unaccredited
unaccredited
unaccredited
unaccredited
unaccredited
unaccredited
unaccredited

My degree isn't accredited (4 year/minor) but my school's master program is. The other parts of my degree are fine.

Although not an architect, if I wanted to sit for the equivalent "certification," it adds an additional 4 years of working time.\

If I were you (and not knowing if you have the money or patience), I'd personally opt for a history, computer science or business degree for my 4 years and then go for the m.arch.

You can get hired with computer science or business pretty easily out of school (especially if you go finance or accounting).

But if you truly want to understand your culture, your history and to be a better architect/designer/planner/manager... nothing beats 4 years of a humanities education. You'll join the elite crowd of "WTF? I CANT BELIEVE THESE DESERT/ALPINE/MARINE APES."

If i could redo it, I don't think I'd change professions... but I would definitely rather have a degree that isn't worthless.

Orochi,
Yeah I was considering getting a business degree first if the 4 year arch degree is kind of worthless without the masters.
Are you going back to school or are you sticking to the working world?
So what do you call yourself if not an architect, a "designer"?

I'm a hope-to-be-soon planner.

But... in all actuality... I'm a part-time executive. And don't let that title fool you, this job barely pays for my smoking habit.

I can't go back to school because I don't have any credit too... going to school for 7 years was already expensive enough. I'm what you'd call a "toxic" asset.

I think partially my problem was that my school had almost absolutely no good relationships with anything local other than McMansion builders.

So, I didn't have that good "community" aspect thing going on to really help me get an internship or any other relevant experience.

I'd say though that is probably 20% liability. I'm a pretty big fuck up.

Great..I have a 4 year degree and you guys give me great courage! I don't have money for arch masters and I don't want to do it anyway. Computer science is very useful but I feel the need to be artistic sometimes,cs is too technical and business degree doesn't guarantee a job. I want to do similar things though like exhibit design or industrial design. What about construction management? It doesn't require an accredited degree right?

5 years ago, I would have said give it a shot, I had some friends graduate with a BSAS back then and they found jobs, so I figure it must have been possible at some point to get a job with a 4 yr degree. Today, all I've heard is that its bad, very bad. And this is from people with several years of experience. If they're worried, I don't have much hope of finding a job.

We shall see, my school has an interview day, where firms come in and interview recent graduates, though I've been told that firms will come in even if they aren't hiring, so I don't know. Its not until April anyway, so I'm going to have to look for something outside architecture until then.

Another problem is that my school is the only architecture school in the state, so Milwaukee is pretty saturated with arch people trying to fight for jobs.

Orochi has a good point, if you do go, make friends with every person in a position of authority you can, connections are as important as grades.

If you want, you can take the first year and just do Gen Eds, and then pick a major after that. Try to get a feeling if the arch profession is better, worse, or the same after a year maybe...

I guess I'm screwed..

Oh, and for the record, i was a comp sci major before this, I just didn't enjoy it. I probably wasn't that good at it either. Maybe I should have switched to IT like my friends at the time, who knows.

Anyways, its too late now, diplomas are supposed to be mailed out at the end of Feb (knock on wood).

Well, my plan is to work somewhere (by which I mean anywhere) for about a year or so, then maybe see if grad school is a possibility. Maybe an M.Arch, or something in Interior Design, Furniture Design, MBA, god knows.

I have a four year degree and I've been employed since 06, graduated in 08.

Just be good at what you do.

i dunno guys... there are many ways to find out what you want to do, but... if you want to be an architect... study to be an architect...

i've always thought there were different paths based on how sure you feel about your choice... a 4+2 gives you a lot of flexibility... know you don't want to be an arch 2nd year, switch, you can still probably graduate in 4... or if you're like orochi and are interested in topics outside architecture study a more generic 4 year degree...

and you can get a job with a 4 yr degree, just not today. at the end of next year, firms will finally be looking for some young cheap help. they've already cut out a large swath of competition and pushed a whole bunch of architects into other fields.

but, you say you're probably not interested in the masters? this is a very competitive field, and the majority of your peers will have 5 yr BArchs and 6yr MArchs... how far to you want to go in the field? you will be stuck on the bottom unless you show some real ability. (And really, sometimes the only time you really can demonstrate that real ability is your thesis, or last 2 years in school)

sorry guys didnt mean to bring down those with 4 yr degrees! I sort of think it is sickening the school requirements these days to become a licensed architect, I mean why can't it be like the old days where you just apprentice with one! partially that is why I was wondering if a 4 yr degree is capable if attaining a good job, I mean I like architecture, but I don't know about so many years of schooling for it.
Orochi- did you mean that your degree is a minor in architecture? if so what was your major if you don't mind my asking.
Parad0xx86- So you've already graduated with a 4 yr, are you working right now in the industry? I agree everyone is getting a business degree these days its not a guarentee unless its something like accounting.<<boring as hell. Construction management is always an option my school offers a dual 4year arch degree and construction management which would add one more year on.

