cal poly san luis

[Giants8307]

<p>“I don’t think so. For a school like Cal Poly, the “higher” students that bring the average up for those accepted are likely applying to it as a safety.”</p>

<p>This is true of the middle-uc’s and of virtually every school in the nation outside of the top 10. </p>

<p>“UCD considers GPA, rigor of course load, and test scores to be “very important,” while essays, ECs, and a few other things are “important,” others just “considered.” Cal Poly has just 2-3 things considered “very important” (quantifiable factors), the rest just “considered” or not at all. And if you look at other quantifiable factors, you’d see that Cal Poly has only 39% in the top 10% of their classes and whereas UCD has 95%. Other quantifiable factors are more similar, though.”</p>

<p>Well, I guess you view that as important, where I don’t. I’ll agree to disagree on that.</p>

<p>“Cal Poly’s prestige drops considerably outside of certain regions (namely CA), and it has the tag of a CSU. The University of California has worldwide prestige, in large part because they’re research universities, whereas CSUs are “terminal degree” ones.”</p>

<p>Clearly the UC system is more prestigious than the CSU, but that doesn’t mean that every UC is more prestigious than every CSU. Cal Poly has more money, resources, and ability to recruit students than any other csu (although SDSU has improved significantly). Besides, most people that I’ve talked to didn’t even know Cal Poly was in that system.</p>

[Corbett]

<p>

It’s generally regarded well, though again, UC prestige carries farther than CSU.

If you want a B.Arch. degree – and presumably the Original Poster does, because that’s what Cal Poly offers – then “UC prestige” won’t carry you farther. In fact, it won’t carry you anywhere, for the simple reason that the UC architecture schools (Berkeley, UCLA) don’t offer this degree.</p>

<p>The UCs do offer B.A. degrees with majors in architecture. But these programs are not NAAB-accredited, and are not professionally qualifying. No employer or state licensing board would consider a UC B.A. as equivalent to an NAAB-accredited Cal Poly B.Arch, even with the “UC prestige” factor. Sure, prestige is nice, but professional accreditation is better.</p>

<p>That’s why Cal Poly’s undergraduate architecture program “outshines” those at UCs. The Cal Poly B.Arch. is a true professional degree. The UC B.A.s are not.</p>

<p>You can get an accredited, professional M.Arch. degree through the UC system as a grad student, but that’s a different, longer route. If you want a pursue a career in architecture with a terminal bachelor’s degree, then an accredited B.Arch. degree from Cal Poly SLO – or even Cal Poly Pomona – is hands-down a better choice than an unaccredited B.A. from Berkeley or UCLA.</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>

Besides, most people that I’ve talked to didn’t even know Cal Poly was in that system.

</p>

<p>And most people I’ve talked to do know that it’s another CSU.</p>

<p>

You can get an accredited, professional M.Arch. degree through the UC system as a grad student, but that’s a different, longer route. If you want a pursue a career in architecture with a terminal bachelor’s degree, then an accredited B.Arch. degree from Cal Poly SLO – or even Cal Poly Pomona – is hands-down a better choice than an unaccredited B.A. from Berkeley or UCLA.

</p>

<p>I really disagree. A degree from Berkeley or UCLA is going to carry weight, even if it isn’t “accredited.” As such, it wouldn’t be a hands-down better choice to have a supposedly “accredited” degree from CSU – employers know that the academics at Berkeley and UCLA are very high-caliber, and would at best consider a BA in architecture from those equivalent to Cal Poly’s architecture degree – at best.</p>

<p>I suppose here is where we agree to disagree.</p>

[Corbett]

<p>

A degree from Berkeley or UCLA is going to carry weight, even if it isn’t “accredited.”

