<p>I have 6 days and I can't decide where to go!!!!!! I have visited both schools and love them both. Any advice??</p>
<p>How sure are you about architecture-- if you are incredibly sure go to USC(great connections- but huge amount of work-(when I visited students looked like they had gone for days without any sleep and when I asked it turned out that was the case) </p>
<p>Berkeley would also be good.</p>
<p>Do you want a B.Arch, or a pre-professional degree?</p>
<p>^ sorry to bomb this thread,</p>
<p>but which is better?</p>
<p>a B.arch or a B.A?</p>
<p>as a transfer applicant, i got into ucla architectural studies which is a B.A</p>
<p>It's really about what is better <em>for you</em>. A B.Arch gets you a quicker path to licensure, more studios, and a generally more serious and intense architectural education, and you won't need a masters degree after unless you want to teach. A B.A. gets you.... a good foundation on which to apply to grad school, because it doesn't meet licensure requirements in most states, so you'll need to get an M.Arch afterwards. The quality of a B.A. program varies widely from school to school. In general, a B.Arch is an intense education which prepares one for a career in architecture. A B.A. allows them to explore other areas a bit more, and figure out whether architecture is really what they want to do before pursuing their professional M.Arch.</p>
<p>UCLA's B.A. program is fairly new, and I'm not familiar with it. Look at how many studios you have to take, how much art or architectural history, etc, and how much interaction it has with the graduate program there, because UCLA's M.Arch program is very well-respected.</p>
<p>Larationalist or anyone:</p>
<p>Im kind of on the fence right now with continuing in the profession because like someone said, most people drop because they realize the paycheck isn't going to cut it in their life. I am in that position and can't decide what to do. I still love doing it, but realizing that it's hard to reach a 100k out of school is really a disappointment for me. So i assume a B.A would be a good choice for me since im in a position where i need to explore more? Maybe it's just the curriculum in my city college that discourages me, i don't feel very passionate anymore(its on and off, sometimes when i see an architects work that i like a lot it ignites me to do it). I was thinking of doing a double major but haven't decided what major to pursue just in case i decide that arch is not right for me. Somewhere along the lines of engineering or bio(seems impractical), suggestions?</p>
<p>here is a curriculum of the program study
<a href="http://www.aud.ucla.edu/undergradstudyprogram.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.aud.ucla.edu/undergradstudyprogram.pdf</a></p>
<p>and this is their website:
<a href="http://www.aud.ucla.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.aud.ucla.edu/</a></p>
<p>any inputs?</p>
<p>I'm skeptical of a program that doesn't let you take a studio until fourth year. But then again, you're pretty skeptical about architecture, so there ya go. I would honestly question why you are thinking of staying in architecture. You're not enthusiastic about it, and if your goal is 100k/year, you're not going to get there for around 20 years (min. 4 more years, 2 in BA, 2 in MArch of education, + around 15 in practice). Maybe a little sooner if you're a real star, but you sure won't be earning money like that right out of school. I would definitely say that a B.Arch is not for you, though, as there's some serious doubt about your future in architecture. However, UCLA is a good university, and if you're in-state I would probably accept the transfer and if you end up switching majors once you got there, then no biggie.</p>
<p>skeptical of no studio till 4th year, why?</p>
<p>i still want to practice architecture, but the pay is crap thus why i might want to double major. when i first entered city college, i was very enthusiastic about it, put a lot of time into it but recently when I went up higher into the design course, I wasn't fascinated about it. Maybe because i was doing urban planning stuff and not the residential stuff that I enjoy doing the most. Who knows, maybe going to ucb/ucla will give me the passion to do it again. If not, I could always switch but it's hard to let go of something that I liked since senior year of high school. I wanted to do something fun and yet get paid well so I thought architecture was going to be it for me. But time went and I realized that the pay was not going to be sufficient enough to satisfy me. If i was going to double major, what would best compliment with architecture?
are there any architects today that have a double major?</p>
<p>also, what would be the pay be after school? do all architects really need to go through at least 20+ years to earn a 100k/year? were talking about becoming a principle of the firm right? what is a best case scenario for a student to earn around 70-80k, possible?</p>
<p>"skeptical of no studio till 4th year, why?"
