Ha!

you'll barely be able to get into the lower- tiered Canadian M.arch programs without doing an extra year or two of "catch-up" classes.

Although I realize I'm the only who's responded to your other 2 similar questions, please know that UofT undergrad is not an architecture program. You will not receive the technical or design basis required for employment since they reserve those classes for their accredited master's degree (which is not the best either).

You got accepted into the best program in the country and a vast percentage of its graduates have no issues competing with the top USA "Ivies". 

Haha thanks! lol, okay, i guess I'll lean towards the waterloo program

Favour, send me PM if you want more info but don't let Cambridge dictate your education. The town is not great, obviously, but the waterloo student body makes a great effort to make the best out of it. The student community that bonds together is unique in this way.

 I will, as soon as i have any more questions. Thanks again!

NonSequitur... I think MinimalCrazy meant 'sexual harassment by Waterloo professors'  xDD which is an alarming accusation without proof. xD

I got that much accesskb. The strange thing is I've seen this type of accusation fly with the other Canadian schools too (and many US) but only from students who had poor grades or difficulties with studio pressure. So I'm calling bullshit on minimal's rumours so that no one makes misinformed decisions.

Alright, that enough nice-guy posts for one day, quota is over. Time to get some kangaroo memes loaded.

mmmm

well.. I heard about a certain faculty member who got fired and charged for stealing from the school.  I'd think if the Dean wanted to prevent harm to the school's name, he'd have swept this under the rug.  There was even an article here regarding that investigation recently.  I'm going to guess all that was from years ago.  Waterloo does have a newly appointed female Dean now I believe.

I want to know who made it big from taking UofT's undergrad program.

Here is one from Waterloo's, none other than Charles Walker, a director and head of structure at ZHA

http://www.zaha-hadid.com/people/charles-walker/

Who's made it big from UofT's master's program?

I'm at UofT, but first year so idk many ppl who graduated. But our prof said before the end of the semester that a lot of the undergrads at UofT got acceptance to best arch unis like Harvard Yales and MIT and Rice and Cornell. 

Apart from that, a great deal of uoft undergrads make it to UofT grad program which is also one of the best arch masters program in Canada. 

Seriously, its not hard getting into top Ivy leagues. At the end of the day, you could attend the worst architecture school but have more drive and be more than capable of top students from Ivy leagues.  Its not like the 90's.  With the internet, you have pretty much every resource available to succeed and learn, reach out to people in this profession for help, without spending money at all. 

There are hundreds, if not thousands, who graduate from top schools each year.  I think a  degree from an Ivy league is more of a personal accomplishment.  It is in no way or form a guaranteed ticket to making it big or even doing well in the architecture field. 

I think work ethic counts more in this field, and most fields, as a matter of fact.  You do not be to be super skilled or talented.  Just be willing to work hard and grind it out.

stay away from UofT undergrad its not a real bachelor degree in architecture its just a BA with major in architecture not recognized as "pre-professional" degree in architecture. meaning you will only be able to apply for master's degrees with 3years+, only some schools have this option, most schools have 2 year M.arch which requires "pre-professional" degree in architecture which UofT does not offer

That's right, it's a downside to UofT's undergrad but all I'm trying to say is that it is not irrelevant to architecture and can get you to top arch schools. For me, I'm not good at theory, writing, history and criticism but I always did better on the scientific stuff so I thought I can learn this alone as access mentioned it's all available on the net but it would be harder for me to learn the theory Part. Ofcourse, we still learn about the scientific part of architecture, but it's not as much as other arch schools.

