Exactly DnGW

omg is anything based on fact with you?   

aws123

no one is knocking the M.Arch program at UofT just the undergrad HonBA with major in architecture.

The M.Arch leads to a license as an Architect (WHICH IS THE WHOLE F'CKING REASON WHY PEOPLE GO TO SCHOOL, TO GET GOOD JOB!!!!! AND DON'T GIVE ME THAT STIMULATE INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY CRAP, I CAN DO THAT AT HOME, PARK, LIBRARY, OR INTERNET FOR FREE)

the HonBA on the other hand is similar to undergrads in architecture offered at Harvard or Calgary. UofT is doing the exact same thing Harvard is doing with their undergrad, a NON pre-professional undergrad that will require you at least 7.5years of study making students pay high tuition fees for the maximum amount of time. to add some perspective here doctors and lawyers go to school for 8 years and get paid a hell alot more.Calgary also has their undergrad setup as a minor in architecture but is recognized pre-professional because they only have studios and building science. Which really leads me to believe that UofT can probably add a few classes offered by civil engineering anyways, building science and get undergrad recognized as pre-professional, but they dont because now they can make their students attend their school and pay tuition for an extra 1.5years compared to other schools

the UofT HonBA with high gpa can get you accepted into those Iveys Harvard, Yale, and MIT etc which will cost about $200k to finish but it cannot get you into Ryerson M.Arch next door at a cost of $30k to finish.

so to be practical here i cannot really afford to go to the states to study, or to another city in Canada for that matter. i can only really stay in Toronto. so with my HonBA the competitive 3.5year M.Arch at UofT is my only choice, if i did the Ryerson B.Arch.Sc, my choices would be 2.5year UofT M.Arch or 2year Ryerson M.Arch.

or i can waste my life some more in a classroom, and do B.Arch.Sc at Ryerson maybe they let me finish 2 years, and then get into M.Arch 2 years total 4 maybe

basically Ryerson B.Arch.Sc will give you more practical choices in Toronto.

and UofT HonBA will give you pipe dream about Harvard GSD, because even if you do get accepted, you still probably dont have $200k

Thats true.  U of T Masters will admit Ryerson undergrad students into their advanced placement as opposed to uoft undergrad, and not vice versa into Ryerson grad.  Practical considerations are important.  U of t is copying Harvard because 95%, (totally making that up, but most) of the profs, are from there.  Pros and cons to each path but one thing is for sure, everyone nowadays needs to complete a Masters program to become licensed.  Personally up to the student how they want to go about it.   

So you know for a fact that everyone gets accepted at u of t.  Really I worry the logic of anyone who discounts the facts of people's lives that came from uoft and have made something in this profession, and instead deems a highly subjective list one pulled from their arse as more important evidence.  I guess you're more of an expert in hiring and looking at portfolios than people from OMA, Snohetta, HaririPontarini, GH3, Chipperfield, DiamondShmitt, RDH and the like.  It's fine that your experience has coloured your perception that way, but I take issue with you continually presenting it as the only valid opinion, and anything else as ignorant.  That by definition is ignorant.     

Really? so a few students get hired at some fancy name firms and suddenly a shitty, non-architecture undergrad program is equal to the others? No wonder you speak so well of ignorance, you're a great example of it.

I stand by my assertions.

I'd expect nothing less, your comments speak for themselves.  

You're confusing experience with ignorance.

Experience is subjective and limited to your own.  Useful, definitely. Not realizing its subjectivity and dictating it as 100% truth all the while insulting and denigrating those with different experiences than one's own is ignorance.  But to each their own.  I never expected to change your mind.  And for the record I was never naively saying u of t is the greatest ever.  Its just different and more nuanced that your blanket they all suck viewpoint.   

Pointing out that a non-architecture program disguising itself to it's students as a real architecture school is not subjective nor is it naive.

420g, just like you can do the "stimulate intellectual curiosity crap" at home or a library or at a park for free I can do the same with building science. I understand your point and I agree with you on that for the undergrad level. the undergrad is not as good as others or no close to being good as waterloo or McGill  all am saying is that it can still make you a good architect. Your arguement is something that I can actually grasp on as it make sense and I agree with you.

