which choice will leave you with the smallest debt when you graduate?

quizzical's question is the MOST important one.

A close second is: where do you want to live? The connections you make while in school, and the network you start building, will be more local than global. Princeton does have prestige, but if you plan to settle in California you'll have a better network built up on day 1 after graduation. And success in architecture is based very, very strongly on networks.

LB is right, but I'd be careful about making too many conclusions about where you want to live. I was so sure I'd love LA and hate Manhattan that I didn't consider Columbia's offer seriously. Now, my perspective is drastically different (that, and Columbia offers a MArch/MRED, which I think is the perfect degree and would kill for now).


I'd get a business degree in there somewhere, so if that means USC + MBA or Princeton + MArch/MBA either is fine.

2 degrees, like so many of us naively went through (and paid for), is over kill for architecture. You'll simply not get the return on the investment, ever.




I wouldn't worry too much about your first degree's prestige as much as your grad school's.

If I were you, I would absolutely get my BA at Princeton, which has one of the lowest post-graduate debt ratios of any university.

Many people change their minds after they learn more about architecture and end up with a specialized degree that they despise. The BA also offers a greater degree of flexibility than the B. Arch.

Also, check out your fellow Archinect user, Waqas who is graduating with a BA from Princeton in Architecture and applying for graduate schools.

Blog here :

Princeton Undergrad

Enjoy! Both are beautiful places.

Congratulations on being accepted to both programs!

Make sure you consider that the B.Arch will allow you to earn your license earlier than a B.A. degree. The B.Arch program is much more of a commitment to architecture, a B.A. will allow you to explore other academic areas.

You have 2 great schools to consider, I don't think you will go wrong with whatever choice you make. Best of luck!

"Princeton, which has one of the lowest post-graduate debt ratios of any university." - Is this a statistic of the University in general or the School of Architecture?

As for the question - "which choice will leave you with the smallest debt when you graduate?" I'm having mixed feelings about this being the MOST important question/answer. And this is coming from someone that graduated B.Arch with no debt. Well, technically I still have loans to pay off, but by the time I graduated I had more than enough savings built up during my education to pay them all off. The only reason I haven't paid it all off is because the interest rates are so low.

The reason I have mixed feelings about this is that having no debt really frees up your options, and at the same time, I think of education as an investment. And the investment doesn't end the day you walk out with your degree. So lets say you graduate with more debt if you go to one school, but you have higher chances of employment or a better place of employment (which may be a higher salary or something different, based on your priorities). Then is graduating with less debt really the most important?

Slartibartfast:

for the past few years, Princeton has had a "no loan" policy in place, which means that 100% of a student's financial "need" is met through grants and scholarships, not through a loan package. I believe this is true for all undergrad programs there. If your family has a lot of money and has the ability to pay, as determined by the University, you may not get as much aid. But if your background is more middle class, in theory you would graduate w/out debt:

Grants to replace loans for all students on financial aid

One caveat is that the endowments for a lot of the schools that have no loan policies, like Princeton and Harvard, have taken a huge hit in the ecomomic downturn. I'll be interested if they can sustain these practices long term:

Endowment Losses Threaten No-Loan Policies as Guarantees Vanish

Well, sounds like a great deal. Although the exact wording and description of that Loan->Grant system sounds less exciting than the premise.

Either way, my point still stands that the investment on your education lasts longer than the day you receive your degree. That doesn't necessarily mean you should go for the one with more prestige either. Personally, I'd be more concerned with differences in B.Arch vs BA. And again, that is based on personal preference and career plan. Which is admittedly a tough choice because you won't know for sure which is the right path until you're in the program or perhaps even finished with the program.

Get the BA from Princeton, as long as you qualify for their generous financial assistance packages. That BA will also enble you to keep your options open if you decide not to stay in architecture. Not to be agiest, but when I was 18 I would not have wanted to rely upon my career plans such as they were at that point in my life.

The B.Arch is, increasingly, no longer the desired entry level professonal credential in architecture, so you might find yourself with the B.Arch in 5 year, a lot of debt, no career flexibility and an almost imediate need to go for a post-professional masters for two more years (which you'll also have to pay for).

Go BArch... I definitely wish I had the chance to not go back to school right now, but since I have BA in Arch I'm stuck... Don't listen to all that "BA has more flexibility" bull... You can do the same and more (notably, get licensed) with the BArch... I personally think the BA in Design/Arch/Whatever should be banned!

it doesnt matter how big your loans are if you can't get a job to pay them.

absolutely go to princeton, no questions asked.

you will have infinitely more opportunities, both in architecture and elsewhere.

Urbanist, do you have any actual facts to back that up? This is absolutely untrue and it's an absurd statement to make.

The B.Arch has many advantages over the B.A., including the ability to get licensed without requiring an additional degree (which typically means a significantly decreased, not increased, overall cost of education). In fact, I can't think of any case in which getting a B.Arch would increase your cost of education over the 4+2 route. I doubt there is any basis for your claim there.

