yeah i too have met some really impressive people from state schools, and also some ivy league graduates too that didn't impress too much... it's the individual not the name of the school imho... the work i think speaks for itself, i don't think the *name* of the school really matters... its what you get out of it, what you put into it, and what you've done, what projects you've done, skills you have that employers count, my 2 cents...
which is not to say that ivy leagues are not awesome schools... i am sure, as jump says you can meet some great professors and colleagues there...
sure you can meet great people there, but it is what you make of it. i met amazing people at state schools too. famous architects and educators. it is what you make of it.
Regarding state schools, it's worth pointing out that: if we are just talking about career and return on investment, I don't think the Ivy League graduate necessarily does better in professional practice, and the name of the school (or how expensive the tuition) does not command a higher salary from potential employers... There are plenty of top designers, leading design architects, partners of firms, industry leaders who graduated from state schools...
This is also true because I think the more regional schools tend IMHO to turn out the graduates most connected to other professionals in the region... In this business it is more important who you know, and, if you are from say Yale or Princeton... And you moved to say Seattle or Portland or San Francisco or Austin, or whereever... You are not going to be as connected or know people working at the good local offices compared to the graduate from the local home grown school... Isn't this true? Think about it: how many partners of top local firms do you know who are graduates from some out of town elite university...? How many ivy league imports head firms in your local design community? vs. firms started by top local graduates? Architecture practice is generally tight knit regional communities of professionals...
On the whole, I agree with bRink.. just be aware that there is a minority of people doing the hiring who may disagree, of course. But I've certainly never perceived a quality standard between grads of state schools vs ivies, at the comparable level of education.
In my (admittedly limited) experience as first a graduate of an excellent state school for undergrad and of an Ivy for grad, the particular professional benefits of an Ivy league degree are few and specific.
The biggest benefit is in teaching. Your academic background is probably of greatest importance if your professional goals lie in academia. When hiring junior faculty, most schools look for graduates of institutions at or above their level of reputation. When I was in undergrad, all the non-tenured faculty were recent Ivy league
graduates. If you really want to teach, you can find a way to do it no matter where you went to school - but if you went to a "big name," you're more likely to start out at the upper-middle of the academic food chain than the bottom.
The second is, as many have mentioned, "the network." In particular, if you want to work for a specific faculty member's firm, it helps a lot if you went to their school. Many starchitects recruit from
the schools where they teach, since they know what kind of background those graduates have, what their particular strengths and weaknesses will likely be, and how they've been taught to think about design.
However, out in the larger world of the profession, I doubt the name on your degree makes much difference, especially after a year or two of work experience. While it's possible that having a well-known name on your resume may help to bring it to the top of the pile, that's about all it will do for you. You'll still be evaluated based on the strength of your portfolio, what kind of experience you have, and how well you present yourself.
The decision of where to continue your education, and what sacrifices you're willing to make for it (time/debt/etc.), is an enormous one, and one you shouldn't question based on the opinion of just one person at one firm.
George W. Bush has connections. He earned poor grades, and had he been a "normal" student at those schools, he would not have graduated.
agreed, and this is the case for a lot of reasons, but that would likely not have happened at a non-Ivy school. Having an education at a top-tier school seems like it can cut two ways: you may be viewed either as either among the best at what you do, or privileged and elitist. Obviously, both of these are often inaccurate assumptions, but I wouldn't put too much stock in what school you attend (within reason). Ivy League and other top-tier schools have their strengths, but so too do many other, lower-tier schools. It's a cliche, but largely accurate that the quality of your education is mostly dependent on you, as well as the quality of the faculty, etc.
After graduating, your success again will be influenced largely by the quality of the work you do, your abilities and willingness to do different aspects of work, and to connections unfortunately. It seems true that often employers will take the advice of a mutual acquaintance when deciding between similarly qualified candidates. I think the degree to which the Ivy League connection helps here is overstated, but the connections you make in school and afterward will probably have some influence on your job prospects. Aside from that many schools have different teaching philosophies/methods and degrees of involvement, I don't think there's a huge difference in what you'll get out of school between top-tier and mid-tier schools, and possibly even lower-tier, who knows.
