Competition in the market has remained so "free" republicrats, esp. when the big corps like Wal Mart can outsource the sweat shop labor to 5 year old girls with no OSHA protection or health insurance in India and pay them a bowl of rice per day.
Gotta love the republicrat system...the perfect fusion of "republican" hypocrisy and libertard fantasy.
Lately, when I've been interviewing, most of the registered with B.Arch's def ask me why I have two degrees in architecture. They're old school professional degree.
I love your name poop876. I read a lot, so my mother finds it funny that out of all the words in the English language my favorite word ends up being poop. I love the sound of that word juxtaposed to it's connotation. poop. lots of love
It's interesting to me that nobody is saying there is a difference in the quality of an education that you get with a B.Arch vs. an M.Arch. I wonder why that is.
In Nebraska, in 2009, the average time from graduation to licensure for a B.Arch degree-holder was almost 13 years; for an M.Arch degree holder it was 8 years.
Thats an interesting statistic. Is there a distinction between the M.Arch I and M.ArchII (post professional)? Does that statistic only take into account people that went to M.Arch without working at all? And do you know that getting a post professional degree cuts 936 training hours (or 117 units of the old system)?
the average time from graduation to licensure for a B.Arch degree-holder was almost 13 years; for an M.Arch degree holder it was 8 years.
My guess is that this is because M.Arch degree holders often get started on IDP before entering school; conversely some B.Arch holders go on to get Master's thus delaying licensure. It's really kind of a pointless statistic to me, honestly.
I've been thinking about this since you posted about competing for spots in college.
Lets say there are 25,000 slots open for college very year. Just a number. And let's say, you joe blow, come in 25,024. Basically, you are arse out at this point, right. Now you have to ASSume that when competing for slots, the cut off mark is not the difference between a C student and a D student. More likely the cut off was A student to B student. Or lets say the top 10% of high school graduates, right? So if you are jow blow number 25,024 in the top 10.01% of high school students and your lifes dream was to be an architect, you now have ZERO options left to you and can go find a job as joe carpenter, right?
I would offer that w/ 30 years experience and a BArch, that the MArch is generally for those wanting to teach. I'm not sure it was ever an issue that I only had a BArch. Made it to VP at HOK.
I graduated with about 4 years of office experience, which seemed to weigh much more in my favor. I got my very first job in an achitects' office after my freshman year working for free( only lasted at that rate for a day, but got me the job). After I graduated, no one really cared that for a year or 2, I was just a gopher).
My first job after graduating was with Hugh Stubbins, so not bad right from school. Worked on some very nice projects and learned a lot from that experience.
The design director I worked with in my gopher job told me to, yes go to grad school, but get an MBA...........geeez was he right or what?
One more thought. The profession is geared to reward those that start their own practice, and my friends that have done so say it's the happiest they have ever been.....so the MBA would be MOST beneficial in those endeavors. Also 3 important things in architecture....get the work, get the work, and get the work.
agreed, this is not to say that the number if positions should be limited to restrict access in an unreasonable way, but if you make entry to schools a competition based on academic merit rather than based on how much money individuals have, for the same number of positions, you get a stronger overall student body because with a broader candidate pool, there is more competition... Now this is not to say that applicants should be selected based on grade scores... As with here in the States, admission evaluates a diverse set of criteria including portfolio, academic and work experience, etc. In addition to grades... In fact, at the University of Waterloo for example, the selection process is much more rigorous... They interview all candidates and there us an entrance examination.
This is also not to say that a candidate who doesn't get into one school can't apply to other schools (there are still a range of schools) or try and improve and get in the next year.. Hard work and persistance can pay off, but the bar would be raised... I think the difference though is in the incentives... Schools IMHO should not be increasing student body sizes as a means of increasing profit... The goal shouldn't be to enrol as many students as possible regardless of the job market and demand for graduates, the goal should be to challenge and educate to make the graduates more competitive in the market... Maybe there are some problems if our educational institutions are operating (due to the system, not out of I'll intent) as profit generating enterprises... Isn't this the same problem the both of us are questioning? Education that is not about learning, but where profit may be had from promoting larger tuition revenues? (escalating costs) If you can't get into one program, at least you wouldn't be crippled by huge dent only to be thrown into a hugely saturated labor market in your field, while schools can take their profit and expand their enrollment even more... Education is important, but it should be made to make students work hard IMHO... The problem with out of control tuition is, if it becomes just about easy access for the independently wealthy, it can be taken for granted in a way that it wouldn't be if the demands were academic performance driven... Academic rigor makes us more competitive as professions in a competitive marketplace for skilled labor... IMHO...
