are interelated and while it is most likely that he will be working in only field, he will at least be able to work within his chosen field with a good understanding of the other field or at least of how the other field thinks.

I dunno I could be wrong, all this depends on the person, some like to focus and specialise, others (like me) like a little bit of everything and take a holistic approach.

try structural on Strata SABS it's more like FEA if anybody is a structural engineer and could learn this i would want to hire you

thanks for all the input people, i've decided to apply to schools that offer the two programs.

so that way if something comes up and i find out i really just wanted to do one of the programs, i at least have that option

thanks again