Enough debate to the death about ivy a vs. ivy b, I want to talk about MIT vs. MIT.
Specifically, I'm interested in their Phd programs, the one in Design and Computation in the Arch. dept, and the Phd in Media Arts and Sciences at the Media Lab. I am interested in Neri Oxman's work at the Media Lab, but she actually got her Phd in Design and Computation.
I was wondering what people's general thoughts of the programs are, any experiences, stories, etc.
My background is...I just got my post-pro master's, and I was disappointed by the lack of thought behind all the pretty renderings and crazy blobs I saw.
I am interested in more rigorous, research based study, and I think MIT's setting is good for that, but I wonder if the Media Lab would stray too far from architecture. Ultimately I am interested in integrating research and practice and I don't think I would be happy as solely academic or solely in practice.
That I am not sure of; I think my M.Arch would actually get me some advanced standing in the Design and Computation program, as the majority of my coursework involved some sort of computation work. I didn't take any theory courses.
But the Media Lab curriculum seems more mysterious and I imagine I would need the MAS degree first. Whether my past experiences would get me advanced standing for the Master's, I have no idea.
I know some people who have applied to the Comp. Ph.D with M.Arch's from very good architecture schools and were nevertheless offered a position in the master's cohort. That's just from my experience of people who I know in these programs.
I agree with smokety. I worked for a Media Lab professor and worked with a bunch of SMarchS grads & ML grads. Usually the SMarchS is a second masters, not a first. Also, an MArch degree is extremely different from a research-based master degree in architecture.
The media lab curriculum is based on working within a research group run by 1-2 professors. Each research group consists of grad and undergrad students who are working towards the professor (or an outside business') research goal. Therefore you have to apply to a specific group and your topic of research has to (strongly) relate to the group's work. Also, from talking with my boss- (I considered applying to the ML), most students are not coming from an architectural background and most do not go on to practice architecture. So if you're planning to work in the architectural field, the PhD or SMarchS might be better. Also, the Design and Computation group is being phased out of the PhD and SMarchS.
I'm sure someone who has gone through the program would have a better explanation but hopefully this will give you a starting point.
I can see how I would have to get a second master's degree, but I am a little confused why you guys think M.Arch is so different from a research based degree. My degree was post-professional, and every course that I took was research based. But, that is an aside.
Tactilegoods, you said that the D+C group is being phased out? Why is that?
Sorry I thought you meant an MArch 1. I just meant in terms of self-led academic research, which typically focuses on writing, rather than a studio-based professional degree program. I'm sure it depends on the school too.
I'm not sure why the group is being phased out. Someone I know was interested in applying to the group last year and was told they're phasing it out and only accepting about 1/2 as many applicants as the previous year. I think he said something about them assuming computation can be appart of any other group since it's more of a method?
Sorry I thought you meant an MArch 1. I just meant in terms of self-led academic research, which typically focuses on writing, rather than a studio-based professional degree program. I'm sure it depends on the school too.
I'm not sure why the group is being phased out. Someone I know was interested in applying to the group last year and was told they're phasing it out and only accepting about 1/2 as many applicants as the previous year. I think he said something about them assuming computation can be appart of any other group since it's more of a method?
Hmm interesting. A few days ago I started an application online to see everything it involved and there is definitely a spot where you specify Phd in Design and Computation.
Definitely something to consider, as I am not really interested in the other specializations very much.
Generally, when you apply to PhD programs you are only conditionally admitted to the PhD, ie you get the chance to prove yourself as you complete your non-terminal masters (as opposed to applying specifically to a terminal masters program). At a certain point, the faculty review the students in the PhD track and give those who aren't living up to their potential the opportunity to leave the program. Looks like at MIT, this happens after your general exam.
A studio-based masters (like an MArch, even a post-professional MArch) is very different than an academic masters. Even if you do "research" in these settings, you're not reading and writing like you would for an academic paper. And not to discount the research done in MArch programs, but I have a feeling that most people in academia would not think of it as research, at all.
Oct 22, 10 1:34 pm ·
·
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.
forget the ivies, let's talk about MIT
Enough debate to the death about ivy a vs. ivy b, I want to talk about MIT vs. MIT.
