Hi! I'm looking to pursue my studies to either get a Bachelors in Design or ideally go strait to a Masters in Architecture.... I'm wondering what is the most linear way to do it without spending almost a decade in school?
Back story - I have a 3 year diploma in architectural technologies, and have worked for 6 years both as a freelancer and professionally within Ottawa.
Time is ticking and I'm wondering if there are there options to do a 2-3 year bachelors anywhere? Or fast-tracking to a 3 year masters? I looked into the RAIC syllabus, but don't think I'm up for working full-time and continuing education on the side...
What are your experiences / thoughts?
GridBubbles
Jul 24, 19 11:25 am
I would recommend something like BCIT Architectural Science 2 year degree or similar. After completion, apply for M.Arch advanced placement. I finished my Master's in 2 years.
stuckinsky
Jul 24, 19 11:37 am
Never knew about BCIT architectural science degree! Quick research says it's a 4 year bachelors... Is there a specific degree for the 2 years? And I assume it's recognized for most masters?
GridBubbles
Jul 24, 19 1:11 pm
Nope, its a 2 year degree. Its only listed as 4 years because it includes the 2 year tech diploma (2 year tech diploma + 2 year bachelor degree = 4 years total). But the actual bachelors portions is 2 year long. If you have a tech background, you could directly apply for the 3rd year entry.
Yes, it is recognized by all Masters. It just depends on how strong your portfolio is because there is still a dogma about tech schools.
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 19 1:22 pm
There is reason why tech schools are considered a lesser tier. Try and get into McGill or Waterloo M.arch with any half&half tech diploma... not going to to happen unless you're a superstar. The average tech chump will struggle to keep up but at least the schools are doing a good job promoting the option.
GridBubbles
Jul 24, 19 2:01 pm
I disagree, they're not considered lesser tier, its the subject matter that's covered in tech schools are not conventional to what M.Arch school require from a philosophical point of view. Heck even I got into grad school with a tech background and I don't objectively consider myself "superstar" status. Just because you come from a tech background doesn't mean the individual is not capable to adapting to grad school thinking. Again, the dogma about tech students. Generally, the students graduating from tech schools applying for grad schools are more than capable. If not, better than the conventional grad student in some cases.
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 19 2:12 pm
more capable? as drafting grunts yes, in general. Perhaps better than those without arch-related bachelors but what you describe is far from what I've seen in the workplace.
GridBubbles
Jul 24, 19 2:26 pm
Are you referring to design capabilities or drafting/ technical capabilities? I think its necessary to differentiate the two.
I was referring to both all around capability in all my previous comments. I'll give you an anecdote - among my grad school peers, the individuals that were highly design oriented and talented all had difficulties securing jobs after graduation. The ones that secured jobs the fastest all had prior experience, tech background, all around knowledge of the "construction" side of architecture or combination of those backgrounds in addition to "design talent".
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 19 2:29 pm
I've referring to the student pool quality in general. I've always said that there are stellar students from any school... but generally speaking, the average tech grad moving into an M.arch is at a disadvantage due to how they were thought to approach problems. Your "anecdote" is total bullshit btw.
GridBubbles
Jul 24, 19 2:39 pm
I agree that Tech students are at a disadvantage in some specific instances but that doesn't mean that they're not capable of achieving the same outcomes as a conventional arch student. Again, I keep having to re-emphasize that there is a dogma attached to Tech students. The approach to problem solving can be re-taught, its up to the individual student and if they're willing to learn that. To clarify again, a tech. background does not determine the quality and success of your work in grad school, it is up to the individual to leverage their tech. skills in addition to design thinking.
I specifically labeled my experience as an anecdote as the context is specifically implicit in the term. Not sure how I'm going to respond to your comment regarding "BS" other than that's just your opinion or are you suggesting my experience is not true? If so, how would you know? Are you there when it happened?
stuckinsky
Jul 24, 19 2:41 pm
I think there's a lot of ignorance going on right here. The age old debate of whether or not a technologist can perform as well as say someone with a bachelors in design, or better yet, someone with an M.Arch, is total garbage. It's all based on character and personal talent + interest. The generalization here is that college people are 'practical' and university students are 'theoretical/philosophical' therefor these two stand in distinctly different ponds. To say someone with an M.Arch is an idiot when it comes to 'technical' work be it construction or software is the same poor generalizing argument as saying a technologist can't design/philosophize any architectural concept.
