<p>This thread is to talk about if the very selective 4+2 MArch programs are a better alternative than the very selective 5 year programs. These 4+2 programs say that it's better their way because their students are forced to go into a general education and really learn if they want to practice architecture. Should all the students in more "mediocre" 5 year programs start studying something else right now and try to get into Yale for their MArch insted?</p>
<p>Well Archie, certainly not all of them! Many of them are doing exactly the right thing where they are. </p>
<p>FWIW, the reason you gave is only one of several advantages of a 4+2 or 4+3 program. For example, many believe that a well-rounded, broadly-educated person is more likely to make a good architect than someone whose training is more immediately technical and focused. Another is the natural interval (btw college and grad sch.) permitting you the flexibility of switching to a new environment to continue and intensify your architectural education. </p>
<p>And finally, I do not discount the freedom it permits people to go off in another direction for grad school (or business, etc) if they have discovered additional, possibly more compelling interests along the way.</p>
<p>hmmm, I'm now wondering if anyone could shed light onto why some of the ivy schools have switched to a 4+2 (assuming at one time they were BArch programs.) Was it because their rentension rates weren't high enough? Seems to me like a 5 year program could allow for more architectural learning than a 2 or 3 year add on, assuming those entering right out of high school are as mature and focused as a graduate student.</p>
<p>From a practitioner’s standpoint, is a March from Harvard considered more prestigious then a Barch from Cornell?</p>
<p>Two questions therein. Is a BArch more or less prestigious than an MArch?</p>
<p>I'd say less. One, obviously, represents more study and a greater investment.</p>
<p>Then, is Harvard more prestigious than Cornell? Most would say so.</p>
<p>BUT: You asked "from a practitioner's standpoint"... do you mean in hiring? Because I'm not sure it would make so much difference to someone hiring; they'd be more interested in the specific individual, as both programs are of excellent quality. </p>
<p>And a few years down the road, no one cares where you went to school :)</p>
<p>Qualifier: this opinion pertains to the East Coast ONLY.</p>
<p>A BArch from Cornell is worth more that a 4 + 3 BA/MArch degree from Harvard--if you want to design architecture. Google your favorite famous architects--the majority have BArchs or BSArchs. Many also have MArchs.</p>
<p>In my experience, those are the guys (and a few gals) who get to design. It is very difficult to get opportunities to be the lead designer on major projects--in a big office or in your own office. It is twenty times as competitive as architecture school. Only the cream of the crop--and the socially and politically savvy --get the chance. In my expereince, most of the 4 + 3s end up in non-design positions or in small scale practices.</p>
<p>If you want to administer projects--or if you want to do interior design--or if you want to teach--or if you want to go into construction or developing--then the 4 + 3 harvard degree may be better.</p>
<p>The Cornell program is outstanding--and you cannot compare 10 semesters of design to 6.</p>
<p>To position yourself as a designer, the most outstanding training is the BArch +1.5 MArch. There will be a number of Cornell BArchs in the Harvard and Yale and Princeton and Columbia programs.</p>
<p>IMOO</p>
<p>I'm tired of the B.Arch vs. M.Arch debate because of people like Marsden ragging on my degree for pretty much no reason, but I would like to weigh in one just one thing pertaining to the 4+2 programs: if you go this route, do NOT stay at the same school for the +2 part of it. Go somewhere new, get new experiences, be with new people, try new things.</p>
<p>From the professional Architects that I've spoken with a BARCH is still the recommended path for those that definitely want to be an architect. The BARCH does not prevent you from getting a graduate degree. It's a quicker way to get your license. Think of it as a combined BA/MD program. Bottom line you can practice with a BARCH (of course once you pass your boards) but not with a BS. You can also get a MS or an MARCH II or even a Ph.D. degree. I know some architects even have an MBA or have an engineering degree. Cheers any thoughts on this???</p>
<p>It should be obvious that for some people, the BARCH is more desirable and appropriate, and for others, the MARCH. However one chooses to get there. Neither is necessarily "better" and I think the choice of school is more important than the particular degree track. Just for the sake of the quality of the education itself. </p>
<p>Larat, I'm sorry to see that you think I was "ragging on your degree". In fact, it's quite impossible since 1) I have no idea what your degree is, and 2) I haven't been ragging on any degrees. Let's try not to make these discussions personal, okay? </p>
<p>I will agree that the BARCH is the quickest, cheapest route to architectural internship and registration. And as I said above about BARCH students, "Many of them are doing exactly the right thing where they are." </p>
<p>This does not change the fact that the most prestigious programs in architectural education have switched to 4+2 / 4+3 programs. I didn't make them change--they did it on their own! And there are a couple exceptions such as Cooper and Cornell. They may never switch, who knows? </p>
<p>Most importantly, I reiterate that after a few years in the profession, no one will care where you went to school. By then it will be a matter of which office(s) you have worked in, and what you have accomplished while there. In fact, by that point it's generally seen as unseemly even to discuss your academic origins. Your career accomplishments and your professionalism, far more than what degree you hold, will govern your subsequent opportunities.</p>
