No, you can only take Parts 1 and 2 if you have completed a B. Arch. from a non-recognized university. UTAR does not offer a B. Arch course. Neither do the other IPTS's.

There has been none and there will never be, given the impossible requirements for IPTS graduates. It is no different from simply saying that IPTS grads are not eligible to apply. Telling them that they are eligible to apply is more like for UTM to 'syiok sendiri' only.

Which college is that? Taylors? Yes, the value of CGPA do vary from one institution to another.

It is a fact of life that the selection process of students into the IPTA's is not solely based on meritocracy. I would be very surprised if the selection of students into a 2nd degree, in this case, the B. Arch. Part II programme of an IPTA would be any different.

Maybe, there have not been so many applicants or maybe not many students know about it. I'm sure a lot more would go for it if there are aware of the option. The other thing is, those who go through the IPTS take pre-U courses other than STPM/matric. This criterion alone would also preclude them from applying to the IPTA's.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Oct 14 2010, 09:29 PM

You've graduated from UCSI? How's the course there?
Where do UCSI grads go to further their studies in Architecture?

There is a B.Arch. course at KLIUC, the only full Architecture degree course in an IPTS.
It is very new and not accredited of course. Anyone has heard anything about the course?
The uni should have some backing from the gomen, being related to IKRAM and JKR.
I'm sure the course would be in great demand if it gets accredited. Even if it's not, it would be the cheapest option to get a B.Arch (besides UTM's SPACE programme).

Those twinning programs with overseas unis offered by the IPTS (Taylors, LUCT, etc) are not accredited anyway.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Dec 17 2010, 02:59 PM

Closest... meaning? Do you mean they almost make it?
How's the quality of the course at KLIUC? Have a friend exploring the various options at the IPTS.

The overseas route through IPTS are so expensive and all are not accredited. There isn't much of choice is there?
I'd say it's not a wise economic decision to take the IPTS route nowadays. Heavy investment with low and slow return. Truth is, architecture graduates nowadays are not getting better pay than say a graduate from a three year degree course....well, not much better.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Dec 17 2010, 04:29 PM

BIM as in Building Information Modelling? How does it enhance the graduates's prospects?

yang2
Welcome back.
So, you're studying in Perth now are you? How many years do you need to study for B.Arch since you did not finish your B.Sc (Arch) in Curtin?

I understand LUCT students have been going to Curtin (previously WAIT) to continue with their B. Arch (2 years) for the last 10 years or so. The B.Arch is not accredited as the lst part is done in Malaysia. I wonder students who take up the course at LUCT are aware of this.

Can the B.Sc (Arch) graduates froms LUCT go to other unis in Australia or UK besides Curtin? Not that it makes any difference to the accreditation status.

---

Added on December 24, 2010, 5:56 pmDo you mean the B.Sc (Arch)? I think it's better than you complete B.Arch before going for LA. I think it's only 1-2 years after B.Arch to a M. LA.

One of the top landscape architects in Malaysia, MLA, had the principals qualified as an architects before going into LA. http://www.maliklip.com.my

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Dec 24 2010, 05:59 PM

It is highly recommended. Any form of industrial attachment is beneficial.

That's very true about the claims by the IPTS's but then being business concerns, it's only natural that they would try their best to woo students to join them. At the same time, it's not that you have much of choice if you take the IPTS route to do architecture. As for the IPTS graduates getting a place in IPTA's to continue with BArch, there is no precedent yet.

Talking about unaccredited degrees, I recently met a young architect who graduated from Tsinghua University in Beijing China. The degree from the uni is of course not recognized. He told me that he managed to sit and passed his PAM Parts I and II exam in one sitting. Mind you, everything that they do in China is in Chinese so he had to have his portfolio translated to English to start with and he had to go through the oral exam/presentation in English. On top of that, he had to switch to using English while working for a local architectural firm. I think he is the first from a Chinese uni. It wouldn't be as difficult for graduates from Commonwealth unis to go thru the Parts I and II I am sure.
For your info, Tsinghua uni is among the top 100 in world ranking.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Dec 28 2010, 07:04 PM

starting pay under employment? They are about the same but depends on individual performance of course. But considering it is a longer course of study, I'd say the engineer gets a better deal.

average pay? ditto

professional fees for a project? The architect gets more (probably about 2-3 times but depends on the type of buildings) but this is because of the much larger scope of works, involvement, responsibilities and liabilities. After all, the engineer only designs the skeleton of the building or in the case of housing, the infrastructure as well. The architect is the lead consultant in a building project, the first to get involved and the last to leave. It is common that the architect gets the project to provide comprehensive professional service and engages other consultants (engineers, QS, interior designers,etc) to be under him.

as a business - architects earn more generally

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Dec 31 2010, 10:25 AM

I have not heard of any architect-cum-engineer in Malaysia. I know one of the principals of Veritas Architect has a degree in civil engineering from the US. The Malaysian Engineering Accreditation Council requires the engineering degree to be a 4-year full-time study. That's why the 3-year UK Engineering degree is not recognized. Add the 4 years to the 5-years architecture course and that's the period you need to get the two degrees. And we are not even talking of work experience - min. 2 years for LAM Part 3 and 3 years for BEM exam. Who would want to do that?

Architecture is wide enough as a field of study. I don't think you can be an expert in two fields. Truth is, you can't even be an expert in the various aspects of architectural practice alone.
Santiago Calatrava is a rare breed. Norman Forster does not have a qualification in engineering.

azarimy
Are you sure 'anything with RIBA Part 2' is recognized? I thought they are not if the first part of the degree is done in the IPTS.



