|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
MARDARCH
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 10
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: Change M.ARCH to D.ARCH |
    |
|
As of 2004, the NAAB (National Architecture Accreditation Board) has adopted a new degree entitled D.ARCH (Doctorate of Architecture). The degree requires a minimum of 120 undergraduate semester hours and a minimum of 90 graduate level (professional study/elective) hours. As you may be aware, the 3.5 year M.ARCH track requires well over 90 graduate level credits (107-112 depending on when/where the student entered) in addition to the 120+/-undergraduate credits required prior to entering the program, thus qualifying the title of M.ARCH to be changed to D.ARCH. Most 3.5 year students end up with a minimum of 7.5 years of education and roughly 220 to 250 total credit hours of study. As a comparison, typical PhD programs average between 72 and 90 graduate credit hours and most traditional masters’ programs average between 30 and 45 graduate credit hours. The 3.5 M.ARCH degree has been severely deflated in status due to a matter of semantics.
Although the M.ARCH has traditionally been the terminal degree in architecture, those outside the architectural arena are often unaware of this structure and view it as inferior to a PhD...most are perplexed at the meaning of a "terminal masters". This is often evident when M.ARCH graduates attempt to teach courses or conduct research in a cross disciplinary manner in related fields such as graphic design, media studies, interior design, environmental design, environmental science, landscape design or sustainable design. These concentrations are often offered in programs outside architecture, but M.ARCH graduates will be viewed as substandard to candidates that carry a “Doctorate” title. As mentioned above, 3.5 year students invest the same – if not more - time, money and energy than most PhD track students in other fields. The M.ARCH thesis is actually more equivalent to a typical PhD dissertation, being that it generally requires three oral defenses, a physical design component, and a written dissertation of the project’s theoretical/conceptual ground and research pedagogy. It should also be noted that M.ARCH salaries are also subsequently under-compensated and are lumped in an income range that is too low to pay back the 7.5 year investment.
According to the NAAB, it is up to the individual institutions to decide on the title changes. I would strongly encourage all former 3.5 year students and universities offering 3.5 year programs to support the title promotion from M.ARCH to D.ARCH both for current 3.5 tract students and retroactively for former 3.5 year graduates. As a precedent, it should be noted that Law programs upgraded their degree nomenclature from the LL.B/LL.M system to the Juris Doctor system in the first half of the 20th century. The doctoral distinction is a necessary component for 3.5 year students to be adequately compensated financially and to obtain the proper stature in their desired career path. Those interested should see the online petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mtodarch/petition.html. Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AP
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 580
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What is the NAAB? Over which "N" does it have jurisdiction? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MARDARCH
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
the NAAB is the National Architecture Accreditation Board...It is a US agency authorized to accredit professional degrees in architecture....as far as changing titles, they can only provide "guidelines"...it is up to the individual academic institutions to make the title changes and/or create new degrees. The NAAB guidelines are really just fuel added to the fire....I would be fighting for the upgrade even if they didn't release D.ARCH minimum requirements (which all 3.5 year M.ARCH students already have). So even if you are outside the US and believe in this, I would encourage you to pursue it and/or sign the petition...it is indeed an international debate. Thanks.
mar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| credential inflation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AP
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 580
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not if it's legitimate... You can do an architectural PhD in the UK, but it's regarded as a career-ender - in that no practice will touch you afterwards. And there's obviously no funding for such things, unless you do something technical/product related. Architecture as a rule is just underpaid at every level:
Generic graduate job with a BSc Architecture - salary approx £18-25k
Generic job in architecture with same Pt-1 degree - - approx £17k
and the gap only widens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
its unjustified... you can't just compare credits to credits without knowing what those credits are for and what they prepare you for in the professional world
a surgeon with a phd straight out of school will likely be able to complete a surgery with a high level of success
an architect with a MArch straight out of school is not likely to be able to complete a building with the same level of success |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AP
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 580
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That is for one very simple reason, perhaps; Architectural training is more akin to art history than it is practical - it's wholly theoretical, even in the generation of portfolio. Medical students study the human body in immense detail, practice their skills over and over. Every building is very different, architects only ever learn a few principles, and the schools spend their time instead debating whether the building should be red or blue. Architecture schools never have their students design a complete building, because that would be a monstrous amount of work. And team undertakings are frowned upon at higher degree level, because you place your grades in others' hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so admittedly architecture is very very different from being a doctor or a lawyer....
so why then should we pursue diploma-parity with them? why should we even care?
you need to be a doctor to be a doctor you need to have a JD degree to be a lawyer... architects need a BArch or MArch to be an architect... the people who are going to be signing your checks probably have the same degree as you, such as your boss, or they work with lots of people who have the same degree as you, such as a client....
so changing the name of that degree will have absolutely no effect on how you are respected or compensated b/c everyone in your 'professional sphere' will know exactly what kind of educational background you are supposed to have and that it used to be called an MArch....
read my post in this thread in the 'architecture forum' for my entire point... which can be distilled down to-
architects need people to know they are needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keyserni
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 136
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of my tutors has a PhD in Architecture she's only 29 and as a lecturer makes £40k+ a year which isn't bad! She hasn't even bothered with part 3 considering if she went into practise she'd never make that kind of money. Another of my lecturers who is much older also holds a PhD and practises. I know that the qualifications of the staff are a consideration when research grades are being awarded.
