Freshman blues - normal??

Parents Forum
61

<p>The rules of CC have never applied to insults directed toward me. I am not a mod.</p>

<p>Sorry all. I was offended that sooze was espousing a certian path as a potential option for the OP's D--on the theory that it was so much more fun and an equal option for an architect. That simply isn't true and students consdiering the career chould know the realities.</p>

<p>It isn't exactly an equal option. That's what I've been trying to explain. Better to find that out up front than get into grad school at age 22 and find that the road is much steeper than you supposed.</p>

<p>But I will 'go away' as achat humbly put it. Your direct insults are so much more humane than my severe comments? That's what I love about righteous people. </p>

<p>btw.....I am the farthest thing from a Big Shot Architect--quite deliberately--though I have been wildly successful. And I am not going to apologize for that success.</p>

62

<p>Don't go away. And don't apologize for your success. I was going to comment but got distracted by the need to do some work...</p>

<p>I might be wrong but I think I recognize what cheers is doing. When you have spent all your life in a career, and you have slogged it out and been roughed up and been told you can't do it as a woman or whatever, then you become impassioned about the true story of the career. It becomes difficult to listen to what can seem like facile statements from people who haven't lived it. I can be the same way about software, odd as that might sound. The real emotion is passion, not aggression.</p>

63

<p>It is passion but it is also an aggressive rush to correct a prevailing misunderstanding--a misunderstanding that makes it harder for women to be successful architects. A BA/MArch is NOT the same as a BArch IF--and I have always qualified this--IF one plans to practice near the top of the field, ie own a successful firm in a medium to large metropolitan area.</p>

<p>btw..Successful architects have to be aggressive in order to get crews of thousands of construction workers to build the building according to their drawings. I'm not apologizing for that either!</p>

64

<p>although the topic has shifted a bit from the 2 OPs topics, I wanted to address something louie wrote.
[quote]
She was sick with mono-like illness for the first couple of weeks and has been completely ignored by the other freshman since. They are no longer interested in talking to new people

[/quote]
While can only guess at the circumstances, is it possible that the illness played an underlying role in this? At the start of school kids are eager to meet new people, build social circles, etc. Due to your daughter's unfortunate illness I will guess that she was quite exhausted and was turning down invitations to go to parties or campus events, not dropping in other kids rooms to get together to chat, was quiet at meals, etc.</p>

<p>The point I'd make is that thru no fault of her own she may have come across to the other kids as not interested in them, perhaps even dismissive. Shy people are all too often perceived by others as not shy but snooty. A few weeks of this and you may be quite right that the other kids around her are ignoring her, but they may not be as heartless as they seem.</p>

<p>In any event, there are more people at her school than just those in her dorm. I'd suggest she plunge into the other activities available; ECs, join clubs, intramural sports, anything she can do to meet new people. I am so sorry to hear whats happened to your D, and can just imagine how painful it must be to walk down a hallway ignored by everyone while hearing happy voices of everyone else hanging out with their friends. But there are options, including transfer. Speaking of transfer, how about to another dorm or floor? Even that would put her into a new circle and it sounds like it couldn't be any worse than it is now even if those kids also ignore her.</p>

65

<p>Cheers - while this is just anecdotal, I have two very good friends who have liberal arts B.A.'s from top LAC's followed by a M.Arch and both are now at a very top arch firm (led by a male architect icon not on your list above), as urban as you can get, one a partner there. Maybe it's HARDER to follow this route but there are liberal arts grads going this way and achieving success at the "top" level.
Having watched my two friends, both my husband and I strongly encouraged my son to follow this route too instead of jumping into a B ARCH program -- at 17 he couldn't possibly be certain this was right for him. More interesting, both my architect friends also encouraged this route.</p>

66

<p>Sorry Cheers, I don't really feel sorry for you. I remember what you said right after Hurricane Katrina to people whose kids are at Tulane. You do need a dose of humility.</p>

67

<p>I am trying to be as gracious as I can possibly be. I do feel that Cheers is assigning me thoughts, motivations, or intentions that I don't have or feel whatsoever and I will assume she has simply misunderstood me. </p>

<p>I would like to respond to a few misconceptions posted earlier.</p>

<p>One...
Cheers posted: "I was offended that sooze was espousing a certian path as a potential option for the OP's D--on the theory that it was so much more fun and an equal option for an architect. That simply isn't true and students consdiering the career chould know the realities."</p>