Better check your state licensing laws before you draw any such conclusion. </p>

<p>In about half of US states, an unaccredited bachelor’s in architecture – whether it’s from Berkeley, UCLA, Harvard, or anywhere else – is legally worthless as a professional degree. In such states, you simply do not qualify for an architect’s license unless you have an NAAB degree. Since you cannot legally practice architecture without a license, this is obviously a professional handicap. You could work under the supervision of other architects, but you could never assume responsibility for any work yourself (unless you went back to school for an accredited degree).</p>

<p>In other states, it is possible to qualify for a license without an accredited degree. But even then, you’re still handicapped, because more work experience – perhaps much more work experience, depending on the state – is needed to compensate for the substandard degree. And in general, your chances of passing the licensing exams will be lower. So the average time to licensure will be significantly longer with the unaccredited degree.</p>

<p>Employers know these facts. A job candidate with an unaccredited degree will, at best, take longer to become licensed and assume technical responsibility, and at worst has no hope of ever doing so.</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>I’m not so sure an arch degree from Berkeley/UCLA will be considered “useless,” even in comparison to Cal Poly’s arch degree. Look at the facts:</p>

<p>Average starting salary for Berkeley grads in arch: ~$40,000</p>

<p><a href=“http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Arch.stm[/url]”>http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Arch.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The average starting salary for Cal Poly grads in arch: ~$44,000</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.careerservices.calpoly.edu/gsr/05-06/gsr_2005_2006.pdf[/url]”>http://www.careerservices.calpoly.edu/gsr/05-06/gsr_2005_2006.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This is, of course, assuming that a ~30% response rate yields a normal distribution of respondents in their careers; the problem with career surveys is that the more successful ones tend to reply, though for our purposes, we can assume normal distribution. (Another problem might be that Cal Poly graduated 165 arch students, as opposed to Berkeley’s 126, which might skew numbers a bit.) So, does that degree seem “useless” to you?</p>

[Corbett]

<p>

So, does that degree seem “useless” to you?

All Berkeley degrees have value. Many of the people who major in architecture at Berkeley probably have no intention of becoming professional architects; they will ultimately enter other careers, some of which may be even more lucrative than architecture. And in this case, the more prestigious and less technical Berkeley B.A. would likely be a better choice than the Cal Poly B.Arch.</p>

<p>But if you do plan to become a professional architect, than a UC B.A. has major limitations. For example, I said that a UC B.A. was “worthless” as a professional degree in many states. In fact, this point is explicitly acknowledged in Berkeley’s own [url=<a href=“http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate]description[/url”>http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate]description[/url</a>] of the program:

The A.B. degree is not a professional degree and is not recognized by the National Architectural Accrediting Board. The Master of Architecture is the only accredited professional degree offered by the department. However, at present the degree is accepted for partial credit toward licensure in California by the State Board of Architectural Examiners. It is generally not accepted in other states.

For comparison, the B.Arch. from Cal Poly is a professional degree, is recognized by NAAB, and meets all of the educational standards for licensure in California and every other state. The B.Arch. will put you on the “fast track” to licensure in every US jurisdiction. The B.A. will, at best, put you on the “slow track”; at worst, it will not get you on the track at all. </p>

<p>The UC B.A. degrees are best regarded as “pre-architecture” programs; they need to be accompanied by a graduate-level M.Arch. degree before they can be considered professionally equivalent to a B.Arch. There’s nothing wrong with the B.A. + M.Arch. route; in fact, some people prefer it to the shorter but more technically focused B.Arch. route. But other people prefer the B.Arch. route, and in this case Cal Poly is the top choice in California, and probably the western US.</p>

[Corbett]

<p>The UCLA architecture program also offers a [url=<a href=“http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/catalog07-08-84.html]disclaimer[/url”>http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/catalog07-08-84.html]disclaimer[/url</a>] about its undergraduate program. Note that the undergraduate program is explicitly described as “preprofessional”:

In the U.S. most state registration boards require a degree from an accredited professional degree program as a requisite for licensure. NAAB, the sole agency authorized to accredit U.S. professional degree programs in architecture, recognizes two types of degrees: Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Architecture…Master’s degree programs may consist of a preprofessional undergraduate degree and a professional graduate degree which, when earned sequentially, comprise an accredited professional education. However, the preprofessional degree is not, by itself, recognized as an accredited degree.

