The BArch should be making a serious comeback in this economy. Exactly the same requirements for degree-granting as the Master's, at (usually) a fraction of the total cost. Same education, same licensure ability, much cheaper!

if it costs you 100k to get a 2 year MArch, you should know that going in and be prepared for it

If you have to pay it all out of pocket and get no scholarships or anything, I would wonder why anyone would pay that when there are reasonable options that cost less


I got a 3 year MArch and worked part time through part of it, went to a state school and it was perhaps $10k a year at most

I agree, paying $100k for 2 years of school is ridiculous for a begining salary for an architect


If you need an MArch to one day then get your license, i would say a little debt is worth it for the payoff
But it needs to be within reason

I think the M.Arch really should only be for someone who already has an undergrad degree but just either not in architecture or not accredited


a 5 year B.Arch should be more than acceptable in our field

jack, i guess you are gone but i am very curious after you finished your degree could you really do a house all by yourself?

i cant imagine you'd know enough to do a good job. a mediocre job maybe, but a real and proper job? something as good as FLW? or was it more levvittown level?

and what did you do if you went to work for an office that wasn't based on houses (most offices of any size)? were you able to detail a steel frame with an aluminum sash one day and a concrete building the next? maybe school was just that much harder when you went through?

my first job was to design a church out of steel and concrete. i was horrible at it, not for technical reasons because i had backup on that end, but mostly because of the lack of theory...i didn't know what the building was for and got hopelessly lost in the process of designing the building - so i understand the idea that theory is best for people with experience behind them.

but then i live in japan where a great many architects dont go to university to get an education and instead take license exam after years of work in office. i can attest that the process produces very good technical architects with no imagination and very poor planning and design skills. the older architects especially are not remotely interested in design, so i really do believe it is essential to get young architects interested in thinking about the environment, people, placemaking and all the other important theoretical and technical stuff when in school. later is too late.

sorry not really pertinent to the question, but now i am teaching, these things seem important to me and am interested in opinions....

School is getting very expensive. Even state tuition is now $12k per year in Illinois. Add living expenses and you'll be at $40k easily. You can work during the summer.

It's very expensive. I think the 5 year BArch with grants and scholarships looks much better now.

I'm in NY and there are only 2 state schools which have an architecture program,one being in Buffalo so I had to go to a private school.I lost the scholarship after a year so I got screwed..

Any reasonably competent person can put together a wood-framed house after spending a few summers in construction. Why would I waste my limited years of design education on construction know-how? Knowing what a header is and knowing how to make good spaces are two separate skills -- both need to be learned. We only have a few years in school. Learning how to build is the dominant feature of our time in the workforce. Therefore school should be about space-making, theory, etc -- that's why school is called school and practice is called practice! I'm generally very happy with the state of education in the field today. We get interns who come into the office useful from day one, engaged, interested, and with bright creative brains in their heads. Sure they can't detail worth a damn. But that's what years of learning at the side of experienced pros (both architectural and the guys at the job site) is for.

Side note -- liberty, you mentioned that the 5-year B.Arch is supposedly disappearing -- I hear this all the time and I finally did a search recently and could only find a tiny handful of programs that had done away with their B.Arch. Like, 2 or 3, if I recall. (Kansas and... can't remember.) In all cases they kept the 5 year track but simply re-registered it as an M.Arch, often with a B of A granted at the 4 year point and the option to continue or not. This makes perfect sense to me -- the degree requirements between BArch and MArch are the same. So, essentially, I found no evidence that the 5-year track is going away.

