Don't bother with the US system. There are excellent Canadian programs that will get you what you need without costing $200K.

As for portfolios, they are to be a representation of your design ability and creative process. It would be a grave error to assume that there is a specific formula and the grading process is more often than not, extremely subjective.

The real question is: Why would you be a better candidate to teach architecture if your only exposure to the field is an M.arch? Seems a very unlikely career path.

Hello Non Sequitur, thanks for your reply! Which Canadian programs do you mean specifically? I found that the options in Canada are more limited - UBC, Toronto, Mcgill are all good, but none of them seem great. 

After M.Arch I plan on continuing in grad school, and maybe even working for a few years before teaching. Do you have any suggestions for things I can do to make teaching a more realistic goal?

In order of excellence:

Waterloo & Mcgill

UBC

...big jump...

the remaining 8 or so schools

You need more than artistic flair to teach architecture. Practical experience helps, how else are you to train architects without actually knowing how the profession or buildings function?

"I thought a B.Arch would not be very useful to me unless I have a M.Arch too"

Here's where you made one mistake, whether or not it matters is your fate. A BS or BA would be useless but you don't need more than a B.Arch to work and be done with school. It'd likely be far more comprehensive too and if you were to go back for a Master's, it cuts that degree shorter and saving a lot of dough. 

I don't even know why you'd be starting the portfolio right now. Focus on your other degree first. Most people assemble something in the months or moth before the fall application deadline. You have the foresight to at least think about this but there isn't a need to try to fit into some style when you know very little if any. Think about it more senior year.

It's not the background issue of getting in. Plenty of non-related people hop on. But three years...you better hope there's some funding because tuition alone will be at least in the six figures. If you want to teach, find the cheapest route, do well, and be invited to these Ivy schools. All the fun and none of the debt.

argon,

I too am aiming at many of the Ivy League M.Arch programs, so I can relate to your ambitions and concerns.

1) If you want to be a tenured professor, then you'll almost certainly need to go to an Ivy League school - of course there are exceptions, but it just seemed like all of my professors in undergrad had some sort of Ivy affiliation, whether it was their M.Arch, M.S.Arch, or Ph.D. If you don't get into an Ivy for your M.Arch, and decide to go to a school that isnt as prestigious, you can always apply to a M.S.Arch or Ph.D. at one of the Ivies, and it seems to be increasingly likely you'd get accepted there (because you'll have more specialization and there's less competition). Also, you'll probably want to consider getting your doctorate or M.S.Arch after your M.Arch if you're going to spend your career in academia.

2) Portfolio: I was able to see the students' portfolios who had been admitted the year prior at a Top 5 program. There was certainly a style of design that most of the applicants fit into - it was easily identifable to me, but its hard to describe. The easiest way I can explain it was that it resembled BIG's work, especially in terms of diagramming and renderings. The actual content of your work though is probably more important, but visually most of the portfolios looked similar.

There's two ways you can play this: a) you can try to make your portfolio look like the "trendy, cutting-edge" styles that make up the majority of admissions to these programs, or b) you can be yourself and allow your individual eye to transcend the competition - if you are truly deserving of a spot in their program, meaning you are sufficiently talented, applying with a unique portfolio will be your best shot at acceptance so long that it is cohesive with your personal statement. I can't personally prescribe a) or b) to you, because in all honesty you might not be sufficiently talented to gain acceptance, and realistically you might have a better chance with designing your portfolio to equal the status-quo "cream of the crop". In order to do that successfully, you'll have to be able to proficiently comprehend, analyze, and understand what the admissions boards are looking to see. The biggest drawback with this though is that most of the students getting second looks might have portfolios like this, and now you're directly competitng with them because your styles are recognizably similar. The obvious benefit though is that by simply entering the competiton, you're one step closer to winning it.

My personal motive is to apply with a unique portfolio because I have a unique insight on my wants and needs for these programs - I do feel that I'm sufficiently talented for these schools, but that doesn't mean I am, and we'll see how I fair with acceptance in the long run. I'm willing to take the risk because I know my portfolio will stand out from everyone else's, and I hope to use this to my advantage. It's important to understand though that by garnering extra attention like this, you will probably be evaluated more critically, which again, can be good or bad depending on your level of confidence.

^Kickrocks

The op is studying in Canada and there are no B.Arch equivalent degrees in any universities... It's been replaced with a 4y BAS + 1 to 2y M.arch or a 3.5y M.arch with any random bachelors' degree.

kickrocks, thank you for your reply. I think it may be a good idea to start working on my portfolio now, in case any of the projects take longer than expected. As for the design of the portfolio itself, I may be able to do a few drafts over the years and hopefully that will lead to a better result. 

