The AA, 4 years (1 year foundation+3 years experimental programme), RIBA Part 1
SCI-Arc, 5 years, NAAB
Also syracuse and pratt
There are a few things I am debating with:
I am leaning towards the AA and SCI-arc atm, as they are both very good architecture schools, but with different focuses, can someone pls explain their concentrations?
I want to attend Masters in the US, and I learnt that a 5 year degree can lead to M.Arch II, which would make 7 years of schooling
There is also the option of advanced-standing, reducing a 3-year masters degree to 2/2.5 years. Will the 3-year undergrad suffice their requirement of advanced-standing? I think some schools (UCB, Harvard, MIT) require 4 yrs of previous experience.
There are quite a lot of possible combinations with my available options, which one do you think is the most efficient while maintaining a high level of education?
sorry for the tonnes of questions, I am also very confused myself. Thanks in advance
Hello,
I currently have undergraduate offers from:
Edinburgh, 3 years, RIBA Part 1
The AA, 4 years (1 year foundation+3 years experimental programme), RIBA Part 1
SCI-Arc, 5 years, NAAB
Also syracuse and pratt
There are a few things I am debating with:
I am leaning towards the AA and SCI-arc atm, as they are both very good architecture schools, but with different focuses, can someone pls explain their concentrations?
I want to attend Masters in the US, and I learnt that a 5 year degree can lead to M.Arch II, which would make 7 years of schooling
There is also the option of advanced-standing, reducing a 3-year masters degree to 2/2.5 years. Will the 3-year undergrad suffice their requirement of advanced-standing? I think some schools (UCB, Harvard, MIT) require 4 yrs of previous experience.
There are quite a lot of possible combinations with my available options, which one do you think is the most efficient while maintaining a high level of education?
sorry for the tonnes of questions, I am also very confused myself. Thanks in advance