Now, if only academia would recognize that it is a comparable degree to an M.Arch, the 5-years would be completely set!

from what i have heard, its not so much that the B.Arch is going away, its that it is being re-registered as an M.Arch

the 5 year track is going to remain
It will just be turned into an M.Arch

basically it seems like it will be a name change
For the very reason you mention, that the B.Arch today is comparable to the M.Arch today
This will help legitimize it for people who only look at letters of your degree and dont know the details of it

from what i have heard, its not so much that the B.Arch is going away, its that it is being re-registered as an M.Arch

the 5 year track is going to remain
It will just be turned into an M.Arch

basically it seems like it will be a name change
For the very reason you mention, that the B.Arch today is comparable to the M.Arch today
This will help legitimize it for people who only look at letters of your degree and dont know the details of it

whoops
sorry for the double post

isn't a masters degree inherently for post-graduates?

i think that is what they are doing
basically after 4 years, you have a bachelors degree
then 1 more year and you get a masters

so you will have 2 degrees when you finish the program, rather than just 1 bachelors degree



i could be wrong though, i am done with my degrees and havent followed too closely

wow. I wish I'd had that option. sounds like a sweet gig.

that is pretty much what i think too manta. but you say it so much better.

honestly my perfect intern right now would be someone who is smart, can learn fast, and has some good ideas about design. the detailing part i couldn't care less about because i can already do that and i sincerely do not need a drone to work with.

ideally i would be learning from the young architect as much as s/he is learning from me. detailing is easy, but thinking about space is not...i mean really i want someone to work with who can extend my abilities not just give me more time to do the paperwork.

for that kind of intern a technical degree is useless, 4 years or 5, or even 6.

I find the design part easy and the detailing part hard. Maybe I'm some sort of a design genius!

I know plenty of people who have a 4 yr architecture degree and did find jobs in the industry, and who are doing quite well.

I graduated with a 4 year degree in 2001 and later went on to earn a Master's degree, but some of my friends did not. In my state, it is possible to become licensed without a Master's, and one person I know has done that. He is also a principle at a successful firm. Success is very much about skill and hard work.

It is possible to use a 4 year architecture degree to start a career in architecture.

that is very cool future hope. my anecdotal evidence is not as positive. all my friends who stopped with 4 years stopped architecture altogether. Could be Canadian law doesn't allow licensure that way (i don't know - i left canada almost 10 years ago).


paradox, detailing is part of design process for us so very important, but the actual technical part is not so impossible. its just applied knowledge.

design is more like mis-applied knowledge, and much more difficult. if you spend your whole school career learning to detail and not to think it doesn't usually lead to good work because the normal scope of possible and impossible becomes preset. which is to say you are probably on the right track.

I think iamus has it right:

"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"

So many young people today are unsure of what they want to do. I know someone who is the son of an architect, went to school to be an industrial designer and found he didn't like it so switched to architecture.

If the son of an architect doesn't know that he wants to be an architect, then how do the countless others who major in it.

I also agree with mantaray

You should have the option of having a 4 yr Arch studies degree or a 5 yr B.Arch if you continue in the school with B.Arch programs. Very Few 5 yr programs do this so if you stay 3 years, you better finish or end up with nothing.

I think the 4 year program gives you options,you can get a 2 year March after that or construction management degree.. I'm not sure if you can get into urban planning after a 4 year but basically it helps you make sure what path you want to follow. I was dead certain I wanted to be an architect since middle school but now I have doubts and that's why I'm annoyed because I always made fun of those college kids who had no idea what they wanted to be even if they were in college and now I'm one of them! But at least I do know I want to create tangible things and be in the field of visual arts.

One of my professors told me without knowing how building components go together it is not possible to design a building soo..what are the folks in advanced studies doing in classes?? Lol.

Paradox, I think that is the main problem with the 4 year degree. You are so flipant with it, it stands out in your first sentance. Basically the thought is that after 4 years of hard freakin work in school accumulating student loans, denying life in general, ignoring family and freinds, your suggestion is to stay in school for another 2 years accumulating more debt, etc so on and so forth.

