Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
which is better to prepare for M.Arch?(options)
Hi. I'm a student based on major B.Arch and preparing for applying M.Arch programs.
Recently, I have studied GRE and after this exam, then I will make my portfolio better.
By the way, I'm already in 'Architecture' major. In this situation, which is the better option for me to increase the rate of admission? Could you advice me?
1. Participating in a program like career discovery of Harvard GSD and adding these projects on my portfolio.
(Reading some threads, I think there are some advantages of this program such as adding projects with good qualities, relationships with instructors, pre-experience, etc)
2 .Developing my existing works (done during my B.Arch semesters) or adding new projects such as competitions.
(I already done some architecture projects including my bachelor thesis project. So Is it better for me just developing my projects, using time efficiently?)
3. Internship. (If it is possible, work at a Starchitects office 1~2 months)
But one thing I wonder is, how many people who are already based on Architecture major join the GSD career discovery program and how effective the contents of projects conducted in the program are, because I know a lot of people who join the program is non-architectural base and thus the projects are very conceptural like ones during 1st semester at many archiecture schools.)
Nevertheless the first option(gsd career discovery) is better for me, I want to participate in that program. Please give me better advice. Thanks.
Why an M.arch if you already have a B.arch?
@Non Sequitur
Specifically, like GSD case, not M.arch I(3.5 years), but M.arch I AP, M.arch II or MAUD. Ultimately, the reason why I want to apply for M.arch is taking architectural or urban design courses in top school's studio environments. Is not efficient to join the CD program at Harvard for me?(for final admission of graduate program later)
I'd pick #2 over #1 if I were you. Both are about improving portfolios, but architecture summer schools are usually geared toward individuals w/o said background thus projects aren't as sophisticated enough to warrant the time and effort. At least with option #2, you'd get to improve your already wonderful capstone studio project or touch up on things you aren't happy with.
As for #3, being in any office counts squat for grad applications as we ALL know you won't be involved with the design process. Why should an internship (it's not even a job placement) of all things count for qualities to be assessed?
I wouldn't go to Career Discovery if I were you. I attended a few summers ago and it was an incredible experience, but I do not have a background in architecture. I was able to use a lot of the projects for my application this Fall, but I would assume that any work you did in undergrad is (or should be) much more developed than anything you would do in 6 weeks in CDisco.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.