statics.  thats it for math, and not much of it.  simultaneous equations is about as hard as it gets.

from what i see at my uni if you are into parametric stuff it is more about programming, though you can get pretty far just with grasshopper and rhino. 

if you really want to build and not just make cute 3d models then it will mean more intense study of some math, but that all depends on what you are into really.  lots of ways to get a good outcome without being mathematically advanced.

Look at Cecil Balmond and the P, Q and R series. The "theoretical" in Architecture is really more ideology bordering on religion than theory in the scientific sense.

The theory in science is ideological too.

being an "ideology" and being "ideological" are not necessarily synonyms.

If you can add, subtract, multiply and divide, you'll be fine, in practice.

School is a whole nuther story.

I think the most important parameter of math, at least in my academic and professional work, is geometry/trigonometry. I find the poetry of what makes a circle special, how pentagrams and hexagons interact, the way space and line meet to be most interesting to me. I agree with 'OTF' that simple math is all you really need - even with the banalities of parametric design.

does anyone have any info on architects using mathematics as a form generator? (a primitive example would be the golden section)

There are (at least) three key uses of mathematics with building: conceptual, analytic, field applications. Conceptual could be anything requiring any level of skill. Analytic can be many things from basic to advanced geared toward various applied data analyses and likely conducted by the consultants and gc's. Math related to field applications tends to be basic algebra and is used frequently by fabricators and Constructors to layout and to check what they are building. Very different uses. I don't know if it is generally true but it is my experience. What you want to teach yourself depends on which you mean bthe first involves open-ended learning. The latter two can be fairly narrowly defined if you choose.

Field applied --- meant algebra, geometry and little bit o trig

I would recommend being comfortable with math through Calculus I, even if you're not required to take it as part of your Arch curriculum.  Not because you use Calculus, but because it teaches you another form of problem solving and a way to think of things.  When you understand an integral and how it is the function of an equation, it opens up your thought process and can be applicable to lots of problem solving instances.  Deflection of a beam made a lot of sense to me when I started to think of the internal stresses as an infinite amount of limits within the beam.  Drawing a shear vs. moment diagram becomes much easier to understand in concept when you understand the equations of linear and curved lines.  Trigonometry is VERY important Vectors in particular.

Another reason, in my opinion, to be comfortable with advanced mathematics is the green/sustainable movement in architecture.  If you want to be able to design the kinds of systems that are going to be making a difference in the future, in terms of energy consumption and reduction, you will need to be comfortable with understanding the math that goes into the physics of heat gain, cooling, lighting, etc.

One book that might help is Ambose- "Simplified Engineering for Architects and Builders"

Sure, there's ideology in science but there's a great deal of rigor that's lacking in much of Architectural Theory.

@Steven, Four things: 1/ There Is absolutely no necessity for complex mathematics in architecture. Probably it is required that you have a general knowledge of math concepts, but the degree to which which you are familiar with these concepts and can employ them may or may not affect your architectural life. 2/ If you are interested and able to employ complex mathematics you will find plenty of opportunities for this in Architecture. From extremely conceptual research and experimentation in computational design to the complex formulas for new forms of structural and environmental engineering. 3/ You should definitely be reading the "theoretical stuff"... But not exclusively. At this point you would be best served by being extremely curious in everything that could potentially affect architecture... Which might actually be everything. You will of course edit these influences though out the future, but the only reason we edit is because it grows extremely difficult to act in the consultancy of every possible affector. 4/ Along the same line, it is probably a mistake for you to say that you are "not much of a fan of parametric design.". In your education you will quickly discover that there is no clear and agreed upon definition of parametric design AND also you will find that at the same time it permeates in the most oppositional places. (Duany and Zaha are both essentially parametricists... Depending on your definition.). In any case the point is this, wait a while before you are not a fan of something.

I'll second j buchard's points, especially about parametric design! And don't underestimate the value of basic geometry and trig. No matter how advanced and complex a design may be, at some point a fabricator or constructor has to break it down to working points and simple geometric shapes. Why is this? Because if they don't it becomes difficult to know where to locate subassemblies and if things are plumb, level, racking or warping. So even if you make a fancy shape, it helps to have a sense of the basic principles that will be used to break it down for construction. This may not be true on very high end work with extremely skilled labor---I don't know bc I've never worked on such a project. By I've worked on plenty of good projects with good skilled labor and neither the gc or subs used calc to locate points, even for more complex forms, they just break it down into modules of simple geometry and trig.

Grasshopper, a plug-in for the 3D modeling program, Rhino, is a parametric design tool that I use in my B.Arch program.  I am sort of a math junkie and this is the closest thing to complex mathematics that I've been able to incorporate into my design work.  It uses logic and data sets and has the ability to create very complex geometries - triply periodic minimal surfaces, for example.  It's like a graphing calculator in 3d.  Look at some Grasshopper tutorials online and you'll see how awesome the program is.

Trig, geometry and you will need to take structural classes as part of your master's degree.  You will need to have an understanding of these principles in the practice of design as well as to maintain fluid conversations with your consultants and not sounds like an idiot.  You will also take a structural exam as part of your ARE and licensing exams, so make sure you understand the material when you take the classes. 

Otherwise, you use very little complex math on a daily basis, though it depends what type of firm and position you get - there are many architects who get into the structural part of the job at A/E firms and will sit for the structural engineering exams to become SE's because they feel it will broaden their career choices. 

Good luck!

I would like to thank everybody for their valuable input in this discussion.  It has been very helpful.  @JeffryBurchard Thanks for the advice.  But about Parametricism...I understand that I am overstepping my boundaries of knowledge in judging the validity of the subject, but it is because don't fully understand the meaning of their formal complexity.  To me, it can only seem like an autonomous form of high-art.  How can these complex forms possibly appeal to the public and investors in a coherent way?  Works like Hadid's (while beautiful in their own right), can only seem utopian and oblivious to the struggling economic condition today, which is unprecedented in history.  I would like to know more about it, because I see these type of projects all the time in the schools.  But how can these projects be marketed realistically?  Aren't architects digging themselves into a larger hole by creating works like these?  Pardon my ignorance, but I would genuinely like to understand this new approach to architecture.

well there are always gaps between capacity and execution when something new comes along.  electricity was not very useful in its early days, etc etc

doesn't mean you have to like it but it is still too early to dismiss it...

playing with exotic shapes is fun and powerful but not why every architect should care about parametricism.  siemens nx or catia, for instance, allow for parametric design and  the way they are properly used by aerospace, automotive, machine and product design industries is to manage large amounts of data that includes tightly coupled logical interdependencies that inform the shape and range of motion of parts and assemblies.  setting parameters, that is constraints and relationships between dimensions or shapes or positions of parts is a very utilitarian function.  revit has this capability, too.  it is very useful in a practical sense.  as jump pointed out, a lot of what you see in schools is people with a great new capacity who do not yet have a deep understanding (practically) of what building design is using the tool in fun, novel ways or to map information for complex analytic purposes, not necessarily to ease the design and documentation process.  that will come in time. and it is worth noting that other industries, as alluded to above, use this technology and have used it for almost twenty years now for very practical design purposes --- we are just catching up