<p>We are doing work for two structual engineering consulting firms right now. They are both swamped out of their minds, as are we. It appears that people are building again. One developer in Portland has bought four apartment buildings. They plan on buying two more. They will probably tear down all six and build from scratch. They want us to be the engineers for the project. We’re on track to have a record year for billings.</p>
<p>Could you use a summer intern? ;)</p>
<p>I completely agree for getting a BS in Civil Engineering. If you’re really interested in Architecture, go for an MS in it. Civil engineers can always do the design/artwork if they choose to without a degree in architecture (and the classes civils take are starting to incorporate more planning/design elements). Architects, however, will always need civil engineers.</p>
<p>If you really are interested in both (Engr + Arch), look at accredited Architectural Engr programs. There aren’t a lot of programs (only about 20 at the undergrad level) and some are better than others, but they give you the Engineering background to get your Engr certification, plus includes the architectural studies to understand/get experience in the more creative side.</p>
<p>As a backup (since there aren’t a lot of programs), look for a school that offers a strong CE program and the opportunity to do a minor in Architecture.</p>
<p>Check out Auburn. Supposed to have a good architecture program. Excellent engineering school, if you decide to switch to civil engineering. If you’re NMF, excellent merit aid. Used to be more generous on regular merit aid, but scholarships have been cut, but still, more generous than others. Oh, I love the SEC. Not just good football, but gives some of that money to smart, middle class kids, too.</p>
<p>Just a note on Auburn - there is no minor in Architecture and you can’t take any classes unless your in the program. DS had looked into this since Auburn gave him a big scholarship -but not being able to take Arch classes was a deal-killer.</p>
<p>But Auburn does have an architecture major, right? And if you don’t like architecture and want to switch to civil engineering, you can do so, as Auburn has both majors.</p>
<p>Montegut - yes, they have both majors, but if you are in CE, you can’t take any Arch classes (don’t know about the other way around).</p>
<p>^^^Oh, yes, Gr, I understood that. I just meant that one wouldn’t have to switch colleges if they changed their major. </p>
<p>If you start in CE, then wanted to switch to Architecture, would you be able to do that at Auburn? I know some schools are very selective about admission to certain departments, even when the student is already enrolled in the school.</p>
<p>I was thinking also, if undecided between the two, at least you could get the core curriculum out of the way while you are deciding, and not have a problem with the school taking the transfer credit.</p>
<p>^^^ No clue how hard it would be to switch. I just know DS was disappointed when he was told that there wasn’t a minor in Arch and that he couldn’t even take Arch classes without being in the Arch program.</p>
<p>D is graduating from undergrad with a B of A in Architecture and was afraid that when she applied to Grad school for Civil/Structures that she would not get in. After all Engineering is a hard science. She took advanced math and Physics and her study abroad was in Civil for a semester.</p>
<p>She applied to 7 schools…rejected by 2 Cornell and WPI, Accepted by 2 UMass and Northeastern and have not yet heard from 3!!! MIT, UNH and RPI. Isn’t the deadline the 15th for grad school commitments! </p>
<p>Any way switching is doable.</p>
<p>^That’s really interesting, JBR. I know you can’t do that at UT-Austin. It’s hard for me to imagine studying structures at the graduate level without having a BS in engineering, even with advanced math and physics. Usually you take design classes that are based on undergrad courses.</p>
<p>I’d say civil :)</p>
<p>Re: posts 71 and 72…my kid comes from an architecture background and was just admitted for an MS in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford, for their Sustainable Design and Construction program. It may not be exactly what you are talking about but it is a school of civil engineering, and in fact, a highly competitive one, and she did not major in engineering at all. She also doesn’t have a BArch either.</p>
<p>ken285=I do not have to “Organize my thoughts” it seems you have an agenda which is that the architect is the be all and top dog-great for you–but others here clearly have some other ideas about ways to arrive at being the architect–like it would be nice to be the architect who also had techincal knowledge of env. engineering which has tons to do with sustainable design or the Stanford Masters program mentioned in this thread would not be named env. engineering masters with emphasis on sustainable design-how could the two not be related? I really hate posters that post like 3 or 4000 threads and pick on a person for no obvious reason than they see them as disrespecting there view of their niche-I lived through SW bubble and it was not the bubble that killed SW engineers, it was the H!B visas that made it impossible for many people to compete…and its been that way for a while–hope its not that way in architecture or env. civil…but no reaons to not expect stupid US govt. to be short sighted and keep its white collar jobs in China and India…but SW guys who were good never were without work…I was not…</p>
<p>it seems clear after reading all the posters replies that your characterizations of me not knowing what I am talking about with env. engineering and sustainable design of dwellings, homes, building neighborhoods were NOT being realated acccording to you–I mean env. engineering is ultimately about moving forward towards more eco-friendly smarter structure designs for numerous systems, water treatment is some of them but they also tie into architectural designs underpinning and support of integrating energy systems, water treatment, water access into sustainable dwellings neighborhoods, whatever …with emphasis on sustainable design as sort of the overarching purpose of it all–sort of says maybe I am not a fool as I felt you dissected my post as it were put up by someone who knows nothing about engineering-i am an engineer, true I am a SW engineer but I know enough about the various fields that I dont thinkl it warrented you bulleting my posts and nit-picking here-this is a high level conversation discussing the ways one could appraoch the field of constructing things from architectural civl and env. engineering angles and how and what the smartest ordering of that would be and if some parts are becoming obsolete-pay is a consideration-the eg. of 50 intenrs having 300 applicants at a highly competivie attractive employer is not at all surprising and does not indicate that civil or env. engineers face bad job market-env. engineer has been ranked number 4 profession for hiring in next decade in roughly 3 major lists of those silly mags that post lists-but they tend to be not that far off.
