When you say UTA, do you mean the University of Texas at Arlington?

oops, sorry I meant University of texas at Austin

Ah, good. It's just referred to as UT by those near it.

UTA, on the other hand, is an absolute hellhole. Avoid at all costs.

lol, duly noted. out of curiosity what is it about it that elicits such animosity? and do you know anything else about UT that a prospective m.arch student such as myself should know about? would austin be an interesting city to study architecture at, with respect to the city infrastructure, networking, and architecty projects going on?

Being from Boston, I'd say look into Wentworth or Northeastern University. Both are really good schools and offer accredited MArch degrees. Wentworth is cheaper but Northeastern has the name. I know its all the way across the country, but it doesn't hurt to look.

By the way, Boston and Cambridge are two of the coolest cities to study architecture in... architectural time capsules and trend setters all in one.

... I mean, unless you think you're Harvard/MIT material. If so, don't even waste your time with NEU and WIT

Just curious-why is UTA a hell hole? A girl I went to grad school with transfered from there but I never asked her what the school or program was like.

You will LOVE Austin! And UT Architecture is great!

UTA does some interesting work with fabrication...much more than UT.

UT is very conservative from an architectural standpoint. They preach Vitruvius over anything novel. Theory is not really supported at UT...although you will know how to detail a "building".

If you want theory you might want to check out Rice, if Texas is your destination. UH is also a good school...it is between the UT and Rice pedagogy, imho. Nice huge fabrication facilities at UH as well.

All of the schools mentioned are quality schools...just don't expect any overt novel investigation at UT...distorting future dystopia's and the like are not really in their scope. I have even spoken to professors there recently that say the school has really fallen back in the digital realm and has little support in digital fabrication or digital in general. At UT hand drawing is still the preferred medium. It doesn't make it bad, but one should know what they are getting in to.

Austin is nice and laid back but the Architecture here is very conservative compared to most other cities of the same size or larger. Mod boxes are about as avant as it gets here. Again, not a bad thing but something to consider when making decisions for ones design future.

Predock's city hall is about as avant-garde as you get in austin.

Wow chupacabra, thanks for the info. I guess I had gotten some misinformation about UT. Yes, I definitely want some mix of theory, avant-gardism and exploration in a design school but also need some technical grounded work so as not to be making floating castles all day long. I think one of the worst things for me is if I end up in an environment surrounded with boxy architecture. You're right its not a bad thing but I would like room to push some limits while in school since there probably wont be too much room out in the real world.

Although I do like that UT has a sustainability concentration and it would seem wise to get an education in sustainability these days. Do you know of other schools that really focus on that? some of them seem to state that they do but may just be giving it lip service without really doing so.

It's a shame what you mentioned about austin's architecture because so many people have said they loved the city.


From looking at Rice's website and faculty descriptions, there seems to be a large number that either went to or taught at schools like berkeley and gsd. And a few of them have stated that they are very focused on traditional, practical architecture. Should I assume that those are in the mix with the general theoretical pedagogy of the school? do you or anyone else know what the admittance rate at rice is, i.e. what chances do i have of getting in?

Due 89- I will check out wentworth and northeastern. could you elaborate more on what you know about them in terms of their focus and concentration? I would consider moving out there to live in a cool city but I'm also from socal and am a spoiled brat when it comes to warm weather. I don't know if I will be strong enough to brave east coast sub-freezing temperatures, haha.

Rice acceptance rate is pretty narrow. They take around 10-12 students and usually have around 300 apply.

The UTA architecture experience is pretty much miserable from start to finish, to the point that after 3.5 semesters here I'm getting ready to apply to six other much better schools, even if it means starting my M.Arch over from scratch.

Here are the first several things that come to mind that might yield a 'hellhole' description:

- ridiculous prejudice against first-professional M.Arch students by a large and constantly growing number of faculty.

- admissions standards are essentially nonexistent (no portfolio required?!), so studios are full of weak students dragging down the ones who actually do quality work.

- the main campus gym is right across the street from the architecture building, so lots of idiot meatheads come over to our building to use the computer lab (see below), and have a habit of breaking/tagging/otherwise ruining models that are on display.

