I just finish my first semester of community college and got a decent GPA. I am still taking some general edu. classes for now, and will be taking it for the next 1.5 year. I'm currently living in Chicago and looking forward to transfer to either UIC or IIT. Being a foreign student, I can't tell if I will continue my architecture career in U.S. or in my native country. As of now, I feel like I have to choose an option to which undergraduate degree I will go ahead for because I have to transfer classes in 2 years. I have searched about Barch, being an 5 year NAAB accredited, professional degreee but I'm afraid that my home country will count this degree as same an 4 year pre-professional degree. I also have somewhat information about B.S and B.A architecture, both being non-accredited pre-professional degree, but I can't decide whether which one will be the best option for me. As I searched more about the 4+2 year program I got confused even more about choosing BA or BS architecture. I sort of believe that the 4+2 year program is better for me because of my condition but...
What is the major difference between B.A and B.S arch?
Which degree (B.A , B.S or BArch) is more convenient in future career?
Will B.A be more into history and design of architecture?
Will B.S be more into structure and technology of architecture?
What are some experience of B.A and B.S arch. students in going through this 4+2 year path?
What are some experience of B Arch students in going through this 5 year path?
What are the advantages and the disadvantages going through 4+2 year program or the 5 year program?
I'm so sorry if I am asking for too much, but I am doing my best to find answers in every forum and architecture based sites. I am looking forward to your thoughts, experiences and advices. I will be really glad for any kind of answer.
If a person did a stretch M.Arch., it usually sits on top of a 4+2, so that means I can offer some insight.
A 4 year BA or BS cannot be categorized into theoretical or technical, though that is instinctively what one might think. And most of the time they do tilt that way. Regardless, neither are accredited and require +2. One example, imo, that defies convention might be UVa and UWash. UVa calls it a BS and UWash calls it a BA. The curriculum at Virginia seems to have slightly less technical content than that at UWash. The only way to discern how they lean is to put the curricula side by side and tally the academic credit in topical areas. Also, some BA/BS programs are viewed better than other BA/BS programs, so regional and employer preference come into play.
Since the 5 year is accredited, that might be viewed as being more efficient.
The way I would put it is like this:
a) if you are 100+% sure you want to be an architect, then get a B.Arch.
b) if you have the slightest inkling you may consider an allied career that does not require a license, want to experience another institution for +2, or want to change careers, like go into teaching or to medical school, but need to get architecture out of your system, have that sheepskin, and be able to discuss the building arts rather proficiently, then choose the 4 year BA or BS, after scouring the curricular content.
Taking this overseas will put the burden on you to do the research. It is best to get a list of equivalent programs or the other country's criteria ahead of time, and in tangible form.
Dec 28, 13 12:42 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.
Which Path Is the Most Significant? (B.A arch, B.S arch or Barch)
Hi everybody!
I just finish my first semester of community college and got a decent GPA. I am still taking some general edu. classes for now, and will be taking it for the next 1.5 year. I'm currently living in Chicago and looking forward to transfer to either UIC or IIT. Being a foreign student, I can't tell if I will continue my architecture career in U.S. or in my native country. As of now, I feel like I have to choose an option to which undergraduate degree I will go ahead for because I have to transfer classes in 2 years. I have searched about Barch, being an 5 year NAAB accredited, professional degreee but I'm afraid that my home country will count this degree as same an 4 year pre-professional degree. I also have somewhat information about B.S and B.A architecture, both being non-accredited pre-professional degree, but I can't decide whether which one will be the best option for me. As I searched more about the 4+2 year program I got confused even more about choosing BA or BS architecture. I sort of believe that the 4+2 year program is better for me because of my condition but...
What is the major difference between B.A and B.S arch?
Which degree (B.A , B.S or BArch) is more convenient in future career?
Will B.A be more into history and design of architecture?
Will B.S be more into structure and technology of architecture?
What are some experience of B.A and B.S arch. students in going through this 4+2 year path?
What are some experience of B Arch students in going through this 5 year path?
What are the advantages and the disadvantages going through 4+2 year program or the 5 year program?
I'm so sorry if I am asking for too much, but I am doing my best to find answers in every forum and architecture based sites. I am looking forward to your thoughts, experiences and advices. I will be really glad for any kind of answer.
Thank you so much!!!
Hey Bilal:
If a person did a stretch M.Arch., it usually sits on top of a 4+2, so that means I can offer some insight.
A 4 year BA or BS cannot be categorized into theoretical or technical, though that is instinctively what one might think. And most of the time they do tilt that way. Regardless, neither are accredited and require +2. One example, imo, that defies convention might be UVa and UWash. UVa calls it a BS and UWash calls it a BA. The curriculum at Virginia seems to have slightly less technical content than that at UWash. The only way to discern how they lean is to put the curricula side by side and tally the academic credit in topical areas. Also, some BA/BS programs are viewed better than other BA/BS programs, so regional and employer preference come into play.
Since the 5 year is accredited, that might be viewed as being more efficient.
The way I would put it is like this:
a) if you are 100+% sure you want to be an architect, then get a B.Arch.
b) if you have the slightest inkling you may consider an allied career that does not require a license, want to experience another institution for +2, or want to change careers, like go into teaching or to medical school, but need to get architecture out of your system, have that sheepskin, and be able to discuss the building arts rather proficiently, then choose the 4 year BA or BS, after scouring the curricular content.
Taking this overseas will put the burden on you to do the research. It is best to get a list of equivalent programs or the other country's criteria ahead of time, and in tangible form.
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.