I'm an international M.arch applicant, recently admitted to the school above.
Recently, I've been through hard times to choose which school to go, since those are all very different programs. My interest is more to practice architect, rather that pure academia. Here's my thought: (Some of them are just my assumption, since I'm an international.. advices would be much appreciated!)
UCLA (1 yr M.arch ll)
- Big city, big market, maybe one of the best place for job opportunities.
(I've worked in LA-based architecture firm's overseas branch office for 2 years, so I already have a little bit of network in LA. Hope this would help future job opportunities..)
- takes the shortest time, which means less burden on budget but high risk on qualification for job searching
- NAAB accredition X
U of Michigan (2 yrs M.arch)
- As far as I know, It can provide me with a quite good network around the world as well as in the states.
- It seems provide quite good balance between research-based architecture and practice-based architecture.
- Opportunities open to Chicago.
- NAAB accredited
- Requires ridiculous amount of budget without financial aid.
UT Austin (2 yrs M.arch ll w/ historic preservation focus)
- I've been interested in historic preservation studies, in terms of academic perspective. (which doesn't seem to be really beneficial when applying for a job of design firm.)
- Opportunies open to Dallas-Houston area.
- Requires the least budget.
- NAAB accredition X
I know these are all very different program so the most important factor for making decision is up to my interest. But I just wanna ask you guys to give me advice and insight from different perspective.
Thank you in advance!
international_applicant
Apr 4, 16 9:53 am
You have to understand that every MArch II program out there is not accredited by NAAB. Even Harvard's, or Yale's post-professional degree is unaccredited. Accreditation has to to woth being a registered architect in the US. And in a specific state. Taubman's March is a professional degree, that is why it is accredited. Either way you can find a job, as long as you have a work permit in the US.
Unless you have a specific interest for the historic preservation track, I would choose UCLA. Great faculty (mayne, denari, mack etc), LA is a huge market
+it is only one year. You save money by jot directly paying snother year's tuition, you get to earn a salary earlier
Hope I helped
Hi there,
I'm an international M.arch applicant, recently admitted to the school above.
Recently, I've been through hard times to choose which school to go, since those are all very different programs. My interest is more to practice architect, rather that pure academia. Here's my thought: (Some of them are just my assumption, since I'm an international.. advices would be much appreciated!)
UCLA (1 yr M.arch ll)
- Big city, big market, maybe one of the best place for job opportunities.
(I've worked in LA-based architecture firm's overseas branch office for 2 years, so I already have a little bit of network in LA. Hope this would help future job opportunities..)
- takes the shortest time, which means less burden on budget but high risk on qualification for job searching
- NAAB accredition X
U of Michigan (2 yrs M.arch)
- As far as I know, It can provide me with a quite good network around the world as well as in the states.
- It seems provide quite good balance between research-based architecture and practice-based architecture.
- Opportunities open to Chicago.
- NAAB accredited
- Requires ridiculous amount of budget without financial aid.
UT Austin (2 yrs M.arch ll w/ historic preservation focus)
- I've been interested in historic preservation studies, in terms of academic perspective. (which doesn't seem to be really beneficial when applying for a job of design firm.)
- Opportunies open to Dallas-Houston area.
- Requires the least budget.
- NAAB accredition X
I know these are all very different program so the most important factor for making decision is up to my interest. But I just wanna ask you guys to give me advice and insight from different perspective.
Thank you in advance!
You have to understand that every MArch II program out there is not accredited by NAAB. Even Harvard's, or Yale's post-professional degree is unaccredited. Accreditation has to to woth being a registered architect in the US. And in a specific state. Taubman's March is a professional degree, that is why it is accredited. Either way you can find a job, as long as you have a work permit in the US. Unless you have a specific interest for the historic preservation track, I would choose UCLA. Great faculty (mayne, denari, mack etc), LA is a huge market +it is only one year. You save money by jot directly paying snother year's tuition, you get to earn a salary earlier Hope I helped