I've equally seen technologist be able to design incredible places with all the artistic impressions one would have from an M.Arch, and I've seen M.Arch graduates who cannot design if their life depended on it but could detail the crap out of a brick ledge....
Moving on.
stuckinsky
Jul 24, 19 2:43 pm
Anyways, GridBubbles, I think it's great that finally a university offers a 2 year bridge to the bachelors. I hadn't heard of that and will definitely consider it! Man that would shave off some time... not to mention living in BC is a win. Mind me asking where you did your Masters considering the other guy thinks it wouldn't be accepted at 'major uni's'?
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 19 2:43 pm
Key words here are "can be taught". In my experience, this is not a common quality I've found in those who've chosen that path. The same applies for syllabus students too. The rest, I believe we are in agreement. I consider both to be different sports one needs to be competent in both... and know how play both at the same time.
stuckinsky
Jul 24, 19 2:47 pm
Correct
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 19 2:56 pm
I think DAL offers a similar bridge... not 100% tho.
GridBubbles
Jul 24, 19 2:58 pm
I chose Calgary because it was the shortest program I could get into. Others in the past have gone onto UBC, McGill, Toronto, Manitoba, and even Sci Arc in the States. Its all up to the individual and how strong their portfolio is and in general their overall attitude to "re-calibrating" their approach to architecture with the more fluffy side of design to determine their success. And again, I have been consistent with me responses throughout the thread.
stuckinsky
Jul 24, 19 4:11 pm
Very interesting. I've heard a few technologist getting into Calgary and it working out for them. I've been interested in UBC for a while especially with their upcoming Bachelors in Design, but this option at BCIT seems fitting. And yeah I know, I'm not concerned about your comments. Thanks for the info
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 19 4:15 pm
^consider the time post M.arch you'll need before being eligible for a license. You may very well be able to write your architect exams and get a license through the syllabus earlier (and cheaper) than you would with a bridge bachelor + masters.
stuckinsky
Jul 24, 19 4:24 pm
That is a really good point. It'll still take a decent amount of time to get through that entire process for the M.Arch. I know once you walk out of the syllabus, as long as youre working and documenting hours, you can apply to do the exams right away... All things to factor in
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 19 4:32 pm
Correct. I know all the syllabus folks (I was to be an external advisor once but never followed thru) in the Ottawa circle and they are good & experienced. This is not typical since other syllabus folks in the smaller cities don't have much resources.
stuckinsky
Jul 24, 19 4:44 pm
Interesting. I would be joining the syllabus in Ottawa as I currently live there. But I'm really hoping to follow another route even though the syllabus seems to be the strait-shooter option that gets the job done. I've heard good and bad things about it, but hey, could be worth a shot
GridBubbles
Jul 24, 19 4:45 pm
That is true, it depends on your location and immediate resources available to you. Syllabus may seem daunting as well, but I have classmates in the Tech undergrad that have gone this route instead. Although it does get stressful when balancing the demand from your professional work and course work, Masters is just a convenient route to focus on schooling and may offer other academic, personal and/or career opportunities after graduation. IMO, if you have the money and are budget conscious, go with the shortest program from whichever school. However if money is a constraint, then Syllabus is a good option as well.
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 19 12:52 pm
So, the reality is that in Canada, you will either need a M.arch or complete the syllabus... in your situation, you will need to turn your diploma into an acceptable bachelor's equivalent then apply to a 3y M.arch. Following this, it will take approximately 3 to 5 years for you to accumulate the hours to write the Exac as no hours pre-march are acceptable under the canadian IDP.
The syllabus is likely the better option for you since it allows you to keep working while taking the necessary classes part-time. Education quality is sub-par compared to a M.arch but who-cares if what you want is the opportunity to write the exams. At least with the syllabus you can keep working and earn something IDP hours (plus a salary) even if you don't get a degree at the end.
Length of either option are pretty much the same if you can get some of the syllabus modules knocked-off due to existing experience.
Almosthip7
Jul 24, 19 5:13 pm
I am currently enrolled in the Syllabus (Edmonton Chapter) if you have any questions.
Almosthip7
Jul 24, 19 5:15 pm
And I stated with a Tech.Dip.
RANBOW
Sep 20, 19 2:55 pm
I'M AN ARCH. TECHNOLOGIST FROM NIGERIA AND I WANT TO FURTHER AT USA OR CANADA, WHAT ARE THE NECESSARY PROCEDURES ?