- computer labs are a nightmare; they're run by the UTA IT department, not the architecture department. As a result, the hours of operation are totally absurd, the lab proctors aren't architecture students and aren't trained at all, and the whole system goes down fairly regularly. Plotters aren't maintained properly, arch. students are routinely kicked out for things like business school classes (!), there is no mechanism to prevent non-architecture students from using our lab for facebook or youtube for hours on end. Also, printing has gone from free to outrageously expensive (usually at least $50+ per pinup, if you have more than a couple of drawings), because non-architecture students used to (and still do, at significant cost) use the plotters to make banners for parties, etc. and use up all the ink and paper.

- parking is absolutely insane. there have been numerous times that i have missed morning classes because i was driving around for 90+ minutes looking for a parking space. during the first half of the semester, you pretty much have to get to campus before 7:30 am to get a spot easily.

- administration/advising is mindblowingly incompetent. students can't register for their own classes; the graduate advisor's assistant has to do it for them, and she often gets overwhelmed and just LEAVES CAMPUS during registration periods. she won't talk to anyone in person, and it's near impossible to get her to answer emails. when we were up for reaccreditation last spring, the advising was one of the only points where the NAAB team said we didn't meet the MINIMUM requirements.

- we have some decent facilities (an okay woodshop, a digital fabrication lab with a laser cutter and 3d printer), but they're so inconsistently available that having them almost becomes a liability. say it's saturday and you're working on finishing up a project for monday that requires the woodshop. the posted hours are 8am - 8pm. so you head over there, only to find a sign on the door that says 'closed for the weekend.' no warning of this, nothing that would allow you to manage your time differently to account for it, and now you've got to find someone with a table saw and a sandblaster or else your work just isn't going to get finished.

That's probably more than enough to get my point across, though I could go on. Sorry about the epic post; it was more for my own catharsis than anything.

chupacubra, I think some of your info on UT and Austin is a bit out of date and somewhat misinforming...


UTA does some interesting work with fabrication...much more than UT.

-UT currently has a 3-axis CNC router, 3 laser cutters, two 3d printers - one plastic and one plaster, & a 3d scanner, there is also a very nice woodshop, at least a dozen large plotters, plus the entire materials lab, where at any given time you walk in there, you will find various student digitally fabricated projects.

UT is very conservative from an architectural standpoint. They preach Vitruvius over anything novel. Theory is not really supported at UT...although you will know how to detail a "building".

That's just simply not true. There is currently a very diverse range of faculty at the school right now, from your long time tenured professors to younger faculty who are well versed in theory & digital design processes, many of which hold an ivy M.Arch and/or currently work for/have worked for world famous architects.

If you want theory you might want to check out Rice, if Texas is your destination. UH is also a good school...it is between the UT and Rice pedagogy, imho. Nice huge fabrication facilities at UH as well.

Yes, Rice is a very good school too, but i'm not going to give second or third hand advice about their program because I chose not to go there and don't have first hand knowledge.

All of the schools mentioned are quality schools...just don't expect any overt novel investigation at UT...distorting future dystopia's and the like are not really in their scope.

Not sure if I would want to study dystopias in an architecture school...seems like one of those areas that architects assume that they can have an impact on from their hermetic design and fancy graphics processes (see: Modernism) without reaching out to those who study those topics on a far more rigorous level - sociologists, political scientists, economists, etc.

I have even spoken to professors there recently that say the school has really fallen back in the digital realm and has little support in digital fabrication or digital in general. At UT hand drawing is still the preferred medium. It doesn't make it bad, but one should know what they are getting in to.

As a member of the faculty there, I must disagree. I mentioned the digital resources above. All of the schools software platforms are introduced to the students during their sophomore year (as a grad student most already know them). Yes, hand drawing is taught, it teaches the basic fundamentals of graphic representation that the computer will automatically do for you without explaining any of the "why" behind the process. Everyone SHOULD know that unless you are specifically creating a perspective rendering where you are looking up or down, you verticals should be vertical, but this is so often overlooked with the ever so slight three point perspective result because they were orbiting around a 3d model until they found a view they thought looked cool and then hit "render". When you have to invest the amount of time to pull off a nice hand generated perspective, you are much more likely to learn the importance of capturing a key view/moment in your design. Hand drawing is however no means required past the freshman year. All other students make use of the digital software and fabrication devices.

I'm not meaning to come off as overly harsh but it would be unfortunate to steer someone away from a school based on what you "think" you know of that schools program...

As far as interesting buildings in Ausitn, LTL's Arthouse is opening this weekend. I went on a pre-opening tour with Paul Lewis and I can say that it is a great project.

LTL


I'm also a fan of Alejandro Aravena's student dorm at St. Edwards University.

