<p>
[quote]
csmith: M.Arch = more $
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, not necessarily. Not even probably. My last architecture job was spent sitting next to a girl of similar age who had been with the firm several months longer than I had, who had an M.Arch from an Ivy League school. Guess who made more money? Me and my B.Arch, that's who.</p>
<p>apr- while a degree in your early twenties isn’t the be all, end all, it is a good start.—If one were to look at some of the more recent masters of architecture, well over half have Barch’s. But architecture is also a good field to be in, due to the amount of exposure to related fields. History, Physics and Literature all play a part in architecture and I know at my school a good percentage of the architecture students end up pursuing something other than architecture after they graduate. Both routes Barch and March have their own advantages and it is very difficult to say which route is better.</p>
<p>apr,</p>
<p>No bitterness intended, just poorly written. </p>
<p>What I meant was that I believe for some kids a couple years of general ed and college life can be very important before committing to a program like arch, others are ready to jump right in on day one. A great thing about arch programs is that there are different pathways. My son believes he is ready for a BArch and good people who know him well tell me he'll do fine. I fully support his choice. Yes, you are correct he applied to BArch programs, as he was committed to this path last fall, and yes he chose WIT, which is now converting to a 5yr MArch. </p>
<p>I had no clue where I was headed even halfway through my college years, at 17 my son assures me he does. Only time will tell.</p>
<p>As to my other post (#16) I was drifting OT, away from the debate comparing a 4 yr BS + MArch grad degree vs. 5yr undergrad programs. I was looking for thoughts on what's behind the conversion of 5yr BArch to 5yr MArch.</p>
<p>One thing that today's kids have that we didn't as entering freshmen is the chance to acquire those valued AP credits and thus have the ability to place out of the freshman level English, history, etc. </p>
<p>This gives them room in their schedules- hopefully even the packed Arch schedules- to take even more interesting, more in depth electives in say English, History, Art History, Philosophy, etc. I think if they are able to manage gaining those credits, their room for academic growth in many disciplines can be achieved within a 5 yr BArch program.</p>
<p>Well alot more comes into play when you're comparing two individuals' salaries. To name a few: experience, position within the company, relevant skills, date hired, etc, etc. But all things being equal, M.Archs statistically make more B.Archs. </p>
<p>I further emphasize that does NOT mean every M.Arch gets paid more than every B.Arch.</p>
<p>that was a reply to larationalist BTW</p>
<p>please cite your souce- and make sure it's a comparison of M.Arch I's to B.Archs, not M.Arch II's (because the candidate will already have a B.Arch, which is not what is being compared in this discussion)</p>
<p>My son has been talking to an architect for advice. This architect is about 34 years old and owns his own firm and is a major architect in a southwest city. He said the same thing larationalist said. He said a MArch does not get you more money or perks. He got his Masters (after a BArch) because he said he wanted to do some teaching.</p>
<p>Everything I have read confirms larationalist's statements.</p>
<p>Design Intelligence, America's Best Architecture Schools, 2007, pg. 22, pie chart at the bottom. It shows that less than 25% of bachelor degree interns receive the same compensation as masters interns. The remainder ranges anywhere from a 0 to 20% increase in salary.</p>
<p>does anyone have the 2008 copy? Curious to know if anything has changed.</p>
<p>But does that include M.Arch II's?</p>
<p>It may include M.arch IIs but I'm honestly not sure. </p>
<p>Hypothetically, if it did include M. Arch IIs, and M.Archs and B.Archs are indeed equal in pay, then the increase in salary that is seen in the chart is solely due to the increase that M.Arch IIs have over both M.Archs AND B.Archs.... I find that a little hard to believe.... but not entirely impossible. :)</p>
<p>I actually find that hard to believe as well-- and while I believe that DI's rankings for architecture schools are misleading and based upon erroneous ideas- This statistic seems pretty valid-- I mean, in a world where image is ever more important- a "masters" degree does sound better than a "bachelors" degree- even though the two are pretty equivalent.</p>
<p>Well, the gap between B.Arch's or M.Arch I's and M.Arch II's would logically be substantial: M.Arch II's not only have additional education, they often have additional years of experience and are further down the path to licensure, because of the habit of B.Arch recipients of not going to grad school right away. So given that the gap is less than 10% (I looked it up on the DI website after you revealed your source and they had a short news blurb), that scenario makes more sense to me than that of people with less training making more money, particularly when my personal experience and that within my social circle bears that hypothesis out.</p>
<p>Aren't we forgetting about the quality of the University? A 3year MArch at one school may give someone a more thorough studio education than a BArch at another school.</p>
<p>The chart in DI's 2007 needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The chart just says bachelors interns vs masters interns. There is no explanation of the chart except where the chart came from (survey of principals) and a note talking about bonus' not being included. All in all, I have to agree with larationalist.</p>
<p>By the way, DI's 2008 does not talk about salary or have charts and tables of salaries. But it does include the passing rates of the ARE along with which schools have the top passing rates on each part of the ARE.</p>
<p>Architude- that would have to be one crappy school. But theoretically, yes, and it would also work the other way as well.</p>
<p>I tend to think that the BArch, or 5 year MArch, have plenty of general education courses. I don't know about your school but mine requires tons of humanities. I would rather see them require a few foreign language courses instead of courses like art history or music listening.</p>