Youve been indoctrinated to think this way. School shouldn't be about how long we can make it take to get the required education to perform specific jobs. You should be getting in and out as fast as possible and that ain't 6 or 7 years for becomming an architect.

if you know going in, a 4+2 isnt that bad, as your 4 year degree can be broader than just architecture
you can have a minor in something else that interests you

6 years for a bachelors degree and then a masters degree is not unreasonable when you consider other masters degrees


if getting in and out as fast as possible is your goal, then of course this isnt the route to take
the 5 year program works best for that

There is no reason why you cant be in school and NOT deny life and ignore your family and friends

I'm not sure about others, but in MY 4 year b.s. program there was an enormous amount of pressure to deny life and ignore my family and friends. I liked/like the idea that I have the option to bow out of this at any moment. I think: maybe if I dont get into my top m.arch choices I can transition to something else more seamlessly with the broad spectrum the 4-year offered me. I assume with the B.arch you'd feel more tied down to this abusive architectural culture. So, obviously, they're pros and cons to each.

What I am saying is that we spend too much time for the education required in order to perform our jobs AND become licensed. The route (4+2 or 4+3) we (Not I but we as in the educational system not architectural professionals) have set up is overloaded and is starting to be expected when certainly not required and to easily say to someone to just spend more time (years in fact) and more money (tens of thousands in fact) to ge to the point where a five year degree will get you in this profession is ridictardulous advice that should not be uttered unless the person already has a 4 year degree that is unrelated to the field of architecture. Nobody going into school today should be looking at the 4 year pre prof degree as a route to an M.Arch in order to practice architecture. It is a simple as that.

system's shitty, I get it. but to alienate the path that over 50%(not sure on # but it's alot) of people take to getting fully licensed in the US and say NOBODY should take that route, because YOU feel its a waste of time + money, is ludicrous.

It's not really that simple, Onthefence
I think that is really a case by case basis
As long as the person is educated in what each is about, i see no reason why having that choice is a problem

Going to school is not only about just getting it done as quickly as possible, at least, not for everybody

If your only interest is to get your architectural license, then yes, just do the 5 year program
If you have other interests you would also like to study in school, most 5 year programs i have seen dont have much room for anything else.

I went to a 4 year school, a pre prof degree, and then got my M.Arch after working for a bit
Looking back, i would probably do it the same
The 5 year programs, to me anyway, tend to be way overcrowded and i didnt want to be one of a ton of students chugging through
In my 4 year school, i had a small studio (never more than 13) and we were focused mainly on design and hand drafting/ model making for our production
Most 5 year undergrad programs seem to churn out computer production presentations
I learned that during my M.Arch very quickly to catch up with any computer skills the undergrads had

It is really a matter of personal preference
I am practicing architecture now going through that route with as much or less debt than others i know who took the 5 year route

As long as you are educated about your decisions, you dont have to rush through just to make sure you finish in as little time as possible.


That all being said, i agree with the idea that the 5 year program should turn into a M.Arch degree rather than just a B.Arch or whatever it is
Most seperate M.Arch programs i have seen basically catch a person up to where they are then as proficient (maybe a bit more) than that same school's 5 year program

Someone coming into an M.Arch from another profession isnt producing higher quality work than a B.Arch at that school just because of the M.Arch program
It's usually nothing much more than the B.Arch

"NOBODY should take that route, because YOU feel its a waste of time + money, is ludicrous."

I didn't say that. I said that if you start out, as in just entering college, with the idea you are going to become an architect, this path is ridictardulous. Go for the 5 year degree and start working immediatly after.

to you it is
to others it might not be

to me it wasnt
I knew i wanted to be an architect, and i see no reason to think i was "ridictardulous" for doing what i did


there is no reason that you HAVE to speed through college as quickly as possible just to start working as quickly as possible

I had other interests that i studied while in school while still having the idea and goal to become an architect
Going to a 5 year degree program, i would not have been able to do that

"Go for the 5 year degree and start working immediatly after."

Work where??

maybe we should be aerospace engineers: link

Ok. Well today is the exception to the go to work immediatly theory.

