I also got into Pratt and I'm trying to figure out it the two are comparable..
I've heard both that GSAPP in an overall way better program on one hand but also that Pratt in as good and even stronger in certain Tech oriented aspects..
dannyviln
Apr 17, 15 12:30 pm
Thank you @Kozumelle!
I know GASPP is always ranked very high for the M ARCH program and Pratt usually doesn’t appear in first ten in these rankings, but I'm trying to understand what underliesthese rankings..
allietepper
Apr 18, 15 10:25 pm
Hi Danny,
I'm in the same boat and here is an abbreviated version of my notes so far - I'd appreciate any feedback from you or others:
At first blush, Columbia seems like a no-brainer, but on further reflection I'm not so sure. Broadly speaking, Pratt is an up-and-coming place at the technological forefront. The real/disruptive innovation in the world tends to happen at hungry places like Pratt, rather than established places like Columbia.
When I look at the work that comes out of Pratt, while there isn't that much variety, everything looks like it was designed by Zaha Hadid or Frank Gehry. There's a lot of experimental stuff going on and a huge focus on parametric design, which seems like the future. Being a whiz at Revit/Rhino is also going to help get cool jobs. By contrast, the work in Columbia's Abstract seems a bit unimaginative to me.
Furthermore, Pratt's engagement with Brooklyn is where the interesting stuff is happening these days. You can also see these differences in the lists of electives. Pratt's are thematic and innovative; Columbia's seem to be grasping at straws a bit/topical.
In the core history/theory sequence, Pratt is focused on the future - the core history course is 1920-1960, and then there's a course that's an overview of theory and a non-western course, which they describe as "introducing the issues and personalities that are shaping the built environment today in much of the non-Western world."
That's a far cry from Columbia, where the requirements are a 1700-1850 course and then an 1850-1930 course. Blah.
The facilities at Pratt are also a bit better, and you get to live in Brooklyn instead of Harlem.
Of course, Columbia also has a lot going for it:
A bit more diversity in design styles.
It seems like the finished projects are more completely thought out, rather than a bit sketchy as they are at Pratt.
It has a better name (at least for now).
They've got a new dean who students spoke extremely highly of, so innovation may be forthcoming.
It's more of a hub in the architecture world and there seems to be more going on peripheral to the curriculum, like seminars and visits by a (perhaps) higher caliber of practitioner.
The network after graduation is better established and that will help in getting my first job. Of course, that's great if I want my first job to be with a well-established firm, but if I want it to be with an up-and-comer, maybe not.
Much better travel opportunities/global engagement, probably key as America's primacy slowly ebbs.
Cross pollination with the rest of a major university, including one of the best library systems in the country.
Lifelong benefits to being Columbia alumni, especially if you live in NYC.
So, anyway, I guess I'll still probably go to Columbia, but the decision isn't obvious to me.
Hey all,
I just got off the wait list at GSAPP!! :)
I also got into Pratt and I'm trying to figure out it the two are comparable..
I've heard both that GSAPP in an overall way better program on one hand but also that Pratt in as good and even stronger in certain Tech oriented aspects..
Thank you @Kozumelle!
I know GASPP is always ranked very high for the M ARCH program and Pratt usually doesn’t appear in first ten in these rankings, but I'm trying to understand what underlies these rankings..
Hi Danny,
I'm in the same boat and here is an abbreviated version of my notes so far - I'd appreciate any feedback from you or others:
At first blush, Columbia seems like a no-brainer, but on further reflection I'm not so sure. Broadly speaking, Pratt is an up-and-coming place at the technological forefront. The real/disruptive innovation in the world tends to happen at hungry places like Pratt, rather than established places like Columbia.
When I look at the work that comes out of Pratt, while there isn't that much variety, everything looks like it was designed by Zaha Hadid or Frank Gehry. There's a lot of experimental stuff going on and a huge focus on parametric design, which seems like the future. Being a whiz at Revit/Rhino is also going to help get cool jobs. By contrast, the work in Columbia's Abstract seems a bit unimaginative to me.
Furthermore, Pratt's engagement with Brooklyn is where the interesting stuff is happening these days. You can also see these differences in the lists of electives. Pratt's are thematic and innovative; Columbia's seem to be grasping at straws a bit/topical.
In the core history/theory sequence, Pratt is focused on the future - the core history course is 1920-1960, and then there's a course that's an overview of theory and a non-western course, which they describe as "introducing the issues and personalities that are shaping the built environment today in much of the non-Western world."
That's a far cry from Columbia, where the requirements are a 1700-1850 course and then an 1850-1930 course. Blah.
The facilities at Pratt are also a bit better, and you get to live in Brooklyn instead of Harlem.
Of course, Columbia also has a lot going for it:
So, anyway, I guess I'll still probably go to Columbia, but the decision isn't obvious to me.