Because other programs have you start studio courses much earlier than that. B.Archers start studio first year, first semester. Many B.A.'s start studio in the second year, the vast majority by the beginning of the third year. This program doesn't have you taking many studio courses at all, and studio is what builds your strength as a designer.</p>
<p>"are there any architects today that have a double major?" Sure, people double major. It's hard as hell, and it doesn't really get you anything in the architecture world. What is it you expect to do with a double major, anyway? If you do it, you can either go into architecture, or into the other field. Very, very few people do both. The most successful double career combos I've seen have been architecture+product design or architecture+interior design. Other double majors (arch + engineering, etc.) is just not related enough to create a both/and situation and limits you to an either/or situation.</p>
<p>The pay after school starts around $40-50k in major cities, less in smaller cities. It doesn't go upwards from there at more than inflation pace until you get your license, at which point it jumps by 10k or so. Yeah, 100k/year would be the owner of a successful firm or a design director at a very large practice. 70-80k would be a licensed architect with a good number of years experience under their belt. You didn't mean you want to make 70k right out of school, right? Because that would be absolutely ridiculous. When you get out of school, you are of very little value to your office- you don't know code, you don't know practice, you don't bring work into the office, and you are generally not a very efficient employee yet because you'll make mistakes while you learn, and being unlicensed you take on zero liability. </p>
<p>If money is really this important to you, maybe you should look into real estate development. You would get to help hire architects and direct things programatically and make a lot more money than the person actually designing the building.</p>
<p>Emily--pull up the faculty lists for both schools. Which school has the most diverse faculty? </p>
<p>Pull up the 2005/2006/2007 lecture series. Which school brings in the best lecturers?</p>
<p>Email both schools and ask them to send you a list of their 'famous' graduates--then just for kicks ask them to send you a list of the 'famous' female grads.</p>
<p>"also, what would be the pay be after school? do all architects really need to go through at least 20+ years to earn a 100k/year? were talking about becoming a principle of the firm right? what is a best case scenario for a student to earn around 70-80k, possible?"</p>
<p>vyan, if you want to do architecture, you have to do it out of passion. those who make at least 100k a year def did it because they loved architecture. there are ways to earn a lot of money in the field but it is much easier by doing business..so passion should be what fuels you </p>
<p>if money is a big concern, even 5 grueling years of architecture will make you wonder why you weren't one of those business kids who come out of school making twice as much more and still have all that free time. </p>
<p>on the otherhand, there are ways to earn a lot of money...but that usually comes if you're a principal..which takes at least on average...7 years of experience..and years to build your client network. </p>
<p>also, i don't know of ANY graduate coming out of school earning 100k in ANY field...except for ibanking.</p>
<p>finally, most of the architects i know do OK. they're not millionaires but they get by. your first and second year after graduating might be a little tough because school doesn't train you a lot of the things you need to know in the real world so you aren't as useful until you learn these things.</p>
<p>sashimi, larationalist, anyone-</p>
<p>so what fields related to construction, design, buildings, etc gets you the most pay? how much are we talking about for real estate development( is this like construction management) out of school?</p>
<p>what about combos such as landscape/architecture or structural engineer/architecture? has anyone tried those before or is it near death to even try? I don't know what I'm doing and what I want. Im confused in what I want because i want to do this and be this without letting go architecture haha.</p>
<p>what about pharmacist? they earn near 100k coming out of school, right? (even though pharmacy earns alot of money, I cant bare to sit behind a counter. I rather be behind a drafting table designing a beach house or something.
Theres a lot of jobs that gives better pay than architects, but a lot of them aren't exciting and fun. I need excitement, risk, leadership, creativity, design, or w.e. </p>
<p>i will look into real estate development and see how rigorous the study is, and if its not too shabby, i wouldn't mind doubling it up in that. any other architect related fields gives you good pay after schooling? is there a link for incomes of all sorts of jobs? i remeber seeing one, but forgot where it was placed.</p>
<p>i appreciate the wise feedback because I need to prepare myself</p>