Also, there are plenty of career options, competition can drive hard work, and if you can't get in, maybe you ought to try something else? I don't know...
Gah typos... *I'll intent* = ill intent... It's not that schools have ill intentions, but I think a revenue based incentive system promotes escalation of tuition costs and over expansion of student bodies relative to the industry need...
*dent* = debt... A student who didn't get in at least isn't crippled by debt, only to graduate and enter an over saturated job market
I am all for education, Im not saying we should limit education, I think somebody who works hard should be able to succeed... Not simply somebody who is independently wealthy... I think huge tuition costs hinder competition rather than make education more competitive and rigorous...
Firstly, just for context what exactly is the difference between b. arch and M.arch in USA and then in Europe. I studied architecture in South Africa. When i began back in 2002 you had to do a 3 year undergraduate bachelor of architectural studies, work for at least a year then do 2 year Bachelor of Architecture degree. Somewhere in the middle of all those years the whole system changed to a post graduate Master of Architecture (Prof) which in my university was broken down to a one year Bachelor of architectural Studies (hons.) and subsequently a masters degree upon completion of the second year. nothing really changed same lecturers same curriculum. In both systems you still had to get at least 2 years working experience before qualifying as a registered architect
Secondly, the pay sucks across the western world, in 3rd world South Africa straight after varsity, you can earn up to 2,000 dollars equivalent monthly and with government subsidized education that costs about max 3,000 dollars equivalent per year so you can qualify virtually debt free and have a fulfilling life to look forward to. Here we look forward to working in the first world with seemingly unlimited budgets and working for world renown architects, looks like the grass is not always greener on the other side!
that said architecture is indeed frustrating, long years at varsity and long working hours after only to earn a fraction of what other graduates who spent less time in varsity and at work are earning! We are so talented yet poorly rewarded: artist, graphic designer, photographer, designer architect, technician architect with knowledge of complex 2d and 3d computer software, illustration software, desk top publishing software, word processing software etc all warped in one and nothing to show for all that talent. One day this will implode on the industry!
I am a senior in high school and narrowing down my choices for college. I live in New York and plan on either attending SUNY University at Buffalo or Louisiana State University. The cost of attendance for Buffalo is significantly less than the cost for LSU. However the degree options for both schools differ. At Buffalo the architecture program is a 4+2 program with a BS and 2 year M.Arch. For LSU they offer the 5 year B.Arch and a 3 year graduate program for the M.Arch. My parents would like to help as much as they can with the cost of attendance however I know I will be paying for a large sum of the tuition due to their financial stability. Would anybody be able to give me some professional input on which path I should persue?
Mar 24, 18 11:29 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Question: Do you want to practice architecture, or teach?
Mar 24, 18 11:46 pm ·
·
Shaneboone
Practice architecture
Mar 24, 18 11:59 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Then don't waste your time with 4+2. Don't. If you decide to get a Masters after the BArch it'll be there. Many people I've spoken with that have gone the 4+2 route have $200k in debt, and labored under the illusion that they needed a MArch to practice.
Mar 25, 18 12:07 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Then don't waste your time with 4+2. Don't. If you decide to get a Masters after the BArch it'll be there. Many people I've spoken with that have gone the 4+2 route have $200k in debt, and labored under the illusion that they needed a MArch to practice.
Mar 25, 18 12:07 am ·
·
accesskb
Can you go on to get your license in US without an MArch?
Mar 25, 18 1:17 am ·
·
geezertect
But the OP says Buffalo will be substantially cheaper, which may equalize the cost.
The hardest cost and return to work into this calculation is the value/quality of the education the institute is offering compared to the price one will need to pay, whether BArch or MArch.
I agree with the root post that we should do the math and do it well. It is also not easy. I notice that many people, especially younger ones approach education as if they are doing us a favor or paying us. We have to remember that higher education is a consumer product.
It is also one with probably the least transparent product and the least amount of consumer feedback and scrutiny.
This post has reminded me and should remind prospective students to demand the institutions of answering as specifically as what resources, and values they can provide other the than the often too vague "inspirational+guidance" their lecturers provide. Approach them with the questions to evaluate how they will contribute to your learning to justify paying them.