<p>I have NO idea where you got that from as I don't think I was ever recommending that the OP's D switch to a BA program at all, let alone that it was so much more "fun". In my initial posts to the OP, I recommended ways for her to build in breaks and time management and to seek studio mates as friends and take initiative to do something socially with them. I acknowledged the long hours that an architecture student puts in. My D has only ONE studio class this semester at RISD (not as many as the OP's D) and it takes LONG hours and she is down at that studio at this very moment and will be late into the night, after many hours already this week devoted to just that one studio course. She did an architecture immersion program this summer and knows the long hours involved. I never suggested that this other kid switch to a BA. I explained why MY D opted to enter a liberal arts degree program with a pre-architecture major (BA in Architectural Studies) because for HER, this was the right choice. Unlike a major such as history or theater where one has studied it or participated in it for years, she was not ready to commit to a field that she had only begun to explore. She wanted a liberal arts degree and has not even yet declared a major. She entered with a strong interest in going in this direction but is using these two years, plus the summer to explore, experience and discover if this is the career direction she wishes to go into. </p>

<p>An undergraduate education need not be career training. For many careers, including architecture, one can be professionally trained at the graduate level. Was I recommending this to the OP? Absolutely NOT. I was simply explaining where MY D was at and why SHE took this path for her undergraduate education. There was NO decision to become an architect when she was 17, only a strong leaning and interest at that point. She SURELY did not pick this path to have ANYTHING to do with being more FUN. THIS is the kind of education that SHE wants for this point in her educational career. She is not ready to only study one area. She likes many subjects. She wanted choices in her curriculum, not one already laid out for her. She wanted to explore many areas and also see if architecture is an area that she may want to pursue for the long term. She did what she could in high school to pursue it, took initiative to do a year long supervised independent study for credit that involved drafting, mechanical drawing, Auto Cad, wrote various papers for classes on architectural topics (in fact, studied Liebskind extensively whom you mentioned), and contacted local architects about an internship, had several offers, and did one with a woman architect who let her do actual architectural tasks for her, not busy work. Since getting to Brown, she has done studio foundation class, a few architectural history classes, and now a RISD class in architectural drawing alongside BArch and MArch students, and also did the six week intensive at Harvard Design School, using her own earnings from summer jobs to pay tuition to help her really try out an immersion in studio and she really does love the design projects. She is contemplating a semester abroad through other BArch programs. But she ALSO is on one varsity sport team (involving numerous hours per week and weekends) and a club intercollegiate team that travels. She was not ready to put all her eggs into a professional degree program at this time. THIS is what SHE wants to do. NOT because it is more fun but because it matches where SHE is at. I am not suggesting it to the OP at all. I also explained the various educational paths to becoming a licensed architect to those who were asking about that as many are not familiar with this. I meant that to be informational, not persuasive. I do not see one path as better than another, simply different.</p>

<p>I simply have no idea why you were offended or why you felt I was espousing a career path on another poster's child. I had no intentions of espousing it and in fact, think that BArch programs are terrific, but simply not what MY child wanted to do when she was applying to colleges, and had visited Cornell's BArch program just to be sure what she wanted for her undergraduate experience.</p>

<p>You wrote as if to imply that I thought the BA in pre-architecture followed by a MArch was an EQUAL path to BArch. I did not say that either. They are different paths leading to licensure. That's all. Some paths fit certain people's educational desires, some fit others. </p>

<p>TWO...</p>

<p>Garland wrote: "I actually have never heard Soozie advocate aiming for the top; I have heard her speak up for aiming to do your best at whatever you choose to do, which is not the same thing."</p>

<p>Thank you Garland, you know me better than myself....LOL...no really, you got it exactly right. </p>

<p>Cheers responded: "Sooze? Not advocate for the top? What, are you kidding me?"</p>