Non Sequitur
Sep 20, 19 3:11 pm
far left of keyboard, 3 keys from bottom. Try that first. After you've completed this fundamental step, open up google and look for the CACB (canadian accreditation). If you're only a tech without an accredited degree, you're unlikely to find reciprocity but at least you'll get a list of schools to apply to. There is probably some VISA issues to deal with too.
GridBubbles
Sep 23, 19 6:18 pm
Borrow some money from the prince and get into the best Ivy League school you can. /s
Get an advanced placement Undergrad degree in architecture then apply for Graduate school. Alternatively, enroll in a syllabus program.
Hi! I'm looking to pursue my studies to either get a Bachelors in Design or ideally go strait to a Masters in Architecture.... I'm wondering what is the most linear way to do it without spending almost a decade in school?
Back story - I have a 3 year diploma in architectural technologies, and have worked for 6 years both as a freelancer and professionally within Ottawa.
Time is ticking and I'm wondering if there are there options to do a 2-3 year bachelors anywhere? Or fast-tracking to a 3 year masters? I looked into the RAIC syllabus, but don't think I'm up for working full-time and continuing education on the side...
What are your experiences / thoughts?
I would recommend something like BCIT Architectural Science 2 year degree or similar. After completion, apply for M.Arch advanced placement. I finished my Master's in 2 years.
Never knew about BCIT architectural science degree! Quick research says it's a 4 year bachelors... Is there a specific degree for the 2 years? And I assume it's recognized for most masters?
Nope, its a 2 year degree. Its only listed as 4 years because it includes the 2 year tech diploma (2 year tech diploma + 2 year bachelor degree = 4 years total). But the actual bachelors portions is 2 year long. If you have a tech background, you could directly apply for the 3rd year entry.
Yes, it is recognized by all Masters. It just depends on how strong your portfolio is because there is still a dogma about tech schools.
There is reason why tech schools are considered a lesser tier. Try and get into McGill or Waterloo M.arch with any half&half tech diploma... not going to to happen unless you're a superstar. The average tech chump will struggle to keep up but at least the schools are doing a good job promoting the option.
I disagree, they're not considered lesser tier, its the subject matter that's covered in tech schools are not conventional to what M.Arch school require from a philosophical point of view. Heck even I got into grad school with a tech background and I don't objectively consider myself "superstar" status. Just because you come from a tech background doesn't mean the individual is not capable to adapting to grad school thinking. Again, the dogma about tech students. Generally, the students graduating from tech schools applying for grad schools are more than capable. If not, better than the conventional grad student in some cases.
more capable? as drafting grunts yes, in general. Perhaps better than those without arch-related bachelors but what you describe is far from what I've seen in the workplace.
Are you referring to design capabilities or drafting/ technical capabilities? I think its necessary to differentiate the two. I was referring to both all around capability in all my previous comments. I'll give you an anecdote - among my grad school peers, the individuals that were highly design oriented and talented all had difficulties securing jobs after graduation. The ones that secured jobs the fastest all had prior experience, tech background, all around knowledge of the "construction" side of architecture or combination of those backgrounds in addition to "design talent".
I've referring to the student pool quality in general. I've always said that there are stellar students from any school... but generally speaking, the average tech grad moving into an M.arch is at a disadvantage due to how they were thought to approach problems. Your "anecdote" is total bullshit btw.
I agree that Tech students are at a disadvantage in some specific instances but that doesn't mean that they're not capable of achieving the same outcomes as a conventional arch student. Again, I keep having to re-emphasize that there is a dogma attached to Tech students. The approach to problem solving can be re-taught, its up to the individual student and if they're willing to learn that. To clarify again, a tech. background does not determine the quality and success of your work in grad school, it is up to the individual to leverage their tech. skills in addition to design thinking.
I specifically labeled my experience as an anecdote as the context is specifically implicit in the term. Not sure how I'm going to respond to your comment regarding "BS" other than that's just your opinion or are you suggesting my experience is not true? If so, how would you know? Are you there when it happened?
I think there's a lot of ignorance going on right here. The age old debate of whether or not a technologist can perform as well as say someone with a bachelors in design, or better yet, someone with an M.Arch, is total garbage. It's all based on character and personal talent + interest. The generalization here is that college people are 'practical' and university students are 'theoretical/philosophical' therefor these two stand in distinctly different ponds. To say someone with an M.Arch is an idiot when it comes to 'technical' work be it construction or software is the same poor generalizing argument as saying a technologist can't design/philosophize any architectural concept.