</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>And see what Cal Poly says:</p>

<p>

The architecture department offers both undergraduate and graduate programs. The undergraduate Bachelor of Architecture (BArch) program leads to a five year accredited “first professional degree”. The Masters of Science in Architecture (MS-Arch) is not an accredited professional degree program. It is a second degree for those who already have a BArch or related Bachelor degree.

</p>

<p>Compare with Berkeley’s BA + M program:</p>

<p>

a four-year course of study leading to a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in architecture … a graduate course of study ranging from one to three years leading to the professional degree, Master of Architecture

</p>

<p>So the two programs are similar in length (assuming 5 years, uninterrupted) for accreditation. Just seems different in name.</p>

<p>

Many of the people who major in architecture at Berkeley probably have no intention of becoming professional architects; they will ultimately enter other careers, some of which may be even more lucrative than architecture. And in this case, the more prestigious and less technical Berkeley B.A. would likely be a better choice than the Cal Poly B.Arch.

</p>

<p>Look at the Berkeley page I linked; those who responded to the survey added their careers. You’ll notice most, if not all, are related to architecture and are in fact extremely similar to the careers listed on the Cal Poly survey page.</p>

<p>(I’m not so acquainted with UCLA’s programs, so I’m assuming UCLA’s are similar to Berkeley’s.)</p>

[Corbett]

<p>

So the two programs are similar in length (assuming 5 years, uninterrupted) for accreditation. Just seems different in name.

Better count again.</p>

<p>At Cal Poly, you get an accredited B.Arch. in 5 years. You don’t need a Master’s degree.</p>

<p>At Berkeley, you get an unaccredited B.A. in 4 years. You still need an accredited Master’s degree. But with an unaccredited bachelor’s, it takes [2</a> or 3 years](<a href=“http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/programs/march]2”>http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/programs/march) to get the M.Arch. (Options 2 and 3). That’s 6 or 7 years total. </p>

<p>It’s theoretically possible to earn an accredited M.Arch. in only 1 year (Option 1). But to do so requires an accredited B.Arch., which you can’t get at Berkeley, as a prerequisite. And in practice, there is less demand for the M.Arch. in this case, because anyone with a B.Arch. already holds a valid professional degree.</p>

<p>

those who responded to the survey added their careers. You’ll notice most, if not all, are related to architecture and are in fact extremely similar to the careers listed on the Cal Poly survey page.

First, the Berkeley grads who have careers outside architecture are less likely to respond to the survey. Second, those who are working for architectural firms are more likely to be working in managerial, administrative, or support positions, rather than as architects. Finally, many of the Berkeley grads that do have entry-level jobs as architects will still face the need to go back to school for the M.Arch. degree someday. </p>

<p>The difference between the Berkeley and Cal Poly programs can be summed up by one phrase at the Berkeley page describing the architecture [major](<a href=“http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate]major[/url]:[quote]Some”>http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate):

Some</a> graduates go on to obtain professional degrees in architecture or in other related fields…

At Cal Poly, all architecture graduates automatically have professional degrees in this field, regardless of whether or not they “go on” anywhere.</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>

At Berkeley, you get an unaccredited B.A. in 4 years. You still need an accredited Master’s degree.

</p>

<p>No, you really don’t. Just looking at the starting salaries shows that even the 5-year BA program at Berkeley is sufficient.</p>

<p>

First, the Berkeley grads who have careers outside architecture are less likely to respond to the survey.

</p>

<p>That really doesn’t matter – the statistics that we’re looking at (namely average starting salaries) are for those who responded and have a career within architecture.</p>

<p>

Second, those who are working for architectural firms are more likely to be working in managerial, administrative, or support positions, rather than as architects.

</p>

<p>Seems to be the same for Cal Poly.</p>

<p>

Finally, many of the Berkeley grads that do have entry-level jobs as architects will still face the need to go back to school for the M.Arch. degree someday.

