Thank you! I'm completely unaware of most universities in Canada, so this is helpful. I'm only aware of McGill because of connections I have. So thanks for the suggestion.

No do not listen to Sequitur. He always slags U of T like a Russian troll!! He has personal reasons for hating U of T. Waterloo has a good undergraduate program and is good at producing designers. U of T is faaaar better for your specific purposes. It has some very strong HTC people there, that can help you get into top notch phd programs. Also I would replace Syracuse with Berkeley to your list.

Hilarious. UofT Is still the butt of many academic jokes. Looks like someone is trying hard to convince themselves their March is on par with others.

Whoah chill out Troglodytarum- I did not see the no California bit

I did not study at U of T, but I do know of some HTC profs at U fo T that are really good and know of people who did get into good phd programs because of them.

@ Non Sequltor, do you have a phd? are you an academic? or teaching? Because your advice sounds like hearsay, and not grounded on specific concrete reasons of why an M.arch at U of T would hinder someone´s chances to get into a good school afterwords for a phd in History and Theory. So U of T is the butt of academic jokes said by whom? And if there are jokes being said about a school (I have heard jokes being said about any school really) you would use that as an form to evaluate a school ? @jl2496 , do not takes Non Sequltor´s advice about U of T. I personally know people who went there, to then move on to good phd programs. If I were you I would go to U of T´s website and take a look at their faculty profile´s specifically the historian´s profiles.

^ Strange, I’ve know many students and faculty at UofT and have never seen or heard anything that suggests the school is anything other than mediocre. Sure, every program has superstars that move on to real programs, but since I live and practice in Ontario, the folios that come our way remain underwhelming regardless of how many clueless defendants the school amasses. The OP claims not to know anything about academics in Canada. I pointed to the best program for March research thesis.

Portfolio´s for a job in a office in Ontario is 100% a completely different thing then building up academic work to get into a phd program. Or are these portfolio´s coming your way for phd positions? And you are on some admissions committee for academic appointments somewhere in Ontario?? I would know the difference of a portfolio for a job in an office vs one for a phd position bc I am doing a phd. Masters of Architecture thesis work that is gearing up for a phd is different then one that is only design focused. From what I know U of T can give you a decent shot of creating the academic ground work for a portfolio for a phd. Furthermore I have taught in North America and from what I can tell U of T is known, Waterloo is not, not outside of Ontario that is. Also there are a couple of historians at U of T that are very damn good- I would know because I have read some of their work, and some of them are editors of major academic journals. Have not heard of anything coming out of Waterloo- and nobody would know bc they do not even have a website. And no I did not go to U of T, nor do I think it is the "best", but its not a bad middle ground if the OP does not get into an ivy league school for their masters. They would still have a shot at an ivy league phd with a U of T degree- I have friends that did this.

I know people who have done this too and many of them who hated the program. The Op can set his/her bar as low as they want.
Academia is already saturated with mediocre PhD prospective wankers with little practical experience anyways, so what’s the harm of a few more? Hopefully you see my angle here.

@Non Sequltur- you are not making much sense because you are not answering my questions above on what makes you the ultimate judge of what is a "good" portfolio or school, it does not seem you are working in academia but are judging a school solely based on the portfolio´s you receive in your office. Which is different than a portfolio for a phd. Furthermore what makes you think you are receiving the best portfolio´s from U of T to your office. Sounds like you want the OP to go to Waterloo (a school I never heard of) to get practical experience? Rather then go to U of T to build up a portfolio for a phd in history and theory? Because you, yourself see no value in pursuing a phd since the market for phd´s is oversaturated? Well that is your problem not the OP´s. If that is the case @jl2496 do not take Non Sequltur´s advice seriously.

