What would happen if someone did Bachelor's and then worked for many years, except said person didn't complete their Master's degree?
If this person had the same skills to offer to employers as those without Master's then wouldn't his/her salary be similar?
Of course, this someone wouldn't have all the accreditation but isn't it important when working for someone else? There's plenty of people migrating who don't have accreditation for particular countries.
Also, even self-emloyment or managing one's own company dooesn't seem impossible - said person could collaborate with someone who does have accreditation.
After all, the workplace and required education is changing fast - we don't even know what academia will be like in 10 years.
What are your thoughts?
think_again
Apr 11, 17 11:39 am
I see the merit of education and experience as long as it doesn't completely turn into arrogance.
Everyday Intern
Apr 11, 17 12:22 pm
Does no one offer a B.Arch anymore? I know most schools are trying to cash in on the masters degree pathway but if you want to avoid a masters, just get a B.Arch and then it is still NAAB accredited.
architectura
Apr 11, 17 12:24 pm
Thanks for your reply. I'm European and the system is here mostly 3 years Bachelor's and then 2 years Master's.
Everyday Intern
Apr 11, 17 12:30 pm
Noted, YMMV then.
archietechie
Apr 11, 17 12:37 pm
If the B.Arch is from home i.e. 5yrs, there shouldn't be an issue since it's NAAB accredited, rendering the Masters unnecessary.
I'm aware that most commonwealth countries adopt the 3 + 2 system however as architectura mentioned. I believe a Masters to be essential for such cases.
A minimum education of 5 years is necessary for accreditation in most countries.
architectura
Apr 11, 17 12:40 pm
Thanks a lot for you comment. Could you perhaps elaborate why it's essential to get a Master's in the 3 + 2 system? Accreditation might not be necessary to achieve one's goals (as described above).
archietechie
Apr 12, 17 2:45 am
Because the final 2 years usually encompass most of your defining projects that may influence you as a designer upon maturity; thesis; in-depth industry knowledge (defo not how good one can render); a touch of managerial electives (in the case of opening your own firm) etc.
archeyarch
Apr 11, 17 11:51 pm
There shouldn't be degrees in order to work. The degree should be a choice that the designer makes if he/she feels a degree may be beneficial. If client chooses to pay higher fee because of degree than that should be the choice of the client, not a mandate from regulatory organization.
tduds
Apr 12, 17 11:36 am
"Knowing what you're doing shouldn't be a pre-requisite for trying to do it." Not sure if I agree.
archeyarch
Apr 12, 17 10:26 pm
That's the clients expectation.
geezertect
Apr 12, 17 7:10 am
The lack of a license after "many years" of experience will be seen as a negative by some, not all, employers. If you're on your own, you can't call yourself an "architect". If you stick to small stuff, you can be a "designer" and will, for all intents and purposes, be the functional equivalent of an architect. Depends on where you want to go professionally. You need to define the goal first.
Beepbeep
Apr 12, 17 10:47 am
There are still several states that allow license with out the B.arch or M.arch and a 4 year architectural degree. The person would have to work for 3-6 years extra to make up the difference, states such as California,New York and Colorado allow this among a bunch of others.
I would see no problem at all with your career with only a 4 year and get your license, also you do not have to work and live in a state to receive a license.
What would happen if someone did Bachelor's and then worked for many years, except said person didn't complete their Master's degree?
If this person had the same skills to offer to employers as those without Master's then wouldn't his/her salary be similar?
Of course, this someone wouldn't have all the accreditation but isn't it important when working for someone else? There's plenty of people migrating who don't have accreditation for particular countries.
Also, even self-emloyment or managing one's own company dooesn't seem impossible - said person could collaborate with someone who does have accreditation.
After all, the workplace and required education is changing fast - we don't even know what academia will be like in 10 years.
What are your thoughts?
I see the merit of education and experience as long as it doesn't completely turn into arrogance.
Does no one offer a B.Arch anymore? I know most schools are trying to cash in on the masters degree pathway but if you want to avoid a masters, just get a B.Arch and then it is still NAAB accredited.
Thanks for your reply. I'm European and the system is here mostly 3 years Bachelor's and then 2 years Master's.
Noted, YMMV then.
If the B.Arch is from home i.e. 5yrs, there shouldn't be an issue since it's NAAB accredited, rendering the Masters unnecessary.
I'm aware that most commonwealth countries adopt the 3 + 2 system however as architectura mentioned. I believe a Masters to be essential for such cases.
A minimum education of 5 years is necessary for accreditation in most countries.
Thanks a lot for you comment. Could you perhaps elaborate why it's essential to get a Master's in the 3 + 2 system? Accreditation might not be necessary to achieve one's goals (as described above).
Because the final 2 years usually encompass most of your defining projects that may influence you as a designer upon maturity; thesis; in-depth industry knowledge (defo not how good one can render); a touch of managerial electives (in the case of opening your own firm) etc.
There shouldn't be degrees in order to work. The degree should be a choice that the designer makes if he/she feels a degree may be beneficial. If client chooses to pay higher fee because of degree than that should be the choice of the client, not a mandate from regulatory organization.
"Knowing what you're doing shouldn't be a pre-requisite for trying to do it." Not sure if I agree.
That's the clients expectation.
The lack of a license after "many years" of experience will be seen as a negative by some, not all, employers. If you're on your own, you can't call yourself an "architect". If you stick to small stuff, you can be a "designer" and will, for all intents and purposes, be the functional equivalent of an architect. Depends on where you want to go professionally. You need to define the goal first.
There are still several states that allow license with out the B.arch or M.arch and a 4 year architectural degree. The person would have to work for 3-6 years extra to make up the difference, states such as California,New York and Colorado allow this among a bunch of others.
I would see no problem at all with your career with only a 4 year and get your license, also you do not have to work and live in a state to receive a license.