<p>Is undergraduate architecture major necessary in order to get accepted/study architecture in grad school? </p>
<p>If not - are there any "pre-architecture" prerequisites (in the same way that premeds are required to complete a certain sequence of classes)?</p>
<p>nngmm, no, one can get a Masters of Architecture or MArch with an undergraduate degree in just about anything. The standard prerequisites are classes in art and art history, ideally, but not necessarily including architecture. Most Masters programs require undergraduate calculus and/or physics; some do not.</p>
<p>The application package would include a portfolio showing artistic ability both technical and creative (not necessarily in architecture), GRE scores, and 2 or 3 recommendations. The portfolio is tantamount.</p>
<p>The MArch is a long haul -- at least 2 years and usually 3. It's quite common for MArch candidates to have some work experience prior to applying.</p>
<p>I got my M. Arch. at Columbia. About two thirds of our class had undergrad majors in architecture the other third came from all sorts of fields - journalism, photography, a stay at home Mom who'd majored in English among others. My school required a full year of college calculus and a full year of lab physics. You also have to submit a portfolio - so it makes sense to take some art courses. I was also a student member of the admissions committee my last year at Columbia. I looked for some sign that applicants knew something about architecture to be interested - drawings of buildings, an architectural history courses, an interest in preservation, an article about developers. Portfolios were all over the map and hard to judge - some were full of architectural plans (undergrad architecture majors), many looked more like an art portfolio - just evidence that the person had decent drawing skills. These days, I'd guess some facility with using the computer to produce images would be a plus.</p>
<p>It is a long haul, but I'd argue there's an advantage to getting a liberal arts education before knuckling down to do architecture. I have never ever worked so hard as the three years I was in architecture school.</p>
<p>Most LACs advise students interested in arch to take at least a full year of calc and a full year of calc-based physics w/ lab.</p>
<p>Many unis offer a B.Arch., the first professional arch degree. </p>
<p>Mathmon, now that drafting is done by computer, is drawing still important for grad school (it is often the basis of the art studio/arch major at LAC, but that's b/c the colleges don't offer professional or pre-prof courses)?</p>
<p>Not having done admissions for 25 years I couldn't really tell you. My guess is that drawing skills are still important. I can't imagine doing the early stages of design without the ability to loosely sketch diagrams and lay tissue paper on top of previous thoughts, but I run a very old fashioned office. I took CAD lessons long ago, but have never actually been in an office that converted over.</p>
<p>I'd certainly take physics and calculus so that you don't limit your school choices, but you shouldn't take fright if you aren't that good at math or physics, the statics courses I took never required me to use calculus.</p>
<p>B. Arch is a more efficient way to go, but because architecture education is so intense, I'm not sure how much you learn besides architecture if you go that route.</p>
<p>Momrath, any reason you say MArch is a long haul? An MBA and MSW program are 2yrs and it's 3 yrs for a JD.</p>
<p>Thanks for the replies.</p>
<p>I am asking for a student who is very much into Art, and might be interested in Architecture as a career, but is by no means 100% sure about it.</p>
<p>I looked at BArch requirements at the school she's going to attend, and it seems very focused and "full time", leaving little if any other options open if one chooses to pursue it... Seems to me a bit too "pre-professional" for someone who is not 100% sure about it. And since HS students get no real exposure to architecture as a field of study, I wonder how anyone can decide on it, unless the parents are architects, etc.</p>
<p>You're right, while a BArch is the most direct route, is is very focused and doesn't leave time for much else. For a kid that isn't 100% sure, it seems like getting either a 4-yr BA/BS in Arch Studies or another field altogether, and then going on for a MArch is the way to go. JMO from the mom of another kid who isn't sure ;).</p>
<p>A B. Arch. program is a professional program. It's only for kids who are sure about what they want to do. Some high schools do actually have a fair number of architecture courses. Ours has one technical drawing course and five other architectural courses using CAD.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Momrath, any reason you say MArch is a long haul? An MBA and MSW program are 2yrs and it's 3 yrs for a JD.
