dude, read properly. it states:

diploma in architecture = 6 semesters (3 years), intake from SPM (non part 1)
degree of architecture = 10 semesters (5 years), intake from STPM (part 1 & 2)

IUCTT is a twinning with UTM, using UTM's exact same curriculum. well, except the expertise, resources, facilities and the environment lah . also note that they're NOT accredited with LAM part 1 or 2. the degree is equivalent with it. meaning u will need to sort out ur professional qualifications urself after graduating.

yup. more or less.

depends on where u wanna study and for how long. refer to the architectural route diagram in the 1st post. there are various paths u can take both in malaysia, abroad or a combination of the two, as long as u get to part 2 accreditation.

if u're going through IPTA path for 5 years, it'll cost u about RM15k - RM20k for fees and accommodations for the entire duration of study (total 5 years) + about RM25k - RM30k for various other expenses (food, transport, mobile phone, living essentials, stationaries, printing etc).

going through IPTS for full 5 years can take between RM100k - RM250k for fees and accommodations, and about RM25k - RM30k for other expenses.

---

Added on February 26, 2008, 6:57 pmthere have been a number of UTM alumni working in foster's, and most of them quit after a few years due to unfavourable environment. i wont badmouth another practice since i myself have never worked there, but i could forward some contacts with those who've worked there if u want. and do join facebook (if u havent), coz there's a group called "malaysian architects in the UK", which is a good contact basis if u wanna do ur practical training here.

This post has been edited by azarimy: Feb 26 2008, 06:57 PM

what do u mean where am i?

i'm there. find me .

thanks for the update mars. i've checked and it's pretty obvious it is a part 1 equivalent. however, it's not accredited by LAM yet. the accreditation process will only take AFTER they've produced the first batch, so if u're it, dont expect an accreditation anytime soon .

do note that taylor's UK path has one additional year for RIBA part 1. it means from STPM:

3 years degree in taylor's + 1 year RIBA part 1 + 2 years RIBA part 2 (not to mention 1 year practical training in between the RIBAs).

it means u're going through 6 years after STPM instead of 5 years in any other paths. given how most of u seems to make a fuss even with 2 extra months, i dont think most of u would opt for one extra year . and it didnt mention which UK school either. that's another catch. if they managed to get a deal with a good/top schools, they'd be promoting it in their website. just hope it's not some obscure schools nobody have ever heard of...

there are LOTS of obscure schools in the UK. come here and i'll show u . some of the standard are even lower than IPTAs in malaysia, but they still could offer RIBA part 1 and 2.

anyways, if u weigh the one extra year between experience and another GBP10k per year, i'm pretty sure they'd choose to save the GBP10k and go to australia instead. that's RM 70k extra for learning stuff that u've already learned in taylor's, just to satisfy RIBA's requirement.

UCSI is not accredit with part 1. it is only part 1 equivalent. switching to another university is a limited option. if u're a certified part 1 holder, then it is no problem. UCSI's degree would mean u still have to take proper part 1 before u start ur part 2. joining an IPTA with part 1 and 2 would mean u will have to go through 3rd year again, finish ur part 1, then only continue for ur 2nd degree in part 2.

that's correct.

however, when referring to holding a degree from an unaccredited institution, it basically means RIBA or RAIA schools which already has an equivalent accreditation. this is bcoz they've already obtained accreditation from their own respective board of architects. UCSI on the other hand is not accredited by any body. it is almost certain that u will have to go through the third stage of the examination.

however, if u do manage to pass the part 1 exam, then yes, u will join the part 2 straight at 4th year (also known as 1st year 2nd degree).

but to be honest, it is far easier to get through final year of part 1 than to take the exams.

This post has been edited by azarimy: Mar 2 2008, 06:30 AM

not quite sure about that. i do know for a non-part 1 diploma u'd go through 2nd year. but this is a part 1 degree equivalent. i will check on this later.

first, dont put ur expectations too high. design is a training that must go through a process. one of the most famous advice in architecture is "dont jump the gun", meaning dont skip the essential steps just because u wanna get there faster. process is the most important element in architecture and design, and this includes ur education to become an architect.

all that aside, yes, u will get to design literally everything in a building. it's the closest profession to playing god (aside from politicians) - u get to play with people's lives. u can do all that, with only one shortcoming - will u be able to convince others? .

hence why people also say - architects are the greatest salesman. they sell a product that is not even built yet, and they get paid to design whatever they want!

not sure about plymouth's specialization or reputation. perhaps u should refer to the rankings.