I mentioned the masters program because NS kept saying the work coming from it is bad and that is not even ranked 11 within Canadian arch schools and his arguement is basically because he is an arch Saint or something and his word and opinion is above all.

AWS, I'm no saint, obviously, just someone with a great deal of knowledge and experience. Take this with a grain of salt if you want, but keep in mind I'm not speaking from ignorance as DnGW claims.

now... if only this census website would allow me to finish instead of timing out, I'd get on with something more productive.

Those weren't your points though was it?  those were more 420g, and I agreed with some of their points.  You were talking about the portfolios of students coming out, a list from your arse made official by the word "rankings" in your head.  I pointed out plenty who disagreed with your assertions regarding caliber of students from u of t, since many have been hired and have grown to run their own firms etc.. Then you start calling names via assumptions made up in your own mind, and saying those "fancy names" don't count cause they're not of the same opinion as mine, and putting forth non facts like everyone gets in u of t.  that's pretty much the layout of your spurious arguments.  But yes I agree for the last time go to Waterloo. I don't even what we're arguing about, except that you think everyone should think u of t graduates suck cause you personally dislike them. Well sorry I don't think that, and people with half a brain should be critical of such things.  

DnGW

not everyone gets accepted into UofT, i know the humanities takes alot of people for their barista degrees, but the Daniels Architecture faculty takes in about the same as ryerson (120)

http://www.electronicinfo.ca/programs/topic/architecture

AWS123

to be good architect it doesn't matter what school you went, that all depends on you. all im saying about the HonBA vs B.Arch.Sc is that the B.Arch.Sc can get you M.Arch in 6 years instead of 7.5 its more practical because you can get into both schools in toronto without having to do more school.

in the HonBA the individual courses and profs are all good, just that the whole program is not recognized as pre-professional degree limiting your options for M.Arch

but in the end we can all laugh that the HonBA gets you a real pipe dream chance at Harvard, but not a single chance at neighbours next door Ryerson. guess its designed for wealthy people only

Being taught software like CAD, Rhino, Revit and other software in university courses is a joke, waste of time, tution fees and not my idea of 'technical' courses.    It takes an evening or two to become familiar with these softwares to draft competently in a real job.  These are skills you pick up on your own or through an evening tutorial with friends.  It is what separates top schools and schools that offer these as university courses.

accesskb

yes teaching cad or any software at the university level is joke, but ryerson has some cad electives, and all the college in the gta pretty much build their technologist programs on cad courses.

but you cannot learn autocad, revit, or rhino in a little tutorial with friends over a coffee, you learn a few functions but thats it. i've been using autocad for over 10years thats my strongest cad software i know it very well.

you cannot learn CAD software over a coffee with friends this is not ms word. and rhino for instance it looks like autocad and kind of functions like sketchup but its a totally different software package all together.

nope not over a coffee break this is not ms word or adobe pdf, or even photoshop

cad software takes more time. so sitting in classroom and having the main functions outlined is a good idea, instead of having to figure all the stuff out yourself through youtube and forums to find out its changing some stupid arbitrary setting in some options/settings menu somewhere.

Non Sequitur- I've asked you a few questions about your views of Grad programs and I enjoy seeing your comments because I believe they are valid considering your length of experience within Canada.  Are there any major differences to you in terms of quality when it comes to UBC vs UofT vs UofC?  I don't have a BS in Arch so I'm limited to grad programs that admit any degree. 

It sucks being pigeon-holed to only a few schools in Canada due to my undergrad degree and I think that's something everyone should strongly consider if their end goal is to pursue an M.Arch.  There are a number of American schools that look nice but the price tag is simply insane and not worth it.  The full degree at UBC or Toronto is equivalent to your first year or less at most American schools.

Zenza, I would not consider it "unfair" that you don't have access to all 11 graduate schools. One has to be realistic and those schools who do not accept non-arch backgrounds do so to avoid lowering the competence level of the class. They expect students to already know how to put buildings together both technically and artfully. They also expect them to be able to run quality thesis research without hand-holding.

