That MIT, however, does have more of a focus than other schools on INTERNATIONAL work and issues.

I have been told by multiple former GSD faculty that the 'my important/rich parent got me in' factor is much more prevalent at the GSD than MIT. To the point that professors are sometimes not given full discretion with regard to grading and allowing students to continue in the program. That seems troubling to me, because I'd want to be in the exclusive company of those who earned their spot in the program (you won't learn anything in studio from the trust-funder who paid to have a portfolio designed and statement of purpose written, and yes, that absolutely happens).

if you go to mit, you'l be the pretties girl there.

even if you're a boy.

well, going to MIT will at least be good for the self-esteem on a superficial level, hah :)

Hi renmonk,

I'm not sure if my answer will help at all. But if you'd like to get into the whole architecutre-for-social-justice, disaster, non profit type, I suppose no matter which school you go to, you'll be judged by your experience and willingness to take the extra steps in the aforementioned discourse. It could be local volunteering, being involved in work/groups that do social justice (or whatever, I'm just using this an example) which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with architecture. And if you are thinking of working internationally, you MUST learn some foreign language.

Although the mere mention of Harvard or MIT in your resume might help as well in securing a job :) I suppose it is the opportunity these schools provide to network with other likeminded which will open you to new opportunities.

Best of luck!

Thank you! Luckily, the language side is covered :)

Hmm...maybe I asked the wrong question. How's this -

MIT or GSD, where would you go?

I envy you! I could just dream the mere act of just applying there :(

Archinect editor Quilian Riano did pretty much exactly what you're talking about during his time at the GSD. He had a school blog that you may find helpful.

Yes I have read his blog...interesting stuff! Now where are the MIT MArch school blogs!?

for what you're interested in I think GSD might be a slightly better fit.

were you planning on taking classes at the Kennedy School?

I was indeed hoping to take classes at the Kennedy school.

The advantage of MIT seemed to be to a large degree the ability to get a certificate or dual degree in Planning, which seems to be harder or impossible at the GSD.

so - what skills are you hoping to get out of these programs? do you want to primarily be an architect that focuses on architectural solutions to specific issues surrounding social justice and ecology, or do you want to be a non-profit that focuses on larger issues and connects people with design services? you're heading down a difficult road, and even if you do study both you might have to pick one or the other - IMO - this might help you decide which school fits this particular goal better...

I would like to be a design professional (eg architect) who works on the larger issues surrounding social justice, planning and ecology.

Maybe, at some point my interests mean no longer working professionally as a designer, but transitioning into some sort of nonprofit or academic initiative. It's ok with me if I'm not building buildings my whole life.

So, in an answer to your question...I want to obtain architectural design skills from an MArch program so that I can competently and professionally design buildings. But I also want to learn about ways in which they could be applied in struggling communities, for instance in well-designed affordable housing; how architects can work together with landscape architects and planners to address the health of larger areas from a social and ecological perspective; how urban design, urban planning and architecture fit together to lessen urban inequalities; and how cities develop.

In short, designing buildings is not the "end goal". I would rather manage a nonprofit that works to alleviate urban poverty than endlessly churn out identical suburban crap that contributes to this inequality in the first place.

It sounds like you went to the GSD, or are at least of the opinion that it might be a better place for this kind of stuff?

I didn't go to the GSD or MIT - but I've collaborated with people from both programs, and I have similar interests. my opinion is that at the GSD you'll have more opportunities to network with people who are doing this sort of work at the leadership level - however it will most likely be with adjunct faculty, research fellows, and/or people in other departments. MIT does do more local community outreach and has more technology resources, but it's a smaller program and seems to lean more toward design/tech solutions rather than policy and leadership.

I think you'll get a lot out of both places - but you're going to have to do a lot of the leg work to get what you want. I'd encourage you to talk more with individuals in both programs instead of asking random people on archinect (since our advice is likely dodgy at best). I know both programs will be looking to you to take the initiative - especially if you want to do any kind of interdisciplinary work.

also - there are 4 other architecture schools in Boston (the BAC is worth connecting with if you are interested in doing local community stuff) - plus Tufts has a pretty good urban planning/policy dept. and there are dozens of excellent community organizations in the Boston area that would be more than happy to collaborate on something with you - so you really aren't limited by either school - just by how much time you have.

rennmonk - sounds like you shouldn't go to architecture school at all. the point of M.Arch is to design buildings...

re: n short, designing buildings is not the "end goal". I would rather manage a nonprofit that works to alleviate urban poverty than endlessly churn out identical suburban crap that contributes to this inequality in the first place.

Although it's hard to get a dual degree (but possible) if your'e going for an MArch 1, GSD's planning department is much more spatial compared to MIT. You'll have the opportunity to take studios in the Urban Design Department and some of their electives.  And yes...there are cultish traditions there!

renmonk,

if you don't mind me asking, where did you end up deciding to enroll? And thus far, do you feel like you've made the right decision? 

MIT is less dependent on (professional) adjuncts and more on their own faculty.  This can mean less exposure to current industry realities (and yes, networking opportunities) but also more opportunities to do hardcore academic research, get published and exhibited, and so forth.  

GSD dresses better.   The latter differentiator can actually make a difference if you're basically living in studio.

I went to MIT because they offered a much better package (this was years ago.. that may have changed, I suppose).  In the end, I couldn't justify turning that to down. 

Nice Solar Park montage there, Kennan.

I would not necessarily agree with Kennan's observation that planning is more spatial at the GSD.  Production values in MIT's Sensible Cities and City Design & Development programs can be quite high and they offer, I would argue, more justification and quantification of the physical planning decisions underlying design work.  It's just that MIT's planning dept is not just limited to those two programs.  They also do non-spatial planning through other programs under the planning/DUSP rubic that Harvard doesn't.