<p>A lot of your posts, Cheers, discuss becoming a TOP architect or owning a firm or in a major city, becoming famous, etc. etc. It is as if anything less is not worthy. It is just a perspective that I don't share and has elitist undertones for me. It is like saying, if you don't make it to the Ivy League, you aren’t a success. You gotta reach for the Ivies. It is like saying that a kid whose life is the stage is not a success if she does not make it on Broadway. And so on. I, nor my kids, tend to think that way. Both are highly motivated and driven to seek their personal goals. But I never really hear them talk so much as wanting to be at the "top", but do talk of reaching goals they set for themselves. My older D NEVER talked about becoming valedictorian, for example. It was never her goal. Her goal was to do her best in school to reach her next goal. She happened to be named valedictorian but reaching the top wasn't where it was at for her,; it was about doing her best and hoping to be able to do what she wanted to do next by working toward it. As well, she NEVER ever once said, "I want to go to an Ivy League school." She did want to go to a very good school that was challenging and had specific criteria she was looking for. She tried to find ones that were a good match and had a motivated student body with kids like her in it. In fact, just to show how Ivies did not trump other schools on her list, when she got into UPenn (which by the way has a BA in architecture) and was named one of 100 Ben Franklin Scholars there, she did not consider attending when she narrowed it down in April amongst her acceptances. In her mind in terms of preferences, Tufts and Smith trumped UPenn. She liked them better for HER. The "top" was not the goal. </p>

<p>My other D who you referred to.....she has had a lifelong passion for the field of musical theater, indeed, since nursery school. Unlike older D, she can SAFELY say at age sixteen that she knew what she wanted to major in and focus on in a professional degree program as an undergraduate (it really is akin to deciding to do a BArch degree because a BFA degree is declared before applying, is a commitment, has an outline of required coursework that takes up at least 2/3's or 3/4' of an undergraduate degree), but she knew she wanted it as she had done it enough to KNOW. With Architecture, my older D had NOT done enough prior to college to be ready to commit to a lifelong career and professional training program at seventeen. It was not a subject she had done enough with yet to say. She also did not have one singular passion yet. She has been a VERY well rounded type in every regard and still wanted to explore many things. </p>

<p>TO BE CONTINUED.....</p>

68

<p>CONTINUED FROM PART ONE ABOVE: </p>

<p>I have never heard D1 say she wants to become a "top architect". Nope. Right now, she has only contemplated going into the field. Let's talk of Harvard Graduate School of Design as one example here, since after all, I would imagine it is a respectable program/degree in this field. The link to the other thread you gave showed how the MAJORITY of students in the MArch program entered with BA or BS degrees, not BArch degrees...which makes sense as a BArch is already a professional degree that leads to licensure. Do you mean to tell me that all these HGD folks are not going to go on to successful careers? Do we measure success as merely reaching the pinnacle of the field? For my other D, the chances of making on Broadway (a pinnacle in her field) are VERY slim. Sure, she'd love to. But if she has a career on stage off Broadway, she'll be a success in having reached her goals to do what she loves for a life. I never said that my other D does not reach high....I mean she has exceled and accomplished at a high level in her endeavors so far in life. She has goals, sure. I just never heard her say, nor do I believe, that being a TOP architect is one of them. Finding a career and then getting into grad school for it and then getting a good job (and satisfying one) in the field later....is about what I imagine are her general goals. </p>

<p>I can't even imagine her living in NYC. She is not the type. She has a DEEP passion for skiing and the skyscrapers in NYC are not the mountains she'd like to schuss. She would not live far from the chance to ski, I doubt it. Ya never know. The way you put things makes it sound like if you are not a top designer, own a firm, are not in an urban area, you are destined to design kitchens and bathrooms or some such (not that that is a bad thing) or to make $30,000. For one thing, income is not my kids' motivating factor. It never was mine either. My field, education, is a low paying field. And yes, like someone posted, I came out of Harvard Graduate School of Education and first taught primary grades in a rural school. My neighbor has a doctorate from Harvard Graduate School of education and is the elementary school principal in the neighboring town. I have never made much money in my field. Money was never my goal. I did go on to teach education to undergraduate colleges and graduate schools and be a staff developer and consultant to schools, all of which were goals of mine in graduate school, so I feel like I met MY goals, and that is what it is about...one's own goals...not necessarily to reach the "top". Back to architects, though.....sorry but not all successful architects need to be in big firms designing the urban landscape and not all rural architects design bathrooms. </p>

<p>Cheers wrote: "No...it's not such a bad thing. It's a great $30k to $60k a year thing. It's a bit repetitive and it's a bit annoying to have too many residential clients. Ask any architect. At the end of the day, who cares if the loo matches the wash basin or is affordable if we get the Aga. That's not architecture. It's handholding and consumerism at it's pinnacle--great training if an architect wants to learn how to detail substantial materials--but not something many architects would choose to do for decades on end --if they had their druthers."</p>

<p>All I can tell you is that while I live in a rural town, we have MANY architects in our town who make VERY good livings, not the incomes you mentioned. They are not just designing bathrooms and remodeling jobs. They do not JUST design houses though some have been innovators in that area and won awards for residential design, as well as for some environmental design and innovations. Some design schools, inns, college buildings, libraries, museums, and other major building projects and commercial projects throughout the country and region, not just for in our town. Some are involved in historical preservation. They are not all just designing bathrooms and kitchens. I can think of some accomplished architects here who did undergrad work at places like Williams but got their MArch at Yale, UPenn, Cornell and the like. We have several design/build firms in town. We even have a design/build school where board members and faculty are accomplished in the field and hold impressive degrees and have won awards. Being in VT, there are firms that specialize in sustainable living. The woman my D interned with owns her own firm and her partner is her husband who is also an architect though they each maintain offices in two different towns. These folks I know make good incomes, have kids at selective boarding prep schools and private colleges (these ain’t cheap!), and own very nice homes. They seem to be successful at what they do. They did not opt to live in an urban area. There are different strokes for different folks. </p>

<p>I never said that the different degree paths to becoming an architect are the SAME or EQUAL. However, both lead to careers in architecture. There are successful architects making fine livings and even owning their own firms who earned a BA in architecture and a MArch in architecture. If this were such a poor choice or path, then there sure are a lot of folks in MArch programs, such as HGD, a top one, who started with BAs who must be wasting their tuition dollars in graduate school. </p>

<p>I think when someone enters a professional degree program....be it an undergrad degree like an engineering degree, a BFA in musical theater, or a BArch program, he/she should be quite sure they want to do this and focus on only this. I can say with certainty that my younger D was ready for that narrow focus and professional training. My older D is not ready quite yet. Some fields you do not get to experience UNTIL you get to college. Architecture is one of those unless your HS had courses in it (ours did not) and so often the undergraduate degree is the time to explore and discover and find that area you want to specialize in. Going into it too soon unless you feel CERTAIN you want to do it (like my younger D is), may not be a good thing. </p>

<p>I know a middle aged woman who has said that her parents WANTED her to become an architect. She did her undergrad at MIT (which by the way is another BA in Architecture program, not a professional degree) and her MArch at MIT as well. She never practiced it and hated it and her passion was performing arts. She has gone onto direct and choreograph in major venues and companies in the US and now spearheads her own opera company in Manhattan that produces new works. She is quite accomplished. She never worked as an architect after all those years at MIT. In fact, she recently was in the audience of a show my younger D was in, never had met her before, liked her talent for a role she was casting in NYC, and flew her to NYC to work with the composer on the role, and wants her for a role in an opera her company is developing and workshopping right now. </p>

<p>People need to follow their passion. My younger D is. My older D is narrowing and developing her passions. I have no doubt she will reach her goals and due to her passion, drive and hard work, will become a success at whatever she wishes to do. And that has NOTHING to do with making it to the "top". </p>

<p>I may still be misunderstood but that is the way I feel, NOT the interpretations or assumptions I have read about me or my kids on this thread. </p>

<p>THANK YOU FOR READING,
RESPECTFULLY,
SUSAN</p>

69

<p>I did not see JRPar's post before I wrote mine above but like her son's experience, the architects my D worked with also encouraged her to do an undergrad liberal arts degree in architecture first before a professional degree (MArch).</p>

70

<p>2girlsmom and louie haven't posted since posts #35 and #36, maybe because this has turned into a long-winded and argumentative thread. The discussion of the merits of various architecture programs might be more helpful to potential architecture students if it the it had a label other than "freshman blues".</p>

71

<p>jrpar...are those two friends lead designers on major projects or are they administrative project managers or interiors partners?</p>

<p>This is a subject I hadn't clarified for myself unitl soozie started posting about it last year. It isn't a subject explored by architectrure magazines --that I know of. I_Wonder's posts int he previous thread confirmed my suspicions that the MArch II or whatever it is called might be a bit of scam for BA grads.</p>

<p>1) A BA/MArch student is way down the ladder from BArch stduents in grad school and not even in the same design classes. Worth finidng out if the best teachers teach BArch students for instance. Worth finding out how many BA/MArch studnets have DESIGN work published in the student magazine.</p>

<p>2) To make matters worse, a BA/MArch student is even down t he ladder in their own grad class. 50% of the class already had architectural training. I_Wonder (now gone sadly--what a resource) specifically said that the BA students in her CURRENT class at HGD complain ALL THE TIME that the school ignores their lack of previous knowledge and expects them to compete with BScArch students. That was a HUGE statement.</p>

