<p>What I noticed is that graduates with Barch’s make less than March’s. Significantly less at the start. Is this only initially or will they always do better financially in general? A lot of info on this board indicates that the degrees are equivalent unless you want to teach. Of course both qualify you for licensure. Also, that even a Barch can be more desireable in some cases because of the increased studio time = experience. An informal survey of Boston area firms indicates that most partners and principals have more than one degree. Is it really better to have a March 1 or 2 in the long run? Why are so many Barch’s being phased out?</p>
<p>I have the full article though I have not read it, however the excerpt is interesting. In our firm we have not paid more for an MAch than a BArch, though we do pay less for a BS in Arch. Once people join the firm promotion and salary are based on performance not past education. Three out of our eight principals only have a BS in Arch. I wonder if some of the differences are attributable to the quality of schools that offer BArch vs. MArch, particularly on the East coast? In the SW some of the best programs (UT Austin and Rice) still offer a BArch, and I would pay more for a UT grad with a BArch than an OU grad with an MArch.</p>
<p>Rick12: do you think it is possible that they included the pay of BS in Arch in with the BArch figures? That could explain some (most) of the difference.</p>
I would think typical MArch grads are older, have more years and coursework in higher ed, and possibly more work experience that a typical BArch grad, and would think that might play in determining starting salaries in some firms…</p>