...with that said, the path to license in Canada is the same for everyone as long as your M.arch is accredited aka your bachelor is irrelevant. Now, as for the schools you mention, UofT's degree suffers because of the heavy influx of students from it's non-architecture undergraduate program... it exists solely to fill it's own master's classes. I've found it acceptable for competent and well-rounded students with experience who want a quick and simple accredited degree in a big city. I've seen plenty of my colleagues take this route and I don't think they were very impressed by the time they finished. The pull of the location and name of the university has sex-appeal eventhough the school of architecture in itself pales in reputation compared to the big 3 (Waterloo, Mcgill, RyU).

From what I've seen, and given your non-arch background, I tend to prefer schools without an in-house "architecture" diploma mill. I've found that the student body is more mixed and the dissertation/projects topics of greater quality. UBC would be such a place.

But, the real thing to do is look at the work that the school produces and see what areas of research it's faculty chases. an M.arch is more than a few classes. You must be able to write and speak about your interest and finding a school with staff with aligned views will be a great indicator that you'll fit-in so to speak with the crowd.

I trust UofC in your question refers to Calgary. If so, I have nothing to add. I don't know their program but I do remember they were quickly dismissed when I was applying to grad schools. I really don't think that school has much influence outside of Alberta.

Hope this helps.

p.s. Avoid the american schools. Tuition is virtually free here compared to south of the border and it's rather important that, if you wish to eventually work and practice in Canada, that you study Canadian construction, Canadian Codes, Canadian practice law, etc.

I really don't understand why you exempt UBC from the same contempt as U of T.  Not saying that they deserve it, but neither does U of T.  They're the most comparable.  Their program is B.Ed where you enter it after taking two years of general ed in university.  Then have the next two years with studio and arch related stuff, having 4 studios, and 4 tech/building science courses upon graduating, 1 per semester for 2 years.  Their Masters program accepts people from any bachelors, with a majority in the Masters program having other bachelors than architecture.  And the people that graduate from UBC undergrad will more than likely (though don't quote me) have to go through 3.5 years as well.  And the work that comes out is also comparable.  IMO and only my opinion, I found myself impressed more often with the content and representation skills found in u of t master thesis than ubc's.  Of course I was also blown away by some at UBC as well.  But not as often.  Then again that could be due to its smaller size.   Seems to me you're working out some kind of vendetta or something if you exempt one from the other from your criticisms.  I could be wrong but that's how it seems.  

DnGW, I agree with you that both programs are structured the same. My issue with the M.arch in Toronto is that it's tarnished by it's low-quality bachelor program.  As we can tell from AWS above, they tell their 1st year undergrad students that they are in a top architecture school where in fact, and as others have pointed many times in these forums, it's a general arts degree. Hence why I find the quality and variety of work that comes out is severely affected because they leave their M.Arch doors open to these in-house students. I consider UBC's undergrad options more varied and honest.

Rhetorical question warning, As for "blown away", how many more "Fix Jane & Finch with Urban Furniture" final projects by rich suburban white boys do we need?

DnGW

the BED at UBC is a pre-proffesional degree, UofT HonBA on the other hand is just BA with major in architecture.

http://www.sala.ubc.ca/programs/environmental-design

UBC offers a 3 year M.Arch open to all bachelor degrees, but i believe they do give 1 year advance standing with BED.

person with the UBC BED is eligible for 2.5year M.Arch UofT and M.Arch at Ryerson

person with the UofT HonBA is only eligible for 3.5year M.Arch at UofT

Stop assuming bullshit please NS. If you even bother to listen to what I'm saying, you would understand what my arguement is about. Firstly, they don't tell us that UofT undergrad is the best arch school and they do tell us that it is not a technical school neither a professional school. And if you read above, I said that many undergrads in Canada are better than UofT in architecture. All I was saying is that you can still become an architect like any other one graduating from any other school. And also, I was arguing that UofT M.Arch is a very great program and one of the best in Canada while you said according to your own ranking that the MArch at UofT does not even rank 11th. But you're too narrow minded and biased to even read other's opinions and arguments. 