</p>

<p>Source?</p>

<p>

At Cal Poly, all architecture graduates automatically have professional degrees in this field, regardless of whether or not they “go on” anywhere.

</p>

<p>Er, you’re stating a fundamental difference between CSUs and UCs, something which isn’t a fundamental advantage or disadvantage. Everyone knows that CSUs are geared toward professional/terminal degrees, whereas the UCs are more theoretical/research-oriented. UCs produce many more people who go on to get graduate degrees; CSUs simply get students through the university and out into a job. I believe the employment rate for Cal Poly after graduation is very high; this is due to what I just described. It isn’t, however, a fundamental advantage (if it were, CSUs would be more sought after than they already are).</p>

[Corbett]

<p>The usual standard for architecture degrees is NAAB accreditation, just as ABA accreditation is expected for law degrees or AMA accreditation is expected for medical degrees. There are loopholes in each case, which is how correspondence law schools and Caribbean medical schools survive. But your degree will not have wide acceptance or prestige in the professional community unless it has proper accreditation. </p>

<p>The Bureau of Labor Statistics sums it up as [follows:](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm]follows:[/url][quote]All”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm)

All</a> States and the District of Columbia require individuals to be licensed (registered) before they may call themselves architects and contract to provide architectural services…</p>

<p>In most States, the professional degree in architecture must be from one of the 113 schools of architecture that have degree programs accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)…</p>

<p>The choice of degree depends upon each individual’s preference and educational background. Prospective architecture students should consider the available options before committing to a program…the 5-year Bachelor of Architecture program offers the fastest route to the professional degree…

So a Berkeley B.A. graduate is unlicensable in many, and probably most, US states – unless he or she goes back to school for the M.Arch. That’s obviously a professional handicap. The B.Arch. is the “gold standard”, valid nationwide. A B.A. may manage to get licensed in California without an accredited degree, but he will not have the same flexibility to practice anywhere else.

Er, you’re stating a fundamental difference between CSUs and UCs, something which isn’t a fundamental advantage or disadvantage. Everyone knows that CSUs are geared toward professional/terminal degrees, whereas the UCs are more theoretical/research-oriented.

Sure, but this difference is not normally reflected in the degrees granted by the two systems. In engineering, for example, both the CSUs and the UCs grant 4-year, ABET-accredited BS degrees. Such degrees are qualifying for either grad school or immediate employment. More UC grads choose the former route, and more CSU grads choose the latter route, but the degree itself is legally identical, and allows both UC and CSU grads to choose either path. </p>

<p>In architecture, it’s different. The CSUs and the UCs issue different types of bachelor’s degrees, which are regarded as distinct under state licensing law. In this particular case – which may well be unique – the CSU system can provide a student with an accredited professional degree in less time, and with less expense, than the UC system can. Some people therefore prefer the CSU approach over the UC approach. </p>

<p>Why is this controversial?</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>We can agree to disagree.</p>

<p>Notice, though, something added to the Berkeley page:</p>

<p>

As applicants to the Option 1 degree program already hold the professional Bachelor of Architecture degree, the one-year program is not accredited by the NAAB.

</p>

<p>So you can see why. The route, however, doesn’t seem any less lucrative.</p>

[logicaldog]

<p>I disagree with the person who says that UC’s are better for architecture-in talking to practicing and award winning architects-and as noted in Design Intelligence-the trade magazine that ranks colleges of architecture-Cal Poly is the best, second to Cornell-The UC’s usually aren’t even in there. UC Berkeley in particular is seen as producing practitioners who are heavy into theory and not particularly well prepared for real world architecture. I have talked to a few architects who said they wouldnt hire someone from UC Berkeley-the learn by doing aspect is a major plus.</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>

the trade magazine that ranks colleges of architecture-Cal Poly is the best, second to Cornell

</p>

<p>Yeah, because that’s the only ranking out there, and it’s obviously the correct one, anyway – just like US News is the only correct ranking out there for undergrad institutions.</p>

<p>

The UC’s usually aren’t even in there.

