Hello, I'm a high school student with an interest in being an architect and I'm new in this forum. Based on my research, I found out that there are several ways to be an licensed architect. Some colleges have B.Arch and M.Arch while others only have M.Arch and pre-professional degree from 4+2 program. I want to take an architecture degree along the secondary degree related to business. What are the differences between those two paths? Does having Master's degree makes a difference in terms of working in a job? Which path will give me flexibility to have secondary degree?
SpatialSojourner
May 29, 16 1:07 pm
I would say that a 5-year NAAB accredited B.Arch would be the way that I would personally suggest going for... with the 5 years, you can take the AREs and become licensed. That way if you would like to get a Masters, you're free to do whatever you want. Maybe you develop an interest in urbanism or want to get an MBA. I would say that a Masters has more prestige in the industry. I did a BS Arch (4 year) and the +2 can easily turn into a 3+ year ordeal to get a M.Arch, something that I have to get to start taking the AREs (sans working for a long time in some states). Some M.Arch programs allow for concurrent degrees (M.Arch + MBA) with a 18 or so added credit hours but that's very YMMV
DeTwan
May 29, 16 1:16 pm
I would say that a Masters has more prestige in the industry.
Wrong. Most of the major universities have moved over to "Master's Only Programs" for architecture because they can squeeze the extra money out of the student in doing so, compared to a BA with less credit hours. I wouldnt say that employers are like, "oh, this guys got a mater's, a god damn Master's.....hire that guy!!!!!"
My advice to the OP, do more research on the field. The movies & media tend to skew the image of what architecture real is, and what architects really do.
True, real world knowledge and understanding of building technology, codes, and zoning, as well how the city works and submittal process is what gets you a job.
Hello, I'm a high school student with an interest in being an architect and I'm new in this forum. Based on my research, I found out that there are several ways to be an licensed architect. Some colleges have B.Arch and M.Arch while others only have M.Arch and pre-professional degree from 4+2 program. I want to take an architecture degree along the secondary degree related to business. What are the differences between those two paths? Does having Master's degree makes a difference in terms of working in a job? Which path will give me flexibility to have secondary degree?
I would say that a 5-year NAAB accredited B.Arch would be the way that I would personally suggest going for... with the 5 years, you can take the AREs and become licensed. That way if you would like to get a Masters, you're free to do whatever you want. Maybe you develop an interest in urbanism or want to get an MBA. I would say that a Masters has more prestige in the industry. I did a BS Arch (4 year) and the +2 can easily turn into a 3+ year ordeal to get a M.Arch, something that I have to get to start taking the AREs (sans working for a long time in some states). Some M.Arch programs allow for concurrent degrees (M.Arch + MBA) with a 18 or so added credit hours but that's very YMMV
I would say that a Masters has more prestige in the industry.
Wrong. Most of the major universities have moved over to "Master's Only Programs" for architecture because they can squeeze the extra money out of the student in doing so, compared to a BA with less credit hours. I wouldnt say that employers are like, "oh, this guys got a mater's, a god damn Master's.....hire that guy!!!!!"
My advice to the OP, do more research on the field. The movies & media tend to skew the image of what architecture real is, and what architects really do.
True, real world knowledge and understanding of building technology, codes, and zoning, as well how the city works and submittal process is what gets you a job.