Non sequitur, why is the masters program at UofT not one of the best in Canada? I read good things about it. Is there a ranking board specifically for Canadian architecture graduate schools because I only found QS ranking. 

the theory and history of architecture may be interesting but its useless in the real world, if you are stuck in toronto and cannot afford to leave city but still want to study architecture, then go to Ryerson.

here is an exercise for you look-up a bunch of architecture firms in toronto, look through the staff of the firm and look at their credentials. in Toronto you will see many people employed withe the degree B.Arch.Sc meaning they went to Ryerson.

want to study architecture because one day you would like to work in the field, then DONT GO TO UOFT, GO TO RYERSON

Awe you are right. The degree at UofT is not irrelevant. It is just as relevant as getting a Buisness/Arts/Sciences/Finance degree when applying to architecture grad school (those that do not require a pre-professional degree). It is relevant because you need a degree before you can apply to grad school, but that is where the relevancy ends. If you are into the scientific stuff (building science/construction detail), im sorry to say but you might be at the wrong school in toronto... Ryerson actually heavily leans towards building science/construction detailing though it tries to claim itself as a theory school.

Regarding 420g's comment, I would definitely recommend going to Ryerson over UofT any day for undergrad. However I would try to get into Waterloo if you can as they generally have a larger amount of talented students. Generally I would recommend going 1. Waterloo 2. Ryerson 3. Carleton for undergraduate. Studying at UofT may be detrimental to your career as many Toronto employers are getting skeptical about hiring UofT grads because a majority of them are useless.

What is up with everyone ganging up on u of t? in so many forum topics as well. Although seemingly coming from 3-4 of the same people.  Personally I think the years after high school are pretty formative ones.  In terms of setting up the groundwork on how someone thinks for a majority of their life/career.  While u of t undergrads may not have as much ready to hire out of the gate to do computer work skills as Ryerson, I feel the versatile thinking skills acquired from a more broad exposure serves people well, especially later down the line after completing their Masters.  Once you get in a set pattern to narrow its hard to go broad, whereas it's easier to go from broad to narrow, if that makes sense.  So immediate dividends after undergrad vs. accruing.

It's not uncommon to find graduates from u of t in prominent offices like OMA, Snohetta, David Chipperfield etc.   Who made it big from Ryerson?  Seems like a lot (but not all) are worker bees. Which to be clear is not a bad thing and architecture would not be possible without.  I just had to offer a different view from the negativity of Minimal's "majority of them is useless" vitriol. In terms of offering some new/critical perspectives, u of t, I feel has a higher likelihood of producing those types of graduates especially later on as one becomes more established in one's career. Jimanez Lai is a u of t (undergrad and grad) graduate, Charles Walker also from u of t, formerly worked for David Chipperfield and now has his own practice in UK etc..  

At the end of the day its what you make of it, and the amount of effort you choose to put in.  People have the potential to make it big (according to whatever terms you think that means) in any decent enough school.  And I would count most arch schools in ontario decent.  But they all have working their butt off in common. Just depends on what you want.  I will admit though that U of T undergrad may not be the shortest path.  I know its hard to get into M.Arch Advanced Standing at u of t with U of t undergrad therefore have to do 3.5 years.  Not sure about other places for Masters.  Waterloo undergrad though is the best of both worlds it seems.  but I have heard those rumours as well.  Particularly from of a professor who decided not to teach at waterloo anymore and moved to ryerson b/c he didn't agree with the way they handled some of the sexual harassment issues.  Again just depends on what you want and what type of path/environment you feel you need in order to flourish according to your own wants, peculiarities and situation. But I do feel undergrad or anything someone does after high school sets up a pattern of thinking that one tends to utilize and fall back on as the years go by.  A pattern I've found difficult to break or even see enough to feel the need to question or break.  Which is not automatically bad, just depends again, on what you want.

oops sorry I meant Jamie Fobert not Charles Walker.  Late night daze

^does not matter.

Ranking of Canadian schools is, and without argument, as follows:

Waterloo, McGill, UBC/RU, Laval, and then the rest in whatever order you want.

The only people who think UofT is the best are those who picked it by default because it's in Toronto.

And how did you come up with these ranks for graduate school? 

Non sequitur you sound like a troll who has a past with being rebuffed by some u of t person or something.  I don't know what rankings you're basing this on, and why you put so much emphasis on lists that vary so widely and whose methodologies are somewhat subjective.  Just now I found a ranking that said UBC #20, U of T #36, with waterloo lower than mggill bunched up in the 51-100 for QS world university rankings.  And another that put u of t at 39, and waterloo at 45.  These rankings are ridiculous things to base one's education on.  

ha, hilarious, both of you.