On the subject of M.ARCH-D.ARCH I wouldn't support it simply because Docter of Architecture is a pretigious title and shows a commitment to research. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkular
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 20
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Architorture wrote: |
so changing the name of that degree will have absolutely no effect on how you are respected or compensated b/c everyone in your 'professional sphere' will know exactly what kind of educational background you are supposed to have and that it used to be called an MArch.... |
Changing the title of the degree is in reaction to interdisciplinary struggles, not the relationships within the 'professional sphere.' People working and studying in the field of architecture recognize that an MArch is as far as most go and can appreciate the amount of work required to attain this status. As has been suggested, the problem occurs when architects move into other fields or work with experts in other fields. People who are not informed as to the nature of the architectural education program will have a tendency to look at the degree alone. First impressions are what matter. Respect and compensation should stem solely from one's abilities, but sadly sometimes these are not the only deciding factors.
_________________
"The renaissance was the setting sun all Europe mistook for the dawn." -Victor Hugo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AP
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 580
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Architorture wrote: | so admittedly architecture is very very different from being a doctor or a lawyer....
so why then should we pursue diploma-parity with them? why should we even care? |
As Monkular says. It would be both arrogant and wrong to presume that all, or even the majority, of students who start an architecture course, will ever call themselves Architect. With drop-out rates during and after two degrees, long before any professional exams, it's well under 50% ever become Architect based on my experience at least.
Ergo the majority need their degrees to be accurately described for use in getting work in the real world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AP wrote: | | Architorture wrote: | so admittedly architecture is very very different from being a doctor or a lawyer....
so why then should we pursue diploma-parity with them? why should we even care? |
As Monkular says. It would be both arrogant and wrong to presume that all, or even the majority, of students who start an architecture course, will ever call themselves Architect. With drop-out rates during and after two degrees, long before any professional exams, it's well under 50% ever become Architect based on my experience at least.
Ergo the majority need their degrees to be accurately described for use in getting work in the real world. |
so you believe that all of those who leave the field of architecture find themselves competing in fields where others are holding doctorate level degrees?
when i think of fields that an architecture degree would prepare one for professionally i really can't think of many that you would likely be at an entry level position and require a doctorate level degree...
i'm sorry but professionally...in the real world... i don't see any justification for this change... this is absolutely just a change that would MAYBE have some effect in academia and that is it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AP
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 580
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Architorture wrote: | | so you believe that all of those who leave the field of architecture find themselves competing in fields where others are holding doctorate level degrees? |
Not likely, no (though a few may). But its entirely possible that the would-have-been architect will have two degrees under their belt, when the competition only has one. And in that case surely it stands as logical that they ought to be able to demonstrate on their CV that they are the higher qualified candidate.
| Architorture wrote: | | when i think of fields that an architecture degree would prepare one for professionally i really can't think of many that you would likely be at an entry level position and require a doctorate level degree... |
Its not about requirements, its about making peoples qualifications comparable. If you switch after 5-6 years, you want to be able to prove you've got a "higher" degree, not 2 basic undergrad ones.
And the point is that I'm talking about fields that the architecture degree does NOT prepare one for professionally (i.e. anything not architecture/planning/construction) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keyserni
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 136
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Architecture is a special case. In America at least if you hold a M.ARCH it is a graduate degree isnt it? Unlike here where part 1 and part 2 degrees are undergraduate. If think he is referring to America. I believe for this reason my schools new part 2 will be conferred as an actual Masters but still only be undergraduate in nature simply to highlight the fact to employers that it will be our second degree and a higher qualification than the first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AP wrote: |
Not likely, no (though a few may). But its entirely possible that the would-have-been architect will have two degrees under their belt, when the competition only has one. And in that case surely it stands as logical that they ought to be able to demonstrate on their CV that they are the higher qualified candidate.
|
but i really don't think that requires a change in the nomenclature... in the US at least, you can clearly list that you have a degree in say "11th century spanish monastic literature" and also a "masters of architecture" degree... the is no question that you have 2 degrees... often times from different institutions...
| Quote: |
Its not about requirements, its about making peoples qualifications comparable. If you switch after 5-6 years, you want to be able to prove you've got a "higher" degree, not 2 basic undergrad ones.
And the point is that I'm talking about fields that the architecture degree does NOT prepare one for professionally (i.e. anything not architecture/planning/construction) |
i see a M Arch to be about the same as a MBA in terms of what it qualifies you to do professionally and the content it includes... regardless of credit hours or any of that other stuff earlier...
no one, in the US granted, will mistaken a degree with the word 'masters' before it as being an undergraduate degree... even though PROFESSIONALLY- within architecture it is no more qualified than a 5 year undergrad degree....
now the last part about being entirely outside the field of architecture and its immediate relatives seems a little odd.... why would giving a degree a different name help when you are in an entirely unrelated field? at that point i would think you had better have some good experience or other qualifications to be competitive...
if i run a mining company and i have 2 resumes in front of me... one from a guy with an undergrad degree in mineral science and another from a guy with a doctorate in architecture and undergrad in 11th century spanish monastic literature.... i'm probably still going to hire the guy with the mineral science degree...unless that architect has some kind of experience or other qualification other than 'doctorate' in front of his degree title...
i know its an obtuse example... but do you get what i'm saying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
