I am a SPM graduate who wanna study architecture.. My dad wants me to take the form 6 route while i am more interested in furthering my sudies at ALFA international college.

i just need some opinion.. which route actually is more beneficial? If my choice is better, what shud i say 2 convince my dad?





This post has been edited by LuLu90: Mar 19 2008, 12:47 AM

its possible but very rarely happens. That also only for courses in the same uni. Like my fren who switched from engineering to architecture during first year second semester.

---

Added on March 19, 2008, 12:52 amif you have achieved excellent results for SPM i would suggest going the STPM route. AS in the first page of this topic, going through other means requires you to "most" likely further ur studies at partner universities overseas after ur local diploma.

You wanna convince ur dad? Tell him this then. Take into account the cost of finishing up ur degree studies, for example Tasmania (Australia) as its one of the cheapest option, is roughly RM300K (inclusive of fees and living expenses) for 3 years.

Remember STPM opens up more choices. And if you manage to get into an IPTA, fees are likely to be less than RM25K for the whole duration.



This post has been edited by xtracooljustin: Mar 19 2008, 12:52 AM

I got 6A's for my SPM.. i think dat is considered as moderate result.. which is not so good T_T

If i complete a 3 yrs diploma in ALFA n passed the part 1 LAM exam, izzit possible 4 me 2 continue part 2 in local uni's? If yes, what r my chaneces of getting in? What will happen if i fail de LAM exams?

unfortunately, 3 years diploma will never enable u to sit for a LAM part 1 exam. u need a 3 year degree to gain equal qualifications to enable u to sit for the LAM part 1 exam. simply put, u need at least 3 years after STPM or 4 years after SPM for architecture education to be eligible to sit for part 1.

but if through which ever way u actually managed to sit and pass the LAM part 1 exam, yes, it is very possible for u to continue part 2 in any local universities.

if u've taken the exam but failed, take again. and take again until u pass, however long it takes, or until u quit .

---

Added on March 19, 2008, 1:24 amlike justin's said, it's very unlikely. and even if u wanna change, it's a helluva process.

ultimtely, it depends if the target course would wanna accept u or not .

---

Added on March 19, 2008, 1:42 amlooking at ur results, i cant say for sure whether u r competitive enough to secure a place in an IPTA, but it shouldnt stop u from applying. i just question why u put UKM and UPM's architecture as top choices as both of them are not accredited by LAM (lembaga akitek malaysia). u should sort out to atleast put UM, USM, UTM or UiTM (if applicable), bcoz those are the accredited schools.

headboy (ketua pelajar/pengawas?) should be a great boost to ur application, especially during interviews.

so yes, architecture might be for u, assuming u will upgrade/brush up ur art skills for ur portfolio, ofcourse .

This post has been edited by azarimy: Mar 19 2008, 01:42 AM

i reserved my comment as tracooljustin n azarimy already voiced out .

i got 3A 5B 3 C in spm . Dad asked me to go to Limkokwing as he scared that i couldn't take the pressure in form 6. But i have chosen form 6 , i've selected my path , i did well in stpm , my well doesn't mean good superb result. And now i am in UTM .
i saved more than 200K and i saved one of my dad's property as my dad initially wanted to sell of our Alor Star house to fund my studies .

u take form 6 , u probably can enter public uni . If u cannot , u can save one Semester in foundation . You might think you have lost your 2 years in form 6 , but i would like to tell u something that the thing u studied in form 6 is very very useful to gain ur own knowledge , don't go mind the time if you are using it for education benefaction .

ALFA college quality is good, my friend have met people over there . the problem is the size of the college and if not mistaken, it is lack of accreditation .

---

Added on March 19, 2008, 10:02 ami got 2.92 in my cgpa , and my frined in the course now is 2.8 only . i think it is ok , bu tit would be a risk as it is very very competitive
i would say avoid putting the kl-based university at first choice as they are so HOT , most ppl will look at the city-based uni .

This post has been edited by BridgestoneRE711: Mar 19 2008, 10:02 AM

hello guys,

i've got some questions here, and it has been surrounding me for quite some times here....

what's the differences between the IR and AR?
i know that, AR is more into designing and environmentally and IR is more into calculating and logically.. but when come in to housing development project, where those houses are not so depending on design (my dad's company is developing low-mid income housing)
i wants to know the POWER, QUALIFICATION, PERFORMANCE, CAPABILITY and JOB AREA between them.

can AR do IR job? or Via versa..
why i ask this? because in my dad's company, AR is juz design something out and sign to certify it, but still need to go through IR instead of everything, and IR can do AR job whether those houses are stable and those construction work is working under good performance, they even fight against those design plan designed by AR, where those plan sux much.. and IR have the right to change the drawing into more qualified plan and stable structure... (well indeed the AR hired by my dad's company really sux...)

for my point of view... IR is more powerful and capable than AR.
correct me if im wrong...