</p>

<p>By one ranking’s standards. By others, they are (more so Berkeley than the others, I think).</p>

<p>

UC Berkeley in particular is seen as producing practitioners who are heavy into theory and not particularly well prepared for real world architecture.

</p>

<p>There’s that vague “is seen” that just screams “I can’t source this argument.” This claim has been made before against UCs – you know, they’re all about theory, whereas CSUs give you “real-world experience.” Yeah, right – UCs give you the theory and the experience. That’s probably why their grads are very successful (in job placement and pay).</p>

<p>

I have talked to a few architects who said they wouldnt hire someone from UC Berkeley-the learn by doing aspect is a major plus.

</p>

<p>Anecdotal evidence means little to nothing. And if “learn by doing” is the preferred style of education, why aren’t CSUs’ grads more sought after? Why do UC grads make on average more than CSU grads (at least for Berkeley)? Why haven’t the UCs “learned” from the CSU’s amazing teaching style and switched over? It’s obvious that many architects (high-paying ones, at that) will hire Berkeley grads – just look at the career survey stats.</p>

<p>Face it, CSU’s are regarded as the “terminal degree” universities that are meant to take in as many students as they can, teach them for a specific career, and send them out. This isn’t regarded as superior to a UC education by any stretch of the imagination – as evidenced by average salaries, even for architecture.</p>

[logicaldog]

<p>Kyle-thanks for making my case, and my mind. We have personal experience (anecdotal arguments are just as valid tho and who the he-- do you think you are???) with a grad from Berkeley, came here to DC to take a low paying govt job designing courthouses because he didnt have the certification because the UC’s simply dont equip you with them, took him 7 years to go back, study and finally get it. I’ll take Cal Poly ANYDAY!!!</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>

anecdotal arguments are just as valid tho and who the he-- do you think you are???

</p>

<p>Anecdotal evidence is a fallacy.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.fallacyfiles.org/volvofal.html[/url]”>http://www.fallacyfiles.org/volvofal.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

came here to DC to take a low paying govt job designing courthouses because he didnt have the certification because the UC’s simply dont equip you with them, took him 7 years to go back, study and finally get it.

</p>

<p>Yes, I’m sure that’s very representative of what all Berkeley arch grads have to go through – why in the world would have a chosen a world-class university over Cal Poly, just so they can make about as much? Pity.</p>

<p>

I’ll take Cal Poly ANYDAY!!!

</p>

<p>And plenty of real employers would take Berkeley (and other UC) grads any day. Here are just some of them:</p>