I rank them based on the value of the work that I've seen come out of the schools in the last 10 years of practice. Enjoy your mediocre school and try to make the best out of it to keep up once you're looking for jobs.

Lol oh my god, you are a troll.  "without argument",  really?  opinion is by definition debatable.  Critical thinking skills I see was skipped in your undergrad education.  

Think what you will DnGW but at the end of the day, you're still in a mediocre school with a very low bar for admission.

The work that leaves UofT speaks for itself and it's not good. You'll see this when you compare your portfolio with others when it's career starting time.

You have no idea at what stage I currently am in my career.  You're entitled to your opinion of course, but it's good for people to know it is in fact your opinion.  I'm done feeding the troll.

Nope, don't know and don't care. What I do know is you're the one who created an account here just to "defend" your school. 

I also don't think you understand the whole troll idea.

Was that meant as an insult meant to diminish my original post?  Yea I created an account for the first time.  Whoopdeedoo. I don't see why that bears anything with the topic or the original post.  That is trolling. Cause like I said people have a right to hear other perspectives.  And you and few others were overtaking the conversation, presenting a false front of fact for opinion.  And seeing as how you think that what you said is meant to be derogatory you clearly have an issue with people presenting different perspectives other than your own and are now grasping for straws. 

Just a problem with weak perspectives and people giving out terrible advice to kids looking to pick quality schools.

This is what I mean by narrow mindedness, blind even when presented with holes in their so called arguments.  

Dude, non sequitur has went to every school and met every single graduate  from each university in Canada. I bet he knows which university is the best for getting a job. 

I don't think 10 years of practice makes you qualified to generalize rankings for arch schools. If you read enough about architecture, you would know that it is a very flexible and versatile occupancy. If you believe that the work coming from UofT's grad school doesn't look good to you it does not mean that the school is of low quality. A lot of other architects would argue otherwise. The grad school isn't short of any courses in regards to architecture compared to other universities. Thus, I don't think one grad school can produce better architects than others as it all comes up to the individual and how much effort they put, especially in a very general job like architecture that has no limits to its creativity. UofT provides the basic technical courses that teaches you the programs in the undergrad level to draft and produce renderings that would qualify you to get a job within the field in your undergraduate level. the work you produce all depends on the effort you put into your project. I'm not saying UofT is the best, but the graduate school is not worse than waterloo or UBC or McGill because I have seen a lot of great work by graduate students here, and the undergrad school has a different path for architecture than other schools, but it isn't a business or art degree, it's an arts degree but in architecture. Final words, many of the most famous architects, like frank Lloyd wright, le corbusier and Rem Koolhaas didn't start studying architecture. Rem Koolhaas for example worked as a journalist and le corbusier was an artist. Yet they produced one of the most famous structures. The school you go to doesn't matter, it's the research and effort you put in that makes you a great architect which is why I believe UofT has  such a general education for arch at the undergrad level to allow you to combine different courses that will give you knowledge within different fields that you like which can influence your designs later on.

... kids, stick with Toronto because that's the one that accepted you. I get it, you don't want to be told you're spending 4+3 years in a less than spectacular program. Still does not change much. The point is, if either of you would have been accepted to Waterloo or McGill, you would have taken it.  As for the 2 or 3 students here who asked the Loo vs UofT question, they got their answer.

Thanks for the chuckles and I'm comforted knowing that given your attitudes and general levels of ignorance on the vast quality differences of the Canadian programs, that neither of you will be dragging any of my projects down.

Final words: UofT undergraduate is terrible. You've been told different = good but it's still bad. The advance M.Arch can be good for an excellent student with an existing knowledge of the profession. For the regular joe (or worse, a UofT undergrad), it's just mediocre with a sprinkle of excitement because of the downtown Toronto location.