<p>After I_Wonder posted that, I thought back to the archtiects I have worked with/hired over the years. Yup, the designers all had BArchs. The BA/MArchs tended to be in non-design positions.</p>

<p>It IS possible that six semesters of design isn't enough to deveop a lead design skill. I am not sure. Is it just professional bias? Could be. Is there a gender bias? Are the majority of BA/MArch students female? I bet they are. I wish I knew those stats--but I bet the 40% that goes in with training are male and 45% are straight female BAs). Knowing how tough the actual profession is, I do actively caution a talented and ambitious female student/competitive athlete: do the homework, find out the inner workings of all this stuff while making decisions. Take the path which will open the most doors--intellectually and creatively. If that includes a BA, then consider a BArch as a professional degree--at Cornell or Cooper for example. </p>

<p>Heck, someone should write about these disparities, maybe sooze's D will be the one.</p>

<p>*Believe me, I don't want your pity achat. I don't want the pity of a woman who lectures about humilty with her "go away" nails drawn. </p>

<p>The 'horrible' thing I said to Tulane students? To be mindful of the underlying social and economic conditions of New Orleans--to explore the subject if they didn't already know something about it. </p>

<p>Go back and read those 'horrible' Tulane posts achat. I posted those during the evacuation--days before the sad reality unfolded, a reality made possible by those same social and economic conditions which I happen to know a bit about and which I doubt most Americans know much about. More prescient comments were never posted.</p>

<p>That post was on the parent cafe, btw, a place which once held substantial debate and discussion.*</p>

72

<p>One (male) is currently a designer on major projects. The other (female) used to be the same but now is part-time so is now following a different path.</p>

73

<p>thanks jrpar. That is encouraging news. I would guess your friends are very very talented. I wonder where they ranked themselves when they were in school. </p>

<p>I also wanted to mention that architects are often advised to take double degrees in engineering or business to give them the edge.</p>

<p>This is not necessary. We use professional engineers of all gamuts-- on all of our projects--even the tiny ones. It is fun to collaborate with them. Engineers are very linear thinkers, the brakes on the train, the A to B to C to D type reviews. I am not a linear thinker. I am a A to D to Q to B kind of thinker.</p>

<p>As for business, well...I did two semesters of economics before I decided to use my electives for subjects I love...literature, French, etc.</p>

74

<p>Cheers, I understand where you are coming from. I feel the same way when I see people suggesting that you can major in English or some other subject instead of journalism and then expect to get a job right out of college at a major newspaper. Often, it's suggested that working on the college newspaper gives the same skills that four years of journalism classes. It just doesn't happen that way, except in very rare cases and, as a working journalist, I often find myself getting testy when people suggest that it happens all the time. I enjoyed your posts because it is interesting to hear from someone who is actually working in this field, not just anecdotal comments about friends of friends. Thanks for sharing your insights into what sounds like a very competitive field.</p>

75

<p>Carolyn, I'm not a professional journalist, but both my father and my brother were/are. Both have told me numerous times over the years that they'd prefer to hire English majors over journalism majors, because they can train journalism skills but they can't train vocabulary and a broad range of reading background. With my brother in his 70s and my father dead since 1978, things may have changed. However, I've heard the same argument made many times for a liberal arts education--that is, that learning to think is more important than learning to do.</p>

76

<p>if she's having a hard time with the whole "clique"-ey system , a slightly larger university may work better for her. I go to a school that's about 5200 kids... and because it's large enough that you're always running into people and forgetting their names, people tend to be more understanding and be more interested in meeting new people for a longer period of time.</p>

77

<p>Agree with Rocksolid. My daughter transferred from an LAC to a mid-sized U. At her LAC, she found that the unwritten code required kids to “stay with their clique.” No one from your clique at lunch meant eating alone or skipping a meal. (That’s from a girl’s POV: Clique or no clique, I don’t think any boy would forego lunch!) Although she adored her group of friends there, she found the social structure confining. At her university she is finding far more social fluidity. As Mini recently said, the plural of anecdotes is not evidence (love that one-liner!) but I think my daughter’s first-hand experience is instructive.</p>