Furthermore, your statement that the BArch limits job flexibility does not make sense; it has precisely the same job flexibility as a B.A. The BArch remains a highly-regarded degree. It is simply a different path, and different paths may appeal to different people. I am all for multiple paths in this career field -- makes the career more accessible to different types of people. The BArch traditionally appeals to those who are concentrated on architecture from the get-go and very sure that that's what they want to pursue. It makes for a very dedicated and typically intense group of students which has its positives AND its negatives. It can also appeal to those without the means to consider grad school & 6-7 years of education. It is simply a different route, equally well-regarded. In fact it is worth looking at NCARB's requirements for accreditation between BArch and MArch and seeing how similar they are; ultimately the degree requirements are virtually identical.

I can't help the OP choose here, but wanted to make sure that the comments are kept to facts here.

mantaray,

I really don't care to pick a fight on this topic or even to debate it.. and my point was made with the best of intentions. All I can relate is feedback I've gotten from employers, including my own firm, about the type of candidates being targeted. There is a general sense that a masters (either a post-professional degree or an M.Arch) is the desired entry-level credential for career (as opposed to terminal internship) positions. Many others I've spoken with have said the same thing.

It is simply fallacious that a USC BArch or BA for that matter will give you the same amount of flexiliby as a Princeton BA. If you think so, you're just dead wrong.

I will caveat that by saying that there is still, from what I understand, a small firm and design-build firm preference for B.Archs.

I made a similar choice way back when, and my grandfather gave me good advice to go the 4 +2 route - assuming you still believe in architecture once you get more in to it, you are going to spend a long time on the professional, technical part of it - better to spend a few years on general education, which will never go out of date. Learn to think and write well at Princeton and that will carry you further than learning the latest parametric tricks or project management techniques.

I would generally agree with this. There is a reason that the vast majority of 5-year B.Arch. programs have converted to 4-2 programs in the past 10-20 years. The B.Arch. is largely a dying breed. I suspect that the reason is that there is simply too much material (general education, required arch classes, studio, arch electives, etc) to cram into a 5-year B.Arch.

If you want flexibility, go for a bachelors degree in some liberal arts topic (history, philosophy, art history, etc) and then do a 3 1/2 year M.Arch.

And to answer the original question... I personally would go to Princeton. They're both very good programs. If you definitely want to stay in LA, then USC might make sense in terms of future networking possibilities. However, in my opinion, Princeton is one of the few schools that will give you networking opportunities pretty much everywhere. There are former Princeton professors and students everywhere. Also, Princeton brings in a lot of important/well-known people from all over as 1-year guest professors. For instance, Sylvia Lavin (who was the chair at UCLA for a while) taught at Princeton for a year or two recently.

One other thing to consider... If you have any interest in teaching at sometime in the future, you should ABSOLUTELY go to Princeton.

I agree with this.

Unless you are completely set on architecture and want to get into the architecture profession as fast as possible, I would choose BA from Princeton, since it opens up more options, both because (i) a BA is not as restrictive as a BArch is profession-wise and postgrad-wise, and (ii) the prestige associated with Princeton and the weight that would hold on your resume.

If you major in Architecture as a Princeton undergraduate, you'll have a total of 3 semester-long studios + 1 introductory studio class. The studio experience is exceptional. Last year, ARO principals Adam Yarinsky and Stephen Cassell instructed my junior studio. This was one of 2 junior studios and there were 8 people in it. We visited our site in Soho, New York, as well as Dia Beacon.

As a Princeton undergrad you're in the same studio space as M.Arch students. A few weeks ago, I helped an M.Arch student with his thesis project and that was a great learning experience.

Princeton is really close to New York (1.5 hours on the train) but far enough to be a seriously academic place. Princeton's strength by far lies in bridging studio with history and theory, and sometimes engaging with theory just for the sake of theory. In fact, it was the intro theory class with the dean, Stan Allen, that first drew me to Architecture. Each lecture group meets in smaller precepts for discussions. My preceptor was a Ph.D student from Portugal whose excitement for Architecture was infectious. He is teaching a studio at Columbia now.

But if you go into Princeton hoping to do a lot of Architecture, you might be disappointed. You take a variety of courses in various departments and choose a major only at the end of sophomore year. There are various distribution requirements and you may come out majoring in something completely different just because you tried it out and loved it.

I have taken a graduate course about 20th century architecture as well as various seminars/classes on topics in urbanism, civil engineering, public policy and the visual arts.

Finally, Princeton has a senior thesis requirement. This is a written thesis and involves research. It can be super-intimidating but also super-rewarding. You can apply for funding for travel research. My thesis is about the idealism and disillusionment associated with the big Modernist housing projects in the Paris suburbs.

And, yes, if you get into Princeton and can't pay for part of it or any of it, they will make up the rest completely in grants with no loans.

Email me if you have any specific questions: wjawaid@princeton.edu