<p>Hi, I'm currently deciding between Cornell University and MIT for architecture, and I wanted to know what is generally better in terms of future jobs, overall experience, preparation, etc. Cornell has an accredited five year B.arch professional program, so I could go straight to internships and licencing after that. It's a pretty focused and rigorous program. MIT, on the other hand, is a four year BSA program which requires a two year March program. But it seems like it would give a more well rounded education. If you guys could share any ideas or experiences, that'd be great!</p>
<p>Two good choices! Some points to consider
- Is the money equal? This is a big factor in architecture as the cost of education is high and entry level salaries comparatively low.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don’t know too much about MIT’s BSA, but I’d guess that a Cornell B.Arch would lean more toward design and concept and the MIT undergraduate degree more toward technology and structures. (As MIT noted on their website the BSA is “deep and broad. . .within the context of a leading school of science and technology.”) Of course, you’ll get a balance of design and structure in both programs, but the emphasis will vary.</p></li>
<li><p>My observation (this from a parent, not an architect) is that most architects these days, even those with B.Archs, end up getting M.Archs, usually after gaining some work experience. The B.Arch + M.Arch would probably take a year more than the BS+M.Arch, but I don’t see this as a major factor in the scheme of things. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>My son graduated from Cornell’s M.Arch program, but had quite a bit of interaction with B.Arch students. This is a general statement, but again my impression is that the B.Archs found good jobs (or teaching opportunities if this is what they wanted) but many will get their M.Archs before embarking on the licensing process.</p>
<p>You might ask what MIT BSA graduates end up doing after graduation: where do they work, where do they get their M.Archs?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There’s a big difference between the location and physical environment of these two schools: Urban Cambridge/Boston, Rural Upstate New York, and a big difference in the prevailing campus culture. If you’ve spent some time on each campus, most likely one is more appealing to you than the other. (If you haven’t spent time on both campuses, you should!)</p></li>
<li><p>Both attract well known architects as visiting instructors and critics, and both have good reputations with recruiters at top firms. My son had excellent summer internships facilitated by Cornell. This is important during your undergraduate years as well as after graduation as resume building is a cumulative process. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Cornell’s programs in Rome and New York are also pluses. I’m sure MIT offers comparable opportunities; this is something you should ask about.</p>
<ol>
<li>Frankly, if you’re looking for a “well rounded” undergraduate education, i.e. a balance of architecture to other disciplines, probably neither of these is the best option, but if you’re settled on a career as an architect, both will do well in getting you where you want to go.</li>
</ol>
<p>Professionally there is no difference between an March and a BArch. As a matter of fact several schools, including Tulane and KU, have now started calling their 5 year program an March. For undergraduate architecture I would take Cornell over MIT any day.</p>
<p>rick</p>
@rick12
Is there a difference professionally between an undergraduate 5 year B.Arch/M.Arch verses a BS in Architecture + Masters in Architecture (4+2)?
Thanks.