78

<p>Dmd, You missed my point. I'm not arguing about journalism programs here, I'm just saying that I understand where Cheers is coming from. She is a professional in the field and is speaking from her own experience. It can be frustrating when you feel your professional experience is being set aside because someone not in the field says "I'm not an XYZ but I know someone who is and they say something different." That's all fine and good, but the person has NOT worked in the field or looked for a job in the field, they are only relating second hand information. Sorry, but I'd rather hear it directly from the horse's mouth, and I'm sure Cheers wouldn't care if a practicing architect disagrees with her opinion or has had a different experience (in fact, someone above did just that). :)</p>

79

<p>I think it is important to distinguish between an undergraduate degree in a 4 +2 program, where the bachelors though a BA is specifically in archtiecture and typically has a very similar amount of architectural classes and studios as the first 4 years does of a B.Arch program and a pure liberal arts BA with a few arch history or general studio classes. Many of the programs in that used to offer B. Arch's have shifted to B.A.Arch or B.S.Arch followed by the M.Arch.</p>

<p>I have copied below the ACSA (Association of Collegiate Schools of Archtiecture) description of both the 4+2 and the track 2 M.Arch. You can see they describe very diffferent situations. I agree with Cheers that the M.Arch without a focused undergraduate curriuclum is extremely difficult and leads to architects less prepared for the practive of architecture, though perhaps more prepared for some of the associated roles that would be served by their liberal arts background. Also note the time involved in the track 2 M.Arch.</p>

<p>The pre-professional degree plus professional master's degree is the other predominant route to obtaining a professional architecture degree. This route normally requires six years to complete, followed by a three-year internship. The flexibility in the program is readily apparent. At the end of four years the student has a college degree and may decide to continue in architecture and get the professional master's degree, spend a year or two working for an architect, or change disciplines and pursue study in other design-related fields. Or the graduate may decide at this point to shift careers completely and/or seek an advanced degree outside the design field.</p>

<p>"Pre-professional programs are not professionally accredited and vary widely with respect to title, emphasis, electives, requirements, and specific architecture offerings. They are, however, preparatory for advanced architectural or other environmental design fields. The four-year pre-professional program may be subdivided into two phases, usually of two years each. The pre-architecture program may have only basic introductory courses in architecture with the majority of the course work focusing on the arts, humanities, and sciences. The typical program, like the subdivided five-year professional programs, offers a highly flexible program that matches individual levels of achievement by providing a general education in the early years. While this may frustrate many who want to immerse themselves quickly in architecture, it does provide time for experiencing a wider range of subjects, allowing the maturing student a better opportunity to make career choices. Ideally, the extra courses in the humanities and social sciences will give students a broader background from which to start their professional education.</p>

<p>For those who ultimately receive advanced degrees in design areas other than architecture-or in non-architecture subjects (such as business or structural engineering)-the four-year degree may be preferable to the five-year professional program in minimizing course work and time. One other advantage of a four-plus-two program is the potential for earning the professional degree at an institution other than where the undergraduate work was completed.</p>

<p>The graduate degree component of the four-plus-two path is the professional NAAB- or CACB-accredited degree. This degree is most appropriate for students who have a four-year, pre-professional undergraduate degree in architecture. The course of study generally takes two years; however, at some schools, up to three years is required. These programs are designed to provide the professional education of the student as well as provide an opportunity for independent and creative exploration. It is imperative that the master's degree be accredited if the student wishes to obtain the professional degree and licensure.</p>

<p>The non-architecture degree plus professional master's degree path is the third route available, but is the least travelled option. This route normally requires seven-and-a-half years of study (a four-year undergraduate degree plus a three-and-a-half-year Master of Architecture degree), followed by a three-year internship. This route is usually taken by those who have embarked on a career other than architecture and later decide to study architecture. Many people enter the profession this way; their average age is in the late twenties and their undergraduate backgrounds range across every imaginable discipline. Students entering the profession this way are usually quite mature and serious about their studies. This course of study requires three to four years beyond the undergraduate degree. The immersion into architecture is quick and very intense. Some schools provide all of the education at the graduate level, while others will admit degree holders into their professional master's program with "deficiencies." This means that preparatory undergraduate course work must first be successfully completed before formal admittance to the graduate program. Like the two-year Master of Architecture degree, however, the three-and-a-half year M Arch may be a fully NAAB- or CACB-accredited professional degree program, and successful graduates have professional education credentials equal to those with a B Arch or other M Arch.</p>

80

<p>So does this mean we are no longer talking about the freshmen blues :confused:</p>