BR.TN, your reply was very helpful. I'm planning to do a doctorate eventually (hopefully). Based on your reply and my opinion, I think it might be a good idea to try a unique style and work on developing it through critiques, since I am, after all, in a design program currently and can get lots of feedback from other designers. I imagine if I can't get that to work, then defaulting to the "standard" portfolio will be my other option. Right now I'm very interested in historical architecture styles and perhaps combining them with modern architecture - which doesn't seem to be very popular or easy-to-work-with.

Kozumelle, thank you! The Ivy League seems like a distant dream that could open doors to opportunities. I've heard that they usually have good financial support too, I hope that's true.

@Non Sequitor

Good to know, I'm dated and also don't look into Canadian programs all that much. Doesn't seem all that different except the Master's degree title. 

@argon

Definitely have it in mind. But you'll probably want to develop your own sense of style now because it's the right time to experiment and have fun without much risk. It's not hard to put together a generic portfolio but it takes some effort to pull off something different. Good or bad. You should have a fairly functional and diverse background by then so make use of it.

Kickrocks, correct. they are pretty much the same, at least on paper. The last Canadian B.Arch was in the early 2000s if I recall correctly.

Argon, style is easy. Do not be fooled by the "ivy" siren's call. Many fools are drawn to them but the return on the investment is no where as grand as people claim.

Non Sequitur, do you mean that the actual educational experience isn't very good, or the debt?

Argon, people have very different experiences in school. It's a subjective work-load in a profession which is more often than not, 95% objective. I mean you could try and write poetically about ground-water infiltration, but at the end of the day, there is little room for discussion when it comes to construction details.

My point is that the debt is not worth it. You're looking at this world from outside and I'm thinking you have a romantic, but unrealistic expectation.

Hi Argo,

I would strongly discourage you to further study architecture but go to real estate/ MBA program instead. 

I did my 3 years MArch degree from an Ivy League schools and I did not find much benefits in reality and those who graduated in these recent years had a hard time in finding jobs. Think about the amount of tuition and time spent on those three years and if you are on loan, that would be very scary. If you're a Canadian citizen, an in-state school should serve the purpose just fine. You could always do an extra one year advanced master anytime later, which is cheaper and the same as MArch. If you do MArch, you have to finish the three years program non-stop. The Ivy architecture schools need the money anyway, they do not care much about architecture these days.

You'll feel like you have been cheated after spending so much money. Don't go!

Hoo boy.

Argon,  the biggest factor is if you (your family) is wealthy or not.  If you have money, heck--do what you want. 

If you are not wealthy (and I'm leaving this poorly-defined on purpose), and going to have to take out a lot of loans-- be aware that as an international student you will not be afforded the easy credit that Americans would on Federal Loans, and your terms of repayment will be much stricter, with fewer options for forgiveness or deferment.   At the GSD for example, they will probably grant you about 25-40% of the costs (because they do for most), and you will end up with probably $25K/year of cost that has to come from a mix of meager Canadian loans and private debt (Bank of America is a Canadian favorite here).

But sticking with the GSD here-- it's a wonderful and horrible place that is probably unmatched for the intensity of intellect, intimacy, incestuous self-awareness, and really good music at dance parties.  You will probably be around people destined for great things-- either by virtue of their talent, or their privilege going in.   And the profs are great if you stay away from the visiting starchitects.   If I had the money and I were obsessed primarily with ideas, it should probably be my first choice (I don't, I am, and it wasn't... I went to Penn because it's my hometown and scholarships).

That being said, being at an IVY will ensure that you are surrounded by people who are at least as wealthy or wealthier than you.   If you become sensitive to the culture that is created by such an unfortunately small slice of society, then it can become a challenge to participate and contextualize the substance of the work you do there.   If you don't notice things like that, then you'll probably fit right in.   You can thrive either way.


Also, don't necessarily listen to those telling you to "stay away," or "get an MBA."   You need to inspect advice like that carefully to separate the genuine wisdom from personal grudges.   They're not necessarily wrong.   It's just more complicated than that.
 

HI Argon,

I would strongly suggest that you work in an office which is more important than academia, either corporate (SOM, KPF), star-office(OMA, FOA), small practice and see if you really want to be an architect. It is a very long journey.

Ivy Leagues schools are ivory towers with bunch of self-liars which do things totally detached from practical reality both in corporate sense and in architectural sense. Basically, they are not architects (period) Name which full time teachers at GSD that actually licensed, practice and know how to detail, Toshiko Mori... couldn't think of other.

