<p>I was just wondering what the main pros and cons were of following either of these two routes, I've had a read around previous posts related to the topic but I haven't exactly found a comprehensive answer I was looking for. If it's out there and I just missed it, pls link me. </p>
<p>If I do a BArch and then continue to grad school how many more yrs will that take? Is it necessary for a BArch graduate to get an MArch? If not, why do people do it? Is it a more highly regarded combination of degrees in terms of employers and pay, etc? </p>
<p>If I can get 2 degrees in 6 years with the 4+2 option, why don't more people do it instead of getting the 5 yr BArch first? Lastly, if I get the Arch Studies first I can enroll at any school for the MArch, right? E.g. if I choose to attend USC for undergrad I don't necessarily have to return there for grad? I've heard that in some places if you do undergrad and apply for grad school at the same place it's easier to get in or something?</p>
<p>if you go for your 5 yr barch, you can get licensed right after and start getting paid and then go back later for your MArch. the 4 plus 2 gives you an MArch, but you are a year more of school and then a year less of working. i think that the barch is a more comprehensive degree, but this is just my opinion. i think that you learn more architecture in a 5 yr degree than a 2 yr master level.</p>
<p>its all about how quick you can get your AIA license, and a barch saves a year.</p>
<p>Another way of looking at this is that all accredited arch programs meet the minimum coursework necessary for accreditation, and it takes five years (BArch) to fit that in. A path that takes longer, such as a BS in anymajor+MArch, a BS in arch studies+MArch or even a BArch+MS in anything, has that extra time for additional coursework, both arch and non-arch. Common sense says that longer education will give you the advantage of a larger and deeper knowledge base at the cost to you of time and money.</p>
<p>So if I go back after my BArch for the MArch, that’d take a total of about 7-8 yrs, right? Does taking that route make you more attractive to employers? But technically speaking, to get licensed, I could just do that after the BArch and the MArch isn’t necessary as such. Then why do people still get their MArch after?</p>
<p>I’m just curious 'cause I have to make a decision between 3 schools and 3 possible routes - I could take the BArch or the 4+2 or the not so popular 3+3 at Macalester then WUSTL.</p>
<p>Not commenting on the schools you mentioned as I don’t know about them, but in general a BArch will get you a degree that will allow you to sit for your license exams the quickest with the least “other” classes. Great if you’re committed and focused, not so good if somewhere along the way you decide to switch major/career. The other two pathways come with a broader education, but examine what you’re signing up for carefully. Look for a phrase like “those that qualify can then apply for” meaning you may find that if you’re not doing well you might not be allowed to progress through the program. For most BArch’s once your in, your in (there are 4+1 BArch programs that you have to apply to and be accepted to the fifth year).</p>
Not really. Look up the professors at the schools you’re considering and look at where they attended undergrad and grad school. You may be surprised.</p>
<p>the only point that i think needs to be stressed is that if you have a four year degree in architecture, then the MArch takes two years. if you have a four year degree in something like engineering or anything other than architecture, then the MArch takes 3 years. the MArch takes 2 yrs with a BArch degree.</p>
<p>Thanks everyone for the info.
Personally I’m not in any huge rush to get licensed, but I may be wrong and things could (and will probably) change. Are there huge differences in pay between a BS Arch Studies graduate vs. BArch graduate vs. licensed BArch graduate?</p>
<p>Right now I’m leaning heavily on the 4+2 because I want to work for some time after graduation (pay off some loans, etc) before going back to grad school so that I can come out of there with work experience. I was wondering whether the 4+2 only applies if you continue with the MArch immediately after undergrad. I’ve looked at a few sites and I’m getting mixed signals so I’m just a little confused…</p>
<p>The big advantage of a 5 year BArch over a 4+2 MArch is that you are done with school and can practice for as long as you like without the need to go back for your Master’s. We have architects with a four year degree who started work with every intention of going back for a Master’s, but a wife, a kid, and a job they really enjoy has gotten in the way of their plans. The problem is that now they cannot become registered and at the age of 31-32 they are hitting a ceiling as far as how high they can go in the firm.</p>
<p>You ask why someone would go back for a Master’s once they have a BArch? Because they either really enjoy school and want to explore other ideas, they want to teach, or because they feel that a degree from a place like Harvard or Columbia will elevate them to a different level and give them new opportunities. The advantage is that you can work for a few years to understand what the profession is about and then go back with a knowledge of what you want to accomplish. An MS in Architecture (the post-professional degree) is usually a three semester program. </p>
<p>If you are worried about loans, you will probably have more with a 4+2 which is 6 yrs vs a 5 yr barch. I agree with all that rick stated above too.</p>
<p>Not always true. A few of my BSArch classmates were accepted at UPenn for their MArch’s and they each will have to spend 3 years working toward their degrees. How long an MArch takes varies, even if you have a BSArch.</p>
<p>Thanks for the great info Rick, I really appreciate it. I haven’t got any architect relatives or family friends so I really appreciate all the info everyone’s given me. </p>
<p>I see why the BArch is preferred by a lot of people now so I might just take that path…though I think I’m going to commit to USC just so I can leave a couple doors open just in case things don’t work out over the course of the next few years.</p>
<p>Thanks again for all your help everyone! :)</p>
<p>I have a B.Arch from an accredited university and I am registerd architect. Does anyone know if this is enough of the minimum requirements to teach on the undergrad level in an accredited architecture shcool or do you really need a masters degree?</p>
<p>@hawk’s first comment of “you can get licensed right after and start getting paid”
Shouldn’t it be “hope to start getting paid” in this day and age? haha</p>
<p>well, if this is a decision that someone is making now as in that they are seniors in HS, then in 5 years, i would imagine things will get a lot better. </p>
<p>if it is for people going to graduate this year, graduate school would be a wise choice and not get involved in the terrible economic situation.</p>
<p>nomoreschool, I think you can get a teaching appointment at an architecture school with a five year degree, but I would be surprised if you could get on a tenure track without a Masters degree.</p>
<p>nomoreschool: Agree with Rick. My husband (barch and licensed) teaches in a certificate and AS degree program at the community college level, but has been told by 4-yr BA programs that he would need to obtain a masters (in anything) to teach in those degree programs.</p>