Remember they just take your money, and don't have to be responsible for your career future. If you over-deliver they benefit from your name, if you under-deliver, they don't care.
Love to hear what other's think and advice on how to evaluate a Arch program at Bachelor or Master level. I have a Bachelor in Arts wanting to learn Architecture.
Jun 4, 19 3:11 pm ·
·
GridBubbles
It is also one with probably the least transparent product and the least amount of consumer feedback and scrutiny.
...
Remember they just take your money, and don't have to be responsible for your career future. If you over-deliver they benefit from your name, if you under-deliver, they don't care.
Wow, well said. This is so true!
Student's criticisms are often seen as illegitmate or just personal reverences with a prof/ faculty/ admin. But it actually is not. I've personally talked with some admins that secretly agree of the mess that goes on in particularly with the higher ups in charge. I've also had heard of a prof very candidly outright criticized the faculty and wouldn't even allow their children to study at that particular school because of just how bad the program is run. Anecdotal, maybe, but there is still an element of truth.
I think a lot of schools are actually phasing out the B.arch. fifth year in the next several years.
My own school is now offering a 'advanced masters' which is a 12 month program for a masters vs the 7-8 month program of what was a fifth year. Its only offered for those that did an undergrad arch at the school and have a specific GPA to qualify, etc etc... but it seems like a way to retain students but also make a little extra money on the same students. At the end of the day why would you do the fifth year if you can go 1 extra semester and have a higher degree.
in terms of specialty, there's not much though, and you have the same professors and everything. I decided that I would go elsewhere and get a true masters degree. Even though it does cost more, and I learn way more working than anything, even a 5-10% higher pay raise would be worth it in the long run over the course of my working life. Although I see myself working at a firm doing some aspect of design, i'm open to other ventures as well. I think that's why I liked the idea of architecture in the first place. I am still figuring out what that looks like for me as I shift around in various offices.
On the other hand, my sibling just graduated with a 4-year degree in civil engineering and got a job immediately out of school for almost $75,000 with option for a raise after 18 months. If my life wouldn't be totally miserable doing engineering work this would be the way to go..
Barch vs. March and reality
Competition in the market has remained so "free" republicrats, esp. when the big corps like Wal Mart can outsource the sweat shop labor to 5 year old girls with no OSHA protection or health insurance in India and pay them a bowl of rice per day.
Gotta love the republicrat system...the perfect fusion of "republican" hypocrisy and libertard fantasy.
Brink,
The post on changing a BofS - Arch, great idea.
Lately, when I've been interviewing, most of the registered with B.Arch's def ask me why I have two degrees in architecture. They're old school professional degree.
Old school didn't need a Barch either...
I love your name poop876. I read a lot, so my mother finds it funny that out of all the words in the English language my favorite word ends up being poop. I love the sound of that word juxtaposed to it's connotation. poop. lots of love
It's interesting to me that nobody is saying there is a difference in the quality of an education that you get with a B.Arch vs. an M.Arch. I wonder why that is.
In Nebraska, in 2009, the average time from graduation to licensure for a B.Arch degree-holder was almost 13 years; for an M.Arch degree holder it was 8 years.
Thats an interesting statistic. Is there a distinction between the M.Arch I and M.ArchII (post professional)? Does that statistic only take into account people that went to M.Arch without working at all? And do you know that getting a post professional degree cuts 936 training hours (or 117 units of the old system)?
there are similar reports from NY and Oregon at that site.
My guess is that this is because M.Arch degree holders often get started on IDP before entering school; conversely some B.Arch holders go on to get Master's thus delaying licensure. It's really kind of a pointless statistic to me, honestly.
I did it in 4 1/2 years and many I know did it in less.
maybe we should include a course on statistics in our curriculum? nah.
brink,
I've been thinking about this since you posted about competing for spots in college.
Lets say there are 25,000 slots open for college very year. Just a number. And let's say, you joe blow, come in 25,024. Basically, you are arse out at this point, right. Now you have to ASSume that when competing for slots, the cut off mark is not the difference between a C student and a D student. More likely the cut off was A student to B student. Or lets say the top 10% of high school graduates, right? So if you are jow blow number 25,024 in the top 10.01% of high school students and your lifes dream was to be an architect, you now have ZERO options left to you and can go find a job as joe carpenter, right?
