<p>I agree w/ Cheers AND with Rick on this one ! The work load in the studio and in the profession does not have to be insane. It is partially caused by tradition, and partially by inefficiency. Architecture studio is a crazy amount of time. BUT, I found it was primarily because it was 50% work, 50% social. I have known a few who can be very efficient with their time, who treated studio as their employment, and who worked very standard hours. If studio lasted 4 hours each day, 3 days a week, they would show up for the first hour or two while the professors were present to critique. The rest of us would be there all the time. Then they would leave and work at home. Yes, they could have worked insane hours at home, but that was not my understanding. I think they actually worked relatively normal hours. However, nor were they part of the "cult", so we really didn't get to know them. The choice can be yours. I LOVED the social (and cult) aspect of studio. Did it crimp my other life at the university? Yes, definitely. But other students didn't have what I had either. You can choose. Either way, it will be more work than most other majors. Any artistic or lab endeavor tends to take more time, because the project can always be improved or studied further. But you can work efficiently and substantially reduce the studio time.</p>
<p>I've also worked in offices where the workload is not crazy. There will always be deadlines, and there will always be occasions when extra overtime is necessary. Some offices make that a way of life, and others treat the overtime as the exception rather than the rule. You will need to find what you prefer, and seek those firms.</p>
<p>Regarding the original question on whether or not the BArch is more intensive or "better" than the BA or BS in Architecture. That partially depends on the school. I have a 4+2 degree from LONG ago. My BA Arch had 4 intensive years of studio, so ultimately I had more studio time than a BArch degree (1 extra year). However, by spreading it over 6 years, I may have had more room for a few extra electives, which I think ultimately adds to anyone's training. Those who choose the 4+3 option (degree in something else, then get a Masters in Architecture) will have less studio time (and potentially less work to show in an early portfolio), but I've also known very talented individuals who took this route. There are many valid paths.</p>
<p>I also think the training of medical interns is insane, if not outright dangerous, but that's another thread!</p>
<p>A B.A., then an M.Arch. (also known as a 4+3 or 4+2) is the best route. That's what most of the world's most famous architects did - e.g., Sir Richard Rogers, Sir Norman Foster, David Childs, Maya Lin, Charles Gwathmey, Eero Saarinen, Robert A.M. Stern (all graduates of Yale's #1-ranked architecture school, by the way: see <a href="http://www.di.net/article.php?article_id=173%5B/url%5D">http://www.di.net/article.php?article_id=173</a> ). </p>
<p>You should use the B.A. to explore many different fields, learn how to write well, have lots of time to socialize, lead organizations, act in plays, get into music, travel widely. It doesn't matter what you major in, just take the prereqs for architecture grad programs and a few courses related to architecture. Later on you can focus on the M.Arch. You have your whole life to be a "studio rat" who lives inside a building for years, sketching and building models - the years right after high school are not the time or place to do that. Trust me, I've talked with dozens of graduates of both B.A./M.Arch. programs as well as B.Arch. programs.</p>
<p>I don't think one route is better than the other but just different. It is a matter of what someone's personal preference is in terms of the educational experience. My daughter chose the BA + MArch route and for good reasons that made sense to her. But I can see others having solid reasons for choosing a BArch and both lead to successful careers. Also, some who do a BArch, also do a MArch. </p>
<p>Yale is a great graduate school for architecture. You said it is number one but according to Design Intelligence's 2007 rankings of Grad Arch programs, it is ranked third, I believe, though I hardly think it makes a difference of any substance at all. But you said it was number one and I am not sure where you found that. In 2006, it was tied for seventh with MIT. </p>
<p>EDIT: I just opened your link. Those are the 2003 rankings, just to clarify.</p>
<p>The DI rankings, regardless of what year they come out, are based on simplistic survey models, that are biased towards larger institutions. They are also affected by certain intangibles, such as whether or not alumni turn down offers from prestigious American firms in order to work for more cutting edge firms (typically abroad), which would give those alumni a "negative" rating in the eyes of the respondents. </p>
<p>The one I posted, although it is a few years old, is also from DI but used a totally different methodology: it was the only ranking ever done that was based on more concrete facts.</p>
