<p>Hi everyone, </p>
<p>I am a new user to College Confidential, having only recently discovered this site. </p>
<p>I am a high school student and still have a year left before college applications, but I thought it would be in my best interest if I started to guage some opinions regarding studying architecture in the US or abroad in the UK. </p>
<p>I have always wanted to be an architect/interior designer, and have been looking into top-notch architecture programs in the US and UK for quite some time. Obviously architecture is an extremely demanding subject to pursue and requires lots of outside class time in the studio, and that wouldln't change whether in the US or UK. However I am curious on knowing what you guys think regarding studying arch. in England or America. In your opinion, which one would be a better route? I am really serious about pursuing architecture and so the fact that I wouldn't be able to double major in the UK wouldn't necessarily be much of a problem for me. I am considering UCL (University College London), The AA School of Architecture, and Cambridge University in the UK, and Cornell, Cooper Union, Pratt Institute, and RISD (Rhode Island School of Design) in the US. Can anyone provide comments about studying architecture at any of these schools, especially regarding teachers, curriculum, class sizes, teacher-student interaction, and college life? </p>
<p>I found out that becoming an accredited architect in the UK requires 5 years of study with a minimum of two years of internship/experience for a total of 7 years, and that it takes 5 years in the US if you are taking the professional arch. degree in university. Would this be correct?</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for your help!</p>
<p>in the US, even if you go to a 5 year program, you still need 3+ years of an internship to be able to sit for your accredidation exam.</p>
<p>I studied at the Bartlett (UCL) for a year and did the 2nd year studies. While both UK and US arch schools are extremely studio-work focused, the Bartlett’s ancillary courses (Technology, Built Env. courses, &c.) are organised in a ‘lecture-at-you-in-a-very-large-auditorium-with-no-one-paying-attention’ fashion. Teacher-student interaction can be sparse, as most lecturers/studio leaders also work professionally; good luck finding their office hours. I just found the Bartlett rather poorly structured. The AA and the Bartlett also like to take a more, er, abstract path, producing works akin to things you’d see at Sci-Arc. I’d imagine that college life at any architecture school is non-existent haha.</p>
<p>Hi so<em>ein</em>quatsch,</p>
<p>Thank you so much for your reply! To be honest, I wasn’t really holding much hope for anyone to discover this thread, let alone take the time to answer my questions!</p>
<p>If you don’t mind me asking, when did you study at UCL? I just want to know if this is recent information, as I want an accurate portrayal of the school before I jump in over my head and make the wrong decision! By the curriculum at UCL being “poorly structured”, could you elaborate on that? Did you find that the curriculum didn’t have much of a focus on anything at all and didn’t really teach any useful skills? You also mentioned that The AA School of Architecture and The Bartlett School takes a more “abstract” path. Could you provide a more detailed description about this?</p>
<p>Judging by your reply (please correct me if I’m wrong!) I suppose that UCL wouldn’t be a good choice to study architecture seriously, especially if you are adamant on pursuing this as a career professionally. In this aspect, do you think Cambridge University would be a better choice to pursue architecture? I heard that architecture at Cambridge (as in all other subjects!) is more technical and theoretical in their teaching, with less focus on actual design work and more emphasis on theory and research. I saw on the university website that the course is approximately 60% design/studio work and 40% theory in comparison to the 70% design/studio work and 30% theoretical component at UCL. Do you think that Cambridge has a better system by focusing more on the technical side of architecture? (I read from other websites that UCL and The AA School tends to be too artsy and not really practical! Again, correct me if I’m wrong!) I want a school that not only encourages art, but also focuses on the practical side of things as well. In terms of this, do you think Cambridge would be a better choice for more serious architect students? (The beautiful campus would be inspiring I think for any prospective architect!)</p>
<p>Sorry for the bomboardment of questions! Again, thanks a million!</p>
<p>Hi CUAmbassador11,</p>
<p>Thanks for your quick response! I honestly wasn’t expecting such a fast reply to my questions!</p>
<p>In response to your post, you mentioned that in addition to the 5 year professional b.arch degree in America, students would still need at least 3 years of work experience in order to be accredited. Please correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that the 5 year professional degree already included the necessary work experience component in order to sit the exams and become accredited? </p>
<p>Thanks a bunch!</p>
<p>right. you need either a BArch (or an MArch 1) to take the exam, but you still need that internship to get more experience (especially for the 9 part test we have to take). you cant just sit for it right away. a BArch just gives you the opportunity to go straight into working without going for your masters degree (MArch 2 in that case)</p>
<p>it saves a lot of time rather than doing a 4 year BA/BS program. because then you have to do 3+ years of a masters degree and THEN do the internship.</p>
<p>Hey thesoeulmate, a few answers.</p>
<p>when did you study at UCL?
I was at the Bartlett last academic year 2008-2009.
UCL being “poorly structured”?
I’m used to a LibArts somewhat small University setting, where there’s a strong degree of porosity between faculty and students; at times, the faculty at the Bartlett is absent from the design dialogue. In many ways, this forces students to initiate the dialogue with each other (in the horribly cramped studios).
didn’t really teach any useful skills?
I actually got a great deal out of my year at the Bartlett, though it really depends on how active a student you are. The fabrications workshop in the basement is a wonderful resource (welding, wood working) and the guys who run that place really know a thing or two about materials. The theory courses are also really interesting, but since it’s taught to the entire 2nd year, many people don’t even bother to attend it. The theory seminars are much better at creating an intimate setting.
more “abstract” path?
A lot of the work produced at the Bartlett (and Sci-Arc, to some extent AA), are extremely inventive, imaginative, quirky and beautiful (lots of CNC-milling work). However, most of these designs are also highly unrealistic (or would be EXTREMELY costly to build). That’s not to say that the Bartlett alum only work on unbuilt works. Many find this left-field approach to be a great balance to the often limited options that architects have to deal with.</p>