homayoun
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
what is the difference between architecture and architectural technology?
which one is better?
and which one makes the most money?
and how long are each of them at uni?
0
reply
Stewie2011
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
Architecture tends to contain useless 'arty-fartyness' while Architectural Technology tends not to, so to me this makes the Architectural Tech course look better as time is not being wasted. In Architecture (in general) you will discover that time can ill afford to be wasted as there is so much important stuff to learn. There is nothing worse than finding out a load of your time has been wasted on arty farty stuff, i.e tacking bits of coloured paper together randomly, the stuff you probably did when you were in primary school, only to find out it is a). a non starter in terms of being of much use for Architecture and b). it has used the time that could have otherwise be spent learning important stuff necessary for Architecture, i.e technical drawing/detailing, learning CAD well, Planning & Building regs knowledge. proper modelmaking, etc.

No doubt it is easier going doing the arty farty stuff but its not really stuff an Architecture employer would be interested in. Architectural designers are two a penny everyone wants the fun stuff so there are many of them and many of them are out of work. Architecture Tech is 3 year degree then a 1 year master as/if and when you want. Architecture is at least 7 years including 2 years out in industry but many take far longer to get the whole thing so they can call themselves an Architect, there is no compulsion to do the whole thing but once on this course it ends to be the way it goes if you stay in Architecture a long time.
0
reply
Claire888
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 years ago
#3
(Original post by homayoun)
what is the difference between architecture and architectural technology?
which one is better?
and which one makes the most money?
and how long are each of them at uni?
Architectural technology is a hell of a lot easier to get into than architecture at university, you will be an architectural technician in the end, probably working in an architects practice, but you can become one without a degree. The technology side seems to be the boring technical (as expected) side of architecture, it isn't designing buildings it is more about the positioning and wiring or electrics and seems to be more engineering based. You CANNOT become an architect without doing an architecture degree, so if that is what your aiming for then you can't do the technology course. Architects don't make a lot of money but when fully qualified I'm sure they make more than the technicians, as they have more responsibility. But technology courses are 3 years in uni and usually one year in practice (paid), architecture is 3 years for the BA/BSc, 1 year in practice (paid), 2 years for an MA/MSc or diploma and then another year in practice plus the final exams, with a total of at least 7 years to qualification.

If you are seriously considering this I think you should find a more reliable source than TSR, maybe look at careers websites.
0
reply
Stewie2011
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 8 years ago
#4
(Original post by Claire888)
You CANNOT become an architect without doing an architecture degree, so if that is what your aiming for then you can't do the technology course.

If you are seriously considering this I think you should find a more reliable source than TSR, maybe look at careers websites.
Not true, you can get part 1 exemption from RIBA by submitting a portfolio to them for examination, it will cost you about £800, quite a lot of money, but if you are earning a fair bit perhaps not too bad. It's basically for those people that are already been working in the industry a while, check out the RIBA website its all on there.

The Architectural Technology route tends to be easier to get on but is not necessarily an easier course. Architectural Technologists can be at the same level or higher than Architects it just all really comes down to experience. While you theoretically could train up as a technician to technologist, etc if you have no knowledge that you can substantiate to an Architecture practice few will take you on for this as you would be of little use to them for quite a duration. Check out the CIAT website if interested in this route for more info, I would recommend it.

As far as pay & job prospects are concerned that's all generally down to skills and experience whatever you call yourself.

Also, Architectual Technology courses often contain quite a few design modules in which you do indeed design buildings, they just may be more every day buildings you see possibly less imagination insipired, so you could do an architectural design job afterwards if you wanted. Architectural tech just exchanges the arty farty stuff on many architecture degrees with more practical stuff that is useful, you can do architecture design jobs either way but there is a huge over supply of people after these so the competition will be insane!
0
reply
Claire888
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 years ago
#5
(Original post by Stewie2011)
Not true, you can get part 1 exemption from RIBA by submitting a portfolio to them for examination, it will cost you about £800, quite a lot of money, but if you are earning a fair bit perhaps not too bad. It's basically for those people that are already been working in the industry a while, check out the RIBA website its all on there.

The Architectural Technology route tends to be easier to get on but is not necessarily an easier course. Architectural Technologists can be at the same level or higher than Architects it just all really comes down to experience. While you theoretically could train up as a technician to technologist, etc if you have no knowledge that you can substantiate to an Architecture practice few will take you on for this as you would be of little use to them for quite a duration. Check out the CIAT website if interested in this route for more info, I would recommend it.

As far as pay & job prospects are concerned that's all generally down to skills and experience whatever you call yourself.