<p>I'm personally not into rankings but I also know you post a LOT LOT LOT about Yale on CC. I think that when you give a ranking, it is only fair to give the CURRENT one, even if you prefer another list or methodology that favors your school.</p>
<p>Wrong. They are two totally separate rankings, soozievt. The DI rankings you mention are done every year. The ones I posted were completely separate rankings, that were only published in 2003: making them a CURRENT ranking, in fact. Again, they use a totally separate methodology from the annual "survey" rankings by DI.</p>
<p>...but they don't even bother to say whether they are graduate or undergraduate rankings. How can they be useful when they don't even clarify something as basic as that? And the answer "Both" makes them even less useful, because many schools are very strong in one or the other but not both.</p>
<p>Agree. However, the ones cited by SoozieVT are definitively grad rankings only, because they are based on simplistic "surveys" that only ask about grad students. The ones I cited are based on the overall strength of the school as a whole, so have a lot more to do with how good the undergraduate program might be.</p>
<p>I had seen the list that posterX talks about before. And one limitation I had with it was that it mixed undergrad and grad schools in one list. I prefer seeing disussions of well regarded undergrad and grad schools separately, as in the current 2007 rankings. I don't much care who is first, second, third, etc. and don't put much stock in the significance of where each school "places." As a GENERAL guideline, it is useful to have a list (even if not ordered, which is fine by me) of well regarded graduate schools of architecture, and same with undergrad for those seeking that degree.</p>
<p>posterX, you talk about the school as a whole. The Harvard Graduate School of Design, for example is VERY well regarded as a grad program for architecture but it is ONLY a grad program. Who cares that it doesn't have undergrad? In seeking a grad program, that would be unimportant to me.</p>
<p>On the other hand, CMU has an excellent BArch program, but doesn't offer a MArch degree progam.</p>
<p>I personally think the BA + MArch sounds more appealing, but what if you don't get into grad school for architecture? Does that happen very often?</p>
<p>I doubt that happens very often - especially for people with B.A. degrees from HYP, Dartmouth or elite LACs.</p>
<p>Regarding Harvard and rankings that you think apply only to grad programs, while GSD officially only has grad programs, there are undergraduates who take courses there and qualify for advanced standing in the graduate program. Yale has an undergraduate architecture "major", although of course it is technically a B.A. just like any other major at Yale, or any other liberal arts program. However, like the students interested in architecture at Harvard, that (very small group of) students has extensive access to all the resources the graduate students do, including the ability to take graduate coursework and qualify for advanced standing within an M.Arch. program. </p>
<p>One problem with ranking a place like Harvard or Yale for its undergraduate architecture program is the fact that getting into Harvard or Yale is ridiculously difficult in the first place, and is based on many factors other than architecture. Instead of being drawn to those places for undergraduate architecture, I think it is more likely that the best of the best students go there for other reasons, and some of them end up being very passionate about & pursuing architecture as their concentrations. In this sense, Harvard and Yale may have the "best" undergraduate architecture programs because they attract the best of the best students to begin with, and thereafter, only those students who are seriously interested in architecture end up pursuing it, beginning typically in their sophomore or junior year (and having unparalleled resources to do so, including a student to faculty ratio of better than 1:1).</p>
<p>My D applied to Yale for undergrad with the intentions of likely majoring in architecture. While students enter the major after their soph year, there are prerequisite courses they take in freshman and soph year. However, my D chose NOT to apply to Harvard for a BA because truthfully Harvard doesn't really have an architecture undergrad major like Yale does, just History of Arch. Their undergrad programs are NOT comparable in this field. I was unaware of undergrads studying at GSD. You say that Harvard, like Yale, may have one of the best undergrad arch programs but that is false. Yale has a great BA program. Harvard does not. It is a great school otherwise of course and its grad program is certainly tops. </p>
<p>Getting into Harvard or Yale as an undergrad, or even Brown where my kid goes, doesn't involve any assessment of one's skills at architecture, unlike applying to a BArch program. However, my D did choose schools for undergrad that offered a BA in the field, as opposed to schools with no architectural studies. Thus Harvard was not on her list.</p>
