Why are some M. Arch. I programs 3.5 years (7 semester) like at Harvard or MIT, yet some like Yale and Berkley 3 years?
Is there something special about the Harvard/MIT programs to distinguish them from other top schools?
It seems like a VERY EXPENSIVE proposition to forgo half year of salary and pay tuition for an extra semester of studio/thesis work.
eeayeeayo
Jun 28, 20 12:20 pm
It's just the way these programs have structured their curricula. There's no difference in terms of NAAB-required content, nor in terms of the degrees awarded. There are a variety of other M.Arch programs around the US that are also 3.5 years - some dealing with that by having a summer semester, and others having an extra spring or fall semester. Typically it just provides more time for an additional studio, or more electives - so whether it's worth it to you depends on your own priorities.
Why are some M. Arch. I programs 3.5 years (7 semester) like at Harvard or MIT, yet some like Yale and Berkley 3 years? Is there something special about the Harvard/MIT programs to distinguish them from other top schools?
It seems like a VERY EXPENSIVE proposition to forgo half year of salary and pay tuition for an extra semester of studio/thesis work.
It's just the way these programs have structured their curricula. There's no difference in terms of NAAB-required content, nor in terms of the degrees awarded. There are a variety of other M.Arch programs around the US that are also 3.5 years - some dealing with that by having a summer semester, and others having an extra spring or fall semester. Typically it just provides more time for an additional studio, or more electives - so whether it's worth it to you depends on your own priorities.