Well I was able to find a job in 2008 but it was at a construction company and not architecture office,I guess that's is a big difference. I would like to know if I have a chance in design/build firms which I'm more interested in than architecture firms with my 4 year degree. Yes I already graduated (2 weeks ago)I need some time to think about my further education. I'm currently not in the industry but I'll actively search for jobs soon.Now I'm trying to network with people.

"My degree isn't accredited (4 year/minor) but my school's master program is. The other parts of my degree are fine. "

I'm confused about your background Orochi,you have a 4 year degree? And what else?

"I sort of think it is sickening the school requirements these days to become a licensed architect, I mean why can't it be like the old days where you just apprentice with one! partially that is why I was wondering if a 4 yr degree is capable if attaining a good job, I mean I like architecture, but I don't know about so many years of schooling for it."

That has been my problem also. I really don't think architectural education should be taught completely in a school/lecture environment and I hate the fact that it is so far from reality but there is not much difference between 4 year and 5 year so if you like architecture you can handle another year,I absolutely hated most of the design studios though and I couldn't get into the 5 year program because of my GPA. I couldn't endure the bullshit. I kind of regret that.

"how far to you want to go in the field? you will be stuck on the bottom unless you show some real ability. (And really, sometimes the only time you really can demonstrate that real ability is your thesis, or last 2 years in school)"

Funny the last architecture firm I interviewed with was looking for a person with good construction knowledge.

I have a triple major in liberal arts.

the liberal arts part and the other two parts are fine, the 3rd part (planning) isn't recognized officially be any governing body.

Basically, 6 years of nonsense.

Wow what a unique degree you got! 6 years of school is a long time but I'll probably take that route too,I just need to find a not too expensive school and try to get in with my s****y gpa..

Anything unaccredited sounds like rip-off to me, unless its cheap, then I would definitely go for it. If you can get that degree under $20k in loans, then hell yeah go for it!

It cost me about 20k but I think it is bad because I'll have to take out more loans for additional education..

i have reasonably good construction knowledge. i have a phd and run my own firm in tokyo for what that is worth.

not sure why so many are convinced architects don't know much about building stuff cuz it isn't the case. young architects don't know much, but the same is true of most young carpenters and builders. it takes time to learn. it also takes an open mind.

anyway, a 4 year unaccredited degree is not worth spending time on if you want to practice as architect. if you want to run a construction company maybe it is a good start.

Check your State's requirements. Some states such as Illinois allow for 4 year degrees to sit for licensure as long as they are on the list of acceptable 4 year programs.

Im from the generation that is essentially all 4 year degree Architects and I dont think it's hampered our ability one bit not earning a masters. In fact its criminal what we are subjecting young architects to go through to get into the profession. We make them go to more and more school for more and more cost while lowering the amount of technical training within the curriculum. Bring back the 4 year / stop NCARB's takeover of the gatekeeper to the profession.

Yay for jump's post.

Architecture is a slow profession. I didn't know squat about even residential framing when I started. Now I know a lot.

I'm also a big, big fan of the five-year BArch which is quickly, and sadly, disappearing.

I hope you guys are not really celebrating the fact it takes Architects now well into their 40's to become knowledgeable enough to design, spec and run jobs? In regards to LBs post about residential framing - this is the fundamental building type of the American building stock and every graduating architect should be able to competently design simple wood framed structures. There is a direct correlation between ability and value. If value is going down then well, figure out the rest.

Of course this is a slow profession but lets make it any slower and start 50 yards behind the starting line.

you wouldn't be THE Jack Klompus from Seinfeld would you?

