Difference between Architecture and Architecture Technology?

Hi,

I just would like to know the difference between Architecture and Architecture Technology.

Please cover the following if possible:

- employment rate
- difference between modules (difference in learning)
- pros and cons
- salary
- just the difference overall

thanks in advance

They are different, but complimentary, roles. If you want to know whats involved, I suggest you start with the websites for the Rotal Institute of British Architects (RIBA - which has a section on studying to become an architect) and the Charterred Institute of Architectural Technologists (CIAT).

Architects tend to do most of the same tasks as technologists, plus some more (i.e. early stage design etc.). Or to summarise it differently, architects tend to, and have the knowledge and skills to work on all stages of a project from conception to completion, technologists tend to focus on the later stages of delivering projects as they approach work on site. Quite a few architect's where I work including one of the partners started off as a technologist, then re-trained as an architect, you will never see it the other way around though.

Like those where your two options but you want to get into Architecture

if you think you want to be an architect, and have an offer of a place on an architecture course, then are you asking about the universities or the courses?

Bottom line is what interests you? Are you more interested in technology and how buildings get built or in design and research? Irrespective of the eventual job opportunities (that is, the perennial complaint of some practices is that schools of architecture do not prepare architecture students adequately for practice - but that's a long argument!), however nearly all undergraduate architecture courses (in the UK) tend to be (very good) general arts courses (there are a few which are more engineering biased) plus the RIBA is strongly promoting a research agenda in architectural education which it perceives as being the way architects can "add value".*

I basically have the choice to do Architecture or Architecture Technology. I guess a bit of both, I mean to give a bit of background I studied Art, English Lit and Sociology all to A Level. I am hesitant about after the three years to be entirely honest because I am not entirely sure whether I could do a masters that would allow me to further qualify into my own firm

OK, I'm stereotyping somewhat but, based on your A'level choices, I'd expect you to chose architecture. An architecture degree is a good general arts degree which will give you lots of transferable skills, but it keeps your options open if you do want to go in to a part II course. I don't know the AT course at Westminster, but generally speaking, I'd expect an AT course to be more about "how" than "what"?

Yes, I mean after calling up the course leader, he would have taken me on because of my grades. I even called up both the RIBA and ARB to see whether doing the AT course would allow me to do a Part 2, they said it was very difficult to do so. But after looking at the ARB and RIBA via their websites they say otherwise, mentioning things like having to do a prescribed examination if the course (AT) has elements that will give me credits for an Architectural criteria. I found that way too confusing. After reading on some forums on tsr has left me stuck in the middle, some say you can do a Part 2, paying £800 with a portfolio and some say you cannot. Even though I called up ARB for proper confirmation, they said it was better off an undergraduate course that is accredited by both RIBA and ARB. Even looking at some russell group universities and their Part 2 course some don't dismiss students who haven't taken the Part 1 route.

If you want to be an architect you need to do a Part 1 and Part 2 and then Part 3. There are unconventional ways to tick the Part 1 and 2 boxes, however by far the easiest way is just to do the courses at a university. Paying £800 or whatever it is to submit a portfolio to get Part 2 isn't an option you should be considering, its not possible for you to just do some work yourself and submit, it wouldn't be anywhere near the required standard, this method of obtaining Part 2 is primarily aimed at foreign students who may have got a masters abroad, and want their level of education recognised in the British system. Equally most universities will take students without Part 1 for Part 2, however again this is mostly for the benefit of foreign students who studied abroad for undergraduate. If you think you cannot be bothered to do the Part 2 and 3 as well then that's basically saying you cannot be bothered to be an architect, which is fine, you just need to accept that.

Doing AT and hoping to be an architect, is a bit like qualifying as a nurse and hoping to be a doctor (terrible comparison but still).

If you want to be successful in the field of architecture and have your own practice then do the Part 1 course at UEL. That said if I was in your situation, assuming you're still fairly young then I would do a year out, do an art foundation, or resit some A-levels, get some work experience at architects practices and reapply next year. This is not because UEL is that bad for architecture (although its far from great), but because I just think the general undergraduate university experience at UEL would be a bit rubbish. It's based in a rubbish part of London, and it has no prestige, so you're paying a fortune to live in London and getting literally none of the benefits.

For that reason I was a little hesistant on taking the Architecture course at UEL. I don't think resitting a year or applying for an art foundation will be possible as I already retook my AS year and I'm assuming the process and application for an art foundation has passed. I am currently seeing the possibility of getting remarks for my grades to see whether this would make a difference to my firm choice at Westminster, as they offered the alternative course of AT which I'm slightly unsure of.

For that reason I was a little hesistant on taking the Architecture course at UEL. I don't think resitting a year or applying for an art foundation will be possible as I already retook my AS year and I'm assuming the process and application for an art foundation has passed. I am currently seeing the possibility of getting remarks for my grades to see whether this would make a difference to my firm choice at Westminster, as they offered the alternative course of AT which I'm slightly unsure of. Thanks for the total honesty I really appreciate it.

Don't assume anything, there will still be Art Colleges taking people for foundations, especially if you are happy to go somewhere outside of London. If you've already done three years of Further Education you will have to pay for it yourself, but College courses are usually much cheaper than university courses. I wouldn't waste time getting things remarked.

If you want to be an architect, and understand all that that will entail, and you are going to pick from either AT at Westminster or K100 at UEL then do the latter. But if I were you I'd take a year out to work out what's best - all due respect but it doesn't seem like you've researched anything that well, and architecture is not the kind of path you want to start taking blind, its a very stressful, expensive and laborious journey.

I agree with Farchitect (up to, and apart from, rubbishing of UEL) I think the doctor-nurse analogy actually is quite accurate in this instance.

If you don't know what you want to do - and TBH it does not sound like you have done enough "homework" if you are asking those questions now (presumably you were made offers on your Personal Statement and predicted grades rather than a face to face interview when you could have asked?) - then take a year out and get some experience or take an art foundation course - I'd recommend the latter, but do try also to get work experience in an architect's - if you don't like it after a week, Do you want to do it for the rest of your life!? Art Foundation courses are FE, not HE, so whether it is too late or not will depend on whether the college has filled all of their places. I'm not sure if you now have to pay for them - you didn't used to have to - but I do not think there are living grants (or loans) if you are taking an FE course.

What is your opinion regarding the Part 1 Architecture course at Greenwhich?