Architecture in UK vs. US

College Majors Architecture Major
1

<p>I'm currently a rising senior and want to pursue a degree in Architecture. I'm planning to apply to both the UK and US for undergrad. However,in my opinion, there are major differences between studying the course in both countries. While in UK arch is not strictly a technical course, involving a lot of humanities (history etc.), uni's in US seem to view it as technical design coupled with engineering. A lot of uni's in US classify it under civil engineering. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. </p>

<p>What are your thoughts on this? Which way would be preferable to you? </p>

<p>My problem : I absolutely LOVE Stanford University. It was definitely my first choice until I learnt that they do not have a very strong architecture department. I would really like some suggestions as to whether doing a course in architecture from Stanford will be worth it? </p>

<p>What are your thoughts on this? Which way would be preferable to you?</p>

2

<p>idream I don’t know anything about architecture in the UK so I can’t compare, but within the US system there are two paths to becoming an architect: An undergraduate B.Arch or an undergraduate BA/BS + an M.Arch. </p>

<p>There are dozens of universities that offer the B.Arch. The focus varies – some programs are more artistic and theoretical, some are more engineering and construction based – but all offer an intensely architecture focused five years or so and all prepare you to practice architecture upon graduation. </p>

<p>Stanford doesn’t offer the B.Arch. If you went there you could major in architecture studies, art history, art studio – or really whatever you’re interested in – then you would go on to get a graduate M.Arch degree. This route (the BA/BS + M.Arch) takes longer and therefore costs more, but it’s fairly common among architects in America.</p>

3

<p>I would advise you to consider Cooper Union in New York City.</p>

4

<p>My D is in the same situation as you. She has applied to universities in both countries and is now awaiting responses. I would say that in both countries you will find schools with different approaches to architecture. In the UK there are “arty” architecture schools, such as the AA and the Bartlett at UCL. These might by similar to the programs at RISD or Cooper Union. And in both countries you will find programs that are more engineering-focused. In the UK the program at Westminster is considered “construction-oriented” and in the US programs at Virginia Tech and the Univ of Texas do not use a consider a portfolio to evaluate applicants.</p>

<p>All of these mentioned above are true architecture programs (B. Arch or RIBA Part 1).</p>

<p>Not so the programs such as the one offered at Stanford. D has applied to a few BA programs as fall backs and would then combine these with a M.Arch (RIBA part 2 in the UK) as suggested by Momrath. This route would take approx 7 years to arrive at the terminal year of study in the US, depending on various factors, which you would be wise to familiarize yourself with. (They are explained in detail on other threads here on CC.)</p>

<p>My advice to my D is to apply widely and then consider carefully the options she is given with her offers of admission.</p>

<p>Cost is another consideration. Even the most expensive UK program, at the AA, does not approach the cost in the US, if you are a UK/EU resident. The cost in the US then continues to rise as you add additional years.</p>

<p>To answer your question as to whether the course at Stanford would be worth doing, the questions you must ask yourself are: 1. Do you want to become a licensed architect? In the most direct/shortest route?, OR 2. Are you willing to spend more time and money (to get what some would say is a broader education) on your way to the same final outcome?</p>

<p>A UK-twist on this question would be whether a “Foundation Year” is a useful investment of a year of education, or a waste of time. D has been accepted by the AA, but on the condition she do a Foundation Year with them first. This would be a year spent only on art. But, upon successful completion, it is a ticket in the door to one of the finest schools of architecture in the world. (The Director of Harvard’s GSD was previously the director of the AA.)</p>

<p>D’s concern that this “adds an extra year” actually saves her a year compared to a BA/BS + M.Arch. </p>

<p>Do you really want to go to Stanford? If you can afford it, in terms of time and money, do it. It’s a fabulous educational experience. D has always really wanted to go to the AA. I think that one extra year is worth it. (Still trying to convince her, though…)</p>

5

<p>Other than the AA I am not really familiar with a lot of the UK architecture programs, but I would disagree with some of the generalizations of U.S. programs. In order to become accredited, programs in the U.S. must pass an NCARB review every few years which ensures a certain consistency in the programs. So I would not generalize between design programs and technical programs based on BA vs. BS, or whether they require a portfolio. Almost every program has a design studio as its core and will focus on the quality of the design as the basis for the overall quality of the program. The two schools mentioned, VT and UT, both have outstanding design programs.</p>

<p>Stanford is mentioned as a potential undergraduate option, and that is what my daughter did. However be aware that the architectural engineering program is basically an engineering program. She ended up in the product design program because it is one of the only creative design programs at Stanford.</p>

<p>Finally I would suggest looking at reciprocity agreements for licensing between the U.S. and the UK. Getting registered has become fairly burdensome and you want to make sure that you are not adding multiple years to the process. You can find this at the NCARB website.</p>

<p>Rick</p>