[/quote]
The time it takes to complete an MArch may vary by program and background. Most of the MArch programs that my son is looking at are 2.5 years. Some would be three including the summer sessions. After that you still need to do the internship (or whatever they call it) before becoming certified.</p>
<p>The BArch is definitely for someone who knows from day one that s/he wants to be an architect. For my son it wasn't the right route. He wanted the experience of an "all purpose" undergraduate environment. He has a friend who just graduated from a five year BArch program and has a job that will lead to being a full-fledged architect in a year or two at about the same time that my son is (hopefully) slogging through an MArch program. Either path is valid, but they are very different.</p>
<p>The physics and calculus requirements vary from school to school. I would agree that it's a good idea to get them under your belt but don't fret if you don't show math/science aptitude. </p>
<p>A random sampling from some MArch admissions pages:
Columbia Physics OR Calculus
Cornell Calculus only
Harvard Physics AND Calculus
Virginia Neither required
WUSTL Calculus AND Physics</p>
<p>I have been hearing lately that the job prospects for architects are dismal. A few people make good money at it, and the rest never will. One young man I know of finished his MArch and was working for an architecture firm while he was completing his licensing exams. When his boss told him that he'd get a $5k per year raise when he passed all the exams (and he already wasn't making much), he quit and is applying to enter the Police Academy because policeman pay (granted in high paying city for entering cops) will be higher than what he can make as an architect.</p>
<p>Another friend's H is in a similar situation...working while completing his exams. They are struggling to make ends meet with 2 small children. Wife works p/t as a CPA and they live in an apartment and drive used cars. He also has no delusions of a big raise when he passes all of his exams.</p>
<p>One man I know who is a lecturer in architecture at a top 20 university says he doesn't advise anyone to go into it because it is so competitive that very few will make a decent living in architecture.</p>
<p>Does all of this fit with what you guys have seen of people going into architecture now?</p>
<p>I don't know what it's like now. The week I graduated the biggest firm in NYC laid off 300 people. It took me 6 months to find a job and I got paid a few dollars above minimum wage. But I've been employed pretty steadily ever since. I have my own business now doing additions and renovations mostly. Some small commercial work (restaurants and a daycare center). I've actually found that every time the housing market tanks I get more work. People stay put and start renovating. You can make a decent living, but you are unlikely to get rich. I like the variety. Some days I'm at my desk. Other days I'm standing on a ladder surrounded by plaster dust peering into a hole in the ceiling trying to figure out what is holding up the roof in a 90 year old building. The hours are mine, I can nearly always be home when the kids are. It definitely helps that my husband has a steady job with health insurance.</p>
<p>I have heard that interior design can be more lucrative than architecture, any thoughts?</p>
<p>Also, is interior architecture the same thing as interior design? Thanks.</p>
<p>nngmm....
You have already gotten informative responses. I'll add that it sounds to me that your D is best suited to go the BA path and not the BArch path for all the reasons you gave. I have a daughter who just graduated college last weekend and opted for a BA path and not a BArch for the very same reasons. Like momrath says, you can major in anything as an undergraduate before entering grad school to earn a MArch. I agree with others that it makes sense to take Calculus and Physics to cover your bases since SOME arch grad schools require it (but not all). As well, if not majoring in architecture as an undergrad, it is beneficial to take some courses in history of architecture, as well as drawing and other art studio classes, and perhaps some computer/digital design. For one thing, in order to determine if architecture is a path one wishes to pursue, you need to have exposure. But the other reason would be that to get into arch grad school, one needs a portfolio and so it helps to take classes in these areas, but it is not necessary to major in them. You could major in something else and for example, do a semester abroad program in pre-architecture as another form of exposure to studio. Your D's interest in majoring in studio art is also a common path.</p>
<p>Many MArch I degree programs are THREE years and some are 3.5 years or some are 3 years plus one summer. After getting the professional degree, one must apprentice before obtaining licensure. </p>
<p>My D majored in Architectural Studies which is in a liberal arts context. She had two years of Calculus prior to college and used her Calc AB and Calc BC AP scores to count for the grad schools that wanted Calc and took no math in college. She did take two semesters in college that counted for Physics requirements for any grad schools that have one....one was a Physics class and one was an Engineering class that covered the physics topics that a couple of grad schools wanted. Her major was quite interdisciplinary in nature. She had history of arch classes and architecture seminars. She took art classes and an independent study in drawing. She took architecture drawing and computer representation/design at a cross registered program. She also explored architecture further by doing the summer program (Career Discovery) after freshman year at Harvard Grad School of Design which gave her a taste of what a MArch program is like. She also spent one semester abroad in pre-architecture through Syracuse in Florence. These experiences also helped with developing projects for a portfolio. She also interned in arch firms in summers. She is entering a MArch program in the fall and it is 3.5 years.</p>
<p>If you're interested in seeing stats from an architecture program, here's what Carnegie Mellon grads are making: <a href="http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/employ/salary/arch.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/employ/salary/arch.pdf</a></p>
<p>Keep in mind that's for a five year program, and I believe it has the highest drop-out rate of any field at CMU (lower than any of the engineering or CS departments).</p>
<p>I have a friend who's an architect who says (jokingly) that at the end of the grueling educational process there's no light, just more tunnel. It's true that compared to other professions that require lengthy training and/or advanced degrees like law or medicine, architecture salaries are on the low side.</p>
<p>There are certainly a handful of "starchitects" who make zillions. And also armies of drones who slave away for peanuts. But I think that there are also plenty of architects who make a decent living doing what they love. My son is currently working in the marketing department of medium sized firm that's full of interesting, creative, bright and (at least relatively) happy architects. They work awfully hard but the work to fulfillment ratio seems satisfyingly high.</p>
<p>The Carnegie Mellon stats were interesting. I couldn't help but think that if those are the salaries for a top notch university, architects graduating from state u's can't expect a whole lot.</p>
<p>The young friend I mentioned with the wife and 2 kids does love the work, but it's hard not to be able to make a decent salary.</p>
<p>So what related, but less greuling or more lucrative, careers alternatives would those w/ an interest in arch be wise to consider?</p>
<p>Interior design, about which there was a question earlier. Around here interior designers often both get money from mark-ups and by the hour. Whether or not they make more on average I don't really know. You could also do straight civil engineering. Architecture doesn't have to be grueling, after a few years of paying your dues, you go out on your own as a solo practitioner and you can be as busy or not busy as you like. Many architects I went to school with also teach architecture which allows you to have a steady salary and health benefits.</p>