This is probably going to be a long post. I'm wondering of b.arch vs b.arch engineering (i went through the search and didn't see exactly this, although i didnt go ALL the way to the back). If someone has both, or knows about both extensively, could you please answer my questions, or part of them?what i'm wondering is, is the only difference between the two that you've SEEN/observed the strengths or values etc. more in engineering. but you learn the basics in b.arch so that you're more trusting the manufacturer, although the holes in your knowledge wouldn't exist? for simplicity, i'm calling cement & concrete concrete Soil mechanics-b.arch vs. arch engineering, how in depth, how many labs do you do on soil mechanics? foundation design: same. How are the driven piles & piers taught? this would come after soil mechanics, i'd assume. do you learn prestressed & poststressed concrete? masonry? steel? timber? statics: first of all, elevators. are elevator effects on buildings covered in b.arch? i assume they'd be covered in a "dynamics of structures" course. wind loads? do you learn steel, timber, masonry, concrete(poststressed, prestressed, normal) ? In either of them do you learn about cables? what about attaching cables to arches, domes, vaults? do you learn about welds? how in depth do you go in each? is riveting taught in either? mortese and tendons? acoustics? is it simply the breadth of acoustic materials taught? which one has more? thermodynamics: both of material shrinking/enlargement & heat absorbtion/emission
forgot glass, canvas, plastic
chigurh
Jul 8, 17 6:20 pm
based on your questions - engineering is a better fit and will teach you the science and mathematics to learn any of topics mentioned. Architecture is about being a dilettante with little knowledge of the hard sciences mentioned above, that is what consultants are for.
bowling_ball
Jul 9, 17 11:03 am
In architecture school you will learn less than 1% of what you're concerned with. Go to engineering if you want to know about those things. As architects, most of the time we're not even legally permitted to do that kind of work anyway.
Non Sequitur
Jul 9, 17 12:24 pm
I was thaught some/most of these in arch school. It helps greatly when dealing with engineers who normally try and propose the easiest solution at the cost of design flexibility.
arch76
Jul 9, 17 7:26 pm
Agree with Non Sequitur- A bunch of those items were touched on in school, but having knowledge and understanding of them is essential in practice. I think the difference in the two tracks is that B.Arch puts you on the path to licensure with the end goal of Architecting, Arch Engineering puts you in a different role in the dance. A venn diagram of the two would have some overlap, but the scale of work you plan on pursuing should direct your decision.
Schoon
Jul 9, 17 9:14 pm
Arch Eng student here, I agree with arch76. If you want to end up as a licensed architect, do the b.arch. If you want to end up as a licensed professional engineer (mechanical or structural, civil not so much), do the arch eng, but make sure the degree is ABET accredited.
To answer some of your questions, everything you mentioned except acoustics and materials like glass, canvas and plastic is taught in-depth in a typical AE degree program. There may be special topics courses that cover these areas but that will vary from university to university. You mention a lot of really specific and all-over-the-place topics (elevators, types of connections, prestressing); you'll cover those in a general way when you learn mechanics of materials, which you can adapt to specific situations. If you want any more than that you'll have to pursue a masters degree. My program covers prestressed concrete in the graduate courses.
It really comes down to what you want to actually do all day. Do you want to learn all those things you mentioned to facilitate better architectural design, or do you want to get into the weeds of those topics and do engineering design?
Wood Guy
Jul 10, 17 10:03 am
Eibbor, most of what you're listing is not really what the field of building science covers, but in any case I think your interests lie more in the field of architectural engineering, or possibly just straight-up civil or mechanical engineering.
natematt
Jul 10, 17 11:40 am
100% what Non Sequitur said. I learned enough about most of these in school to call bull on engineers trying to squeak out easiest solutions over common sense. A lot of engineers are smart people, but most of them have a very different emphasis on doing things. People have this weird vision of engineers keeping architects in check, in my experience it's the exact opposite.
