As the title of the topic, in front of me ,now I have 3 Admission of those two types of M.arch II. Although evidently the latter one is longer than the former one, but if i subtract the vacation from that, I find that the difference is limited. What I want know is the attitude of the current market or academic circle (despite the reputation and location of the schools, just focus on the time issue).
is there many disadvantage for the ppl of 1 year program while competing with 1.5-year program??
I'm in the same situation as far as evaluating the M.Arch II programs I've been accepted to. I am finding myself gravitating towards the programs that are 1 calendar year as opposed to those that extend it to 1.5 and 2 years. I don't need a summer break, I would like to get out of school with my masters and continue my career as soon as possible.
To answer your question, no i don't think it matters to the current market or academic circle how long it took to get your M.Arch II degree. In fact, it may not even matter to some that you even went back to school to get your post-professional degree in the first place.
What may matter is the reputation of the school, and how you make use of your time there.
lucky - i was admitted to the gsd and to columbia's post pro (march II). honestly, the question never crossed my mind. i would think the institutional reputation itself matters more (i know you're trying to negate that for this discussion, but...)
no, no difference in the terms you describe. in fact, in my case, i decided to go to the gsd (with less scholarship money on the table) and instead of taking 3 semesters, they had a plan where you could stretch it to 4 (all electives fall of second year, studio only in the spring) but only pay for 3. most of us took that option and loaded up on audit electives in the spring. no regrets taking the extra time...
outed, I understand what you say, certainly, if i was in your place, I also would prefer to GSD, the reason why I try to negate the reputation problem is that now I have received an offer from Cornell.(fail to the GSD, So congrats to you). But some of the friends said that Cornell compress the curriculum in recent years and shorten the period of the program to 1 year.It would have some negative influence on its reputation of the program(In my country, people think the longer the better ). That's why I propose this topic.
To Rusty, I partly agree with you , the shorter the program is , the earlier we could practice. But admittedly, if you told someone you gain a master degree from 1 year study, other ppl would depreciate your degree when comparing to 1.5-year program or 2-year program. that's what i worried about.
I find that reputation is maybe based more on school than length of the program.
I did a 1 year program exactly for financial reasons, paying for two semesters versus for three, plus that program offered scholarship.
Also, lost wages for not working that extra semester factored in.
On the other hand if you go to a 1 year program, it might feel a little rushed, I felt that the school I went to had a very pragmatic (and a bit dogmatic) approach and it didn't leave much time for thinking and focusing on something, because 1 year is too short a time to let you wander around like I imagined grad school should be.
I think the biggest danger with these post professional masters is that it might feel like more of the same so at least try to go the the school that's most unlike your undergrad.
Also you will only have 2 studios so choose carefully - if you end up not liking one, it's half of your education. I found the seminars to be the highlight of my master's education and not the studios as I thought.
Another thing you might care about, these programs are not Ncarb accredited cause they don't need to, but some qualify for IDP supplementary education and some not (maybe that's where the 1 year vs 2 years difference shows).
Wow, I didn't even think to check this IDP supplementary education qualifying list. Clemson was one of the schools I was considering for its fluid campus program, but it appears on the site that the M.Arch 2-year track doesn't qualify... unless I'm reading this wrong only an MS Arch and PhD qualify.
Definitely a decision helper for me... Thanks!
To lucky,
I doubt people will ever know or even care on a resume how long your course load was. As long as you got that masters from Cornell you should be alright.
I am not sure how many credits you're allowed to get for this, it might not be that many to override other factors in your decision...it might be good to call NCARB (also to ask if the list is likely to include other programs soon, as most post professional programs are rather new).
Thank you C.K.
thanks for your great analysis for me. indeed, as a international student, I know little about the program besides the reputation. also, since I still attend to back to my home country for practice, so the reputation in my country is also important. similar to you , I also have the financial factors include in my decision making.
I heard from this forum that almost most of the US ppl would talk about the economic burden from the degree(debt and loan). I wonder if those program (Ivy league or top 10)are expensive to you guys as well . as an international student, it reallys cost me a lot!!
I am also international. For ivies, the money is the same for you and everybody else, and you can get scholarships since most are merit based.
I only know of Columbia to have a policy against awarding ANY financial help to internationals and a few other that restrict it (I think Harvard would at most give 60 percent of the tuition and not sure about Yale).
Mar 27, 10 2:38 pm ·
·
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.
