M.S. Arch vs. M.Arch.

[vtboy99]

Hello urban designers!

I am a budding urban designer with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography, about to graduate with a Master of City Planning (MCP) degree, and have two years of experience in urban planning and design. I definitely want to go back to school to pursue a design education at UC Berkeley, but am not sure if I would prefer a full-on 3+ year professional graduate degree in Architecture (M.Arch.), or a research-based non-professional two-year Master of Science in Architecture (M.S. Arch.). I am not at all interested in becoming a licensed architect, just looking for a compliment to my urban planning and geography education from a design perspective which may make me more marketable in more prestigious design firms in the Bay Area. basically, I am trying to shed my GIS/techie past and forge a new career in urban planning and design in the private consulting sector.

[jread]

I'd be very interested to know which is better as well.

BTW, I'm also a GIS person trying to move into planning.

[The District]

you're probably going to want the M.Arch. the M.S. is just what you said-research. also, the M.Arch. is MUCH more recognized. most of your competitors for spots in "prestigious" firms will have an M.Arch., not an M.S., if they have an architecture degree at all. i would recommend posting this question here. it's a very active architecture forum.

[CosmicMojo]

What about a Masters of Landscape Architecture? They do most of the site planning and master planning in the real world.

Between the 2 Architecture programs you mentioned, I'd definitely recommend the professional Masters of Architecture. It has much more credibility with professional architects and the AIA. But you'll be doing building design mostly, not site planning or master planning.