---

Added on March 4, 2008, 8:26 pm1st semester are usually the orientation semester. typically, the objectives of this semester are:

i. to level the playing field
each student came from a different background. an urban student may be more exposed to various designs and more outgoing, a characteristics crucial for architecture. so what 1st sem does is to bridge the gap between the students.

ii. to use the same language
not BM, BI, mandarin or anything, but the vocabulary in architecture is very different from layman's terms. "open space" could mean a multitude of different descriptions of a space, and it doesnt necessarily mean a space outside a building.

iii. to introduce the culture of design
design is a culture, a collection of behaviours of designers in the production of design. u will be introduced on what the design process is all about, and how to use them to structure ur thoughts, ur abilities and skills in order to achieve the objective of each project.

iv. to instigate designer's attitude
this is so that each individual designer complies to the nature of design.

v. to train essential design/production skills
and finally this is to train u how to draw, visualize, reiterate ur thoughts, manipulate the media and so on with a sole purpose: to communicate.



basically those are the typical objectives for 1st semester (and sometimes the entire 1st year) for architecture. but different schools may approach it differently. some schools may have nothing architectural in 1st semester, while others just simply jump straight into the warm waters of architectural designing. u may explore the nature of fine arts, contemporary designs and so on, or u may be brought straight to design ur own room and eventually ur dream house. it varies alot, but in essence, the 1st year objective remains the same, give or take a few.

This post has been edited by azarimy: Mar 4 2008, 08:26 PM

read the first post. either way also can .

context, my dear friend. i was referring to the part where u become the greatest salesman. u're not an architect yet if u still succumb to what the client wants . the architect should be able to coerce the client to do whatever he wants, that's why we do what we do.

---

Added on March 5, 2008, 7:36 pmoutgoing:

most college/university students tend to be outgoing. but none of those courses REQUIRE them to be outgoing. architects will be trained to socialize, and they live in an environment where if u dont socialize, there's only so much u can gain.

in architecture, u learn more from ur peers than ur teachers. from my readings on architecture education, peers contribute to about 50% of ur knowledge gained in architecture, 20-30% from lecturers/educators, and the rest from personal reading, ideas and experience. if all this time u've been stuck in ur room reading and doing work alone, u're missing 50% of the potential knowledge that u could gain in architecture.

that's why architects work in the studio amongst other designers, not working alone in their room like an anti-social dork .

it is not only for studying. in practice, architects are bound to interact with various different people, from professionals to authorities to clients. all requires the social skills to convince them to do what the architect wants. most often, u'll need to convince the civil engineers that ur weird design is buildable, and they have to calculate and endorse it. civil engineers are a tight bunch in malaysia, most of them arent willing to go outside the box and do weird stuff. so u gotta convince them to do it.

and what about clients? clients are the hardest people to convince. there are lots of stuff that architects can/want to do, but how do u convince the clients to agree? they havent even seen the product yet, how do u expect them to say yet? imagine a direct seller coming to ur home trying to sell a product that's not even in production yet...

social skills are essential for the architect. if u cant socialize, then u'll become the designer who sits at the back of the office, infront of the computer doing work. the real architect will be the frontman of the firm, and that's where the money is. designers are worth less bcoz they only produce designs, the frontman gets the projects into the firm. no frontman, no designer laa .



This post has been edited by azarimy: Mar 5 2008, 07:36 PM

well, u gotta go through it to really understand what i mean.

ask any of the current architecture students here about the "design studio", and u'll realize it's not just a classroom where u do ur work. social skills is trained and embedded into the designers as a hard skill, landscape and interior included. but technicians, engineers, const.managers etc arent trained that way. it is a soft skill that they pick up along the line.

social skills to the architect/designers is as essential as drawing skills. it's not something u can do without. try and differentiate between soft skill and hard skill, u'll understand what i mean .

what would u want to compare? can u be more specific?



usually, u'll need only 1 year to finish the degree (which is part 1 equivalent, not LAM part 1) with their diploma. but i'm not sure if a degree from taylor's would warrant u to straight part 2 intake in melbourne. u wont be able to in IPTAs.

i believe their part 1 equivalent degree is called Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Architecture, not bachelor of environments. i'm not sure where u found the bachelor of environments, coz it isnt indicated in the website.

i will avoid to answer which school is better, but i will guide u in selecting the school of architecture that best suite ur needs. there are several aspects that u might wanna consider, commonly:

i. study duration
ii. prestige and accreditation
iii. cost, location and socio-environment
iv. opportunity and potentials of its graduates

and so on. so it depends on ur criterias. it would be best if u could express them, after u've read the first page of this thread, that is . so lets talk about this first before going into the details of the chances in getting in, the interview and what u gonna learn. some of these have already been discussed or addressed in the FAQ.

experience wise, u would accumulate more through the diploma>degree route. u will spend atleast 6 years (3+1+2) studying architecture, and not to mention the most probably 1-2 year working experience in between them. it's not a requirement, but most universities make it a special attachment to boost ur chances into degree.

but do note that more doesnt necessarily mean better. going straight to degree has its perks. u have only one break in between, and work experience is not a requirement.

this, i'm not very sure. they may actually have Bachelor of Environments in Architecture, but the name wasnt mentioned in full. for example, BSc in architecture's full title is "Bachelor of Science in Architecture". so melbourne's might be BEnv in Archtiecture, BEnv in Quantity Surveying, BEnv in whateverelse.