To me that sucks. JMHO.
I would offer that w/ 30 years experience and a BArch, that the MArch is generally for those wanting to teach. I'm not sure it was ever an issue that I only had a BArch. Made it to VP at HOK.
I graduated with about 4 years of office experience, which seemed to weigh much more in my favor. I got my very first job in an achitects' office after my freshman year working for free( only lasted at that rate for a day, but got me the job). After I graduated, no one really cared that for a year or 2, I was just a gopher).
My first job after graduating was with Hugh Stubbins, so not bad right from school. Worked on some very nice projects and learned a lot from that experience.
The design director I worked with in my gopher job told me to, yes go to grad school, but get an MBA...........geeez was he right or what?
One more thought. The profession is geared to reward those that start their own practice, and my friends that have done so say it's the happiest they have ever been.....so the MBA would be MOST beneficial in those endeavors. Also 3 important things in architecture....get the work, get the work, and get the work.
onthefence:
agreed, this is not to say that the number if positions should be limited to restrict access in an unreasonable way, but if you make entry to schools a competition based on academic merit rather than based on how much money individuals have, for the same number of positions, you get a stronger overall student body because with a broader candidate pool, there is more competition... Now this is not to say that applicants should be selected based on grade scores... As with here in the States, admission evaluates a diverse set of criteria including portfolio, academic and work experience, etc. In addition to grades... In fact, at the University of Waterloo for example, the selection process is much more rigorous... They interview all candidates and there us an entrance examination.
This is also not to say that a candidate who doesn't get into one school can't apply to other schools (there are still a range of schools) or try and improve and get in the next year.. Hard work and persistance can pay off, but the bar would be raised... I think the difference though is in the incentives... Schools IMHO should not be increasing student body sizes as a means of increasing profit... The goal shouldn't be to enrol as many students as possible regardless of the job market and demand for graduates, the goal should be to challenge and educate to make the graduates more competitive in the market... Maybe there are some problems if our educational institutions are operating (due to the system, not out of I'll intent) as profit generating enterprises... Isn't this the same problem the both of us are questioning? Education that is not about learning, but where profit may be had from promoting larger tuition revenues? (escalating costs) If you can't get into one program, at least you wouldn't be crippled by huge dent only to be thrown into a hugely saturated labor market in your field, while schools can take their profit and expand their enrollment even more... Education is important, but it should be made to make students work hard IMHO... The problem with out of control tuition is, if it becomes just about easy access for the independently wealthy, it can be taken for granted in a way that it wouldn't be if the demands were academic performance driven... Academic rigor makes us more competitive as professions in a competitive marketplace for skilled labor... IMHO...
Also, there are plenty of career options, competition can drive hard work, and if you can't get in, maybe you ought to try something else? I don't know...
Gah typos... *I'll intent* = ill intent... It's not that schools have ill intentions, but I think a revenue based incentive system promotes escalation of tuition costs and over expansion of student bodies relative to the industry need...
*dent* = debt... A student who didn't get in at least isn't crippled by debt, only to graduate and enter an over saturated job market
I am all for education, Im not saying we should limit education, I think somebody who works hard should be able to succeed... Not simply somebody who is independently wealthy... I think huge tuition costs hinder competition rather than make education more competitive and rigorous...
interesting discussion
Firstly, just for context what exactly is the difference between b. arch and M.arch in USA and then in Europe. I studied architecture in South Africa. When i began back in 2002 you had to do a 3 year undergraduate bachelor of architectural studies, work for at least a year then do 2 year Bachelor of Architecture degree. Somewhere in the middle of all those years the whole system changed to a post graduate Master of Architecture (Prof) which in my university was broken down to a one year Bachelor of architectural Studies (hons.) and subsequently a masters degree upon completion of the second year. nothing really changed same lecturers same curriculum. In both systems you still had to get at least 2 years working experience before qualifying as a registered architect
Secondly, the pay sucks across the western world, in 3rd world South Africa straight after varsity, you can earn up to 2,000 dollars equivalent monthly and with government subsidized education that costs about max 3,000 dollars equivalent per year so you can qualify virtually debt free and have a fulfilling life to look forward to. Here we look forward to working in the first world with seemingly unlimited budgets and working for world renown architects, looks like the grass is not always greener on the other side!
that said architecture is indeed frustrating, long years at varsity and long working hours after only to earn a fraction of what other graduates who spent less time in varsity and at work are earning! We are so talented yet poorly rewarded: artist, graphic designer, photographer, designer architect, technician architect with knowledge of complex 2d and 3d computer software, illustration software, desk top publishing software, word processing software etc all warped in one and nothing to show for all that talent. One day this will implode on the industry!