If you go to Princeton, that's even worse, those people only talks, produce strange images and make connections. none of them is AIA qualified, don't even have a PhD and still can be professors, that's why Princeton don't even have a ranking, it is ridiculous... even if you are in a humanity departments, you still need a PhD.

Most of the best architects in Europe stayed away from Ivy Leagues...

If you stay in Canada, at least you have Patkau, Shim Sutcliff who actually practice, teach and do great buildings etc. Architecture is about quality not qualification.

However, if you go to law school, business school and medical school. Ivy Leagues would serve the purpose well!

full time teachers at GSD licensed, practicing, know how to detail:

Maryann Thompson, Beth Whittaker, Scott Cohen, Jorge Silvetti, Florian Idenburg, Toshiko Mori, Jonathan Levi, Mack Scogin, and that's just off the top of my head.

Seriously, don't listen to the grudges and the hype.   Dig in, discover what these places are like.   Then decide whether you are rich enough.

I agree it's a long journey.  But that journey starts at the IVYs for many.   Don't get bitter.

The higher educational system's balloon is bursting. The law schools (ivys included) have already done a passable imitation of the Hindenburg landing at New Jersey, and many MBA schools are looking a little green around the gills as well. You have to ask yourself is the average, median, or mean salary (pick one) of an ivy architect at any point in his career really significantly different from anyone else's and is it worth the ungodly tuition. I am sure a lot of students think they are special snowflakes until they graduate and are staring at a low salary and extremely high loan repayments.

Volunteer,

What about when you consider the highest paid architectural professionals?

Starchitects - Chairmen/CEO - Principals - Associates - Directors - Professors

Every single title above is paid more than $100,000 annually in this profession. In a very small office, something like under 20 people, there might be an exception; the higher-ups might be paid less than $100k but this reflects the demand of their work as well. If DS+R only had 20 people I could guarantee you that Liz Diller would still make over $150,000 annually, because her designs are so in-demand. DS+R has about 100 employees now, so they're a larger firm, but I can also guess that Diller takes home $200,000+ every year. She is a starchitect, of course.

Where do Ivy league degrees fit in? Is it a coincidence that so many Ivy league graduates find themselves as Principals, Associates, Directors, and Professors, later in life? Surely its not. Perhaps its just because they're more talented, or perhaps its because they graduate with so much debt, that this motivates them to continually raise the bar with their efforts in the industry - they have more at risk than someone who graduated with little debt. I would imagine that many of them have entrepreneurial mindsets because of this.

If you graduate with an Ivy League degree, you put a lot of pressure on yourself, but you make it more likely that you'll land at the top of the pyramidal payscale in the industry as well just by affiliation. Alas, this same outcome is apparent in most other commercial professions.

It should be acknowledged that an architect's alma mater doesn't directly equate to their proficiency or potential. Your education doesn't define your career, and there are wildly successful architects today that never went to Ivy League programs - however, I would be willing to guess that the highest paid professionals in our industry went to the most prestigious schools of architecture, and have probably worked on some of the more prestigious projects with the most prestigious offices in the world. The owners of these offices are surely millionaires, and some of them started out as meager minds of design but grew into their worth...and I bet quite a few of them were born with silver spoons as well.

Hi,

Somehow a brutal word makes more effect than a decent complacency.

Architecture is never a business and great architects are like genie who shed light on dark ages. If you ask how much a great piece of architecture worth is the same as you ask how much Heidegger's text worth. That is priceless.

However, if you want to have an education that enlightens you, so you understand the world better and give yourself a life long direction. Ivy leagues are not the places, mostly they make you more confused.

If you want to have a good salary job, working at architect office and becoming associate do the work just fine. However, if you are in banking or real estate business, the time would be much shorter as the pay is 2-3 times that of architects. You could retire at the age of 40-45. Then you could use the money, design your own house in Florida and have a happy life.

Being a project architect is a very tough profession because design is only a very small portion of the profession, doing coordination with clients, contractors and the government would spend most of your time and this is extremely tedious and long hour. Does it really worth doing all these tedious jobs with the amount of pay and time? Also, architect is a strange profession in a sense that you have a star figure, who owns the whole company. Let us say some star-architect, Liz Diller for example, she does not really have to do all the tedious project architect job which are the core of the business. All the Ivy league grads, because of the loan repayment, they have to find a job at those offices naturally and all the credit goes back to Liz Diller. Cunning.

GSD was great during Raphael Moneo time. Thompson and Rose is also a very good architect.