This post has been edited by azarimy: Mar 12 2008, 12:27 AM

in that case, ur choices are UTM, UM, USM, UIAM and UPM, in no particular order. these are the only local universities accredited with LAM part 1. if u wanna go abroad, the cost will be considerably higher, but after reaching part 2, u should hold equally recgonized qualification by LAM.




i'm not sure about the certificates. inquire with UPU, or maybe some topics here in LYN.

well, we have taken 2.50 in the past with an excellent portfolio. but to tell u the truth, there are alot of applicants with pointers around 2.70, so u really need to have an impressive portfolio to stand a chance of getting into an architecture course in an IPTA. however, if u mean ANY local university, then IPTS is still an option for u.

---

Added on March 12, 2008, 7:20 pmyes. it means exactly that.

---

Added on March 12, 2008, 7:28 pmthe argument here is about whether foundation is recognized as part of architecture education or not.

commonly in any universities local or abroad, foundation programme is just another pre-university programme. u're not engaged in anything substantial that would contribute to ur education in architecture. despite what the programme provider would say, foundation programmes did not attempt to do what the 1st year in architecture supposed to do - alignment, leveling the playing field etc (stuff that i've mentioned a few pages back).

so what do u learn in foundation? an introduction to all the basics. that's about it. they introduce to u: here's how u use a pencil. stop. here's how u use a computer. stop. there's no applied skills involved. architecture courses do not need foundation courses bcoz there's nothing to bridge between SPM/O-levels and the 1st year of architecture. u will learn totally new stuff from O-levels. heck, most architecture academics believe that u could start architecture after PMR, bcoz virtually nothing in SPM will contribute to ur education as an architect!

hence why foundations was never included in the total year of studying architecture. it is just a method of standardizing architecture education so that it complies with the other courses. sad, but true. we have been assimilated with the rest!

---

Added on March 12, 2008, 7:56 pmhave u watch any reality TV shows? especially those with judges that comments on participants? like american idol, strictly come dancing, x-factor, dragon's den/american inventor or stuff like that? i u havent, then u should. i particularly recommend dragon's den (BBC), bcoz it greatly resembles what architects face on a daily basis. find em. torrent them down if u have to. find dragon's den. this goes to all of u architecture students!

responding to the matters u've raised, there are generally two school of thoughts amongst the academics here. those who believe that rigorous training would make u buck up and be stronger - something ur tutors seem to subscribe to; and those who believe that nurturing is the best way to build a character. i am a combination of both, and i do incline on the rigor.

if u watch those reality TV shows, u often see people with absolutely no talent, and just armed with their beliefs that they are good enough. they came infront of the judges and sing. it was crap. everyone could see it. it takes somebody like simon cowell to bluntly give it to them that they are not good enough. he knows, coz he has seen thousands of others like them. this is similar in architecture: most tutors are experienced enough to know that certain designs just couldnt go anywhere. yes, the design maybe new to u, but it's not to the architecture as a whole. this is the big dilemma here.

students may pickup something relatively new to his knowledge, but absolutely obsolete in terms of architecture. tutors come by, and tell u that u're not going anywhere with that design. should u seek to improve and challenge his beliefs, or do u agree with him and venture into another path instead?

ofcourse, this could be approached in a diplomatic way. i believe so too. but there are times i just had to smack u in the face so that u would accept the fact that there are things u just DONT do. it's not bcoz nobody have thought about doing it, it's bcoz people have tried AND FAILED!

architecture students also need to be strong. in architecture, u dont learn theories that much as compared to other courses. in architecture, u'll learn architecture by simulating the real practice environment. the studio greatly resembles the office, as do the tutors=clients/bosses. if u expect things will be easier once u've graduated, u'd be wrong. graduation is just the beginning...



with all that said, u have to think about what is being said, and not how it is said. that's the best advice i could give u. the best practice is to record the conversation/crit/assessment/presentation, and transcribe it all in words. then u read it again, without any intonations. flat and straightforward. u'll realize that most comments are valid, but they are just not delivered in a most receivable way.

u can ask justin here of how i teach. i often let my students go out on a leash. like kites on a string. if u stray too far, i'll pull u down. if u're good, i'll let go more strings so that u can climb higher. i've made this approach so clear that alot of the tutors in UTM agreed to adopt it as a teaching method. i'm halfway towards my plan to dominate the world!

here's a book, written by my supervisor, that will assist u in getting through the crits.

The Crit: An Architectural Students' Handbook by Charles Doidge, Rosie Parnell and Rachel Sara (2004).

i believe most architecture school would have this book in their libraries.

---

Added on March 12, 2008, 7:57 pmARCHITECTURE education is fun.

u dont get this kind of flexibility in most other courses .

This post has been edited by azarimy: Mar 12 2008, 07:57 PM

if u're looking for a degree, then u still have another step to go -> pre-university. it means STPM, matrics, foundation, a-levels etc. but if u do plan to join an IPTA, then u're limited to STPM and matrics only.

intake requirements in architecture is always based on merit. there're no more race based quotas. for example in UTM we would rather not fill the empty spaces with below average students, and let the seat be empty to be filled by diploma students or polytechnics. the requirement itself is pretty low. u just need 2.00 in STPM to apply. but to get in, u need atleast 3.00 to stand a good chance. anything below that, u must hold a good portfolio and pray for a smooth interview.



with SPM u could also go through the less popular path: diploma or polytechnic (diploma or certificate).