Alejandro Aravena

"Not sure if I would want to study dystopias in an architecture school..."


Then the school does not support theory. My point made, Thank you.

From the earliest of times Architects have been defining the dystopian and utopian views of the world...to ignore that is to ignore architecture history. I am sure the egyptions were functioning on purely pragmatic terms...please. How did UT treat Marcus Novak? Not well.

There is good work coming out of UT...just not overly imaginative work...I have been on juries there and am only basing my information on professors, students, and the work I have seen. Take it for what it is worth.

With with all things austin though, I am not surprised at the defensive stance against any criticism. Sometimes it is important to be self critical...Austin becomes a bit of a vacuum...places like Houston, LA, NY, have the benefit of size, as well as other voices in arhchitecture...i.e. there is not one school with a single perspective that dominates...such as the comment that studying dystopia's doesn't fit into architecture...this while austin is creating a dystopia by ignoring longterm urban planning.

Anyway...carry on.

"but i'm not going to give second or third hand advice about their program"

Uhh...it is a forum on the internet...my assumption, and of course I could be wrong, would be that someone is looking for any info...in their adult wisdom I am sure they are able to maneuver the discourse and parse the information that is able to further their own investigation...who knows.

as a m.arch student at UT (austin) I would generally agree with tagalong. chupacabra, I'm not sure where you're getting your info but it's not entirely accurate to my experience at UT.

and mr. minimal is definitely talking about UT Arlington...

I certainly have not experienced a preponderance of conservative architectural thought here at UT. I think one's experience of UT largely depend on what path you choose to follow, as UT is a large enough program to accommodate different modes of discourse. I don't consider it to be a 'one-hit wonder' type of program, as in UT doesn't spit out a certain type of designer, as some schools do. I think UT does pride itself on being the highest (or one of the highest) scoring schools on the ARE, which does hint a little at UT's direction. I have not noticed in my time here any sort of vitruvian preaching over anything novel...

UT austin is firmly in the digital realm, though there is a tendency in earlier design studios to concentrate on hand drawing and hand modeling. we do have professors and studios that work solely in the digital fabrication realm, and all students incorporate it in their projects.

as far as the austin architectural scene goes, I think the smaller-scale residential stuff here is more interesting than larger scale. I consider austin to be a smaller metro area and the architecture scene is scaled accordingly. And if you desire, you can just hop on over to houston or dallas for the big kahunas of the architectural scene in tx.

I also don't get the impression that UT grads stay in austin after they gradate. they go in many directions: starchitect or other firms in other places, back to hometowns, etc. I think UT has a big enough name, especially on the west coast, that you would be just fine back in socal.

So who at UT is teaching a studio that is pushing scripting? Just curious.

I know they have digital equipment...my understanding was that there is very little being done in pushing what the equipment can do...again, this is by listening to current professors and current and past students.

I would love to know of anyone at UT Austin teaching advanced scripting - vb,c#,grasshopper,maya, processing, digital interface - arduino, etc. And I am not talking about a workshop here or there. All of that mentioned above is of regular conversation and inclusion at many other theory leaning places...sciarc, etc.


I never said the school is bad, quite the opposite...it is very good. Just answering the relationship to theory...and from what i have seen and heard, and read on this board, it is not something they champion...and that is fine...I would love to know who those professors are at UT that are doing that work though...please inform me.

UT is a strong program, but it's different from UTA -- pretty much like any comparison of 2 schools it just depends on what your interests are and how much the school fits those interests

that being said.... i graduated from UTA [a while ago] and myself and all of my friends from UTA continued their education in top grad programs:

UPenn, Harvard, AA, Bartlett, UCLA, Sci-Arc, Parsons, OSU, RISD, and others [in no particular order]

without the background that UTA provided they would not have been able to get into these programs. even though many of us continued our graduate education at other schools around the country, we all agree that the studio culture and accessibility to the diverse and high energy faculty that we had at UTA was never matched at any of the other schools we attended.

as with any and all architecture programs it depends on the classes and studio professors you want to take, and the time and hard work that you put into it. but that's on you to make of your program what you will. if you're smart and rigorous your work will show that rigor, if not, welcome to mediocrity.

UT Arlington is a very solid program and i know a ton of talented designers that came out of the architecture school there.

thanks for all the comments everyone. it is always helpful to have differing opinions on a topic and get debate going to really uncover the truth about something.