How about people on sports scholarships at Pac 10 schools who do no work? And places like Michigan, Berkeley and UT have just as much problem with legacies freeloading as Harvard and Penn. UVa more so.
thank you, Urbanist. there was recently a study about sports programs that claim to be self-sufficient, but in fact are paid for by the "student activity fees." the football team at columbia sucked, but i did not pay higher tuition so a student who did no work could get HIS diploma for free. if we look at MOST of the big ten, pac ten, sec, etc schools, i think you will find this to be the case for their athletes.
to respond to the legacy issue, FrankLloydMike: i knew ONE. count him, ONE legacy during my undergrad years. i knew zero during my grad school years. sure, this is anecdotal evidence to support my case. but the guy was a legacy was so proud (and obnoxious about it) that i have to assume other people would have been similarly proud too. so at least SOME would have advertised their legacy status had there been more.
GW is a bit of an exception. in the past, the ivies would not allow you to pass your class with less than a c- (not sure if this is still the case). since GW averaged LOWER than that, he should not have been allowed to graduate. BUT he was the product of one of the richest families in america. can you think of any place that money (and we're talking dirty, filthy, oil amounts) doesn't get you what you want? i am sure if more rich people PREFERRED to go to state schools it would work the same way there (or perhaps in a worse manner given their athletic track record - no pun intended). incidentally, one of my professors was his room mate. he should not have graduated from middle school according to some of the stories i heard.
at LEAST the ivies are need blind. that is something a lot of people don't know. they DO NOT LOOK AT FINANCES when determining your admission. sure, some legacies still get in. but is there an instituion (including the US government of course) where connections don't get you int he door?
i was from a DIRT poor family. and so were the VAST majority of my classmates. please don't bash the ivies (or MIT, Chicago, etc) unless you went to one. even then, they are wildly different places. referring to them as a set is also misrepresentation. ultimately, they seem to be good schools. and they seem to do their best to be financially accessible to ALL great students (if you can get in). i am proud of my education, but i do NOT bash other schools that i did not attend, unless i am prompted to do so. ( i will also make an exception to bash for-profit schools, because those are just evil.)
I went to a 3rd tier school, then got hired by a major Arch. office in SF as a BIM specialist/production architect - I was surrounded by a field of Ivy, and many from MIT. I didn't have time for an inferiority complex - I had too much to do, and did it, then got laid off 16 months later and
"How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone"
When you are not cut from the right cloth, I have had to start over again, from the bottom - or as one recruiter said "At least you are working"
Stigma of going to a 2nd/3rd-tier school in professional practice?
yeah i too have met some really impressive people from state schools, and also some ivy league graduates too that didn't impress too much... it's the individual not the name of the school imho... the work i think speaks for itself, i don't think the *name* of the school really matters... its what you get out of it, what you put into it, and what you've done, what projects you've done, skills you have that employers count, my 2 cents...
which is not to say that ivy leagues are not awesome schools... i am sure, as jump says you can meet some great professors and colleagues there...
sure you can meet great people there, but it is what you make of it. i met amazing people at state schools too. famous architects and educators. it is what you make of it.
Regarding state schools, it's worth pointing out that: if we are just talking about career and return on investment, I don't think the Ivy League graduate necessarily does better in professional practice, and the name of the school (or how expensive the tuition) does not command a higher salary from potential employers... There are plenty of top designers, leading design architects, partners of firms, industry leaders who graduated from state schools...
This is also true because I think the more regional schools tend IMHO to turn out the graduates most connected to other professionals in the region... In this business it is more important who you know, and, if you are from say Yale or Princeton... And you moved to say Seattle or Portland or San Francisco or Austin, or whereever... You are not going to be as connected or know people working at the good local offices compared to the graduate from the local home grown school... Isn't this true? Think about it: how many partners of top local firms do you know who are graduates from some out of town elite university...? How many ivy league imports head firms in your local design community? vs. firms started by top local graduates? Architecture practice is generally tight knit regional communities of professionals...
On the whole, I agree with bRink.. just be aware that there is a minority of people doing the hiring who may disagree, of course. But I've certainly never perceived a quality standard between grads of state schools vs ivies, at the comparable level of education.
In my (admittedly limited) experience as first a graduate of an excellent state school for undergrad and of an Ivy for grad, the particular professional benefits of an Ivy league degree are few and specific.
The biggest benefit is in teaching. Your academic background is probably of greatest importance if your professional goals lie in academia. When hiring junior faculty, most schools look for graduates of institutions at or above their level of reputation. When I was in undergrad, all the non-tenured faculty were recent Ivy league
graduates. If you really want to teach, you can find a way to do it no matter where you went to school - but if you went to a "big name," you're more likely to start out at the upper-middle of the academic food chain than the bottom.