But in general, spending more money for longer periods of time when the benifits of it are not there is just plain wrong and to suggest to a person who would like to enter architecture the 4+2 is irresponsible. Stop screwing people up already. And lets not play games here. How many of you, raise your hands if you want to, complain about your wages? Most I would imagine from the threads I have read here and on other forums. Why do you think that is? My guess is because you feel that the degree and education that you received does not reflect the wage you receive and this becomes a bigger complaint with the people with masters degrees. Throwing money at higher education will never bring more money to the professionals in this field. Because you are not required to have these degrees in the first place, nor is there any actual benifit, educational wise, equivelant to the 2-3 extra years of schooling. In other words, what you receive from these 2-3 years, most of it will be taught to you on the job or you will learn it on your own through trial and error. Of course it is fun being at school not having to worry so much about the real world, I grant you that. But that real world is out there and it is going to bite you in the backside sooner or later. Sooner is less painful.

The people who hire us understand the situation. They will pay us so much and no more. We, as a profession, do not.

If you are starting out, go for the 5 year program. Get a job ASAP. Period. End of story.

let's just be accountants

it's becoming quite clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

if you go to a 5 year program, you are in school 5 years
If you go to a 4 year program, then 2 for a M.Arch, you are in school 6 years


that is an extra 1 year
not 2-3 years


lets not pretend you have to go forever


i do agree with your get a job ASAP advice though
any job you can get now is worth it, it seems


but everything else you said is not necessarily true for everyone
I dont know why you would think there is only one right way to do anything

if you ever want to teach, having a masters will help
so an extra year or 2 max would be worth it in that regard

Yes, if you get the pre prof architectural history degree it is 4+2 vs. 5 for an extra 1 year.

That is one year more of debt.
That is one year more of people with 5 year degrees moving ahead of you by one year at an architectural firm.
That is one year more of lost valuable experiances vs. theory.
That is one year more of lost wages.
That is one year more of lost raises.
That is one year more of your life you needn't have wasted away at a school pulling all nighters trying to cut foamcore board with exacto knives, etc.

If you get a degree in psycology and then decide you want to be an architect it is 4+3 vs. 5 for an extra 2 years. Those two years actually supposedly make you about as competent as someone with the 4 year degree maybe the 5 year max, not the same as someone who got a 5 year degree and a 1 or 2 year mastes.

That is two years more of debt.
That is two years more of people with 5 year degrees moving ahead of you by two years at an architectural firm.
That is two years more of lost wages.
That is two years more of lost raises.
That is two year more of your life you needn't have wasted away at a school pulling all nighters trying to cut foamcore board with exacto knives, etc. if you had the foresight to set a goal in the first place and go after it.

Your all missing the point. By adding 2 they got you thinking 5 year is some sort of deal when you used to be able to go 4 and start earning.

I swear every time I check in this board I feel a little less confidence in the future.

so basically you need to set your goal early and stick with it, otherwise you are obviously screwed forever


if someone was a psychologist until they were 33, they shouldnt consider changing careers and becoming an architect because of how far behind they would be compared to other 33 year old architects who had the foresight to set their goals first?


I am not even 30 yet, apparently according to you, wasted 2 years in school, though i am at the same level, if not higher than anyone else my age despite them having the great foresight to go to a 5 year program

So please, dont try to tell me i have wasted anything
Your rant is just that...a rant
Amazingly enough, your opinion isnt the only one that is valid, and yours is not valid for everyone

If your only goal in life is to make sure you worked as many days and got paid for as many days as possible, then yes, your answer is the only one
But honestly, why the hell did you become an architect if your main goal in life is to get paid as soon as possible

It sounds like your foresight is a little off in that regard

Lets not just think this is time and tuition and pay at time of being hired we are talking about here. It isn't. But if it were it would look something like this.

The difference between a 5 year degree and a 4+2 degree is this.
Extra year of tuition, room and board, schoole supplies etc, = $20,000
Missed pay for that xtra year of schooling = $35,000
Total loss for being equal = $55,000 plus the raise you didn't get but the 5 year graduate did.

again, if all you are ever worried about in your life and career is money, then you are right


you would also be an idiot for becoming an architect and being only concerned with money

but you would be right

"so basically you need to set your goal early and stick with it, otherwise you are obviously screwed forever."

