So I applied for the following colleges:
- SCI - Arc
- IIT, Chicago
- USC
- UT, Austin
Are my choices good enough?
Also, is the acceptance rate for external transfer students very less for this major?
It sounds from your posts that you are an international Freshman applicant, not a transfer applicant. Your SAT scores are a bit low for some of the schools you applied to but if the MATH score is higher that will help. The schools you have applied to are all fine, you will simply need to wait and see if they admit you and make attendance financially feasible for you.
Obtaining a BArch from Tulane or a 4 +2 at WashU? Pros and cons
I first consideration would be the total cost of each, a 5.0 year BArch vs a 6.0 year BS+MArch. If your daughter decides to get her MArch at another school than WUSTL, then she may be looking at + 3.0 to 3.5 years.
Secondly, which environment appeals more to her, both the university as a whole and the school of architecture. Compare the facilities, curriculums and travel opportunities. Ask where students did summer internships, where they worked after gradution. In the case of WUSTL, which MArch programs they were admitted to.
And just in case, think about other options at the school in case she decides to transfer out of architecture. It happens, especially in BArch programs, which are narrowly focused. BS programs are also intense, but allow a bit more exposure to other disciplines.
Tulane and WUSTL are both highly respected architecture schools, within academically rigorous universities. She couldn’t go wrong at either.
@Mopep Congrats on your options! Just pick the college that fits your daughter. Definitely visit both since they different culturally and see which fits!
My D had similar options to attend Tulane or WashU for UG and she chose WashU. It was a better fit for her.
At the time Tulane wasn’t offering a BArch. My D is very happy she chose the 4+2 program. She wanted the college experience and the accelerated BArch with 18 credits a semester would have been way too brutal for her.
Her WashU classmates got accepted to top tier Architecture schools (Harvard, Michigan, Yale, Columbia, UPenn, MIT, etc) which is impressive.
Again you can’t go wrong with either option. Just pick the college that fits best. That’s my suggestion.
@Mopep
Another thing that I found odd is if you go for the BArch - that’s 5 long years with almost 170 credits and then if you want to get a Masters that’s at least another 2 years minimum which I think is insane and costly. It’s very hard to find a one year program. There are more 2+ tracks. Also some schools only offer 3.5 years for a Masters which I don’t agree with either. So it’s very confusing at best. Personally I recommend 4+2 over BArch simply because not many people can handle the rigorous fast track approach. The drop out rate is already insane for the 4 year track. It’s probably worse for the 5 year simply because it’s crammed with more credits. So it’s not to be taken lightly. The great thing about the 4+2 is you have a masters degree whereas the 5 year BArch is an UG degree.
Also if I’m not mistaken Tulane offers both a BArch and 4+2. That’s cool and offers flexibility.
if I may interject a bit of ruckus in terms of prestigious admissions for grad school. Look at the stats posted for graduate arch admissions on gradcafe along with any token offers of scholarships. The stats posted aren’t always 4.0 and GRE in the thousands, lots of 3.5 type kids get into graduate programs with some aid but at the end of the day it’s a $100k for 2 years minimum out of pocket cost.
We lucked out in that my student had a choice of a couple of fully funded M.Arch programs in very well respected schools and chose one, and currently has a choice of several fully funded PhD programs also in very well respected programs (both cases top 20 DI).
I’m not going to say that near full pay admission at the Ivies is easy, but it doesn’t seem all that difficult either with a decent GPA and decent portfolio.
@turbo93 I would agree that for MArch admissions grades and scores can be trumped by portfolio, life experience and demographic.
I would not agree that “near full pay admissions” at top rated MArch programs (Ivies, MIT) is common. Grants and fellowships in the $15-25K range yes, full pay very rare.
Congratulations to your daughter on her PhD admissions!
full pay - i meant self pay :).
@turbo93, I’m not sure I’m following your earlier point. Do you mean that if you can afford to cost of an MArch at one of the Ivies or other top rated programs. then it’s not so hard to get in as long as you have a decent GPA and portfolio?