<p>Left out of this debate is the student's choice. My D looked at both 5 and 4+2 programs and choose the 4+2 route because it would allow her to get a broader education first before focusing on the professional side of architecture. She says she wants to enjoy her college years before hitting the grindstone to qualify for licensing. After hearing her reasoning, I found it very mature and reasonable. She also said she definitely wants to change schools and regions for graduate school. </p>
<p>As she refined her choice of schools, she came to realize that architecture is inherently a "social" as well as an educational pursuit. By that I mean it is a program with a high dependance on the feedback and insight of her peers as much as her teachers. In her view, who she works with is as important as what she learns. Thus, she is choosing by "fit" and "feel" over prestige for undergraduate. If her skills and talent are well-developed during her undergraduate study, she feels graduate school will take care of itself.</p>
<p>how useful is a broader education in architecture? from a design perspective, some say it gives you something extra. I'm not sure if I buy that, but being well-rounded as you go through school is going to help you anywhere. I would still say that 5 years of design work, critque, and learning is more valuable than 2 or 3.</p>
<p>It's the Catch 22 archie. You need the BA but you don't have time to earn an actual BA. All the great architects I've met ( about a dozen) seem to have a fantastic knowledge-- of art, art history and literature in particular--yet most did BArchs or BScArchs and MArchs. Some have an amazing knowledge of cutting edge technology.</p>
<p>It appears that lifelong learning is required in Architecture.</p>
<p>Daaaaaad...how perceptive that your daughter has figured out what a big difference peer talent makes. She has it spot on. That said, I have to say the prestigious undergraduate programs draw amazing peer talent. Cooper and Cornell come to mind. Those two schools are one of the reasons I loved having an office in New York. You could stick your hand out the window and grab fantastic talent. Nothing like that in the rest of the country in my experience.</p>
<p>The peer point is also VERY important when considering apprenticeships. Working in highly regarded offices in design oriented cities will put you in an outstanding peer group. It makes a huge difference in your post-grad learning--and your ability to open and operate a successful design office of your own. So says me anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All the great architects I've met ( about a dozen) seem to have a fantastic knowledge-- of art, art history and literature in particular--yet most did BArchs or BScArchs and MArchs.
[/quote]
Agreed... and btw that route can be a way to get both 5-6-7 years of arch'l training and a liberal-arts education as well. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The peer point is also VERY important when considering apprenticeships. Working in highly regarded offices in design oriented cities will put you in an outstanding peer group. It makes a huge difference in your post-grad learning--and your ability to open and operate a successful design office of your own. So says me anyway.
[/quote]
Also agreed. Work for a design firm as long as your finances allow ;)</p>
<p>cornell has a ton of courses for you to take outside of architecture, not to mention its vast resources. Last semester, I was able to fit psychology and economics into my B.Arch curriculum. 25% of the courses you take are outside of architecture in the B.Arch curriculum, so it's not like you're completely left out of the liberal arts education. cooper is a different story</p>
<p>Actually, I believe architects who want to design should open their own offices immediately after the three year apprenticeship if possible. The money is better and there is nothing like learning to drive while at the wheel.</p>
<p>Sashimi it's good to hear that about Cornell from a student since my daughter will be going there next year and is planning on taking a lot of science classes. We did look at some 4+2 programs (Univ. of Michigan, Wash U and Maryland).She was accepted at Univ. of Michigan before hearing from Cornell, and had to withdraw the other applications. We did like Michigan's program and it's a great place to be. We also tried to get information from Columbia Univ (undergraduate arch program is at Barnard 4+2), but the Chair of the Department was unavailable and not very helpful. Just a thought are some the schools switching because it may be too intense? Many of the 4+2 programs did not require a portfolio. I also heard that the 4+2 option give students more flexiblity if they want to change their major.</p>
<p>while cornell does offer many outside classes, the curriculum is still very focused on architecture. It is certainly do-able to take other courses but it's not very easy. </p>
<p>i highly doubt cornell will get rid of the B.Arch degree. It is too well respected and has been the backbone of cornell architecture. NAAB also recently lifted its ban on schools starting B.Arch degrees so it's not like schools are being pressured to switch to 4+2.</p>
<p>The B.Arch is still popular because it is the cheapest way to go if your goal is to become an architect.</p>
<p>"NAAB also recently lifted its ban on schools starting B.Arch degrees"</p>
<p>Wow... I never knew one was in place. What was its rationale/history?</p>
<p>There was a push by some members to eliminate the B.Arch, and the NAAB refused to approve new B.Arch programs while they were figuring out whether to phase them out entirely or not. So once they decided not to phase them out, they lifted the ban.</p>