I am a senior in high school and narrowing down my choices for college. I live in New York and plan on either attending SUNY University at Buffalo or Louisiana State University. The cost of attendance for Buffalo is significantly less than the cost for LSU. However the degree options for both schools differ. At Buffalo the architecture program is a 4+2 program with a BS and 2 year M.Arch. For LSU they offer the 5 year B.Arch and a 3 year graduate program for the M.Arch. My parents would like to help as much as they can with the cost of attendance however I know I will be paying for a large sum of the tuition due to their financial stability. Would anybody be able to give me some professional input on which path I should persue?
Question: Do you want to practice architecture, or teach?
Practice architecture
Then don't waste your time with 4+2. Don't. If you decide to get a Masters after the BArch it'll be there. Many people I've spoken with that have gone the 4+2 route have $200k in debt, and labored under the illusion that they needed a MArch to practice.
Then don't waste your time with 4+2. Don't. If you decide to get a Masters after the BArch it'll be there. Many people I've spoken with that have gone the 4+2 route have $200k in debt, and labored under the illusion that they needed a MArch to practice.
Can you go on to get your license in US without an MArch?
But the OP says Buffalo will be substantially cheaper, which may equalize the cost.
don't buy a $20k car...?
The hardest cost and return to work into this calculation is the value/quality of the education the institute is offering compared to the price one will need to pay, whether BArch or MArch.
I agree with the root post that we should do the math and do it well. It is also not easy. I notice that many people, especially younger ones approach education as if they are doing us a favor or paying us. We have to remember that higher education is a consumer product.
It is also one with probably the least transparent product and the least amount of consumer feedback and scrutiny.
This post has reminded me and should remind prospective students to demand the institutions of answering as specifically as what resources, and values they can provide other the than the often too vague "inspirational+guidance" their lecturers provide. Approach them with the questions to evaluate how they will contribute to your learning to justify paying them.
Remember they just take your money, and don't have to be responsible for your career future. If you over-deliver they benefit from your name, if you under-deliver, they don't care.
Love to hear what other's think and advice on how to evaluate a Arch program at Bachelor or Master level. I have a Bachelor in Arts wanting to learn Architecture.
It is also one with probably the least transparent product and the least amount of consumer feedback and scrutiny.
...
Remember they just take your money, and don't have to be responsible for your career future. If you over-deliver they benefit from your name, if you under-deliver, they don't care.
Wow, well said. This is so true!
Student's criticisms are often seen as illegitmate or just personal reverences with a prof/ faculty/ admin. But it actually is not. I've personally talked with some admins that secretly agree of the mess that goes on in particularly with the higher ups in charge. I've also had heard of a prof very candidly outright criticized the faculty and wouldn't even allow their children to study at that particular school because of just how bad the program is run. Anecdotal, maybe, but there is still an element of truth.
I think a lot of schools are actually phasing out the B.arch. fifth year in the next several years.
My own school is now offering a 'advanced masters' which is a 12 month program for a masters vs the 7-8 month program of what was a fifth year. Its only offered for those that did an undergrad arch at the school and have a specific GPA to qualify, etc etc... but it seems like a way to retain students but also make a little extra money on the same students. At the end of the day why would you do the fifth year if you can go 1 extra semester and have a higher degree.
in terms of specialty, there's not much though, and you have the same professors and everything. I decided that I would go elsewhere and get a true masters degree. Even though it does cost more, and I learn way more working than anything, even a 5-10% higher pay raise would be worth it in the long run over the course of my working life. Although I see myself working at a firm doing some aspect of design, i'm open to other ventures as well. I think that's why I liked the idea of architecture in the first place. I am still figuring out what that looks like for me as I shift around in various offices.
On the other hand, my sibling just graduated with a 4-year degree in civil engineering and got a job immediately out of school for almost $75,000 with option for a raise after 18 months. If my life wouldn't be totally miserable doing engineering work this would be the way to go..
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.