You're forgetting that Liz Diller was an entry-level designer and project architect before being the design principal at her firm or a professor at Princeton.

I'm assuming she worked her ass off for several consecutive years before seeing any of those opportunities manifest themselves. She might be an anomaly though because she married her professor from school - Mr. Scofidio has 10+ years on Diller, and they founded their firm shortly after she graduated in her 20s. I'm assuming she had financial backing from Scofidio who was in his 40s by then, so I guess she found love and just lucked out. These employees she has working to the bone are all younger than her, but in 20 years they will probably find themselves in a similar position or at least will have the potential to pursue it as a firm owner.

If you work hard during your career in commercial architecture, get promoted up to associate/principal and produce some great work, then even the financiers who pull in salaries over $300k will envy you for the value youve added to society. Think about John Portman - who designed most of Atlanta's skyline, or Bruce Graham, who helped put the Hancock and Sears Towers in Chicago. Look at Adrian Smith - who's designed about 5 of the Top 15 tallest towers in the world. I understand these are only a few select individuals - but that pertains to every profession. Any investment banker in Manhattan would kill to have a skyline as their portfolio to represent their career when they retire. A number in a bank account is hardly meaningful to anyone outside your immediate family. Can that investment banker retire earlier and buy a custom-home on the Floridian sand? Yeah, I guess. Can they look back on their life and show their children what they added to society, or how they helped impact the built environment in a way that will survive after they die? These values are obviously subjective and everyone is going to have their own preference for how they delegate and justify their income/career/life's worth.

SAT question for Ivy Leagues (all private schools which need funding) candidates:

Group A: Liz Diller, Richard Meier, Cesar Pelli, Gordon Bunschaft, Peter Eisensmen, Daniel Libeskind, Robert Stern, Frank Gehry, Greg Lynn, Pretson Scott Cohen.

Group B: Starbucks, Google, Facebook, Warner's Bros, Calvin Kleins. Alfred Taubman, Leonard Stern, Mort Zucherman. Goldman Sachs

Find similarities and relationships.

dsze,

A: Millionaires at their dream job.

B: Paid enough money to forget about their dreams.

You're gonna be surprised at how many people from the general public don't concern themselves with being billionaires if they can "settle" for being millionaires at their dream job.

Economist will tell you that the pursuit of happiness is a function of being adequately wealthy to meet societal needs/expectations while maintaining the most manageable commitment to an employer for accumulating wealth. In other words, people who make $75.000 are equally as happy as those who make $150,000. Interestingly enough, a licensed architect with 10 years experience makes $75,000. A financier with 10 years experience also makes $150,000.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2013/02/18/how-much-happiness-can-money-buy/

Wow, thanks for all of the replies! They certainly shed light on different perspectives.

I don't really care about how high my salary will be or how easily I can land a traditional office job after graduating - I simply love to study and teach, and I feel like having a strong academic background might make me a better candidate for a position as a professor. 

Money is obviously a huge topic to consider for Ivy League schools. I'm not very wealthy but right now I'm working hard enough to pay all of my tuition and save money for my next degree. If I really can't afford it by the time I graduate, I'd be willing to take a break to make enough money. I wouldn't want to make a decision based on money, it's so petty. I'd like to enjoy learning and working.

dsze, I wonder what makes you say that office jobs are more important than academia? 

Hi Argon,

I believe that construction is fundamental to architecture. All the great architects are experts in construction technology (eg. Frank Lloyd Wright, Corbusier, Mies, Louis Kahn, Alvar Alto). However, one could only learn construction in practice and would take up 5-10 years to be fully professional in various kinds of detailing.

If you want to pursue a teaching position at school, then you need a PhD degree from prestigious institution and recommendation from prestigious faculties. Most of the PhD degree are not in design, but in architecture literacy. In American context (US and Canada), the most prestigious PhD programs of architecture are MIT, Columbia, Yale, Princeton and Harvard. Personally, I think the two most prestigious and inspiring architectural theorist/historian are Kenneth Frampton @ Columbia and Kurt W.Forster @ Yale. Both of them are retiring soon. Full time tenure track positions are VERY competitive nowadays.

Good luck and have fun exploring architecture.

tsze 

According to financial times:

an Ivy MBA grad medium salary is 160,000 annual around 14,000 USD per month.

an Ivy Architecture grad Intern salary is 40,000 annual around 3,500 USD per month.

if you graduate from an Ivy architecture degree, being an SAT/GRE tutor would earn more money than an intern + flexible time.

Ah, it's cherry-picking season.