I have a 4 year degree in architecture and then worked a year, then went back and got my M.Arch

While not really the best route, 7 years vs 4 or 5 years, it has its benefits

When i did my 4 year, i got a well rounded education that was not 100% architecture and nothing else
Had i gone to a 5 year program, it would have been all architecture and that's really it


Also
the school i got my 4 year degree from was more design oriented and had no computers at all (granted, it was 98-02, but still odd)
So my 4 years, i spent learning to hand draft and build physical models
Then my M.Arch was basically 100% digital
So i got to do both, which i find to have been pretty helpful


Looking back, i probably would just do the 5 year program and not worry about an M.Arch, as i dont see it really being that big a deal unless you want to teach
No one has asked me in 5 years of working about my M.Arch

But there are benefits of doing the 4 year degree then 2-3 M.Arch

I guess my concern is that we used to be able to turn out qualified, competent (Design and Detailing) architects who would sit for exams right after graduation often times. The construction world has, if anything gotten easier to comprehend with the spread of information on every product and system imaginable. I shouldn't have to explain to a 24 year old Grad what a header is, I should be showing them advanced methods of framing Ive learned in my career that build upon their basic, general knowledge they should already possess as enter my office with. Maybe thats the issue - the definition of "general knowledge" has been expanded to include the plight of the Guatemalan flower pickers or an expanded understanding Clunaic reforms and medieval monastics. Distractions from the architectural training.

FYI, my kids say Jack Klompus reminds them of me, it a nickname.

best way to avoid that is to start architecture school when you are twelve, jack ;-)

thing is this is the world we live in and there are things that need to be done and whether right or wrong a bachelor degree from an uncredited school is not really a good investment right now. a 5 yr b.arch makes sense or a m.arch., but anything else ain't gonna cut it unless you are exceptional.

as far as technical knowledge goes i don't believe anyone ever knew what they were doing after graduating from school, 4 years, 5 or 6... some might have had a bit of tech knowledge through internships but no chance in hell there has ever been a person with just 4 years training who has done anything equivalent to a pro with 30 years behind him/her, wooden construction or otherwise. so why the romantic look backwards? i don't buy it.

on same note, i have to admit my 2x4 knowledge is not all that hot. i do know a fair amount about timber framing and RC and steel, curtain walls, etc. but to be honest for the first ten years working, wood was not a material we used in the office. that wasn't a choice i made, our office simply didn't use it much. and i think few really large firms do. so am not sure it is a big deal if you don't know how to detail a window sill in wood from the start.

that said, what i would really appreciate is if someone would explain to students how to lay out a drawing, what a center line is for and why it is important to consider units when setting out a structure (and also to count bricks and/or studs etc when placing windows!). the rest i am content to teach.

to be honest i would be even more delighted if students were more open minded than technically proficient. i find that many graduates and young students are really set in their ways and seem to think very little is possible in architecture. it should be the opposite but really most students are timid! not sure where that comes from but i am always surprised by this realisation. I am coming to think the main reason is that it takes time to understand what architecture is about and what you want to do with it, and until you get that worked out there is nothing to reach for. so things stay kind of on the vanilla side of the street.

even with superb technical knowledge it takes a decade or two before you will know what to do with it...and really that is the reason we spend more time in school...isn't it? to speed up the process, even if things do end up starting a bit slower than they used to? surely no one really thinks the education is gratuitous?

Jump, I can guarantee you that there was a time, not very long ago, when after completing a 4 year program and sitting for an exam, a young architect could do a house or more. Many of us did just this! You dont need to start at 12 and it certainly should'nt take 18-35 or 40 to become "proficient". That's just criminal of us as a profession to accept that reality. At 40 most lawyers are prob looking towards retirement more so than starting their careers. My classmates and I never would have accepted 40 as the starting point for our careers. Christ, at 40 my kids were already in high school.

Maybe though my generation were just better mechanics. How many kids today pull engines out of their cars, have rebuilt a carborator or even framed a garage with their uncle or neighbor? Maybe people were just more exposed to mechanics in the old days and just had a knack for it.

Jack I disagree that construction has become easier to comprehend - there are so many specialized systems these days, firms employ people who *only* do curtain walls, nothing else.

But I DO agree that an arch grad should know what a header is. A BArch definitely gave me the ability to be productive, though in need of more training, in an office immediately.

Slightly OT, but your post raises a notion I've been pondering lately: you say theory or whatnot is a distraction from the architectural training. I've been thinking about the use of this word in regards to our education.