The second is, as many have mentioned, "the network." In particular, if you want to work for a specific faculty member's firm, it helps a lot if you went to their school. Many starchitects recruit from
the schools where they teach, since they know what kind of background those graduates have, what their particular strengths and weaknesses will likely be, and how they've been taught to think about design.
However, out in the larger world of the profession, I doubt the name on your degree makes much difference, especially after a year or two of work experience. While it's possible that having a well-known name on your resume may help to bring it to the top of the pile, that's about all it will do for you. You'll still be evaluated based on the strength of your portfolio, what kind of experience you have, and how well you present yourself.
The decision of where to continue your education, and what sacrifices you're willing to make for it (time/debt/etc.), is an enormous one, and one you shouldn't question based on the opinion of just one person at one firm.
agreed, and this is the case for a lot of reasons, but that would likely not have happened at a non-Ivy school. Having an education at a top-tier school seems like it can cut two ways: you may be viewed either as either among the best at what you do, or privileged and elitist. Obviously, both of these are often inaccurate assumptions, but I wouldn't put too much stock in what school you attend (within reason). Ivy League and other top-tier schools have their strengths, but so too do many other, lower-tier schools. It's a cliche, but largely accurate that the quality of your education is mostly dependent on you, as well as the quality of the faculty, etc.
After graduating, your success again will be influenced largely by the quality of the work you do, your abilities and willingness to do different aspects of work, and to connections unfortunately. It seems true that often employers will take the advice of a mutual acquaintance when deciding between similarly qualified candidates. I think the degree to which the Ivy League connection helps here is overstated, but the connections you make in school and afterward will probably have some influence on your job prospects. Aside from that many schools have different teaching philosophies/methods and degrees of involvement, I don't think there's a huge difference in what you'll get out of school between top-tier and mid-tier schools, and possibly even lower-tier, who knows.
actually, that's not really true is it Frank?
How about people on sports scholarships at Pac 10 schools who do no work? And places like Michigan, Berkeley and UT have just as much problem with legacies freeloading as Harvard and Penn. UVa more so.
thank you, Urbanist. there was recently a study about sports programs that claim to be self-sufficient, but in fact are paid for by the "student activity fees." the football team at columbia sucked, but i did not pay higher tuition so a student who did no work could get HIS diploma for free. if we look at MOST of the big ten, pac ten, sec, etc schools, i think you will find this to be the case for their athletes.
to respond to the legacy issue, FrankLloydMike: i knew ONE. count him, ONE legacy during my undergrad years. i knew zero during my grad school years. sure, this is anecdotal evidence to support my case. but the guy was a legacy was so proud (and obnoxious about it) that i have to assume other people would have been similarly proud too. so at least SOME would have advertised their legacy status had there been more.
GW is a bit of an exception. in the past, the ivies would not allow you to pass your class with less than a c- (not sure if this is still the case). since GW averaged LOWER than that, he should not have been allowed to graduate. BUT he was the product of one of the richest families in america. can you think of any place that money (and we're talking dirty, filthy, oil amounts) doesn't get you what you want? i am sure if more rich people PREFERRED to go to state schools it would work the same way there (or perhaps in a worse manner given their athletic track record - no pun intended). incidentally, one of my professors was his room mate. he should not have graduated from middle school according to some of the stories i heard.
at LEAST the ivies are need blind. that is something a lot of people don't know. they DO NOT LOOK AT FINANCES when determining your admission. sure, some legacies still get in. but is there an instituion (including the US government of course) where connections don't get you int he door?
i was from a DIRT poor family. and so were the VAST majority of my classmates. please don't bash the ivies (or MIT, Chicago, etc) unless you went to one. even then, they are wildly different places. referring to them as a set is also misrepresentation. ultimately, they seem to be good schools. and they seem to do their best to be financially accessible to ALL great students (if you can get in). i am proud of my education, but i do NOT bash other schools that i did not attend, unless i am prompted to do so. ( i will also make an exception to bash for-profit schools, because those are just evil.)
most of the people that I have workied with from the Ivys are whiny bitches
I went to a 3rd tier school, then got hired by a major Arch. office in SF as a BIM specialist/production architect - I was surrounded by a field of Ivy, and many from MIT. I didn't have time for an inferiority complex - I had too much to do, and did it, then got laid off 16 months later and
"How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone"
When you are not cut from the right cloth, I have had to start over again, from the bottom - or as one recruiter said "At least you are working"
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.