Also, Architectual Technology courses often contain quite a few design modules in which you do indeed design buildings, they just may be more every day buildings you see possibly less imagination insipired, so you could do an architectural design job afterwards if you wanted. Architectural tech just exchanges the arty farty stuff on many architecture degrees with more practical stuff that is useful, you can do architecture design jobs either way but there is a huge over supply of people after these so the competition will be insane!
Ok but you get exemption from the RIBA exams when doing architecture and you don't for technology, so it is more effort if you take that route than the straight architecture course.
0
reply
jrhartley
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 8 years ago
#6
I would say that its true that Architecture K100 courses do, with alarming regularity, wander into the self-indulgent, irrelevant and arbitrary and that they often do not teach the essentials of construction that you need to know in the real world. However, in amongst all this arty-farty pretentiousness is the fact that it is encouraging students to think critically about the quality of the IDEA. The idea is the main thing. The idea can be particularly banale, or small, but the quality of that idea is the key difference. I would recommend you look at this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Significance...5345978&sr=8-1

To my mind, it is one of the best explanations of what makes great architecture and it also does a good job of pointing out how far architecture has wrongly gone down the prima-donna / "I'm an artist" route over the past 20 years. Olgiati doesn't consider himself an artist, he is an architect, and a damn good one at that.
0
reply
ellp
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 8 years ago
#7
I reiterate a point I have made before (linked below). There is no one direct way in the Architecture. I work in a large architectural practice where over half of the employees here were not from an Architecture degree based background. I agree to gain an official title as an Architect you need to go through Architecture, but it is arrogant or naive to say you have to be an Architect to design a building (creative or not).

With regard to what I think on the difference bewtween the two courses Refer to my comment http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1961070

As to what you can achieve through alternative course follow this link.
http://www.ciat.org.uk/en/members/ca...dex.cfm/reuben
He was able to achieve a BREEAM excellant rated building from conception to finish (detailed drawings). AT is an all encompassing course, that takes half the time, whilst providing experience in placement, and without the arrogance.
0
reply
Ninaaaah
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
As someone who is also curious to know the answer of this question, if you have a choice between taking a RIBA Accredited Part 1 course at a decent university (UEL) and doing a BSc in Architectural Technology (Which is accredited by CIAT) at University of Westminster what would be the best route?
0
reply
Neil dowlman
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
What lot of rubbish. You clearly do not understand the professions. You fail to recognise a chartered architectural technologist in your naive summing up. I suggest you read a little more to understand that chartered architectural technologists are trained in design and can command the same money as architects which is proven by the institutions. A chartered architectural technologist can be in practice on his own without having an architect present. I shoumd advise that i am a fully qualified architectural technologist !
1
reply
Darrennelson
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
So what you are saying us get a job with an architecture practise for a bit, pay £800, and be given a degree.... Hmm doesnt sound quite right ( havent checked the Riba website ) cos wouldnt there be no one doing architecture at uni for 9k a year fee?
0
reply
yeahyeahyeahs
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Darrennelson)
So what you are saying us get a job with an architecture practise for a bit, pay £800, and be given a degree.... Hmm doesnt sound quite right ( havent checked the Riba website ) cos wouldnt there be no one doing architecture at uni for 9k a year fee?
What they are trying to say is you CAN get an exemption by paying for an examination with the ARB/RIBA to get the part 1 exemption. Some people don't have part 1s and do the part 2s at universities but at the end of the part 3, they would have to pass 1 and 3 to get the full architects accreditation.

Typical cases are for those who studied architecture in another country, or related degrees like architectural engineering, architectural technology.
The rare case is they don't have a degree and have been working in a practice for a long time. but I'll be honest its very rare to be employed in an architects practice without a degree unless you are the CAD technician or model maker, I'm not sure how long you would need to be there to gain the experience and knowledge.

People do not often go down this route, because its really hard and of course you can fail. It costs about £2k each time, so if you fail, or complete the application form wrong, you have to pay that again.

Link to fees:
http://www.arb.org.uk/architect-info...-examinations/

I would suggest you question whether you want to be an architect, or a designer.
K100 would be the better degree for this and useful for other disciplines in design. You can also still be a architectural technician with this degree.

If you know you definitely want to do architectural technology and specialise in this field, then pick the other degree, or you can look at apprenticeships. For £9k a year, I know I would do something else for my cash.

If you can find an apprenticeship programme who can pay you, you're better off doing it this way.
just google it.

what is the difference between architecture and architectural technology? see above
which one is better? none, one is more specialist than the other.
and which one makes the most money? they both do, once qualified. The most money is earned when you are the senior associate at the company.
and how long are each of them at uni?
architecture = 5 years study + 2 years work experiences + examination
architecture technology = 3 years + 1 work experience + examination/ or no
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (8)
4.85%
Confident (14)
8.48%
Indifferent (16)
9.7%
Unsure (40)
24.24%
Worried (87)
52.73%

Watched Threads

View All