Again, if you didn't read my comments, the undergrad at UofT is not better than waterloo and McGill and no near being close. But the grad school is as good and that is an opinion that you can't just say no to just because SOME projects were bad to you. 

non sequitor

you my friend described perfectly what i like to call "academic kitsch" architecture.

Rhetorical question warning, As for "blown away", how many more "Fix Jane & Finch with Urban Furniture" final projects by rich suburban white boys do we need?

that is gold my friend ROFL

that is better than my example of my final studio project joke. My rhetorical example is the prof wants an OUTHOUSE for the studio project, basically a shed to shiz in. but in the final presentations no one actually provides what is required in the program specifically the toilet or hole in the ground to shiz in. But magically when you walk into the outhouse its suddenly becomes an ART GALLERY.

ACADEMIC KITSCH

Thanks 420g. I wish I was kidding with my J&F example.

AWS, my position is that UofT M.arch is generally mediocre compared to the work that comes out of the top Canadian schools (Waterloo, McGill RyU, Laval, UBC). It's just not even close, but you are right, in the end you're still eligible for intern architect status even with a UofT M.arch. 6th place out of 11 is mediocre in my books and the students who's work I've seen to be genuinely good all had undergraduate degrees from somewhere else other than UofT.

*edit*

I forgot all about Carleton. They are starting to attract some decent attention with their PhD program and CIMS lab. 

Hmmm...I wonder though how many can actually can get into Ryerson's grad program, with UBC since they say they want a pre-professional degree equivalent to Ryerson Bachelor of Arch Sci.  To me the actual content of the degree looks similar (but not totally the same) to U of T's.  I mean the 4 tech courses for UBC are: Technology and Technique, Environment and Urban form, Site Analysis and Building Tech.  No structures or anything more in depth. The name of the degree differs I guess so that makes a difference, and they take two more? courses in tech than Toronto?  I don't know.  I do know its also hard for them (UBC undergrad) to get Advanced Standing at U of T.  But then again it's hard for a lot of other people (U of M for e.g.), aside from Waterloo and Ryerson I think.  

The options are more limited for BA U of T, true enough.  But I see little difference in the actual content of the undergrad program from UBC and Uoft, in terms of architectural courses for the degree.  Therefore I don't see the correlation of elevating the work of one above the other.  And I've seen no evidence from the work to warrant that judgment.  However name on the piece of paper counts for everything so that's an extremely important consideration.  

@Non Sequitur.  Haha I know right?  And also fixing up Gardiner.  IMO though I've seen more thought provoking/daring thesis from U of T with great graphics than UBC which tends to be more conservative.

^ I don't think they can serve me pints of Guinness fast enough to get me to entertain a J & F, Gardiner, or anything Spadina related projects.

Lol me and you both.  And somehow they always manage to be by rich suburban white boys... 

DnGW

the UBC architecture undergrad B.E.D. is a recognized "pre-professional" degree

http://www.sala.ubc.ca/programs/environmental-design

i think they can get into 2.5 years M.Arch @ UofT

Possibility vs Reality.  May vs. can.  They try but many do not get the advanced standing.  This is direct knowledge.  I can't speak to Ryerson though.  Do you know the situation there?

Non Sequitur- Thanks again for your opinion!  To clarify, I wasn't saying it was unfair.  I put that comment out as a warning.  I entered UBC with a completely different career path in mind and switched to the ENDs program when I changed course to architecture after my 2nd year.  I made that comment as a warning to others who already know they want to pursue an M.Arch before even beginning their undergrad.  There are quicker ways to completing your Masters than choosing a program that either won't, or most likely won't, get you advanced standing in a Masters program. 

As I'll be nearing in on 30 years old by the time I graduate a Master's program I definitely want the most bang for my $$$ (and I also realize after doing the ENDS program that so much of your employability is dependent on you making the most out of your education).  So thanks again for your comments.  I'll probably bug you again at some point in the future.

DnWG- You simply cannot say UBC's ENDS program is the same as UofT's undergrad.  The ENDS program is based around studio projects.  By the time you graduate you'll have AT LEAST 6 studio projects to include in your portfolio for MArch admissions (and other projects from your other classes as well).  You will have 0 studio projects to include in your portfolio upon completion of UofT's program.  The programs are not comparable in the slightest.  IF you want to become a licensed architect choosing an undergrad that puts you in the studio environment is your best bet (if you want to do an undergrad in architecture at least).

