next »

[mar768]

There should be one professional degree in architecture....D.ARCH.  In fact, those of us with 3.5 M.ARCH degrees already exceed the minimum NAAB requirements for this degree.  The University of Hawaii has replaced their previous tracts with one, first professional D.ARCH...other universities should follow suit.   Currently, those of us with M.ARCH degrees are often viewed as inferior in academia for not having doctorates....even though the M.ARCH is equally intensive in duration and pedagogy as many PhD programs.  The degree should be changed both for current/future students and retroactively for former graduates.  Law programs went through such a change in the first half of the 20th century, upgrading the LLB degrees to JD.  I have started a petition for this change...http://www.petitiononline.com/mtodarch/petition.html.  It is currently just for 3.5 year graduates, but it could eventually effect the other degree tracts as well.   Thank you.

[newbie]

Can you talk a bit more about this? I have a friend who was in a 3 year architecture program for her M. Arch, and I was under no impression that it was the same track as the D. Arch. Why is the 3.5 degree different? How many schools have this kind of program?

Also, I thought that most of the faculty in architecture did NOT have doctorate degrees. Is that changing?

[lowercase]

I beg to differ. I am working on a Ph.D. in architecture, after having been through the professional degree program. They are not even close in terms of the traditional model of doctoral studies with its the emphasis on creative research and writing. A M.Arch thesis not even close to the requirements or work of a dissertation. The M.Arch focuses on professional training, ie., how to be a practicing architect. A Ph.D does not prepare you for a life in an architecture office. In fact, no one would be likely to hire you with a Ph.D.

I would also disagree that someone with a PhD is looked upon more favorably than a M.Arch. In my experience, PhDs in architecture, a relatively new field, are really considered not really architects.

The same issue arises in theatre programs, where a designer with a MFA is more likely to win a job than a designer with a PhD.

[concordancia]

It is academia! Is anybody a real anything?

[mar768]

The problem with the nomenclature is in securing academic positions, not in practice.  The M.ARCH has traditionally been the terminal degree in architecture...in many cases, it is being used BOTH as the professional training degree AND as the research degree.  Within architecture programs, this system is understood.  However, when M.ARCH professors attempt to teach courses cross disciplinary, the degree is viewed as inferior to a PhD.  It should be noted that the D.ARCH would be  (and is) different than the PhD...the D.ARCH is a first professional degree...the PhD is a second professional degree.

Newbie: The University of Hawaii has created the new accredited D.ARCH...it is similar to many school's 4 + 3 (or 3.5) M.ARCH tracts...see their website for specifics.  3+ tracts are usually for those with undergraduate degrees in fields other than architecture...and students ultimately end up with 7-8 years of education, 220+ credits (112+ at the graduate level), $100,000 of debt, but only have a "Master's status"...the D.ARCH would distinguish this degree from the more traditional 45 credit Master's degrees in other programs.  There could even be a practice based D.ARCH and a more research based D.ARCH....some law programs do this...JD for practice, SJD for research.  The PhD could be reserved for more specific interests.   The time, money, energy and knowledge attained for M.ARCH deserves this upgrade.

As far as the M.ARCH thesis not equaling a PhD dissertation....I guess it depends on the degree, the project, and the school...Our program required three oral defenses, the graphical or "physical" design component, and a written dissertation....I worked on this project 20 hours a day, 7 days a week for almost 2 years...I've seen PhD projects in other fields that wouldn't hold a candle to this workload...but that is just my experience. 

[mar768]

I found the following exerpt on "terminal degrees"...courtesy...University of Washington:

"A terminal degree is the generally accepted highest degree in a field of study. While a doctorate is considered the terminal degree in most fields of study, other disciplines may consider different degrees as terminal degrees. Please check with the appropriate school/college or department to verify which degrees they consider to be terminal. "
Typical Terminal Degrees:
•   Ph.D.
•   M.D.
•   D.D.S.
•   D.D.M.
•   D.V.M.
•   J.D.
•   M.F.A.
•   M.Arch

So M.Arch is terminal but called masters?...and the fact that the NAAB has created a D.ARCH now makes M.ARCH look even less terminal.  The titles need to be changed...no question.

[lowercase]

Many credential agencies like to see Ph.Ds on faculty; arch faculty are very wary of , and dislike the Ph.D. This is my experience, anyway. Ph.D. programs in arch are few, and admission is highly selective. Is this the same for the M.Arch and MLA?

Why aren't you asking the same for the MLA ( landscape architecture) and MURP ( urban regional planning)?

And why not replace the MFA with a DFA? ( Yale used to have one.)

No way is the course work, the Intention, and thesis of a M.Arch equal to the work of a Ph.D. program. This is like comparing potatoes and apples. I suggest you enter a Ph.D. program to see the difference or at least talk to some people who are more familiar with the degree programs.

Anyway, with a license and experience, you will have way more luck than a Ph.D. in teaching in an arch school. I discovered this too late!

[mar768]

Yes...I agree...the MFA and MLA should be "D's" as well, but I can only fight so many fights at one time...my hands are full trying to change the M.ARCH.

Comparing degree tracts is not the point here...the comparison I made is only from my general experience...not for ALL of something ALL of the time....I do not deal with definitives.  For example, a colleague of mine recently completed his PhD in Geography...I assisted him in editing his dissertation...and I have to say, my M.ARCH thesis was far more comprehensive than his...but like I said, this is not the point...this is just one of several examples in which I am aware and may or may not apply in other situations.

Besides, the D.Arch is intended to be a richer professional degree more eqivalent in content, pedagogy and nomenclature to the MD or JD, and NOT a research degree on par with a Ph.D.....

So the question is will the "D" help someone with an "M" in an academic setting even though a PhD is still preferred?  I think it will...and it may be nothing more than superficiality...ie, "what's in a title?".  An example would be if a M.ARCH was hired to teach design courses in a program other than architecture....sometimes design related programs/courses are lumped under another program: example: an environmental or landscape design program that is part of a science or agriculture program; or a graphic design program that is under computer science...first, the "terminal" Masters has to convince the search committee...then, it has to convince the students....I can't tell you how many times I have heard, "Oh, he only has a masters"....bottom line, the degree is more than a masters and deserves a title to distinguish it...you cannot argue credit hours....a 3.5 M.ARCH consists of 112 graduate credit hours...other masters are around 45...there is simply no comparison.  The degree has been severly deflated and needs to be called D.ARCH...and don't worry, your PhD will still be considered "higher"...since that is what this is all about...titles, right?

This fight has been criticized as an effort to inflate the already inflated ego of the architect by giving them a "doctor" in their title...well, so be it.  If the M.ARCH is on par with the MD, the JD, or the DDS....then why don't we call MD's Medical Master's; or lawyers Juris Masters; or dentists Masters of Dental Surgery?...I wonder what kind of "title" uproar this would cause.

[newbie]

An example would be if a M.ARCH was hired to teach design courses in a program other than architecture....sometimes design related programs/courses are lumped under another program: example: an environmental or landscape design program that is part of a science or agriculture program; or a graphic design program that is under computer science...first, the "terminal" Masters has to convince the search committee...then, it has to convince the students....I can't tell you how many times I have heard, "Oh, he only has a masters"....

What is their competition for these positions? Do they have Ph.Ds? If so, what makes the M.Arch more qualified than the person with a Ph.D in their field?

[marzipants]

I would disagree with the drive to inflate the MArch into a doctorate.  There are many terminal degrees that are masters, usually in professional fields.  This "lower" degree is not meant to denigrate these fields, but reflects the amount of time and academic work produced for the degree.  A 3-year degree following a bachelors is simply not a doctorate.  Most PhDs require 2-3 years at a master's level, followed by 3-4 years to finish the dissertation.

Not all terminal degrees are equal, nor should they be.  Some fields require only a certificate or an associate's degree.  Others require a doctorate.

[mar768]

The D.Arch is intended to be a richer professional degree more eqivalent in content, pedagogy and nomenclature to the MD or JD, and NOT a research degree on par with a Ph.D.....

[captainwillard]

Not to be argumentative, and realizing I should probably just keep my mouth shut since I know very little about architecture degrees, I wanted to say (in general agreement with marzipants) that a JD is not what I think of as a doctorate.  It's a professional degree, parallel to an MBA or an MFA.  I think it's perfectly fine for appropriate JD's, MBAs and MFAs to teach at the college level in appropriate programs.  But I don't think it serves the academy overall to imply that there is no real difference between three-year professional grad programs and PhD's (any more than it would serve to plump up MA or MS degrees to seem equivalent to professional degrees).

I think it's good that nobody calls their lawyer "Dr. Dewey."  I certainly don't think of a JD as parallel to an MD.

By the way, when I was an undergrad I had a professor with one of those Yale DFA degrees.  As I understand it, it was an MFA (but had to be in an area closely related to scholarship) plus a dissertation.

Anyway it's interesting to learn a bit more about how all this works in architechture.  Good luck with your work.

[mar768]

Not that I want to make this a battle of credit hours...because we all know more credits doesn't necessarily mean more knowledge, or stature, etc... but let me pose the question hypothetically...

Tell me how many graduate credits were required for your PhD?
or for your JD?
or for your MS or MA?
or even for your MS+PhD?

I'm just curious....

[lowercase]

since the times of vitruvius, architects have longed to be conisdered intellectuals and artists, not craftspeople.

i see we have yet to get over this deeply rooted sense of insecurity.

btw, medical doctors adopteed the title 'doctor' in very recently. they wished to have the same prestige that a Ph.D. has. before most people went to medical school because they couldn't get into harvard, yale, oxford. so, when people go on about how a Ph.D. has no reason to call themselves a Doctor when they don't have a medical degree, they might need to read some history.

instead of asking for an inflated degree, be proud of your M.Ach, and be even prouder of your registration as a licensed architect, an exam that is extremely difficult and can be taken only after  additional years ofinternship.

[mar768]

All information regarding the upgrade of M.ARCH to D.ARCH can now be found at www.marchtodarch.com.  Thank you.