It's common, when describing someone who went to architecture school but never got licensed and/or went into another field, to say "So-and-so trained as an architect". There's this constant and totally unresolvable question of whether architecture school is for "training" or for "education". IMO it needs to be both, which is difficult to jam into a 4-year or even 6-year course of study.

We'll never resolve this, which is why it's good there are different schools offering different curricula.

yeah i agree
arch school today isnt necessarily "training"

It seems to be moving further and further away from actual training

I had studio professors who could care less how your building would be constructed
Yet they loved the project based on the "idea"
He would say, "oh, you learn how to build it once you start working"

I also had one of my structures professors say that we should do away with the design studio aspect of arch school and just focus on actual "training"

So i have seen both extremes
Most of my professors would say you learn everything AFTER you leave school
Which in my opinion is probably not the way to go about it


I agree that both need to be involved in architecture school
I basically learned everything i know about putting together drawings and anything technical from my internships
School gave me the tools, but not necessarily how to use them

Training is education.

Personally, advanced theory and design at the grad level is a waste for young people I think, they arent ready. They dont know what it is they are even rebelling against or why. It would be time better spent by a 20 or 30 year practitioner to go back to school later in their careers. You cant dive into the deep end when dont yet know how to swim.

No, Jack, it isn't. -0- is asking if s/he should get an architecture degree or just do a drafting tech program. Do you really think those things are equal?

Real world work is education for working in the real world
School design studios let you experiment in ways you dont get to when you are 20 years old and a drafter over the summer

But how much can you really experiment with design when you dont quite know how things really work?

I think both are important, and both can be involved in architecture school
But it seems the emphasis always goes towards the "design" part of things

Looking back, i would have worked in an office much more during my undergrad days


It's not a waste at all if the student is serious about what they are doing
If all they do is focus on their cool new 3d model, then that is all they get out of their time there
But it is very possible to learn the basics of construction while in school and at the same time learn about design and theory


Arch school is very intensive, and that is one way that a young person should push themselves while in school
They aren't ready when they begin, but they can learn as they go
The 2 things should work together rather than doing one first, then learning the other

O is asking if they should get a 4 year. I say sure. As for the 2 yr drafting degree, its probably better training for a career however no one will give the credit it deserves. Look, Im the wrong guy to ask this stuff to because I think the entire architectural education system is the polar opposite of what it should be and is ultimately going to kill the profession. Im going back to work now, just check in on the board because I was bored. I really dont feel like arguing with the collective today.

I got the 4 year degree. And I now work in an office with 4 other guys who all have the B.Arch. I'm quickly near their level of expertise only after 2 years in the business. Do I wish I had got the professional degree now? yes, I do. But at the time of the decision, I wasn't on Archinect asking poignant educational questions. I was saying: "oh, chicks dig architects right? pretty drawerings/stick models...what could go wrong?" Now Im facing the prospect of spending $100+ on a master's degree with no help from the parentals + no salary + everything a 24 yearold was able to *cough* save for the past two years. If I were you i'd try and get into Cooper Union.

Get the five year accredited degree and be done with it already. The masters is a waste IMHO, unless you already have a degree in something else and want to be an architect.

do the 5 year professional degree in arch.... or a 4 year in another field like industrial design/exhibit design then a 2 year masters....

Thanks for your 2 cents guys, I can see there is VERY split opinions. The true reason in not going for a Barch is that I live in Washington state, No Barchs here. I have options of WSU or UW for a 4yr arch degree then a masters or a 4yr unrelated then a masters if I want to be licensed.
You can teach yourself how to draft and how a building goes together, In fact I have and do, all that I have attained from books, yes I know what a header does and I think most people do but I know a hell of alot of how buildings components work together and I have not taken any construction classes, also know CAD...I am not bragging here just making a point that the benifits that I would get from architecture school is a recignizable degree that could be licensed and all the theory and design that is unteachable through reading a book.
Yes I also know that a 2 yr degree in design and an accredited architecture degree are not even close to the same. But I only ask because I want to be in the design/construction field some way or another without making myself justify huge debt!

