entomom

From what I've seen (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), colleges offer either a BA or BS. I've seen more BA's than BS programs. I haven't compared cirriculum closely, but my guess is that the BS programs might have more emphasis and requirements on building/engineering types of courses.

taxguy

Don't forget to add University of Cincinnati.which is more highly ranked than that found in many of the schools noted above. It even has a strong PAID coop program where you will get 1.5 years of experience.

worried_mom

If you plan to be a practicing architect, you must be licensed so you will want to attend a program that is accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) in order to sit for the licensing exam.

On the NAAB website, you can easily look up which of the 117 colleges offering degrees in architecture offer the B.Arch. and which offer the M.Arch. Here’s the link:

http://www.naab.org/cal_cat1724/cal_cat.htm

larationalist

entomom- some offer both, like ASU. And some offer a BS and a BArch, like USC (the BS is pretty new).

MHARCHITECT

I believe the answer is quite simple:

Assuming you do want to become a licensed architect,

A B.Arch or BAR is a 5 year undergraduate course, and should be from an accredited university.

After the B. Arch you can go directly into internship and then the NCARB exams to become a licensed/or registered architect. The total time is usually 8 years plus what it takes to pass the exams.

Or, with a B. Arch you can get an M.Arch, usually in two years. This may lessen the required intern time. This then may take 9 or 10 years plus exam time.

With an undergraduate degree in any other field you usually can then get a M. Arch in three years. This also may take 9 or 10 years plus exam time.

Some schools only offer an M.Arch and others both an M.Arch and a B. Arch.
Some schools require a B.Arch for taking an M.Arch.

Accredited Architecture schools include:

Cornell University (one of the first to allow women)
Harvard (only graduates)
Washington University (St. Louis)
Syracuse
University of Southern California (USC)
Sci-Arc
University of Penn.
Yale
Princeton
Univ. of Calif. Berkeley
UCLA

As you have been advised, check out each school and what each one offers. Keep in mind, Architecture is one of the hardest majors to enter and to stay, particularly as an undergrad in a 5 year program.

entomom

The (only graduates) must be added for several of these schools as their undergrad program is a 4 year BA or BS which is NOT accredited:
WUSTL
Yale
Princeton
Cal
UCLA
Penn??

Also, you a leaving out the 4+2 route with a BA or BS in arch studies plus a MArch.

ps. thanks for the correction larationalist. My D is going to a school with a BS, do you know what makes it different from a BA? I just noticed that WUSTL is another school that offers both BA & BS; and that Rice has a BA and Barch.

soozievt

UPenn is a BA. UPenn also has a MArch.

KandKsmom

Gotta give a shout out for Virginia Tech and its BArch program! It kind of flies under the radar on this forum, but is apparently fairly well regarded (ranked 4th in the nation in accredited BArch programs in 2007 DesignIntelligence rankings). In my opinion, it would be a solid choice for any high schooler looking into architecture as a career.

larationalist

entomom- many large universities have certain requirements associated with a degree being a BS (such as an extra science or math course or two) vs. being a BA (sometimes a language requirement, or an extra writing course), and the difference can sometimes be those sorts of things. Or sometimes a BS will include concentrations such as Construction Management or Technology, while the BA includes concentrations like History & Theory, or Design Studies. This is not the case everywhere however, so a BS program at one university may be just as design-oriented as a BA program at another, since there is no uniform standard for the pre-professional degree.

Edit to add: Design Intelligence is absolute junk. I actually looked through the whole book a few years back when I was at the AIA convention in Vegas, just to see what they thought of my alma mater.... and they didn't even have their FACTS straight! They were ignorant of several programs/degrees offered, and that really killed any respect I had for it, as rankings based off of incomplete information are pretty useless. Additionally, every person looks for something different in an architecture school. Some don't feel confident getting internships on their own, so a co-op might be for them. Some want a more technical leaning program, and they would value programs like Cal Poly SLO instead of a more design-oriented person who would think a program such as Cooper Union was better. Others want the balance an options of a big university setting... I think you get my point by now. Don't rely on rankings. Rely on your own judgement.

rick12

'Design Intelligence is absolute junk'

I have to disagree with you on this. It may not be the ultimate source of facts, and may not be the final say on what the best schools are, but it is a good picture of how the schools are perceived by the most significant practicioners in the country. When you are recruiting at multiple schools over a period of years, you get a pretty good picture of the quality of the graduates. When my D was looking at schools it was just one more data point to consider.

rick

KandKsmom

Most definitely. I would hope that anyone who is looking at schools does not
get too smitten with rankings, be they USNWR, DI, etc. But, as you stated (better than I btw), the schools that show up at the top again and again, year after year in these publications must have to show their worthiness in some way to be listed. In looking at the schools that were listed by DI in years past, most were schools that local architects told my S were terrific choices and had great reputations for job placement and internships. On paper or by mouth the schools have made a name for themselves in this profession.

Tzar

I think DI's ranking system is so incredibly flawed that it is almost worthless as a guide on architecture schools. Unlike USNWR, DI uses a practitioner ranking system as its SOLE means of determining rankings. There are several problems associated with this system. First off, schools that have rather large programs in terms of students will invariably have an edge over other smaller programs that produce less graduates. Cornell, which until two years ago, produced about 80-100 graduates a year- much more than Coopers 19-35. The second obvious problem with the ranking system is that it works on a national scale. This means that schools like Cornell or even Rice with rather largely popular and well heard names will receive high marks based on this condition alone. Whether a firm that is participating in the survey has ever had a graduate or not had a graduate from that school isn’t fundamental in the ranking. Also, because architecture is more a regional practice than a national one, national practitioner surveys have little meaning. Then there is the problem with education. Why does one go to an architecture school? So that they can have a degree which looks good to firms- I think not. An architectural education shouldn’t be ranked on that condition if it is the quality of the program that one is interested in. Finally, in the very fact that DI caters to large firms means that this ranking system is only good if one wants to become a corporate architect- but irrelevant if one wants to do anything more than that. For all of these reasons and probably a few more, DI’s rankings should be discarded almost entirely. It is a shame that no one has taken the time to create a true ranking system that has actual meaning.
(I have a serious problem when there is a fundamental flaw in the system and it is continually, year after year, passed off as "alright".)

Lori1122

just google accredited arch programs

National Architectural Accrediting Board - Architecture Programs

mominva

Senior008,
Catholic University, right in your own backyard, offers a NAAB accredited BArch degree.

larationalist

Tzar, the other big problem that I see is the attempt to separate into rankings of graduate programs and undergraduate programs. Practitioners don't generally separate the two in their heads, and probably aren't giving one score for Cornell B.Archs and another score for Cornell M.Archs (or if they attempt this probably don't do it with a great degree of accuracy), though they may be widely different programs with different caliber graduates. So schools which have one program that is stronger than the other seem like they would suffer overall because the graduates of the weaker program drag down the opinion of the school overall, while the other program may be absolutely stellar.