speciallee

I'm a junior in high school looking for some guidance, lol.
One architect I met with told me that his firm only hires people with their masters so I kinda got scared into researching it.

A few questions:

1) Is BArch more intense?
2) Will getting the BS/BA+MArch help me get a better job?
3) Do you learn all the things from BArch while getting the MArch or is it all spread through out the years studying for my BS/BA+MArch? (I don't think I worded that right.....)
3) Should I just forget about getting MArchII? I know you get that after getting BArch, but it seems like a lot of work to me. Time & money don't grow out of trees you know. (;
4) Does it vary by school how many years it takes to complete the MArch?

And I am SURE I want to pursue architecture in my future. So this is NOT about "if your not sure, then go with the 4+2 degree".

Any other info regarding this would be great

so_ein_quatsch

1) Consider that the average age of an March candidate is ~27. So in a sense, the architecture school will invariably expect more from you (as well as expect you to bring in what you've learned from your BA/BS education [haha BS education]). So while theoretically you'll be learning the same skills that one would at a BArch school, the March school will have higher expectations in terms of research skills, maturity etc.
3) It depends on what you get your BS/BA education. If you end up taking studio courses or majoring in arch studies, they you can try to get advanced placement at the MArch. In that sense, yes you'll be "spreading out" your arch education. However, if you don't apply for advanced placement, then yes, you should be learning all the things that a BArch student would (minus the small discrepancies mentioned in answer #1)
4) Well, if you want to do research or plan on teaching arch, then go ahead and get an MArch2
5) Yes

momrath

special, My son recently graduated with a BA in art studio and art history. He is currently working for an architecture firm in their marketing department and plans to apply to a MArch program next year.

My observations based his experience, kids and parents who write on this board and architects and would-be architects that we know is that you can achieve success -- both personal and financial -- by either route. The major differences are 1) Cost 2) Speed and 3) Undergraduate experience.

My opinion on your questions
1) Don't know about the intensity but the experience will be quite different. If you go for BArch you will be living and breathing architecture 24/7 from day one. If you go for a liberal arts degree you will take a wider variety of courses.

2) Not necessarily. There seem to be quite a few successful architects in the world with BArch's period. Having said that (and again, this is just my observation) architecture seems to me to be a field that uses ALL your communication skills -- visual, oral, written -- and requires extensive analytical ability and historical references. I wouldn't say that a liberal arts degree is the only way to acquire these skill sets but maturity and exposure can't hurt.

3) Cross that bridge when you come to it. You don't have to do it all consecutively. You can work for a while then go back for an advanced degree or a specialty degree.

4) Variable but some of the best known MArch programs are 3.0 to 3.5 years.

Fallinwater0328

architecture 24/7 is not a myth, some of architecture students are so obsessed with architecture that they would rather sacrifice other aspects of their lives to perfect their masterpieces. That will inevitably destroy their immune system as flu is always an unwelcoming guest in my dorm.

speciallee

Thanks everyone for your responses

laurstar07

a BArch is more intense because they are cramming the 4+2 into 5 years. if you really really want architecture, a BArch is the way to go. you graduate with a professional degree with no need to go back to school. you end up having significantly more studio hours in 5 years than with a BA/BS, and firms value that. if you get a BArch, you can choose to go onto your MArch II (you can only get an MArch II with a BArch degree, otherwise you just get your MArch I) but you technically dont have to becuase you already have a degree that fully prepares you for the licensing exam

so_ein_quatsch

Hey laur, but if your BA didn't relate to architecture, then in a sense an March is more intense, as you'd be cramming 5 years into 2 (just going by your logic haha)

soozievt

^^^Just so you know, a lot of the MArch I programs are not truly two years. My D applied to 10 of them. All were either three years or three and a half years, following her BA (which is in Architectural Studies). She is entering one in the fall and it is for 3.5 years.

so_ein_quatsch

Yep, not many students, even if admitted with AP, take the advanced placement route.

neumes

Just a small anecdote. My H and I met in architecture school, both as "provisional" grad students, he having a BA in environmental science from an Ivy, and me with a BA in English, Art Minor from a tiny liberal arts college. It took us each 3 years to get a Master's--It's probably a 3.5 year degree now (ours was pre-CAD).

He's still an architect (I write about design). In the firm he's been with (in various iterations) for the last 20 years, the young kids in the office--many graduates with BArchs but increasingly people with M Archs--pinned up a list of "What N Knows"--just for fun, really, but because he seems to know the answer to lots of things, having had a background in liberal arts--studied history, literature, sociology, biology, not necessarily in depth but enough to be conversant and to draw upon in design. And he's never been sorry he didn't get a B.Arch.

Bachelor of Architecture degrees aren't for everyone. I'd say, if you "have" to get a Master's degree (it will be a blast, believe me), go for a Bachelor of Arts and get lots of history, psychology, literature--whatever! Keep a portfolio going. That said, my kid is going for a Bachelor of Music. Oh well....

speciallee

Nice anecdote.

Other than the obvious reason (the title), what is the difference between BS and BA? What different/same things do you study?

I'm not a fan of english and history... however art and math I like. What would you recomend?

so_ein_quatsch

A BS tends to be geared towards the natural sciences and possibly the soc. sciences, the BS towards humanities. But it really depends on the university.
And none of us can recommend any given topic. It's up to you to explore and find what you're interested in.

rick12

If you want to teach, then a MArch is a clear advantage over a BArch. However for our practice when we hire someone out of school it doesn't really matter to us. The quality of the individual and their portfolio is much more important than whether they have a BArch or MArch. I think Momrath has it pegged; how focused do you want to be on architecture during your undergraduate years? I have a BS in Arch and I had a year of general studies and then three intense years of studio. A BArch is five intense years of studio, but then you are done.

We have two principals in our office with just four year BS Arch degrees, and they are outstanding architects. They graduated when you could still get registered with a four year degree. You can't do that anymore.

rick

sunsetsam

Dang those guys are lucky.

speciallee, one thing you should ask your self is, do you like the academia atmosphere? I personally hate it, I have the "good will hunting" mentality where you can get a Harvard education for a buck fifty of late fees at the library, and listening to lectures of renowned architects. The point is, how much time do you want to spend in school compared to work experience?

msheft

rick12: My son is a junior in HS and wants to be an architect. We live in the Chicago area. In Illinois, you can still get registered with a 4-year BS Arch degree. As of Jan 1, 2014 that will no longer be the case. a BArch will be required. The state finally got around to changing it put it in many years into the future.