upenn has an masters of science in history/theory... however, if you intend to get a phd then i would recommend skipping the post-professional masters and going straight to a phd... at least here at penn the MS program (which is 1 - 1.5 years) is really just the same thing as the first year of the PhD program, so if you were to do both you'd basically just be repeating stuff...

architphil is right... don't automatically assume that you need to do a H/T masters to gain entry into the PhD program. Some places may require this, others may not.

none of the people in our phd program that i'm aware of have post professional history/theory degrees... in fact some people only have bachelors...

on the other hand, it's a great way to figure out if you actually want to commit to the decade it takes to earn a doctorate these days, and get an honest sense of if you have what it takes. Also, at the end of a year, you are qualified to start adjunct teaching, which is a great way to supplement your income while working on your doctorate.

If you are interested in theory work, I recommend the program in Visual Critical Studies at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and the MAPH program at the University of Chicago. NYU used to have a similar program too.

It's not that you need the degree to get into PhD programs, it's that you need the body of work. (And obviously the recommendations from an H/T program don't hurt.) So if you've already got some quality scholarly work, you could aim straight for the top, but PhDs are tiny tiny programs and the competition is pretty rough... a master's is the perfect amount of time to build up some good writing samples. MIT should be on your list, their HTC SMarch and the Yale MED are pretty much the top of the east coast circuit.

It might be relevant to note that UIC has just announced:

8 December
The Master of Arts in Design Criticism degree was approved by the Illinois Board of Higher Education. The School is now accepting applications for Fall 2010.

badgers, my point exactly - it's the writing samples and references (ie connections) that i need. and it's very hard to publish and article even in the lowest of low journals without an affiliation to some school and research you are doing there. And in order to get in the PhD's you need to have something published or some teaching experience, even an assistanship. I knowo that the AA HT is a very good one year program but kind of isolated scholarly connection wise since it is a London (a bonus otherwise). It's the MDesS I had in mind but a have heard terrible things, I know it's the newest program in the GSD and broken up in many irrelevant concentrations but then again you get to take some great classes with great people. How come no graduates from any of these programs responded though? I hope not only aspiring MArch's frequent Archinect?

@architphil: are you in upenn's phd programme? from what i know they don't offer any funding (ie full tuition+stipend) as Columbia or Princeton etc do - at least that is what i got from their website and contact with their admissions office.

yes, i am... in the phd program we get full funding (tuition waiver + stipend) for 3 years although i've heard rumors that that might be increasing to 4 years in the very near future... i think that most of the other ivies get 5 years... i don't believe that any of the MS students get funding other than getting paid for being a teaching assistant which i believe is $4000 per class per semester... a few MS students are able to teach 2 sections of the same class and double their money with only a little bit more work.

in terms of having a body of work for the phd application... as i said before, none of the students that i know here have advanced masters degrees... i had a regular professional m.arch... about a year before applying i submitted 2 abstracts/papers for conferences and 1 was accepted... so, at the time of submitting my application i had 1 conference paper under my belt... i submitted that paper along with my masters project paper and 2 shorter essays as my reading samples... i had no teaching experience, but i was a frequent guest critic at my local arch. school... i also had extensive professional service (aia stuff) and 1 design project published in a book.

also, badgers is right about the programs being tiny... i can't vouch for any other programs, but penn's phd program typically admits 2-3 students each year...

from what i understand about the MS program, they will admit as many people as they deem worthy... this year it happened to be 2, but supposedly in past years it has been more.

yuki.mer ... I am a big supporter of the two-year history/theory masters. However, that being said, I think the question you should ask yourself is whether you really want a PhD. Are you planning to be a studio instructor? Do you want to teach history/theory seminars? Do you see yourself as a scholar? The reason why I point this out is that a 2-yr. history/theory master is a good bet if you want to engage on an independent research project that will inform your private practice.

I really don't think you need a Ph.D to teach in architecture school as a studio instructor. A two-year degree also provides an opportunity to help you identify what is at stake for you, etc. in the profession. A Ph.D is, however, vital if you want a career in academia.

As for the necessity of a two-year degree prior to entering a PhD program, I think it varies from school to school. In my program, for example, almost everyone that I know of has (sometimes in addition to an M.arch), an M.E.D. from Yale or an S.M.archS from MIT). So, even if you are interested in scholarly work, sometimes its useful to take the two-year detour to finish a terminal degree in history and theory. The two-year degree offers you the opportunity to explore issues, mine problems, and produce brief, intense scholarly work that will help set the stage for your professional and/or academic career. This is the case even if, as citizen has pointed out correctly, you don't "need" a two-year history/theory degree to enroll in a Ph.D program.

That being said, I encourage you to consider the programs at Yale and MIT. They have good reputations for graduating capable people who are consistently placed in top programs.

Questions for the PHD crew if anyone has a minute.

Do any you intend to teach studio as well, or do academics strictly stick to lectures and seminars?

I think uncertainties about the limitations of both a second masters degree and a PHD are at the heart of my question. How did you guys come to choose the latter.

iheartbooks .... The reason why I opted for a two-year masters before applying to PhD programs is that I had no architecture background (although I did have an urban planning degree). As wrote earlier, there are a good number of students in PhD programs who only have a B.Arch and/or an M.Arch.

As for why I chose to go for a PhD .... that's a complicated issue. I knew that I wanted to get the degree, but my dilemma was whether I wanted to get the degree through an architecture school or through a history of art program.

yuki.mer, you said:

''AA HT is a very good one year program but kind of isolated scholarly connection wise since it is a London (a bonus otherwise)''


i was wondering why do you think it is isolated scholarly connection wise? AA is in bloomsbury; the university quarter of london. you have a lot of other schools you can visit and attend lectures. the school itself is also very good at bringing all sorts of speakers/exhibitions/symposia (architecture and non).

or is it a particular network of east coast american scholarly connections you are seeking?

@iheartbooks... i think that to some degree it depends on the school... at most of the schools that i have been involved with, the people with phds also teach studios... i intend to do the same... here at penn there is a tradition that all of the history/theory professors also teach studios... even david leatherbarrow (the head of our phd program) teaches studios... that said, by going the phd route you're generally expected to produce publications which can be tough to do on top of the grind of teaching studio...

thanks phil and Smokety

thank you all for your answers and helpful comments

Hello guys, I know this post is 5 years old now but I hope someone can give me advice on this.. 

I have a B.Arch from a university in the middle east, not a great name. I can say I have good design skills, three years of experience as a teaching and research assistant (full-time). I have one conference proceeding and a book chapter to be published (not very academic though) and a project that is to be published in a book too. 

I would like to practice in architecture and teach/write as well (not in the US). I plan to get a PhD maybe two years after the masters. Do you recommend that I apply to a research-based program or a design-based one (like m.arch ii)? Do programs like Yale's MED offer the chance for one to enhance his design skills or have a design project, or is work solely written?

My initial thought was to go to m.arch ii, hoping to work on bettering both sides (theory and design skills). But I am starting to feel that such degrees might not give enough time for intellectual growth and writing (papers, conferences, etc.).

Thanks!