Again, no. Of course it is better if you can. But to hand out advice to someone that knows he wants ot be an architect that costs him $55,000 for nothing is irresponsible. Set him on the course of the 5 year program.

People who come from other degrees obviously benifit from the 4+3. I'd still tell them to get the 5 year degree but at this time it works out better for them if they can say they have a masters degree. It looks better on paper that is.

You're upset. Too bad. The 4 year degree was a scam to get the extra year out of you in the first place from the schools. You need to understand that first. Then you can start to see the rest of the problems associated with it.

I'm upset?

there are also several other benefits to having a Masters degree, as has been said several times here already

There is nothing irresponsible with giving someone all the facts about what options are open to them


You saying that going the 4+2 is just a waste of money because you are not working soon enough is completely false
If your goal is to start working as soon as possible, yes, go with the 5 year
If your goal is to only study architecture and get through quickly to get into the real world, yes, go with the 5 year

If you ever want to teach, even on the side (which, as this economy shows, is a good backup to have), maybe the 5 year isnt necessarily the best

If you have some other interests you would also like to pursue that maybe dont just include architecture...maybe the 5 year isnt necessarily the best

And lets not fill everyone's head that once you go into architecture school you have to abandon all your friends and family and spend 24/7 in the studio and would never have time for anything else
That is 100% false

i would have thought the 5 year program was the scam as that gets the extra year out of you

the 4 year program was around for a long time and all you needed for a long time

marmkid, your argument seems to be that your way works for you, which does not make it good advice. To each their own, but OTF has some damn solid points about debt, overeducation and employability.

I don't get the 4+2. Who needs an undergrad and grad degree in the same thing?

If you want to teach, you can get a 1 year post professional masters after a B Arch anyways.

That would be about 85% false and you know it.

And yes if you want to teach a masters is a good choice and route. I never said it wasn't. I have only said that if you know that you want to be an architect, choose the 5 year degree. It has the best bang for your buck. If you want to fart around in school pretending that you have other interests other than GOING TO SCHOOL FOR AN EDUCATION because your dad can afford to keep you there or you do not understand the consequences financially, yes the 4+2 or +3 is definatly for you.

" i would have thought the 5 year program was the scam as that gets the extra year out of you

the 4 year program was around for a long time and all you needed for a long time"

The old 4 year program is gone. The new 4 year degree is a architectural history degree. Yes you can practice architecture with it but it has many draw backs to it.

The 5 year degree replaced the old 4 year degree. Yes we all got scamed on that one as well. The old 4 year degree is preferable but it is extinct.

I am not and have never said that my way is the way everyone should do it
Actually quite the opposite

OTF claiming there is nothing worthwhile about the 4+2 or 4+3 is false though



the 4+2 is valid for the very reasons i stated previously
NOT FOR EVERYONE
but for some people it works

I knew i wanted to be an architect and chose this route
It worked for me for various reasons
There is no reason it could work for someone else in a similar situation
It also wouldnt work for many people for the reasons stated already

That is my only point

If all people spent as much time organizing as you do on this board you could probably lobby NCARB and the schools to go back to the 4 yr degree then Licensure model that worked for oh, FOREVER! I bet 75-80% of all your firms' principles are 4 year degreed architects. What has really gotten any more difficult to warrant the extra life crushing debt and school time? You want more years - fine do them for your personal enrichment. But dont impose the burden of a 5 year or 4+2 on your fellow architects.

"If you want to fart around in school pretending that you have other interests other than GOING TO SCHOOL FOR AN EDUCATION because your dad can afford to keep you there or you do not understand the consequences financially, yes the 4+2 or +3 is definatly for you."


that is a completely simplistic view of things, and pretty judgemental as well

unless you are claiming that having other interests, even academic ones, beyond architecture are a waste of time?

"What has really gotten any more difficult to warrant the extra life crushing debt and school time?"

yeah having it as a requirement really is a bit unecessary
It seems most fields are doing this as well, which is a shame
Teachers for example almost have to get graduate degrees these days as well, and they get paid less than we do