I have a very specific question, Im trying to get into a Masters of architecture program, coming from a background of having a Bachelors of Fine arts, in Illustration. Not in Architecture. Question is, How can 2-3 years be enough learning to join the workforce as an architect though? When a professional undergraduate program takes 4-5 years of study vs the 2 that I would be taking on the Masters.
Jay1122
Feb 25, 21 5:18 pm
if you are talking about U.S., remember to look for accredited M.Arch1 program. Usually takes 3 years to complete. It is more than enough time for academic architecture if you ask me. Academic is all about graphics, presentation and portfolio. The design part is just apples and oranges, enjoy what you like. You will graduate not having much professional knowledge except some experience using trendy computer programs. But it is all fine. You will learn through actual work experience as the low pay intern assuming you can get in the door with your portfolio.
Architecture degree still beats fine art though. What do people do with that degree. And don't say artist please.
jeso92
Feb 25, 21 5:29 pm
Haha well, this is why Im trying to go back to school, cause my fine arts degree hasnt helped me much to advance in life, these past 10 years.
Im talking about Canada though, not the US. Seems like it takes 2 years there, plus a "foundations year" if I guess the undergrad program you were coming from didnt cover enough of the things you need.
Non Sequitur
Feb 25, 21 6:04 pm
It’s 3y in Canada for a march as well. The rest of Jay’s comment is spot on. 80% of the real arch education comes from working in a professional office.
randomised
Feb 25, 21 6:05 pm
If it wouldn’t be enough those kinds of programs wouldn’t get any students, right?
rcz1001
Feb 25, 21 11:34 pm
They get students because it is the only path to licensure.... IIRC about Canada requiring an M.Arch.... no exception. It is what happens when the profession is "unionized" by a monopolistic professional association that has controlling influence of the parliment to get the legislation adopted the way they want it.
randomised
Feb 26, 21 4:26 am
They get students because what they offer in those 2/3 years is probably enough to enter the profession...
Non Sequitur
Feb 26, 21 6:11 am
Ricki, there is an alternative path to licensure in Canada and it does not require a M.arch. I’ve explained this numerous times here. It’s intended audience is specifically for those unable (or unwilling) to take graduate school. It is certainly not unionized.
FutureArch
Feb 25, 21 6:34 pm
Most other degrees are 4 years which is only one more year of preparation than an M.Arch so you can't possibly be severely underprepared. In terms of the "normal" 5-year B.Arch, the first 2 years are mainly prerequisites like math, science, and necessary electives. You really only get like 3 years of hardcore architecture learning anyways so it's very similar to an M.Arch. However, they do expect you to be prepared for a rigorous curriculum as a graduate student because it is only 3 years.
Everyone else is right, you learn a lot of skills on the job just like many other disciplines. School can only prepare you for so much.
ODMA
Feb 26, 21 7:10 am
It's great that you can study architecture outside Europe as a postgrad in less than 5-years. I think five years is too long to be in an architecture school - architecture in this environment becomes 'radicalised around its own autonomy' (to take Charles Waldheim's words). 5-year professional programs are forced to contextualise everything with respect to buildings and 'being an architect' fearing the accrediting/validating body. I did a 5-year BArch - and had no choice in the EU - I would much rather your position.
An undergraduate degree in the Fine Arts is a really solid foundation and you should be well equipped after a 3-Year MArch program to enter the profession. Good luck with your applications.
RJ87
Feb 26, 21 10:49 am
There's a great divide between academia & practice, particularly if you go into commercial work. The sooner you get into the real world the better, 3 years will be fine.
Hi guys,
I have a very specific question, Im trying to get into a Masters of architecture program, coming from a background of having a Bachelors of Fine arts, in Illustration. Not in Architecture.
Question is, How can 2-3 years be enough learning to join the workforce as an architect though? When a professional undergraduate program takes 4-5 years of study vs the 2 that I would be taking on the Masters.
if you are talking about U.S., remember to look for accredited M.Arch1 program. Usually takes 3 years to complete. It is more than enough time for academic architecture if you ask me. Academic is all about graphics, presentation and portfolio. The design part is just apples and oranges, enjoy what you like. You will graduate not having much professional knowledge except some experience using trendy computer programs. But it is all fine. You will learn through actual work experience as the low pay intern assuming you can get in the door with your portfolio.
Architecture degree still beats fine art though. What do people do with that degree. And don't say artist please.
Haha well, this is why Im trying to go back to school, cause my fine arts degree hasnt helped me much to advance in life, these past 10 years.
Im talking about Canada though, not the US. Seems like it takes 2 years there, plus a "foundations year" if I guess the undergrad program you were coming from didnt cover enough of the things you need.
It’s 3y in Canada for a march as well. The rest of Jay’s comment is spot on. 80% of the real arch education comes from working in a professional office.
If it wouldn’t be enough those kinds of programs wouldn’t get any students, right?
They get students because it is the only path to licensure.... IIRC about Canada requiring an M.Arch.... no exception. It is what happens when the profession is "unionized" by a monopolistic professional association that has controlling influence of the parliment to get the legislation adopted the way they want it.
They get students because what they offer in those 2/3 years is probably enough to enter the profession...
Ricki, there is an alternative path to licensure in Canada and it does not require a M.arch. I’ve explained this numerous times here. It’s intended audience is specifically for those unable (or unwilling) to take graduate school. It is certainly not unionized.
Most other degrees are 4 years which is only one more year of preparation than an M.Arch so you can't possibly be severely underprepared. In terms of the "normal" 5-year B.Arch, the first 2 years are mainly prerequisites like math, science, and necessary electives. You really only get like 3 years of hardcore architecture learning anyways so it's very similar to an M.Arch. However, they do expect you to be prepared for a rigorous curriculum as a graduate student because it is only 3 years.
Everyone else is right, you learn a lot of skills on the job just like many other disciplines. School can only prepare you for so much.
It's great that you can study architecture outside Europe as a postgrad in less than 5-years. I think five years is too long to be in an architecture school - architecture in this environment becomes 'radicalised around its own autonomy' (to take Charles Waldheim's words). 5-year professional programs are forced to contextualise everything with respect to buildings and 'being an architect' fearing the accrediting/validating body. I did a 5-year BArch - and had no choice in the EU - I would much rather your position.
An undergraduate degree in the Fine Arts is a really solid foundation and you should be well equipped after a 3-Year MArch program to enter the profession. Good luck with your applications.
There's a great divide between academia & practice, particularly if you go into commercial work. The sooner you get into the real world the better, 3 years will be fine.
Followup, is 3 years masters of Arch too much?