It is true that advanced standing seems to be rare for ENDS graduates.  I don't think anyone from my year got advanced standing at UofT or UBC (I think only ~30% applied for grad school).  That said, the program was great and although I took a slower route to an MArch in the end, I'm glad I went there.  Getting exposure to the studio culture and inner-workings of architecture school has me so prepared for going for an MArch soon.  For me the ENDS program was one massive warm-up for grad school which I think will be super beneficial in the long run.

Zenza you will end up with at least 6 studio projects at UofT undergrad as its mandatory to take those classes to fulfill the program requirements. 

lol 0 studio.  How can you compare when you have no clue of the other thing you're comparing it to?  this is like NS logic.  

It looks like the Honours Bacherlor of Arts, Architectural Studies program puts you into studio courses but the Architectural Studies major does not.  Is that correct?  Can't seem to find any pages that show what courses you take in each year.  Like this page shows for the Master's program.

https://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/sites/daniels.utoronto.ca/files/march_requirements_june_2015.pdf

Okay figured it out.  The honours program is broken into 2 paths you can take,  One where you take studio courses (the architectural design concentration) and one where you focus on theory and history (the criticism concentration).  Is that correct?  Every time I've heard about the program I guess the criticism concentration was what was being discussed.  Apologies.

"Graduates who have completed this program and have a BA degree may apply to graduate professional programs in architecture."

That's a dumb thing to add though.  You can apply to professional program in architecture with any BA under the sun.

aws can probably fill you in better.  But if you check the site there's final review schedules for undergrads as well.  Probably pics in their Facebook page of the reviews.  and they're not pinning up and talking about essays

There are two majors, a major in architectural design and a major in architectural history theory and criticism. You have to take one of those two major to get a ba in arch and you can major in both or one and any other major from arts and sci like urban studies or visual studies environmental energy and physics etc..basically any other major from arts and sci (but not engineering)

Most if not all students at Daniels arch obviously choose architectural design. I hope that they do add more technical stuff to that major though. 

https://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/sites/daniels.utoronto.ca/files/ahmaj2020-2013_andlater_1.pdf

The link above describes what's required and not but it is 2013 and the system has changed since then but it still shows the design studio and representation classes. I'd post you the link to the updated requirements but it's like a 66 page booklet about the whole program. 

Cheers!  When do you enter the program and how many Studio courses do you take in total?  At UBC you finish your 3rd and 4th year of undergrad in the ENDs program.  Is that the same for this or do you enter the program your first year in undergrad?

actually that's a good idea to check out the Facebook page for reviews and thesis pics to judge for yourself.  i don't think they included all the best projects but it's something you can see with your own eyes to form your own conclusions.  good or bad.  

zenza

that was the M.Arch stream here in the HonBA double major stream

https://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/sites/daniels.utoronto.ca/files/ahmaj2390-2020_2013andlater_1.pdf

i thought all the individual courses i took were really good solid content always, but the whole program just needs structures and building science and recognition as "pre-profesional"

Nope you just enter architecture directly. We have 4 core architectural studios. Apart from that, there are two representation courses that include design and pin ups like studio classes but different goals. There is also many art studio classes that you can choose from but they're not necessarily related to architecture as there are no requirements for the project you will do and it is just visual stuff or conceptual work. What about you? What are your main courses and what does the program teach you?

Ya, there is the Facebook page and Instagram page. You can also check shift magazine that features student projects. 

I agree, program does need structures and building science. We have those courses but in the form of a historical course for some reason. It's like the history of arch technology. They teach us about steel wood glass etc.. from the slides I've seen (although I haven't taken the course yet)

UBC's ENDS program has 4 core studios (one each semester).  You take additional classes like parametric modeling, design media, technology and technique, site analysis/planning, all of which have pin-ups as well.  You also choose between 1 semester of building tech or landscape tech.  Finally you take history courses as well.  The final breakdown is:

36 credits of Design Studio

9 credits of History/Theory

12 Credits of Technology/Material Systems

6 Credits of Design Media/Representation

I graduated a few years ago, but at the time structures and building systems were hardly covered beyond the building tech class (if you chose to even take that class).  The program could really benefit from more structures focus as well.  The class you mention sounds very similar to the Technology and Technique course I took.  Lots of slides of examples and methods but no work involving the creation of working drawings.