I've equally seen technologist be able to design incredible places with all the artistic impressions one would have from an M.Arch, and I've seen M.Arch graduates who cannot design if their life depended on it but could detail the crap out of a brick ledge....
Moving on.
Anyways, GridBubbles, I think it's great that finally a university offers a 2 year bridge to the bachelors. I hadn't heard of that and will definitely consider it! Man that would shave off some time... not to mention living in BC is a win. Mind me asking where you did your Masters considering the other guy thinks it wouldn't be accepted at 'major uni's'?
Key words here are "can be taught". In my experience, this is not a common quality I've found in those who've chosen that path. The same applies for syllabus students too. The rest, I believe we are in agreement. I consider both to be different sports one needs to be competent in both... and know how play both at the same time.
Correct
I think DAL offers a similar bridge... not 100% tho.
I chose Calgary because it was the shortest program I could get into. Others in the past have gone onto UBC, McGill, Toronto, Manitoba, and even Sci Arc in the States. Its all up to the individual and how strong their portfolio is and in general their overall attitude to "re-calibrating" their approach to architecture with the more fluffy side of design to determine their success. And again, I have been consistent with me responses throughout the thread.
Very interesting. I've heard a few technologist getting into Calgary and it working out for them. I've been interested in UBC for a while especially with their upcoming Bachelors in Design, but this option at BCIT seems fitting. And yeah I know, I'm not concerned about your comments. Thanks for the info
^consider the time post M.arch you'll need before being eligible for a license. You may very well be able to write your architect exams and get a license through the syllabus earlier (and cheaper) than you would with a bridge bachelor + masters.
That is a really good point. It'll still take a decent amount of time to get through that entire process for the M.Arch. I know once you walk out of the syllabus, as long as youre working and documenting hours, you can apply to do the exams right away... All things to factor in
Correct. I know all the syllabus folks (I was to be an external advisor once but never followed thru) in the Ottawa circle and they are good & experienced. This is not typical since other syllabus folks in the smaller cities don't have much resources.
Interesting. I would be joining the syllabus in Ottawa as I currently live there. But I'm really hoping to follow another route even though the syllabus seems to be the strait-shooter option that gets the job done. I've heard good and bad things about it, but hey, could be worth a shot
That is true, it depends on your location and immediate resources available to you. Syllabus may seem daunting as well, but I have classmates in the Tech undergrad that have gone this route instead. Although it does get stressful when balancing the demand from your professional work and course work, Masters is just a convenient route to focus on schooling and may offer other academic, personal and/or career opportunities after graduation. IMO, if you have the money and are budget conscious, go with the shortest program from whichever school. However if money is a constraint, then Syllabus is a good option as well.
So, the reality is that in Canada, you will either need a M.arch or complete the syllabus... in your situation, you will need to turn your diploma into an acceptable bachelor's equivalent then apply to a 3y M.arch. Following this, it will take approximately 3 to 5 years for you to accumulate the hours to write the Exac as no hours pre-march are acceptable under the canadian IDP.
The syllabus is likely the better option for you since it allows you to keep working while taking the necessary classes part-time. Education quality is sub-par compared to a M.arch but who-cares if what you want is the opportunity to write the exams. At least with the syllabus you can keep working and earn something IDP hours (plus a salary) even if you don't get a degree at the end.
Length of either option are pretty much the same if you can get some of the syllabus modules knocked-off due to existing experience.
I am currently enrolled in the Syllabus (Edmonton Chapter) if you have any questions.
And I stated with a Tech.Dip.
I'M AN ARCH. TECHNOLOGIST FROM NIGERIA AND I WANT TO FURTHER AT USA OR CANADA, WHAT ARE THE NECESSARY PROCEDURES ?
far left of keyboard, 3 keys from bottom. Try that first. After you've completed this fundamental step, open up google and look for the CACB (canadian accreditation). If you're only a tech without an accredited degree, you're unlikely to find reciprocity but at least you'll get a list of schools to apply to. There is probably some VISA issues to deal with too.
Borrow some money from the prince and get into the best Ivy League school you can. /s
Get an advanced placement Undergrad degree in architecture then apply for Graduate school. Alternatively, enroll in a syllabus program.