This is from Hobart College FAQ #5 which I believe may help you decide which path to take:
http://www.hws.edu/academics/architecture/pdf/prospectives_faq.pdf
- WHY SHOULD I STUDY ARCHITECTURE IN A 4-YEAR PRE-PROFESSIONAL
NONACCREDITEDLIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE AS OPPOSED TO A 5-YEAR PROFESSIONAL
ACCREDITED PROGRAM IN A UNIVERSITY?
Because you will have more options when you graduate and you will have gotten the kind of well- rounded education that is valued by the profession.
AND
Because the architecture profession rewards architects who have done their professional training at
the graduate level in and M.Arch. program. You will be better paid and have more career
opportunities. The 5 year B.Arch. degree is less valuable and has far less career advancement
possibilities than the M. Arch. B.Arch. graduates tend to be hired in lower-level drafting positions,
while M. Arch. graduates tend to be hired for upper-level design and management positions. If you
only want to work for an architect, get the B.Arch. If you really want to be an architect, you’ll need the
M. Arch. degree.
AND
Every architect who wants to be a leader in the profession needs to have a Masters degree, so if you
get a 5 year B.Arch, you will still have to go to graduate school to be highly competitive in the working
world. A 5 year B.Arch. degree might appear to be a faster track to becoming an architect than a 4
year B. A. degree at HWS followed by 3 years in an graduate M. Arch. program. However, since many
B.Arch graduates find their career advancement limited, they are forced to go back to school for an
additional 2 year graduate M. Arch. degree. Thus, the apparent time advantage vanishes!
AND
Your classes will be small. You will receive personal guidance from real architects in making decisions
about your career and schooling.
AND
You will have more time for extracurricular activities. In a 5-year professional program, you will do
nothing but study architecture and spend all your time with architecture students, living a very
vocational and narrow college experience.
The bottom line: Do you want to be 22 years old and only be able to be an architect or do
you want to be 22 years old and have career options that include architecture, landscape
architecture, city planning, interior design, industrial design, historic preservation and many other
fields?
There are many 5 year schools that have decided to grant M.Arch degrees straight in 5 years. No B.Arch’s. Not that this is important. The school my daughter is pursuing an M.Arch after a BA Arch is a 5 year M.Arch and it does present some entertaining issues with advanced placement, lack thereof, and so on.
The fastest track to an M.Arch is a 5 year straight M.Arch, but that can get insane after a while. 10 semesters of studio in a row? Let’s think this over :). A 4+2 helps keep you a bit more sane, and may help with the GPA a bit as you’re taking fewer classes (or so the thought goes). A 4+2 in the same school is your best bet.
On the other hand, the possibilities of a 4+2 is where it’s at. 4 years in one school that may focus more on history and theory, and 2 more (or 3, who knows) in a school that is more nuts & bolts.
Unfortunately there are a few great 5-year schools that simply don’t offer an M.Arch. This does not help those who would really like to study there but there’s no post-baccalaureate program… A few schools in the south, you know who you are :), great college sports, and great B.Arch…
I also should emphasize once again the advanced placement free-for-all in a 4+2 at different schools. Not to mention the fun of applying for the M.Arch with GRE, another portfolio, and spending days upon days on SlideRoom :).
Per Tulane their 5 year M.Arch is an undergraduate degree. See http://architecture.tulane.edu/programs/degrees
“M.Arch., Professional Degree: 5 Years, NAAB Accredited, This undergraduate baccalaureate program…”
Also see University of Kansas per NAAB: “M. Arch (Non-design baccalaureate degree plus 118 graduate credit hours)”
http://naab.org/r/schools/view.aspx?record_id=20576
This says that a 5 year M.Arch is the same thing as a 5 year B.Arch - they are both undergraduate baccalaureate degrees.
Also, I found it quite alarming that students with 5 year B.Arch/M.Arch enrolled in Yale’s 2-3 year Masters of Architecture program. That’s crazy! I mean that is 7-8 years of college (5 year B.Arch + 2-3 year Masters in Arch) or 14-16 studios vs. 6 years (4 years BA/BS in Arch + 2 Masters in Arch) which is the standard per NAAB (12 studios). Thats very costly not only in money but in time too. I would think you’d get totally burned out after 14-16 studios!
Here are the students enrolled at Yale: http://architecture.yale.edu/people/enrolled-students#MArch II Second. There are quite a few B.Arch and some M.Arch students.
Personally the way to get an Architecture masters degree today is way too confusing and it should definitely be simplified. Many students don’t realize there are so many different paths on how to get a Masters in Archtecture. The fastest and cost effective path seems to be 4+2 (BA/BS in Arch + Masters in Arch) or if you can find it a 5+1 (B.Arch/Masters in Arch.). Its hard to find the 1 year Masters program. In fact, Rice just recently dropped their 1 year Masters in Arch. program.
Yale’s M.Arch is a pretty large program, so they attract lots of people in general. Don’t know if it’s anything like Harvard’s where from what I have read/heard your admission chances with a BS/BA Arch into the 2 year MArch program are a lot lower than into their 3.0/3.5 year MArch program for people without pre-professional degrees. So with a BA/BS Arch or even BArch might as well eat the extra year and apply.
The 5 year degrees are interesting. The granting of M.Arch vs B.Arch is pure choice, at the end it’s a professional degree, I don’t think anyone will think that a 4+2 MArch is “better” than a 5 BArch or 5 MArch.
I see schools adding or converting to 4+2 and this will add to the overall confusion but is eventually better for everyone. More options is good.
“… the architecture profession rewards architects who have done their professional training at
the graduate level in and M.Arch. program. You will be better paid and have more career
opportunities. The 5 year B.Arch. degree is less valuable …”
I am probably stating the obvious, but without some real supporting data, I am skeptical of this unsupported assertion given that it’s coming from a college that doesn’t offer a B.Arch.
I’d have to agree that HWS’s conclusion is a bit biased toward what HWS offers. Architecture is a broad industry and there doesn’t seem to be any single path to success that’s more reliable than any of the others. My observation, however, is that many (most?) architects in leadership positions at prestigious firms do have MArchs, even those who completed their BArch first. I don’t think this trend devalues the BArch, but just adds another layer of distinction and prestige to the resume.