So here's a brain teaser.  Talking about honesty.  What's more honest?  Having a degree with a label "pre-professional" with essentially almost identical content as a BA.  Therefore results in a similar outcome when applying to grad schools, i.e. no advanced standing.  Having the label allows you to apply to more grad schools yes, but the outcome may not necessarily prove different.  You spend more money on applications.  Or just coming out and saying its a BA, and knowing the results you'll encounter more readily.  The Masters program has one less studio (3 years) and admits the same amount of arch and non arch students in, proportionally.  And also forces their undergrads to do all 3 years.  Who according to your assesment this would equally apply, (since again the amount and type of arch content in undergrad is almost identical)

"My issue with the M.arch in Toronto is that it's tarnished by it's low-quality bachelor program... I find the quality and variety of work that comes out is severely affected because they leave their M.Arch doors open to these in-house students."

 And yet somehow you place them in your "rankings" at the same spot as Ryerson.  Something is amiss.  What's good goose should be good for the gander.  

So much shit talking around on all the schools. I have worked with talented people at some of the most influential firms and I have seen sucessful grads from all schools around the world. Yes that includes Waterloo, Uoft, Ryerson and Carleton. Based off the words of these people, along with the work that comes out these are my summaries.

Undergrad.

1. Waterloo - undisputed creates more talented students per year vs other Canadian undergrads. Also the name and co-op program really helps you land jobs.

2. Ryerson/Carleton - The pool of talented students per year is significantly lower than Waterloo. However, the top dozen/half-dozen students are equally as good but have to work their ass off to get jobs where Waterloo students can easily get cause of "name".

3. Not applicable (Uoft) - Never seen an undergrad student from UofT work at an office. I did once and I remember all they did was draw elevations (they also got the job through connections).

Masters

1. UofT - This is difficult. They have some very talented graduates coming out of the program, usually this is the group from advanced standing. I have seen/work with many of these graduates in various offices around the world. At the same time, there are many many terrible graduates who are useless based on professional feedback. I know of a couple who even got fired from their job because they were just that bad. Keep in mind they worked at typical offices in toronto so the standards shouldnt be high in the first place.

2. Waterloo/Ryerson - Its alright. I mean they produces a lot of architects good for producing cdocs etc... nothing special. Im sure theres like the random few who are very good just like other schools.

3. Not applicable (Carleton)..... uhm.... most of them get sent to China.....work at terrible condo offices in the outskirts of toronto........ become render artists.............. yeah...

I left out McGill because I "heard" they have an architecture program. But I've never actually seen one in life/worked with one. They are like ponies...

And replying to DnGW's comment from May 9th (been busy this week).

What you say is half true... The part where the undergrads from Ryerson are much better trained to be hired in a real office. The rest is where I will have to disagree with your opinion. I've spoke with/know several  UofT undergrads, perhaps it is coincidence but they were A. Useless at the office with some getting fired. B. no longer pursue architecture (coincidence??? or is it the program?) C. rarely think about/get a chance to work on architecture with many students minoring in something else (because they have that much useless time taking random irrelevant courses!). I mean if you are talking about architecture thinking and theory... Ryerson easily has significantly more courses and time dedicated to this area.... So I don't see any possible pro arguement for going to UofT over Waterloo, Carleton, & Ryerson.

Actually............... Well this comment is hard to answer. I've worked and am working in prominent offices like those. I have seen many UofT Masters graduates working in those offices.. and also many Ryerson undergraduates. However, I rarely see (like 1 or 2 people) who work at those offices with a UofT Undergrad or Ryerson Masters. Now this comment may make you think that your perspective was correct all along as UofT grads seem more successful in the long run (like you said earlier). But ALL of the UofT master's grads Ive seen working at these offices had a different school for undergrad... They all went to UofT for advanced standing. Therefore your comment is applicable to the masters program for UofT vs Ryerson, but not the undergrad program as UofT is not accredited and light years away. I understand where your comment comes from, but it is general perception of schools... but my insight is based on speaking with students who have recently graduated/still going to those schools, as well as speaking with architects who have graduates from those schools within the last 16 years.... Again it is not something I can "prove" just like the sexual harassment remarks from waterloo, but it is from the word of mouth from reliable sources.

