I was under the impression the two paths to an accredited architecture degree was a 5 year program or "4+2" program. Is this a recent change?
CLOCLO
Sep 3, 16 7:02 pm
$
Josh Mings
Sep 3, 16 9:26 pm
The 4+2 is only if your undergrad is in Architecture as well. 3 year M.Archs are for those with non-architecture Bachelors.
Flatfish
Sep 3, 16 10:02 pm
Some of the top-ranked M.Arch programs are 3 years, or 2.5 years, with no advanced-placement option, even for those with 4-year architecture majors. That isn't new though - most of them have been that way since the inception of their M.Arch programs. There are various reasons for this. Usually it's because parts of their core curriculum that are considered central to their identity or reason for being (things like hands-on building programs, or project management or professional practice sequences that go beyond the bare minimum) are not part of the NAAB-required curriculum - which means that in order to satisfy both the school's philosophies and NAAB requirements, the program has to fit in more credits, which usually makes it longer.
Whether or not that extra 1 or 2 semesters is worth it is a personal decision. Is the extra year of tuition and expenses worth it? Is the year of potential lost earnings worth it?
william wynne
Sep 4, 16 3:52 pm
Yes,! that potential loss of earning is totally worth the price of another year of tuition, how are we going to keep our Architecture schools teachers employed otherwise?
We totally, know that Architecture is a super cool profession, and the rewards are many and great...totally!
Did I say totally enough in this opinion piece?
3tk
Sep 6, 16 7:42 pm
+1 5839 - a school's pedagogy often needs the extra time to hammer home their identity onto the student. I find that it does help shape the students, but time+cost is a factor (at least in the short term).
accesskb
Sep 7, 16 2:14 am
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
gwharton
Sep 7, 16 11:34 am
Yeah. It's purely about money: Maximum revenue extraction from students who are too dumb to realize they are being played by a pyramid scheme.
I was under the impression the two paths to an accredited architecture degree was a 5 year program or "4+2" program. Is this a recent change?
$
The 4+2 is only if your undergrad is in Architecture as well. 3 year M.Archs are for those with non-architecture Bachelors.
Some of the top-ranked M.Arch programs are 3 years, or 2.5 years, with no advanced-placement option, even for those with 4-year architecture majors. That isn't new though - most of them have been that way since the inception of their M.Arch programs. There are various reasons for this. Usually it's because parts of their core curriculum that are considered central to their identity or reason for being (things like hands-on building programs, or project management or professional practice sequences that go beyond the bare minimum) are not part of the NAAB-required curriculum - which means that in order to satisfy both the school's philosophies and NAAB requirements, the program has to fit in more credits, which usually makes it longer.
Whether or not that extra 1 or 2 semesters is worth it is a personal decision. Is the extra year of tuition and expenses worth it? Is the year of potential lost earnings worth it?
Yes,! that potential loss of earning is totally worth the price of another year of tuition, how are we going to keep our Architecture schools teachers employed otherwise?
We totally, know that Architecture is a super cool profession, and the rewards are many and great...totally!
Did I say totally enough in this opinion piece?
+1 5839 - a school's pedagogy often needs the extra time to hammer home their identity onto the student. I find that it does help shape the students, but time+cost is a factor (at least in the short term).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yeah. It's purely about money: Maximum revenue extraction from students who are too dumb to realize they are being played by a pyramid scheme.