Specifically, I'm interested in their Phd programs, the one in Design and Computation in the Arch. dept, and the Phd in Media Arts and Sciences at the Media Lab. I am interested in Neri Oxman's work at the Media Lab, but she actually got her Phd in Design and Computation.
I was wondering what people's general thoughts of the programs are, any experiences, stories, etc.
My background is...I just got my post-pro master's, and I was disappointed by the lack of thought behind all the pretty renderings and crazy blobs I saw.
I am interested in more rigorous, research based study, and I think MIT's setting is good for that, but I wonder if the Media Lab would stray too far from architecture. Ultimately I am interested in integrating research and practice and I don't think I would be happy as solely academic or solely in practice.
Thoughts?
You'll probably have to enroll in thd MAS master's or SMarchS in Computation before you go on to the PhD.
That I am not sure of; I think my M.Arch would actually get me some advanced standing in the Design and Computation program, as the majority of my coursework involved some sort of computation work. I didn't take any theory courses.
But the Media Lab curriculum seems more mysterious and I imagine I would need the MAS degree first. Whether my past experiences would get me advanced standing for the Master's, I have no idea.
I know some people who have applied to the Comp. Ph.D with M.Arch's from very good architecture schools and were nevertheless offered a position in the master's cohort. That's just from my experience of people who I know in these programs.
I agree with smokety. I worked for a Media Lab professor and worked with a bunch of SMarchS grads & ML grads. Usually the SMarchS is a second masters, not a first. Also, an MArch degree is extremely different from a research-based master degree in architecture.
The media lab curriculum is based on working within a research group run by 1-2 professors. Each research group consists of grad and undergrad students who are working towards the professor (or an outside business') research goal. Therefore you have to apply to a specific group and your topic of research has to (strongly) relate to the group's work. Also, from talking with my boss- (I considered applying to the ML), most students are not coming from an architectural background and most do not go on to practice architecture. So if you're planning to work in the architectural field, the PhD or SMarchS might be better. Also, the Design and Computation group is being phased out of the PhD and SMarchS.
I'm sure someone who has gone through the program would have a better explanation but hopefully this will give you a starting point.
Thanks for the replies.
I can see how I would have to get a second master's degree, but I am a little confused why you guys think M.Arch is so different from a research based degree. My degree was post-professional, and every course that I took was research based. But, that is an aside.
Tactilegoods, you said that the D+C group is being phased out? Why is that?
Sorry I thought you meant an MArch 1. I just meant in terms of self-led academic research, which typically focuses on writing, rather than a studio-based professional degree program. I'm sure it depends on the school too.
I'm not sure why the group is being phased out. Someone I know was interested in applying to the group last year and was told they're phasing it out and only accepting about 1/2 as many applicants as the previous year. I think he said something about them assuming computation can be appart of any other group since it's more of a method?
Sorry I thought you meant an MArch 1. I just meant in terms of self-led academic research, which typically focuses on writing, rather than a studio-based professional degree program. I'm sure it depends on the school too.
I'm not sure why the group is being phased out. Someone I know was interested in applying to the group last year and was told they're phasing it out and only accepting about 1/2 as many applicants as the previous year. I think he said something about them assuming computation can be appart of any other group since it's more of a method?
Hmm interesting. A few days ago I started an application online to see everything it involved and there is definitely a spot where you specify Phd in Design and Computation.
Definitely something to consider, as I am not really interested in the other specializations very much.
You should call the school and ask about it. I'm sure they know whats up!
Generally, when you apply to PhD programs you are only conditionally admitted to the PhD, ie you get the chance to prove yourself as you complete your non-terminal masters (as opposed to applying specifically to a terminal masters program). At a certain point, the faculty review the students in the PhD track and give those who aren't living up to their potential the opportunity to leave the program. Looks like at MIT, this happens after your general exam.
A studio-based masters (like an MArch, even a post-professional MArch) is very different than an academic masters. Even if you do "research" in these settings, you're not reading and writing like you would for an academic paper. And not to discount the research done in MArch programs, but I have a feeling that most people in academia would not think of it as research, at all.
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.