<p>3D/International Assistant Construction Manager<br>
Adames Design Group Designer<br>
Albert Pastine Architect Designer<br>
Allied Architecture and Design Designer<br>
Andrew Skurman Architects Designer<br>
ARCHEON Group Junior Designer<br>
Architecture & light Architectural Designer<br>
Arete Inc Architecture Staff<br>
Arya Architects Architectural Assistant<br>
Ashdown Downey Design Junior Designer<br>
Bill Gould Design, Art and Architecture Junior Drafter<br>
Blue Design Studios Project Manager<br>
Borges Architectural Group Architect<br>
CJArchs InternArchitect<br>
Clements Construction Consultants Inc Associate<br>
D.S. Ewing Architects Inc Junior Architect/Draftsman<br>
Dahlin Group Inc Entry Level Architect<br>
Danielian CAD Draftsperson<br>
Del Valle Homes Intern<br>
DeMaria Design Associates Junior Designer<br>
Ellerbe Becket Architects Project Administrative Assistant<br>
ELS Architecture Intern<br>
Junior Architect<br>
FireTrol Inc Loader<br>
Forum Design Drafter<br>
Glide Foundation Program Assistant<br>
Goring and Straja Architects Junior Drafter<br>
Hauser Advertising Inc Account Coordinator<br>
HHJA Junior Associate<br>
Hilliard Architects Inc Architectural Trainee<br>
HKS Architects Inc Architectural Intern<br>
HMC Architects Intern Architect<br>
HOK San Francisco Junior Architect<br>
Horizon Marketing Communications Client Services Assistant<br>
Housing California Program Assistant<br>
Huntsman Architectural Group Junior Designer<br>
Irwin Pancake Architects Intern Architect<br>
Kate Keating Associates AutoCAD Drafter<br>
KCK Architects Architectural Designer<br>
Kiewit Pacific Co Engineer<br>
Killefer Flammang Architects Junior Architect<br>
Ko Architects Inc Administrative Assistant<br>
Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects Associate<br>
Designer<br>
Lemanski & Rockwell Architects Inc Architectural Designer<br>
Local architecture firm Associate<br>
Junior Architect<br>
Louie Leu Architect Inc Junior Architect<br>
LYVA Inc Architectural Designer<br>
M. Sandoval Architects Inc Associate<br>
Madsen, Kneppers & Associates Architectural Consultant<br>
Maple Inc Designer<br>
Martinez-Cotri Architects Staff Manager<br>
Marx/Okubo Associates Project Coordinator<br>
MBH Architects CAD Drafter<br>
Designer<br>
Drafter<br>
McCall Design Group Job Captain<br>
Melander Architects Inc Junior Architect<br>
Murakami/Nelson Architectural Corp Architectural Drafter<br>
NYC Dept of Housing Preservation Housing Fellow<br>
Ong&Ong Limited Intern<br>
Poirier + David Architects Associate<br>
Private architecture firm Junior Architect<br>
Private firm in Israel Assistant<br>
Private office Design Engineer<br>
PSM Architects Associate<br>
Pulte Homes Construction Administrator<br>
Rainforth Grau Architects Drafter/Junior Architect<br>
Residential architecture firm Drafter<br>
Retail Architecture Autocad Draftsman<br>
RST Design Architect<br>
SantosPrescott & Associates Designer<br>
SCA AIA and Associates Architectural Designer<br>
SDG Architects Inc Architectural Intern<br>
Self Employed Contractor<br>
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP Architectural Assistant<br>
Junior Designer<br>
SmithGroup Inc Designer<br>
Stafford King Wiese Architects Junior Drafter<br>
Stanford University Junior Designer<br>
Strauss Design Architectural Intern<br>
Structural engineering firm Drafter<br>
Studio One Eleven Intermediate Designer<br>
Studio SMS Designer<br>
Swerve Junior Designer<br>
TCA architecture Designer<br>
TEN Arquitectos Junior Architect<br>
Teter A+E AIT<br>
Thatcher and Thompson Architects Graphic Designer/Drafter<br>
The Clark Construction Group Office Engineer<br>
Thomas Means Inc Junior Architect<br>
University of California Berkeley Lab Technician<br>
Library Assistant<br>
University of California San Francisco Research Assistant<br>
Van Mechlin Architects Entry Level Architect<br>
WestonMiles Architects Inc Architectural Intern<br>
WJE Associate</p>

<p>This thread is over. The stats have been presented, the facts have been interpreted, and conclusions have been made. We can agree to disagree (again).</p>

[leungpy1]

<p>kyledavid, are you a student or are you a working adult? UC Berkerly and other UC’s are excellent schools. In fact my S will be applying to some of them. In general they are better than CSU. However, Cal Poly SLO is a special school among the CSU’s. I have been a working engineer for many years. I do not know much about architecture, but as far as engineering goes, Cal Poly SLO has a very good reputation. Their graduates are highly sought after. Also the admission standard is high for Cal Poly SLO. If someone wants to be an engineer, either UC’s or Cal Poly SLO will serve one well.</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>

I do not know much about architecture, but as far as engineering goes, Cal Poly SLO has a very good reputation. Their graduates are highly sought after.

</p>

<p>I never said they weren’t. I simply added that UC grads are highly sought after too, even in architecture.</p>

<p>

If someone wants to be an engineer, either UC’s or Cal Poly SLO will serve one well.

</p>

<p>I understand that. But we’re talking about architecture, not engineering.</p>