That said. OP sounds like they should go into some kind of engineering. I've known people in Architectural Engineering, and it does seem a bit more generalist than the others, so it might be a good fit. But it seems like most of them have gone into more specialized engineering fields in the end.
This is probably going to be a long post. I'm wondering of b.arch vs b.arch engineering (i went through the search and didn't see exactly this, although i didnt go ALL the way to the back). If someone has both, or knows about both extensively, could you please answer my questions, or part of them?what i'm wondering is, is the only difference between the two that you've SEEN/observed the strengths or values etc. more in engineering. but you learn the basics in b.arch so that you're more trusting the manufacturer, although the holes in your knowledge wouldn't exist? for simplicity, i'm calling cement & concrete concrete
Soil mechanics-b.arch vs. arch engineering, how in depth, how many labs do you do on soil mechanics?
foundation design: same. How are the driven piles & piers taught? this would come after soil mechanics, i'd assume. do you learn prestressed & poststressed concrete? masonry? steel? timber?
statics: first of all, elevators. are elevator effects on buildings covered in b.arch? i assume they'd be covered in a "dynamics of structures" course. wind loads? do you learn steel, timber, masonry, concrete(poststressed, prestressed, normal) ? In either of them do you learn about cables? what about attaching cables to arches, domes, vaults?
do you learn about welds? how in depth do you go in each? is riveting taught in either? mortese and tendons?
acoustics? is it simply the breadth of acoustic materials taught? which one has more?
thermodynamics: both of material shrinking/enlargement & heat absorbtion/emission
forgot glass, canvas, plastic
based on your questions - engineering is a better fit and will teach you the science and mathematics to learn any of topics mentioned. Architecture is about being a dilettante with little knowledge of the hard sciences mentioned above, that is what consultants are for.
In architecture school you will learn less than 1% of what you're concerned with. Go to engineering if you want to know about those things. As architects, most of the time we're not even legally permitted to do that kind of work anyway.
I was thaught some/most of these in arch school. It helps greatly when dealing with engineers who normally try and propose the easiest solution at the cost of design flexibility.
Agree with Non Sequitur- A bunch of those items were touched on in school, but having knowledge and understanding of them is essential in practice. I think the difference in the two tracks is that B.Arch puts you on the path to licensure with the end goal of Architecting, Arch Engineering puts you in a different role in the dance. A venn diagram of the two would have some overlap, but the scale of work you plan on pursuing should direct your decision.
Arch Eng student here, I agree with arch76. If you want to end up as a licensed architect, do the b.arch. If you want to end up as a licensed professional engineer (mechanical or structural, civil not so much), do the arch eng, but make sure the degree is ABET accredited.
To answer some of your questions, everything you mentioned except acoustics and materials like glass, canvas and plastic is taught in-depth in a typical AE degree program. There may be special topics courses that cover these areas but that will vary from university to university. You mention a lot of really specific and all-over-the-place topics (elevators, types of connections, prestressing); you'll cover those in a general way when you learn mechanics of materials, which you can adapt to specific situations. If you want any more than that you'll have to pursue a masters degree. My program covers prestressed concrete in the graduate courses.
It really comes down to what you want to actually do all day. Do you want to learn all those things you mentioned to facilitate better architectural design, or do you want to get into the weeds of those topics and do engineering design?
Eibbor, most of what you're listing is not really what the field of building science covers, but in any case I think your interests lie more in the field of architectural engineering, or possibly just straight-up civil or mechanical engineering.
100% what Non Sequitur said. I learned enough about most of these in school to call bull on engineers trying to squeak out easiest solutions over common sense. A lot of engineers are smart people, but most of them have a very different emphasis on doing things. People have this weird vision of engineers keeping architects in check, in my experience it's the exact opposite.
That said. OP sounds like they should go into some kind of engineering. I've known people in Architectural Engineering, and it does seem a bit more generalist than the others, so it might be a good fit. But it seems like most of them have gone into more specialized engineering fields in the end.
Cheers.