larationalist

most job postings ask for an "accredited degree". Those that ask for a Masters specifically are usually run by people who got an M.Arch I, and they usually don't balk at candidates with "just" a B.Arch.

The only scenerio in which an M.Arch is better than a B.Arch is the M.Arch II, in which the person has a B.Arch already. An M.Arch I is the same and sometimes really a lesser degree program (when the person has no undergrad experience in architecture).

I pulled out the ratio of acceptance for my B.Arch program to show you that M.Arch programs are no more competitive than B.Arch programs are, contrary to your previous statement. Nice to see you understand the context of that one...

And you point seemed to be more about how the M.Arch program is supposedly soooo much better, than about this persons son.

4trees

Last fall at an Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) seminar at USC the five or six educational pathways to becoming a licensed architect in the USA were explained and discussed at length by several of the lecturers. The upshot seemed to be that the differing pathways fit different people and produced different architects, and after all, you wouldn't want all the schools exactly the same, producing carbon copies...

Another point made was the NAAB accredits a school's program as only meeting the minimum standards, above and beyond that each school varies. Rankings were also mentioned and we were told to look closely at who was doing the ranking and who they were asking what questions.

So, it seems to me it should be all about finding a program that is the best "fit" for the student. For many it may well be a school that is tops on some ranking. The original intent of this thread was me trying to dig up some info that my son can run down in his search for the "best" place for him.

Recently my son told me of a question he asked every architect student he spoke with on his tour of colleges. He asked them not only why they choose the school they attended, but also why they declined the schools that they were accepted to. Got some interesting responses.

Thanks

Joix

how times have changed! back in my day the B.Arch was superior to the M.Arch - the M.Arch was for those who who did not not study architecture at the undergraduate level.

But both get you where you are trying to go (becoming a registered architect) which is all that really matters.