Any difference of M.arch II between 3-semester (1year )and 3-semester (1.5 year) in the market or further career development??
As the title of the topic, in front of me ,now I have 3 Admission of those two types of M.arch II. Although evidently the latter one is longer than the former one, but if i subtract the vacation from that, I find that the difference is limited. What I want know is the attitude of the current market or academic circle (despite the reputation and location of the schools, just focus on the time issue).
is there many disadvantage for the ppl of 1 year program while competing with 1.5-year program??
thank your very much!
I'm in the same situation as far as evaluating the M.Arch II programs I've been accepted to. I am finding myself gravitating towards the programs that are 1 calendar year as opposed to those that extend it to 1.5 and 2 years. I don't need a summer break, I would like to get out of school with my masters and continue my career as soon as possible.
To answer your question, no i don't think it matters to the current market or academic circle how long it took to get your M.Arch II degree. In fact, it may not even matter to some that you even went back to school to get your post-professional degree in the first place.
What may matter is the reputation of the school, and how you make use of your time there.
lucky - i was admitted to the gsd and to columbia's post pro (march II). honestly, the question never crossed my mind. i would think the institutional reputation itself matters more (i know you're trying to negate that for this discussion, but...)
no, no difference in the terms you describe. in fact, in my case, i decided to go to the gsd (with less scholarship money on the table) and instead of taking 3 semesters, they had a plan where you could stretch it to 4 (all electives fall of second year, studio only in the spring) but only pay for 3. most of us took that option and loaded up on audit electives in the spring. no regrets taking the extra time...
outed, I understand what you say, certainly, if i was in your place, I also would prefer to GSD, the reason why I try to negate the reputation problem is that now I have received an offer from Cornell.(fail to the GSD, So congrats to you). But some of the friends said that Cornell compress the curriculum in recent years and shorten the period of the program to 1 year.It would have some negative influence on its reputation of the program(In my country, people think the longer the better ). That's why I propose this topic.
To Rusty, I partly agree with you , the shorter the program is , the earlier we could practice. But admittedly, if you told someone you gain a master degree from 1 year study, other ppl would depreciate your degree when comparing to 1.5-year program or 2-year program. that's what i worried about.
I find that reputation is maybe based more on school than length of the program.
I did a 1 year program exactly for financial reasons, paying for two semesters versus for three, plus that program offered scholarship.
Also, lost wages for not working that extra semester factored in.
On the other hand if you go to a 1 year program, it might feel a little rushed, I felt that the school I went to had a very pragmatic (and a bit dogmatic) approach and it didn't leave much time for thinking and focusing on something, because 1 year is too short a time to let you wander around like I imagined grad school should be.
I think the biggest danger with these post professional masters is that it might feel like more of the same so at least try to go the the school that's most unlike your undergrad.
Also you will only have 2 studios so choose carefully - if you end up not liking one, it's half of your education. I found the seminars to be the highlight of my master's education and not the studios as I thought.
Another thing you might care about, these programs are not Ncarb accredited cause they don't need to, but some qualify for IDP supplementary education and some not (maybe that's where the 1 year vs 2 years difference shows).
take a look here
To c.k.,
Wow, I didn't even think to check this IDP supplementary education qualifying list. Clemson was one of the schools I was considering for its fluid campus program, but it appears on the site that the M.Arch 2-year track doesn't qualify... unless I'm reading this wrong only an MS Arch and PhD qualify.
Definitely a decision helper for me... Thanks!
To lucky,
I doubt people will ever know or even care on a resume how long your course load was. As long as you got that masters from Cornell you should be alright.
I am not sure how many credits you're allowed to get for this, it might not be that many to override other factors in your decision...it might be good to call NCARB (also to ask if the list is likely to include other programs soon, as most post professional programs are rather new).
Thank you C.K.
thanks for your great analysis for me. indeed, as a international student, I know little about the program besides the reputation. also, since I still attend to back to my home country for practice, so the reputation in my country is also important. similar to you , I also have the financial factors include in my decision making.
I heard from this forum that almost most of the US ppl would talk about the economic burden from the degree(debt and loan). I wonder if those program (Ivy league or top 10)are expensive to you guys as well . as an international student, it reallys cost me a lot!!
I am also international. For ivies, the money is the same for you and everybody else, and you can get scholarships since most are merit based.
I only know of Columbia to have a policy against awarding ANY financial help to internationals and a few other that restrict it (I think Harvard would at most give 60 percent of the tuition and not sure about Yale).
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.