It is good to hear that ut has a firm foot in the digital realm, although i do see a benefit in teaching hand drawing in the beginning. it would give you foundation for when you go into the digital realm. also it is important to keep that skill from dying as we speed faster and faster into the digital world. it would be a shame if 20 yrs from now architects didnt know how to pick up a pencil to draw a building, and im glad to hear ut has that insight so long as they focus on today's pertinent skills as well.

landshark- do u find that ut austins network is helpful to grads who want to find work elsewhere or are they kind of just thrown out to the big bad world. i mean not just through the school's name but through connections with faculty staff etc. because it seems like ability to find work would be largely boosted by who u know. additionally, do u know if they give out a decent amt of scholarships and fin aid?

admittedly, I am not that involved with parametric design / scripting, and i haven't really pursued it at UT. but off the top of my head I would say beaman, briscoe and siddiqui are very heavily involved in the digital realm. I think it's interesting that you only equate theory with scripting processes. while i think it's a worthwhile exploration it doesn't constitute the entire field of avant-garde theoretical discourse today. I'm not saying that you'll get the same thing here as what you will find at sci-arc or columbia, and if scripting is your primary focus, don't come to UT. but I don't think UT has a theoretical black hole in the area of parametric design.

anyway. archinector, UT has a residency program which allows you to work with a firm for a semester (sometimes longer) before you graduate. grad students often go international for this, and I personally know people doing their residency for firms like piano, oma, kundig, sauerbruch hutton, blah blah blah. http://soa.utexas.edu/resources/prp . often it happens that the firm will want you back when you're done with school. of course, if it's networking that you really want, you should go to an ivy. i think UT does pretty well for recent grads (excluding the whole economic catastrophe).

UT doesn't really offer much in the way of scholarships. I think their thought is that it's pretty cheap anyway. about 10k per semester for out-of-state, and you can find ways to become a resident after one year, and pay 5k. and there's TA and RA positions, and a few grants here and there.

"I'm not saying that you'll get the same thing here as what you will find at sci-arc or columbia, and if scripting is your primary focus, don't come to UT. but I don't think UT has a theoretical black hole in the area of parametric design. "


This was my only point that everyone got defensive about. Things are not black and white...because I stated UT doesn't champion theory like those you mentioned does not make it a blackhole...but in regards to this persons questions it doesn't jive that UT is theoretically vigorous but not in relation to those it would be related to. That makes it not that interested in theory overall...which is fine.


" I think it's interesting that you only equate theory with scripting processes. while i think it's a worthwhile exploration it doesn't constitute the entire field of avant-garde theoretical discourse today."


Never said I did...but, to deny scripting/emergence,parametrics (all very different by the way) is in the forefront of the avante discourse is to be naive at best. Systems thinking and more are being developed through all sorts of processing rigor...nor is it a tiny sliver like you presume...it is essential in my opinion. Pushing the envelope beyond what was done before sort if become the definition of novel investigation.

UT has a great materials lab. But they are recreating polymers within a biotech lab like say MIT?

UT is a good school but in the gradient of theory applied by academies of education in this country it is not close to being at the primary edge of the discussion...and it really doesn't matter if it is or isn't...only if it matters to the individual making the decisions. I mean, I am in no way surprised that more "out there" work is being done in NY, LA, London, etc.

Ok...I am done explaining my comments. Never intended to ruffle anyones feathers...just to shed a little more of a full spectrum understanding where UT sits in regard to Architectural theory from my and a few others perspectives.


A last thing...when I choosing between a few schools, UT one of them, I was told by UT admin that if you move from out of state and start without residency then you pay out of state for the full attendance. One had to become in state first by buying property or living there for a year...some sort of hoops you had to hop through first. It was frustrating for me being originally from texas but applying from outside the state...anyway, you may want to make sure what hurdles one has to maneuver to get in state in Texas. I know it is not as easy as California but I lack any specifics.

thanks landshark. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I think only scripting is involved in theory. I think they are skills that will probably be beneficial in terms of getting employed but that is not my only interest..I think the conversation just kind of got directed towards that direction. I guess to put it bluntly I want to make cool trippy stuff and sci-arc would probably be a good place for that but I wanted to explore other options as well. I wanted to get a mix of avant-gard discussion with some grounded work that applies to the working world which was what I feared that you wouldn't get a sci-arc, but may very well be the case with any school - I'm not sure . I'm still new to the architecture world so all of this is helping to clear up my misconceptions. Thanks for all the comments, it was very helpful!