The accreditation process is not just about merit, it's more of a policy thing, like many other things in Bolehland. B.Arch from HKU (ranked top 30 in the world) used to be in LAM's list but has disappeared. NUS (previously SU) has never made it to the list even though there has been many graduates from there since the 70's and many are in successful practice. How do you explain that?

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Jan 5 2011, 06:23 PM

Contruction management is not recognized as a profession in Malaysia. By recognition, I mean the profession is regulated by Acts of Parliament. In Malaysia, anybody can call himself a construction manager but not everybody can call himself an architect.

Town planning is OK, it is a recognized profession. Town planners in the local authorities are people with a lot of authority. A lot of town planning work in the private sector is also done by architects though the authorities have made it mandatory for projects more than 5 acres (2.5 hectares) to be submitted by a registered Town Planner.

The demand for architects is still better compared to the two other professions. The bulk of work in the building industry is in the private sector, not the public sector (govt) even though the latter pays better fees.

I agree that it's way better to do small jobs and do it well rather than do volume work and can't give full attention to each job. The latter scenario is true with most of the local firms. The situation is made worse by the lack of competent support staff and low professional fees due to commericial pressure. The risk and liability of a job not done properly is increased tremendously. The trend of going into niche market, specialization, doing quality work as opposed to quantity work, etc is growing and that is the way to go for a service industry like architecture to be sustainable.

Since the 80's, almost all the projects under JKR are farmed out to private consultants, except for really small projects which they do in-house.

OK, 1744 to be exact.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Jan 21 2011, 12:33 AM

I think architecture is something that is evolved over a long period of time (more like centuries) as can be seen in the history of world civilisations. It has to do with the culture, religion, politics, climate of a place, amongst others. It is certainly not for the politicians to tell us what a country's architecture should be (though there was such a thing in history called Nazi architecture).

The search for a Malaysian identity in architecture has been going on since the country gained independence. There is the tendency to equate Malaysian architecture to Islamic architecture, which is obvious from the architecture in Putrajaya, which is supposed to exemplify the Malaysian identity. In the first place, Islamic architecture is not just about domes, arches and minarets, elements which a lot of the Malaysian public buildings are so fond of using.

There is also the tendency to equate Malaysian culture with only Malay culture though we take pride in the fact that ours is a multi-racial country with diverse cultures.

Look at the Malaysian Pavilion in the 2010 Expo in Shanghai, which is supposed to portray an image that is quintessentially Malaysian. Do you think it has done justice in portraying that image?

http://blog.malaysia-asia.my/2010/05/malay...world-expo.html

---

Added on January 23, 2011, 12:15 pm


The geometry of the roof in the form of a star is a distinct Islamic motif. This is also adopted in plan form of the Dayabumi builidng and the Petronas Twin Towers. Yes, I agree that's a timeless beauty, comparable to the iconic old Parliament House.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Jan 23 2011, 12:17 PM

Sustainable architecture is not an architectural style. Sustainability which is about taking cognizance of and being sensitive to the climate and enviroment and conservation of resources, is one of the many design considerations(back to Architectural Design 101). Ken Yeang stands out from the rest because he is very articulate in promoting his works. He has written books and gives lecturers extensively about his ideas of the tropical skycrapers and environmental filters. To be successful, you also have to 'sell' your designs.

Hijjas Kasturi is famous for his bold, iconic buildings, the earlier ones which brought him fame being the Maybank HQ (winning entry in a national competition) and the LUTH/Tabung Haji Building (hour-glass shaped). I think many of his buildings lose out in terms of functionality and details. Take a closer look at Menara Promet and the MPPJ Building and you'll know what I mean, they don't stand up to the test of time.

yang2
What I said has nothing to do with being retrospective or forward looking. I said the process for an architectural style to evolve and develop is a slow and gradual one which goes through a period of trials and testing of ideas of course.

There are not many countries in the world which have their own distinctive architectural styles. For example, there is no distinctive Australian style or New Zealand style. It has a lot to do with the cultural identity of a place which is tied to the history of a country or region. You find that young countries like Australia/NZ do not really have a distinct cultural identity to speak of due to their relatively short history. Countries in Europe or China or Japan on the other hand, being rich in culture and steeped in history, have their own distinctive styles of architecture. However, with globalization, styles are internationalised to follow the prevailing trends in architecture, notably, from the transition from post-modernism High- Tech in the 90's to the current modern and minimalistic style. That's why the new buildings you see in all modern cities around seem to have a lot in common, as if to keep up with the latest in fashion.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Jan 25 2011, 06:05 PM

Sketching(using freehand) and drafting(using equipment) are two different things/skills.

Sketching is important because it is the first thing that an architect does when he starts on a design. Same thing goes for all other fields of design, be they graphic design, fashion design, product design, etc. You may be wondering why they ask you to sketch things other than buildings. I know some sketching classes overseas even get naked models as objects for sketching. The idea is to train you in the skill of sketching, the subject does not matter so much.

Sketching is part of the thinking process. It is through sketching that ideas are conceived, visualised, take shape, developed, fine tuned and tested. It is like you manually focus image on a camera - from the blurry to sharp. It is when ideas have taken shape that you get down to drafting - prepare accurate drawings from the sketches probably using a drafting programme like Autocad these days. Or presented in 3D using Sketchup programme. Even after the design is drawn up, it would need to be refined and improved on, and you need to go back to the sketching process again.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Jan 27 2011, 11:21 AM

I don't see how the so-called 'architectural engineer' can take on the role of the civil, structural, mechanical and electrical engineers all rolled into one for a building project. There has been no such precedent and I don't think the Board of Engineer would allow it.
As a comparison, BEM does not allow graduates of 'electrical & electronic engineering' to be registered as 'electrical engineer', which goes to show to how strict they are.

This post has been edited by tehtmc: Feb 1 2011, 09:29 PM