Why not get your MArch?

Yesterday I met with an architect who works for the Chicago Architecture Foundation. During our meeting she asked me a question that took me by surprise. "Why not just get your MArch?" She continued to explain that by getting my MArch I would have all the practical knowledge of an architect and be able to teach with this knowledge. At the time the only answer I had was with the gut reaction that it was impossible for me to do everything. However, now that I've thought about it more there's more to it than that. It's not just that in order to teach architects I would have to get the MArch, on top of the MA I will already have, followed by a PhD. In fact it has little to do with the length of time. Practically speaking I think it extremely important to work in a firm and/or organization that works with architecture (like the Chicago Architecture Foundation). On the other hand I don't think it necessary to become an architect in order to teach architects. There are architect professors who are highly respected that have just gone out and gotten their PhDs.

Aside from this I think it extremely important for architects to be able to work with people with ideas from other fields in order to embrace their ultimate interdisciplinary goal. As the profession stands right now, architects are taught just this exact point, if you don't have an MArch then you don't understand enough to contribute to the overall goal. I think this is extremely problematic, to say the least. I think, in fact, that having some people at the table who aren't architects forces those who are architects to put things in simpler non-design terms which the client and user understands. However in addition to this after getting my PhD in architecture I will not be just an academic anthropologist with no understanding of architecture. Finally I think it important to note that this idea that non-architects have nothing to teach or contribute to architects may be one of the reasons for some of the complications the field is currently facing.

Maybe this is also a reaction coming from the gut but being an architect already requires one to work with many who known very little about architecture (interior designers, engineers, industrial designers, etc.). What's the addition of one more, who hopes to gain much of that knowledge about architecture?

I think in the end there's one last key to why I shouldn't get my MArch, that is that I want to teach other architects. I don't just want to work for one firm and make that one firm more user-friendly in the way they do architecture. I want to help architects in general and the only way to do that is to teach. The only way to teach architects is to get a PhD, anything that stops short of that will not allow me to teach or will further prolong the time it will take for me to teach.