You all say that you learn more on the job than school so how is it that you justify so much time in school instead of intern/apprenticeships to learn the trade of design?

it's hard to justify NOT going to school when you are then limited by not being able to get a license

the way its set up right now, if you dont have an accredited degree, there are permanent road blocks set up for your career

True, there are still ways though to grandfather in, here if I have a 4yr unaccredited degree I could intern for 5 years, without a degree I could intern for 8 or something doing IDP, I am not sure how much longer this will stick around though and it is not every states so yes one day all of these "other" licensing paths will be gone for good, hell you might even need a doctorate one day to be licensed.

yeah i imagine all these "grandfather" rules are going to be phased out
and i think that eventually will be a good thing for the professional license

you cant become a lawyer without a law degree
you cant become a doctor without a medical degree
and i doubt there are other ways to get around it

considering how much architects like to compare ourselves to doctors and lawyers because of the amount of school and our license, then it makes sense that you cant just work for a number of years and then get the same benefits

really, otherwise why have a professional license at all

They never should have started the 4 year +2 program. Shot the field of architecture right in both feet. The 5 year degree is the best thing out there. If you have to do the 4 year non accredited program, then just do it knowing that you will never be licensed in all 50 states. Sucks but a lot of people are now in that boat with you, many of which are licensed already.

Well I have a 4 year degree in ENVD from CU-Boulder that was relevant in 1996 when I graduated. Univ. of CO's program is set up as a 4+2 program. I chose CU's program because I started out in engineering and then after two mentally brain-damaging years, I took a year off, worked as a carpenter and then went back to do the Arch program in 2. I worked for 6 years for different architects and then took the licensing exam. Which in CO. you can do w/out the accredited degree if you have practical experience.

Then I decided after 9 years of working to go back and get my M.Arch. It was more for personal reasons, but also for professional reasons. If I had it to do all over again, I would have gone back for the M.Arch sooner but life (marriage, mortgage, divorce, etc.) got in the way. But going back for my M.Arch was worth the time and money invested. I met some great people, my fiance, professional contacts, great friends, travelled the world for architecture, and grew professionally as well.

If you are truly committed to practicing architecture and know that before you've started your undergrad, check out the 5 year programs. If you're not sure check out 4 or 5 year programs at Universities that have broad programs available.

Now if I could just get paid $145,000 pre tax per year I'd be oh so satisfied and student loan free.

"you cant become a lawyer without a law degree
you cant become a doctor without a medical degree
and i doubt there are other ways to get around it"

In several states, one can actually become a licensed lawyer by apprenticing under certain kinds of people... it's a practice called "reading the law."

After... I believe... 4 years, one can sit for the bar examine and get the license to practice basic legal services.

In New York and Maine, one has to attend at least one year of law school in addition to at least two years of "reading the law."

Residency and fellowship in medical practices does not require a formal education. However, both are considerably under medical schools. A competent enough person can from 18 years old to medical school to residency within a year. Residency (a practicing physician under guidance) usually occurs after one year of internship which can be done concurrently with med school.

So a lawyer can be a lawyer without a law degree. And someone can become a physician without having fully finished a medical degree.

Although, the medical field is slightly more restrictive in the sense one has to graduate from medical school to become anything more than an intern or resident.

While neither party maybe called a doctor, one can be a lawyer or a physician with an incomplete or non-existent education.

The big difference here is that one can find alternatives and become full fledged professionals in a shorter period of time than it does an architect to finished their internships!

ah really? i did not know that
my mistake

i think it makes sense though to have a degree in the field you are looking to get a professional license
And considering that to get your M.Arch, it can be done in 2 or less years, it is not that big a deal overall

Though i do agree that an alternate path isnt something that should be permanently closed off



finishing an arch internship is only 3 years working in the field
That's not that really big a deal to require before allowing someone to sit for a license exam

2 years in school with no income for a field that offers about zilch return isn't gonna fly.

I met someone who works at an investment bank. His bonus is more than most architects' salaries. Think about that. You're making $200k right out the box and then there's a bonus on top of it.

I haveshifted my position a few times on this. I think I am back to recommending the 5 year BArch and then you can always get an MBA later if you want to make some money. This is a very difficult field to stay afloat in and I think it's only going to become more difficult.

License and architect's long education will worth something when the states and local municipalities will require everything, including a dog house will have to have an architect's stamp on it. Until then, kiss your contractor's ass and lick your client's dick!

I'd say comparing an architect's salary to an investment banker is pretty ridiculous

I agree though, getting the 5 year BArch is what i would recommend

No,it's not. You need to able to pay off your loan.

Is a 2 year MArch worth $75k or $100k in debt?

I don't think it is. You'll be making $45 or $50k when you graduate.Who wants to live on Ramen noodles?