<p>lfk...you do not need to go to an elite undergrad school to get into a MArch program!!! The student is the one who gets in, not the name of their undergrad diploma. Your chance at success with admissions is enhanced if you have an excellent academic record, very good portfolio, demonstrated interest in architecture, accomplishments, good recommendations, essays, and so on.</p>
<p>Thanks soozie, that is encouraging to hear! :) The interested daughter is only in 10th grade, but has been showing interest in architecture for a couple of years now. I have no idea if her interest will persist or if she will be able to gain admission to a top college. From past experience though, I know we will not get any need based aid and quite frankly I don't know if we will be in a position to afford it any better the second time around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally think the BA + MArch sounds more appealing, but what if you don't get into grad school for architecture? Does that happen very often?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Getting an acceptance to a top masters of architecture program is different from getting into a selective school for undergraduate. In the first place, you don't have to get an acceptance. You can always work for a while, improve your portfolio and re-apply next year. I understand that it's not uncommon to apply more than once to the same program.</p>
<p>If you look at the requirements, philosophies and the sizes of the different M.Arch programs you will see that they vary widely. Some require lot of math and/or physics, some none. Some are more design oriented, some more engineering, some more theoretical. There's also a major difference in size -- Harvard's class for example is considerably bigger than Yale's. Princeton's is tiny.</p>
<p>By the time you have a few years of undergraduate work under your belt you should have a pretty good idea of what kind of M.Arch program would be suit you. Most likely your undergraduate art program will employ instructors who have architecture degrees themselves and can give direction. The M.Arch schools themselves have information days in which they pitch their programs and answer questions. There's lots of information out there. </p>
<p>I have no doubt that both Yale and Harvard admit a fair number of their own undergrads to their graduate programs -- in architecture and in everything else. But I also have no doubt that they try to formulate a balanced class of creative and talented kids and that diverse backgrounds are appreciated. </p>
<p>Work experience while not required is, I am told, also a plus. As someone mentioned on another thread it helps a demonstrate commitment to architecture. It also (hopefully) provides another opportunity for a knowledgeable recommendation.</p>
<p>The most important element by far is the portfolio and this can be developed at Podunk U just as well as at Elite College. </p>
<p>lkf, good luck to your daughter in focusing on the right path for her.</p>
<p>Thanks momrath! I will continue to read and learn about the ins and outs of architecture, and I appreciate your posts as well as those of others with experience in the field.</p>
<p>Wow thanks for the load of infos. I've been thinking about it, researching and stuff and decided to take the BA/BS + MArch. </p>
<p>This way I can take some business classes I've been considering, just for the experience and extra skills :)</p>
<p>BTW if I choose to take the BA/BS first does that mean I can choose schools that offer non-accredited arch programs? </p>
<p>I checked PrincetonReview for schools that offer architecture, and they pulled out this huuuuuge list, including Wi-Madison and so on. Does that mean they offer architecture as well? (albeit non-accredited one)</p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW if I choose to take the BA/BS first does that mean I can choose schools that offer non-accredited arch programs?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can get into an M.Arch program without undergraduate architecture experience. Students in M.Arch programs have all kinds of different backgrounds -- some with degrees in architectural studies, some in studio art, some in related fields like physics or math, some in completely unrelated fields like literature or biology.</p>
<p>The exact requirements for admissions to M.Arch programs vary from school to school but basically you need some art studio, some art history, some physics, some math. You also need a portfolio that shows your ability with different media and your talent (not necessarily architecture related), recommendations from undergraduate professors and GRE scores.</p>
<p>You should choose your undergraduate school based on the best FIT for you. If you intend to get a BA/BS + M.Arch then it doesn't matter if the college offers a degree in architecture.</p>