Assumptions assumptions.  Who said I even went to U of T?  I have no stake in its reputation.  I was merely presenting a different viewpoint from the barrage of 3 peoples opinions over and over again in the forums.  I'll chalk up your own inability to entertain and allow different views, to your own personal limitation rather than you graduating from what I assume is Waterloo.  Which is a great school in my opinion as well. I see the definition of "professional" is stretched very thin in your case and am more than happy to stay clear  

Not all views need to be entertained. Some, like the glowing reviews of UofT by Aws above need to be ridiculed so that others do not make the same bad choices. I see far too much garbage coming out to be convinced otherwise. I am a licensed and practicing architect (Ontario) with degrees from 2 separate Canadian universities and help out many students on these forums with entrance interviews and portfolios and therefore I know what I write is reflective of the expectations of the profession. Too many kids jump into this blind and then complain when the only tasks they are qualified to do is draft tile layouts for hospital washrooms.

Now, if you excuse me, I have to write a piece about Kangaroos in another thread.

And not a single part of me holds that against you.  Again you're entitled to your opinion.  I took issue with your personal attacks, jumping to conclusions, and you presenting your opinions as "rankings" as part of your argument before someone challenged you on them.  That along with other attempts, like discounting the "success" of people that have in fact graduated from the program you so easily dismiss.  Which to me is unprofessional and borderline ignorant.  

aws123

you really know absolutely nothing about UofT architecture, for the most part the undergrad program neglects anything technical building science altogether, the grad program has a few classes. they dont teach you how to use any cad software, they just expect you to figure out Rhino3D on your own. not bad when screwing around with software alone, but totally sucks when you have to figure out how to do a whole studio project. and no-one in real world really uses Rhino.

most of undergrad classes are architectural history or theory which is just a compilation of bullshiz opinions by "architectural theorists"

the undergrad studio are more graphic design than architectural design.

i did a 3year college diploma before UofT, and believe me when i say UofT does not provide you with basic technical skills.

want an all round education, surrounded by some of the best future talents? go to
Waterloo.  Its a well balanced, respected school heavily focused in theory and building science alike, co-op education, Rome term, and rivals any theory focused school with their cultural history and iconography courses. 

You'd be a dumb to choose UofT over Waterloo for undergrad.

I'm done.

420g, I agree it has many history and theory classes, but I study there and know second year students who said they learned about CAD, rhino and Revit and drafting with hand and other programs in a class called arch representation. We have two courses for arch rep so they do provide you with basic technical skills besides the other 4 studio courses. We also have two building technology courses and an environmental design course. Yes, there are many history and theory courses too, but whether the fact that it's all bullshit is an opinion the does not seem to reflect the intellectual field of architecture given the numerous amount of books that were published which were historical and theoretical. Nevertheless, if you believe it's nonsense, it does not make it a fact but an opinion.

I'm never said undergrad UofT is better than waterloo, (since waterloo has a great coop program which is the most important think imo) but I'm also arguing that UofT does prepare you to become an architect and the program is not just a business degree that's irrelevant to arch but a mixture of design and history and theory and urbanism in architecture and any subject you like within arts and science. Also, the grad program is regarded one of the best in Canada, I'm not sure why is NS so negative about its grad program. 

^ because it's actually not highly recognized. That's why AWS.

Also, 2 whole courses? whoa... step aside everybody.  Listen, you're in 1st year general arts/history undergraduate studies. Don't try to make it seem like it's anything else.

If you add the studio and technology courses that's 8 design and technical courses in undergrad architecture, not so bad for an "arts" studies degree. And the graduate school is actually highly recognized, I have no clue where are you getting your information from. 

I actually agree with accesskb with regards to having a choice of only waterloo vs u of t.  Plus I think tuition might be cheaper?  Don't quote me on that though.  Co-ops and Rome semester, big ups.  I'm more leary of choosing overly technical school over an overly theoretical for the reason stated before, of it being from my view, being limiting during the formative years after high school.  And technical is easier to grasp and add on later.  But I hold nothing against u of t grads as much as some on here.  I've seen some great work from them and seen them hired by top firms in Toronto and abroad.  

Look at all the subject rankings and the reputation the uoft grad school has and where the students end up and you'd understand. "Because it's actually not highly recognized. That's why AWS." is an invalid Arguement. You convinced me right there.