I think the problem is that top rated MArch programs (as far as I am aware) don’t publish admissions statistics. We don’t know how many apply and we don’t know how many are offered admissions, so it’s hard to calibrate acceptance rates.
Places like Gradcafe and archnet have lots of info on stats & funding (and portfolios in the latter). A few schools do publish ‘graduate program profiles’ that have the real numbers including funding. I would say that with a good to very good portfolio, undergrad GPA of 3.6 or a bit more maybe, great recs, and if needed, GRE’s one should have a fighting chance for a lot of desirable schools. Probably not MIT or Princeton, but anything else is at least a reach.
A lot of whoever is applying to the desirable schools may not have an undergrad arch degree, in which case GPA is likely to be higher. The bottom line is to know where you’re applying.
@turbo93, Could you point me to some “graduate program profiles”? I’ve spent some time online combing through MArch program information and have a hard time assembling the most basic admissions information: Enrolled class size, number of applications, number of acceptances.
Here’s two I could find quickly:
https://grad.ucla.edu/asis/progprofile/result.asp?selectmajor=0084
This gives some details about the school overall, including undergraduate I believe.
A more detailed about Kansas University:
https://graduate.ku.edu/2015-program-profiles
But by far the best indicators are grad cafe and archnet where people post actual admission statistics and results. For a Masters program at least there are many dozens of data points, all for the ‘desired’ schools generally, so with a bit of effort one can figure out assuming a decent portfolio, rec letters, and GRE, what else it takes to get in.
I’ve heard it doesn’t matter much to firms whether an applicant graduated from a B.Arch or M.Arch program. There aren’t many accredited schools offering both anymore. Seems like the most competitive schools are switching to M.Arch only and I’m guessing the second tiers will be the ones left with B.Arch. Which will eventually lead to the more selective job applicants coming from a M.Arch program. Is my theory completely off?
@qclabrat, I think you’re right that architecture education is undergoing a sea change, but I don’t see BArchs at Cornell, CalPoly or any of the top rated programs disappearing. It’s true that few of the Design Research top10 MArch programs offer the BArch (2 or 3 depending on the year), but as far as I know they have either never offered the BArch or haven’t for some time. This is not a recent development.
There’s no right answer to what’s the best way to get a degree in architecture. All of the options – BArch, BS/BA architecture + MArch, BS/BA in something else + MArch – have pluses and minuses, and students and their families have to choose the route that’s best for them at that particular time. What’s at stake is not just quality of education but the considerable cost variation.
My observation – note that I’m a parent of an architect, but not an architect myself – is that although a BArch is all you need to become a licensed architect, many BArch holders will return to school to get an MArch. I don’t know that the reasons for this trend have been properly analyzed. It could be for additional technical exposure or design depth. It could be for career advancement or prestige. I don’t know the percentage of BArchs who go on to get MArchs or their motivation, but It something to watch.
In recent years, a handful of schools – among them Kansas State, U of Kansas – have switched their BArch to a 5.0 year undergraduate “non-baccalaureate” MArch. (Tulane offered the undergraduate MArch for a while, but I believe they no longer do. Maybe someone can confirm?)
I find the non-baccalaureate MArch difficult to evaluate because it doesn’t fit into either the traditional undergraduate BArch or graduate MArch pigeon holes. So far, DI doesn’t include undergraduate MArchs in their ratings, though the Kansas programs are both accredited by NAAB and are well regarded overall.
Bottom line, in the past 10 to 15 years architecture has become a lot more complicated than it was when the BArch and MArch curriculums were first established. Increased emphasis on technology, environmental sustainability and community involvement means there’s a whole lot more to learn. The trend toward interdisciplinary or joint programs – architecture & planning, architecture and business, architecture and sustainability – means a higher level of specialization, which means more education. The frustration for students and parents is that architecture salaries are low in relation to the cost of education.
my spouse had a college friend who graduated with a BArch from either Pratt or Cooper but after bouncing around at jobs for a few years went to Michigan for a MArch. After know what I do now, it would lead me to believe there would be a significant amount of overlap in the curriculum between the two. I can see BS Arch (4) >>> MArch (2) >>> PhD makes sense but BArch >>> MArch doesn’t to me…