These don't mean anything until after the conference championship games.

Question?

If one was considering a MArch 1 (3.5 years with no architecture experience), would you focus on the Undergraduate rankings due to not having any training?

In other words, does Undergraduate rankings in essence = MArch 1; and Graduate rankings = MArch 2?

This is just a question in general, and I understand issues looking just at these rankings, so don't want to debate that.

Thanks,

this report is total bullshit- these programs probably prepare kids in how to use photoshop and complete competition entries... not how to actually build anything.

von, the undergraduate degree for an architecture education list should be a 5 year barch program.  the graduate degree is when you go back to school after you already have an undergrad degree.

you would consider the path you're taking, so if you're going to apply to the masters program, look at the graduate ranking.

bet auburn drops after that beating by a&m

Curtkram,

Thanks, but my point is that given a BArch and a MArch 1 education is basically the same (both assume no architecture training), shouldn't one considering a MArch 1 program look at the Undergraduate ranking?  For example, if you look at RISD, they state that the graduate students in the MArch1 program take classes along side the undergraduate students, and I assume (dangerous as it may be to do) that this is similar at other schools - not sure though.

Vonzippa, what you are asking make sense, but the methodology of this survey won't answer your question with that type of precision.  

Basically, the DI survey asks practitioners about their opinions about accredited programs.  I get one every year directly from Design Intelligence, and then at least half a dozen forwarded to me from affiliated faculty and administrators asking me to rank their school highly.  I've always felt that it rewards schools that have active alumni networks and marketing oriented administrators, and has only an accidental relationship to actual quality of education...

oh right, i forgot they renamed b.arch to m.arch in some places.

i suppose it's different everywhere, but as i understand it with k-state as an example, you get a masters degree but no bachelor's degree with their 5-year program.  i would think a graduate program would imply a preceding undergraduate program, which would mean the k-state masters program is not a graduate program?  a k-state alumni or professor would probably tell you it's still a graduate degree.

i would look at the schools you're interested individually.  correct me if i'm wrong, but rsid offers a 5-year b.arch degree (so it's undergrad).  their master's program assumes you have a previous degree of some sort (so it's grad).  the graduate degree is probably a 2 year program if your previous degree is related to architecture, 3 years if not.  so, while it might be called MArch 1, it's not a 1 year program to get you a 5 year degree the way k-state does.

No Bulgar, these "rankings" are meant to recommend which graduates make better bitches at BS corporate firms. I can see a few undergrad programs in there that actively teach their students Sketchup.

I think there should be a fundamental overhaul on how architecture is taught and readies students for practice. Not to say that I dislike theory or any of that- but it fundamentally has no place in the workforce. 

There are a lot of alternate metrics you can consider. Some of these schools would stack up pretty well, others not so much. Consider faculty accolades, general student stats (HS GPA, SAT, ACT, GRE), graduation rates, acceptance rates, professional outlook.

 

Columbia's placement showcases the absurdity of this ranking. A school that used to represent the future of the profession back in the late 90's has become nothing but a diploma churning machine - high acceptance rate, the shittiest work gets you acceptance and diploma - it is the school people use as a safety when applying to other IVY's.

The best way to judge a school, is to look at what the people who graduated over the past 5 years are doing. You should see Yale, and Princeton in the top spots.

These DI surveys are absurd.

If you've ever been asked to complete this survey, you'd understand that DI is simply asking one (1) person in each surveyed firm to evaluate the education of those employment candidates they've seen (or hired) recently.

In the past few years, our firm has had direct exposure to exactly five (5) of the academic institutions included in the two lists displayed above -- and we're located in a top-10 (by population) metropolitan area. How could our opinion have any meaningful relevance whatsoever to the subject being surveyed -- for that matter, because of the limited sample size probably available to most participants, how could any firm's opinion possibly have any meaningful relevance?

We've concluded this survey is so bogus we've simply stopped participating. The lists displayed above are nothing more than a unscientific compilation of the personal opinions of a few individuals who "kinda sorta know a little something about" a small number of the academic institutions offering architectural degrees.

There is no substance whatsoever behind these lists.

"extremist opinions" - hardly.

While I don't particularly disagree with your assessment of MIT and GIT, the simple fact is that the DI survey methodology is so shallow and unscientific that the survey results are anything but authoritative. Nevertheless, while DI probably gets some of the rankings more-or-less right, it's also true that a broken clock is correct twice each day.

If you want to understand how to conduct a survey of this type, look up the methodology used by Business Week to assess MBA programs.

CHI-GMP: for someone who's been a member of this forum for a mere two months, you might want to be a bit more circumspect about who you call "ignorant".