I agree with you here. I strongly believe that anybody can be successful as long as their degree actually leads to a professional degree. On the sexual harassment comments. Just last week I met some new waterloo students and I asked them about the sexual harassment comments... They all agreed there was some old 65 year professor that used to fuck a student...and he still works there. They told me the name but I forgot it.......

Another very important thing to mention about UofT is that the university is notorious for "bell curving" grades, basically the prof readjusts the the grades to meet a certain average. In addition, UofT also deflates their grades more than every other university in Canada. So basically you will have better grades if you go to another school even Harvard!!! And a higher gpa means better chances of getting into a masters program.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/could-a-university-of-toronto-student-get-into-harvard/article15214350/

http://thevarsity.ca/2014/11/24/its-time-to-stop-grade-deflation/

PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THIS ESPECIALLY WHEN PICKING A UNIVERSITY

Y

You speak from your experience, which is all anyone can speak from.  However, I personally know a few who did get an undergrad in uoft as well as grad, get into those places.  I know of an undergrad who did that stipend internship in b/e b4 masters (oma).  And another who is employed at oma, after masters in uoft and undergrad in uoft.  In Toronto, I know uoft undergrads working in Hariripontarini, WilliamsonChong, gh3 etc.  And I already gave the example of Jimanez Lai, who was profiled in archinect, undergrad and grad.  If you look at the profiles of the people working at such places, you can see some staff having their bachelors and grad at utoronto, others did grad somewhere else and undergrad at uoft, and a few the reverse. But yes, they do tend (for the most part) to have Masters regardless, to be found in such firms. And I'm not saying that's a good measuring stick because of the name, but moreso given the competition to get in..

Probably safe to say not everyone is good coming out from their undergrad, but that can be said of any program.  Maybe I just ran into a few who were good which colours my perception in a less negative light, I don't know.  I do know a lot of top firm owners in toronto got a bachelors at uoft, KPMB, Montogemery Sisam, GH3 for e.g.  Granted a lot of them was back in B.Arch days when you can get licensed with a Bachelors.  But whole system changed for everyone in Canada regardless of school when they deemed it necessary to get a Masters to be licensed - a pretty recent development.  And a lot of people from this system are still quite young to be running offices yet.  

But I agree that given the choice between Waterloo and U of T I would choose waterloo 10 out of 10 times.  And as far as ryerson, I'm more 50./50, maybe slight favour for RU for economic reasons.  I wasn't so much talking about architecture thinking/theory exclusively.  I was more talking about getting exposed to different ways of thinking other than architecture (especially one that is more heavily concentrated on the technical) which can broaden the thinking sets during those formative years.  Creating a ground from which to find unlikely but useful connections.  As far as I know (and I could be mistaken) I have yet to find a design leader develop from Ryerson whereas I can name a few from u of t (even when converted to BA + Minor) and Waterloo (ShimSutcliffe for instance).  Again I think similar difficulties arise from someone coming from an arch tech background in college going into architecture.  Hard to go from narrow to broad.  But if that's more what you want from a career I would choose RU and get those skills immediately in a bachelor setting leading to licensure.  Not everybody needs to be a design leader, and that's not an automatically superior standing in my opinion.  Nor am I saying you will automatically become one if you go to uoft, and that its impossible if you go to Ryerson.  Just that I think that the moulding process is geared to different ends.  Easier to go down a groove set when you were soft clay, than develop one on your own when you've hardened and are more than likely not aware of it, so to speak.  But again SO much depends on individual effort that to attribute results (good or bad)  just to the school is pretty misleading, bordering on fallacious.  Just depends on what the individual wants for their career and what they want to be exposed to, to help in achieving that goal.