This post has been edited by Lon3LyJay: Mar 19 2008, 12:34 PM

no comment , but as far as i know AR has higher priority than IR .
meanwhile, IR canot do AR's stuff . same goes to Ar cannot do Ir stuff . Although on paper Ar is higher ranked , but each different levels has different stuff to do .

IR and AR are simply not related. AR is the title professional architects used in front of their names. IR is the title professional engineers (those accredited with BEM). No one is higher than another. Both are different disciplines.

---

Added on March 19, 2008, 3:17 pmAs per my reply to the previous post, ur statement is not quite right. Check up on Santiago Calatrava. He is first and foremost a structural engineer. Yet he is also able to practice as an architect. So an architect with an engineering background gives you an edge over most of ur peers

This post has been edited by xtracooljustin: Mar 19 2008, 03:17 PM

engineer doing architects job? sure, they sure would like to think they can.

there are hundreds of different things that could not be handled by an engineer simply bcoz they're not trained in it. one of it is the architect-client relationship. in construction, the architects are more similar to lawyers, protecting the needs and interests of the client from conniving thieves. this does not relate to design at all, which engineers are simply not qualified to do. if anything should happen to a project, dealings through an architect is protected by law, hence the client is legally safe. if the client did ever skip the architect and straight to the contractor for the example, it will expose them to all sorts of legal lawsuit.

it's not just what the architect can do, it's about what the profession offers legally. that's just one example.

in ur dad's company, it does seem that the IR are doing more than their job specifies, which is quite unprofessional of them. engineers only have right to suggest a change in the design, but it is still up to the architects' decision to do so. the architect has the ultimate final say as to agree or disagree with the engineer. if he is unsatisfied, he could just fire the engineer and get a different opinion, simple as that. remember that the engineer may suggest that the structure is unsound or very uneconomical, but in no way is the engineer qualified to say a design sucks. u dont wanna piss off an architect, bcoz architects talk - ALOT. if one architect bad mouths u, be sure the architects in the immediate vicinity will know about it . and this is well within the architect's professional code of conduct.

simply put, although there are certain areas that the architecture and engineering profession overlaps, there are more areas that they dont, and u cant assume that an architect can do engineers job or vice versa, unless they are qualified (by certification or professional accreditation) to do so. if u're interesting in becoming both, there are architecture-engineering degrees (double major) being offered in UK schools.

sorry , i dont mean to compare structer engineers to architects .
based on the rank on the board or on the paper , the listing of architect is above eng. and ar. is ranked before eng. as they are supposed to meet the client. *as told by my brother.
what i mean is in terms of Ar or Ir who is ranked higher in terms of their job, i would say both got thier own thing . Ir cant do Ar thing , Ar cant do Ir stuff, each of them got their own expertise . i might get the thing wrong but that is what i know .

Anybody who uses Sketchup software should check out this forum for like-minded ppl

http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/index.php

pushpullbar is a good forum which talking alot of architecture stuff & sketchup stuff.. I think that sketchup nowadays is common with alot of people.

hello~

i just gradute from stpm and interest in taking architecture course in usm,upm and ukm.
As i know fron page 1,that both ukm and upm are currently unaccredited by LAM, and is only 3 years course.
May i know wat the path i can take to continue my part 2 in local uni?
is it necessary to have working experience to continue part 2 in usm,upm as well as ukm?

Hmmm...if I am not mistaken...

Architecture itself is already a very long and extensive course that one can be spending his/her entire life learning about it, am I right? (Kind of like a Doctor or Medicine course already where people can be spending their entire life learning the Art... am I right?)

Civil Engineering itself is also a very tough and extensive course as well, one that people can also be spending their entire life pursuing the knowledge of it, am I correct?

I am really baffled at how one can possibly become BOTH an Architect and a Civil Engineer as well. (Having the POWER and AUTHORITY in both fields...)

I am very impressed...

Ahh, yeah, Taylor's also have Partnership Universities (I cannot recall how many) in the U.K. that offer such a Degree. (It is all written down in the broacher.)

Wait, I checked;

It is Loughborough University, England:

BSc (HONS) of Architectural Engineering & Design Management - 2 years.

BTW, how come some of the Degrees from various Universities either look Artistic (Arts type), whereabout some look Scientific (Technical type)?

For example;

University of Strathclyde, Scotland: Bachelor of Science (HONS) (Architectural Studies) - 2 years.

Robert Gordon University, Scotland: Bachelor of Science (HONS) (Architectural Technology) - 2 years.

Northumbria University, England: BSc (HONS) Architectural Technology - 2 years.

The rest are the Bachelor (BSc), or the BA, or the Masters of Architecture. (BTW, what is the difference between the BA and the BSc type Degrees?)

Part 1 type degrees;

The University of Melbourne: Bachelor of Environments - 1 year.