I remain convinced that trying to go for the underlying civil/arch. engineering parts if you can handle it affords a safer path for employment while you pursue your arch degree if you go for it. I felt my D might have hd the passion you need for arch right away but I also thought for that much work, maybe the heavy llifting first-then if she still has the gleam in her eye for the whole 8 yards great—its not easy choice-and I think any choice is valid–just trying to see different views-sorry you did not seem to respect mine…but it does not change the fact that nothing i said was fundamentally wrong–good luck…been on this too long to bother but I am subscribed to this thread and every week more and more mails confirmed that you taking issue with env engineering a totally separate iseue from sustainable design seemed a silly point as they are by nature intimately involved in the macro picture regardless of your view of what sustainable design is…
More than one way to skin a cat–you choose yours and I have my views on mine–i wish you had informed me more but nothing i got back was productive…anyway good luck to all…engineering is tough field…and I am guessing arch. is similarly difficult-especially the time it takes before yo are licensed to work-but P.E. license also requires 3 years of experience so its not that different if you want a co. with accredited engineer its similar wait…not so for SW and EE guys who work for big cos. done with CC for 4 years–whoopee…</p>
<p>really interesting, so the architect goes on to study sustainable design IN the school of env and civil engineering (but ken says that sustainable design has nothing to do with env. engineering)—okay but seems like Stanford places the dept program for sustainable design in dept of civil and env. engineering so ken285-i am sure you can tell me how i need to organize my thoughts- on a board where mostly people are simply trying to interact and give views? If every board held to your requirements CC would be mostly empty-trying to intimidate people from posting, even incorrect assertions, adds nothing-3400 posts is impressive, I am sure you must be nicer to other people who are purely for going for architecture better? I clearly started out with this impression but the posts on most arch threads from real people in the field gave me pause just in terms of the amount of time many people spent between jobs…so my intent was not to take away from architecture which I think is a high form of artistic expression and i value art above all other fields…but that does not mean that passion for art will pay the bills as well…and so thinking out a path makes good sense…</p>
<p>waitlistman, ken has been a regular poster on the engineering board for quite awhile, and contributed a lot. This is the first engineering thread you have ever posted on, right? You might look at at the many other threads ken has posted on before you make generalizations about him.</p>
<p>He’s not trying to intimidate you. I agree that you could organize your thoughts better. Complete sentences and paragraphs really are helpful.</p>
<p>waitinglistman, if my post came across as offsensive, I’m sorry, but that was not my intent. I was not trying to intimidate anybody; all I was doing was having a discussion regarding the points that you made. While I do disagree with you, it doesn’t mean I don’t respect you. Post counts don’t mean anything; all it says is how many times I clicked “Post Reply” on this forum.</p>
<p>I am not biased towards architects. In fact, my degrees are in civil engineering and I work as a construction superintendent. My point has been that society undervalues architects and many just see them as artists who sketches up buildings with colored pencils, but they are much more than that. They have to have a basic understanding of what the structural engineers and geotechnical engineers that they hire are doing. They need to understand the building code and make sure their designs are compliant. They need to have a good legal sense; the architect on my project has been arguing back and forth with the ownership and the inspector on what is considered “approved” and whether or not they are required to “approve” certain drawings. There’s a lot of legal liability involved.</p>
<p>In regards to sustainable design, I still assert that environmental engineering has little to do with it. Sustainable design is a multi-disciplinary field, with architects, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, civil engineers and contractors involved. It is about designing & building things so that it has a minimal impact on our surrounding environment. If you wish to use Stanford as an example, you will see that they have a separate environmental engineering program and the description is not similar to their Sustainable Design & Construction program. [Programs</a> of Graduate Study in Civil and Environmental Engineering](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/registrar/bulletin/50995.htm]Programs”>Stanford University Bulletin)</p>
<p>You’re right that people are just trying to interact and give views, and that’s precisely the reason why I asked you to organize your thoughts better. Writing in coherent paragraphs and not using run-on sentences are very helpful in getting others to understand what you are saying. I’m sure you don’t write like that in your everyday life, so why do that here? By the way, I’d say 99.9% of the posts I’ve read here are understandable so I don’t believe my standards are too high.</p>
<p>Again, there is no disrespect here. I just disagree with you regarding environmental engineering and I had problems understanding your posts because of your writing style.</p>
<p>If u get a BS in Civil Engineering+ minor in Architecture can u get a masters in Architecture?</p>