Re: Top rated schools for Arch. and Civil Engineering?

Well!
It's good to know that California *still* allows for an apprenticeship
in architecture as a means to get a license. At least the academy seems
open to the possibility of practice through experience in practice.

I had understood that the academy had the whole process tied up. This is
news to me.

I am unsure that licensure *really* guarantees quality architects---or
ARCHITECTURE! I wonder when the exam will be boycotted by those in
the field? As a matter of fact, the whole process of "becomming" an
"architect" seems to be *really* demeaning to human beings. Why should
it be so?

- - The original note follows - -

Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Path:
psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla
.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!john
From: john@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Top rated schools for Arch. and Civil Engineering?
Message-ID: <johnCDvK1s.DDF@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: House of Usher
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 20:10:40 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[email protected]> Lester J Manzano
<lm37+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
[ Stuff nixed...]
>architecture programs. If you get a copy of any ranking of architecture
>schools, you'll find that University of California at Berkeley,
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon, and Princeton
>rank among the top four in that order-- Carnegie Mellon being third.

Where, may I ask, can you get any type of valid list ranking
architecture schools?? The above, if I read it correctly, is
simply bullshit. You can obtain a list of accreditation levels
(number of years granted), programs offered, emphasis, make
visits, talk to people, etc...BUT, Lester's statement above
just doesn't make sense.


>But it is important to know about the nature of the program and the type
>of degree offered. UC Berkeley, MIT and Princeton offer a B.S. or a
>B.A. in architecture. This may consist of a broad liberal arts-based
>education after which you CANNOT obtain your license to practice
>architecture. After obtaining a B.S. or a B.A. you must continue with a
>Masters of Architecture (M.Arch.) and obtain this professional degree
>before licensing.
> Meanwhile, such schools as Carnegie Mellon and the University of
>Southern California offer what is called a Bachelor of Architecture
>(B.Arch.). This is usually a five-year program into which a
>professional education is incorporated. After obtaining a B.Arch, you
>may obtain your license (after a period of intership as in all cases).
>This B.Arch. is the first professional degree, and you need not obtain a
>M.Arch. So instead of obtaining a four-year B.S. or B.A. plus a
>three-year M.Arch., your sister can obtain a five-year B.Arch., then
>obtain a license to practice.

Oh, no...more erroneous information. I'm sorta trying to be
nice about this, but I HATE disinformation.
A) One can still become licensed in California (approx.
6th largest economy in the world) without ANY architectural
degree.
B) Many, many M.Arch programs are 2 years. The 4+2 curriculum
is very common.
C) Sometimes, your internship must be longer if you have
a B.Arch. instead of an M.Arch.
D) The laws vary by state for what it takes to get licensed,
including education, exams, and in many cases Intern
Development Program bureaucratic nonsense.
E) You don't necessarily need to get licensed to work in
this field (only a couple of the people in a large
firm stamp the documents).

For people interested in general info about many of the
architecture schools in this country, take a look at:

Guide to Architecture Schools in North America
ed. Richard McCommons 1989
Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Press
ISBN 0-935437-31-2
NA2105.G85 1989
--
Deathrace 2000
Partial thread listing: