|
Frequently Asked Questions |
|
Q: Can the Doctorate of Architecture be offered as a first professional degree? A: Yes. The D.ARCH is now a NAAB accredited first-professional degree.
Q: Am I eligible for a retroactive title change? A: Any changes to titles or creation/modification of degree tracts are at the discretion of each institution. Although the NAAB regulates the accreditation process, they cannot force schools to adopt any policies. The transition would be smoother if there was a national reform of architecture degree nomenclature...please see the petition , talk with your alma mater, and spread the word. As it stands now, 3.5 year M.ARCH programs exceed the minimum requirements established by the NAAB, and thus would be the easiest transition.
Q: Where does the profession and the architectural agencies stand on this issue? A: There currently is not a unanimous consent on this issue. Architecture titles and degree nomenclature have been a debate since the advent of architectural education. In 1991, the 5 presidents of ACSA, AIA, AIAS, NAAB and NCARB signed legislation that stated, “that architecture would be best served, if by June of 2001, there should be only one designation for the professional degree in architecture offered by all schools in North America.”
Q: Why do you care about this and why should I care? A: The authors of www.marchtodarch.com are 3.5 year M.ARCH graduates who have taught and worked in several arenas. One author has attempted to teach in curriculums outside of architecture that offer architecture or architectural related courses/degrees and has been cast aside for “only having a master’s status.” The author followed up with several of these departments, and after showing them the 3.5 M.ARCH transcripts, they were utterly shocked to learn of a 112 credit master’s degree. He was immediately put back in contention for the positions...so the qualifications, work load, credit hours, research credits were all adequate and/or equivalent to the doctorate...but the title was missing. Then, in 2004, the NAAB created the D.ARCH to solve this dilemma...the new degree offers a title that more accurately denotes the extremely high level of achievement over the 7-8 period that is not sufficiently indicated by the “masters” title.
Q: Have any universities adopted this change? A: Yes. The University of Hawaii, Manoa has replaced its B.ARCH and M.ARCH tracts with one, 7-year D.ARCH. Other schools, like the University of Utah, have created new doctorate tracts that can be achieved as a first professional degree. Some schools also have architecture doctorates that are earned as second professional degrees (like the traditional PhD)
Q: Is the D.ARCH equivalent to a PhD? A: This is the question that causes much heated debate...so we will do our best as to not add fuel to the fire. The NAAB accredited D.ARCH is a first professional degree designed for practice (similar to the JD in Law or the MD in medicine), while the traditional PhD is a second professional degree designed for research into a more specific area. So the two degrees are technically designed for different functions. However, this doesn’t mean someone with a D.ARCH couldn’t work in academia and someone with a PhD couldn’t work in practice. In fact, the D.ARCH/M.ARCH is currently the only first professional doctorate/degree that requires a year-long research thesis...so in fact, the D.ARCH/M.ARCH is actually being used as both a practice and teaching/research degree. Still confused?
In theory, the 3.5 architecture graduate programs should be granting a M.ARCH (or D.ARCH) and PhD concurrently...4 year BS + 2 year M.ARCH + 1.5-2 year PhD. This is how most of the sciences and humanities operate. Typical PhD tracts are usually around 75 credits beyond the Bachelor’s and can be completed concurrently or in succession with the M.S. There are even several MD/PhD tracts that only take 8 years to complete...so 8 years and you get both the professional doctorate and the research doctorate. In 3.5 M.ARCH architecture tracts, you are in residence 7.5-8 years, complete close to 230 credits (over 100 at the graduate level), complete an academic thesis and only end up with a master’s title. There is no logic to this current system.
Q: What do you think should be done with the other degree tracts in architecture...like the B.ARCH, 4+2 M.ARCH, etc… A: The authors of the site believe all degree tracts should be upgraded and changed to D.ARCH...similar to the LL.B to JD system in law. The new D.Arch tracts would most likely be structured similar to existing 4+2 or 4+3+ year programs.
Q: Where did you go to school? A: At this time, the authors of this site have chosen not to disclose their alma mater as to not make this a one university issue. The transition would be easier if it was a national reform.
Q: Is it true that Yale University actually graduates their M.Arch students in Doctorate robes? A: Yes, this is true. They don doctorate robes and masters caps...the doctorate hoods are still reserved for PhD students. But it is important to note that this practice shows Yale considers the M.ARCH a terminal professional degree. So why not grant the title of “doctor”? Your guess is as good as mine.
Q: Why is the University of Utah NOT offering their ArchD retroactively? A: I am not sure why...you should contact Utah directly for a clear answer. However, it is my understanding that the Utah Doctorate is a new degree with additional requirements. The authors of marchtodarch do not have a problem with a school’s desire to add additional requirements for future/prospective students, but feel that the title should be a retroactive option for those who have already completed the M.Arch tract….especially since M.Arch graduates are not eligible to apply to the new ArchD! If new degrees are not offered retroactively, those of us with the “older” titles will fall through the cracks in time. The retroactive title change is a win-win for all of those involved and should be implemented nationally. Another important fact to point out is that school’s can raise a lot of money when offering retroactive title changes.
Q: What are the authors take that this is a form of degree inflation? A: Well, since the existing M.Arch degrees are currently DEFLATED in status (based on time, energy, money, credit hours, research, etc..), granting the appropriate degree only inflates the title to where it should have been in the first place. The larger concern of degree inflation is that it will take future/prospective students longer and longer to attain a degree. In the case of the D.Arch, the authors are not implying adding additional time to the degree. Currently, it takes double to triple the time to get an architectural masters as compared to traditional “master’s” in other fields. The retroactive granting of new titles solves a bulk of the “my title isn’t good enough anymore” argument; In addition, there still could be undergraduate paths to licensure for those who wish to practice architecture. In my experience, firms actually prefer a young, moldable undergraduate to an old, three and a half year know-it all like myself. Currently, the M.Arch is being used as both a research/teaching degree and a professional practice degree...and it is really falling short in both categories for the simple reason that nobody knows the definition of a “terminal” masters.
…..more to come |
|
2008 marchtodarch |