This is My.Arch II! 

I mean for M.Arch 2.

i'll never understand why applicants don't sort these things out before they apply. how did you even choose these schools if you knew so little about the programs? 

that said, the only one of these worth attending for an m.arch II is Michigan, but if you're resistant to fabrication I can't really see the appeal. the profound influence of former dean Monica Ponce de León (previously half of office dA, now the dean at Princeton) in that regard will likely persist for years if not decades.

Wash. U. has a decent undergraduate program and a pretty lackluster M.Arch I. i've never heard of anyone doing an M.Arch II there; it's certainly not a research or theory powerhouse.

UT Austin has an excellent undergraduate program and a somewhat better M.Arch I than Wash. U. again, hard to imagine what they could possibly have to offer an M.Arch II student. 

what do you want to get out of this degree? were these all backup school in case GSD, Yale, Rice, and Berkeley didn't work out? your reasoning for selecting these schools is mystifying, especially at the M.Arch II level (since it is an entirely elective academic degree, and you need to already have a professional degree to apply, there is an expectation that you'll have a reasonably good idea of what you want to do with your time there).

The faculty is so diverse at Michigan, that's its hard to qualify the school as being concerned with one thing or another. Are there a lot of professors preoccupied with form making? Sure. But that's also a lot of schools. It's easy to deride form making, but I think a lot of the professors, especially the younger ones, are tackling image culture in architecture and that comes off as just "form." 

There are just as many professors who prioritize other facets of the discipline. Anya Sirota privileges social implications and spatiality more than form. As does El Hadi Jazairy.