University of New South Wales: Bachelor of Built Environment (Architectural Studies) - 1 year.

Queensland University of Technology: Bachelor of Built Environment (Architectural Studies) - 1 year.

Deakin University: Bachelor of Arts (Architecture) - 1 year.

University of Newcastle: Bachelor of Design (Architecture) - 1 year.

University of Technology Sydney: Bachelor of Arts in Architecture - 1 year.

University of Tasmania: Bachelor of Environment Design - 1 year.

Victoria University of Wellington: Bachelor of Arts in Architectural Studies - 1 year (2 Trimesters)

What are the differences between the Arts and the Science type Architecture Degrees?

Will I get to learn the more technical stuffs in those Science type Degrees? (Or are all of the Degrees learning the same thing with just the difference in the names only?)

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Mar 20 2008, 05:43 PM

Check up Lilian Tay of Veritas. She's both as well...and a woman too. Girl power...

This post has been edited by clayclws: Mar 20 2008, 06:04 PM

Wait...Let me guess...

The Architect is the one having the knowledge to design a building.

The Architect is the one having the capability to visualize, and imagine a building with his Spatial ability.

The Architect is the one having the knowledge of the buildings and the build environment.


The Architect is the one having the necessary skills, trainings, capabilities, knowledges, and qualities to design a building.

In short, the Architect is the "Specialist", the "Professional" & the "Expert" of the building & the build environment, and it is only the Architect who possesses the knowledge, expertise, skills, capabilities, qualities, & trainings that is necessary & required for the creation & designing of the buildings and the build environment in its entirety.

The Architect is the "SIFU!" of the Buildings and the Build Environment. (You do not touch my Expertise & Profession because you do not have the Knowledge for it OK???!!!)

Correct me if I am wrong.

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Mar 20 2008, 06:14 PM

u're confusing urself between degree specializations and degree types. degree specialization is the title of the course, for example "architectural studies" or "architectural technology". degree types are the categorization of the degree based on the family of faculty that the school belongs to in the university's tree. architecture could be either arts or science, bcoz these are the two primary category in the world of knowledge. a university may put architecture into an arts faculty, while another puts them in a science faculty. some even have specialized into a built environment faculty.

there's no big difference in degree types, other than how they're managed by the university administration. what u should look for is the degree specialization if u seek to learn specific things in ur degree.

architectural technology obviously leans heavily on applied technologies in architecture, while architectural history is more on theory, philosophy and history.

---

Added on March 20, 2008, 6:23 pmi. accredited part 2 in malaysia is available at UTM, UM, USM and UiTM, while unaccredited part 2 is available at UPM, UKM and UIAM. do note that all part 1 courses are 3 years, and part 2 courses are 2 years. one exception is UTM, which combines both courses into one degree of 5 years that awards part 1 and 2 in one go.

ii. work experience is only necessary if u did not obtain good enough results to continue straight into degree. UM for example only allows those with exceptional results in part 1 to continue straight into part 2 without any industrial experience.

This post has been edited by azarimy: Mar 20 2008, 06:23 PM

Oooo, I see...Thanks.

So, does the names of the Diplomas and the Degrees really indicate their focus/concentration?

For example, does a Bachelor (HONS) of Arts (Architecture) focus more on the Artistic aspects of Architecture and a Bachelor (HONS) of Science (Architecture) focus more on the Scientific aspects of Architecture?

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Mar 20 2008, 06:59 PM

no. u dont understand what i've said.

lets take an example: Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Archtiectural Studies

Bachelor of Arts = degree type
Hons = degree achievement/distinction
Architectural Studies = degree specialization.



degree type does not indicate specialization. it is just how each university categorizes the degree system organized through each faculty. in this world, there are two primary fields: arts and science. hence why most courses u see out there starts either with BSc or BA. but there are other fields that doesnt really belong into these two fields like business, and there are others that are both like design. so how each university categorizes the degrees does not reflect on what u will learn.

my wife graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Architectural Studies, but have a substantial amount amount science/engineering subjects that outweighs the art subjects. whatever category ur degree is in, it does not reflect specifically what u learn. as u can see, this is one of things that common rules doesnt apply in architecture .

OK thanks a lot, I understand it now.

However, do you have any idea on why the Taylor's school of Architecture entitled their Diploma;

Diploma in Architectural Technology when their Part 1 Degree is entitled Bachelor of Science (HONS) (Architecture)? In this case, is the Taylor's Diploma concentrating on Architectural Technology? (Or is it just another Science field name as well?)

BTW, just for information only, the University of Portsmouth, England entitled their degree as BA (HONS) Architecture. (It is a Part 2 Degree.)

Thanks for enlightening me that BA means Bachelor of Arts and BSc means Bachelor of Science. (Earlier I did not know that.)

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Mar 21 2008, 01:23 AM