I tried. If you've never heard of Waterloo, then you have no opinion of worth on the current status of Canadian schools. UofT's March is fed mostly by it's terrible undergrad general arts "design" degree with a few sprinkles of higher caliber applicants due to it's popular location (ie. Toronto). It is not an institution with a history of quality research nor does it foster critical thinking among it's student body. Again, if you knew a thing or two about the schools here, this would be obvious. You say you're a phd student? talk about low entry standards.

(edit)  One cannot teach architecture if one has no practical experience.  Even if teaching fluffy design.

1) I just looked up waterloo on the university website and looked into its phd faculty and it does not hold up to what U of T has.

you're delusional.

@Non Squltur your arrogance is telling of what kind of advice you are giving and the fact that you won´t answer if you have a phd- is telling me you do not have one, so then why should your advice be worth more then others? And who are you to address me in such a rude manner? As for the quality of research being done by the HTC faculty at University of Toronto it´s pretty good and they are publishing, editing and lecturing quite a-lot. Never heard or read anything interesting in terms of HTC coming from Waterloo.

I don't have a phd. It was recommended to me when I defended my master's thesis however, I wanted to build, not teach snotty kids.    I address you in such a way since you only pop up to comment on my Waterloo posts.    

That´s bc you describe U of T as the worst school on the planet (which is hard to believe looking at their htc faculty) and then do this strange thing of claiming Waterloo is the best school in the universe- effectively making any post about U of T about Waterloo. Also there is a big difference of being recommended to do a phd, and actually going about researching schools, building up a portfolio of publications and winning fellowships in order to get in somewhere to do one. Let alone making academic connections via your alma matter. I am sorry but to say that Waterloo is better then U of T (which I find doubtful in terms of htc) is one thing, but then to go and tell someone not to bother applying to U of T based on the portfolio´s you get in your office and hearsay is wrong- plain and simple. Never mind the aggression with which you address people that say anything remotely positive about the school. I just think in this particular case your opinion is dead wrong where the OP is interested in doing a phd later on in history and theory. U of T has George Baird, John Harwood and Zeynep Celik-Alexander to name of few of its htc faculty. All are revered academics that have published acclaimed books and articles, so to then read your posts that U of T is the worst because that´s what you heard from so and so and that the portfolio´s that come into your office are not up to scruff to get an entry level position is unconvincing advice for this particular OP.

Yawn...

Yes good advice.

I've heard from people who are at and people who went to Michigan to not even apply. Their graduate program has become extremely inflated and the teacher-student ratio is horrible.

It's a big program, but studios are still 11-12 students per professor. Not trying to convince you to apply if you don't think its right for you, but it does seem to meet your requirements (plenty of speculative work coming from studios and practices from professors, gives lots of scholarship $, has TA positions which give full tuition remission + solid stipend, bunch of travel courses during summer, funded student research opportunities). Also be mindful that the schools on your list vary in terms of how long it will take you to complete the program; some of them will not give out advanced standing very easily and could be up to 3.5 years, while others will just be 2 (UMich if you have a B.S. Arch).

It does sound appealing... Which schools are you referring to that will not give out advanced standing very easily?

You’ll have to check your own list to learn more about this. To some schools, a B.S. Arch automatically qualifies you for a 2 year program. To others, the same degree allows you to apply for Advanced Standing if you’re a standout applicant. Those two are not exactly the same thing. The admissions pages for each school should make this clear enough.

Thank you!

Are there research opportunities for graduate students within the university that involve history and theory? Are there faculty-led study abroads within the college of architecture? Is the thesis route any good there?

I don't think I will seek licensure, though I do think I will work in an office through graduate school and after graduate school before getting a PhD. I've heard the same thing from others as well

Tough question because since I'm only entering my fourth year, I haven't developed very specific interests when it comes to research, I only know for sure that I'd like to involve myself in researching in the realm of history and theory. My only experience when it comes to research is some funded undergraduate research I've been doing this summer involving phenomenology. I do enjoy it! But I imagine my interests will narrow through graduate school.

From what I understand, if you want to teach you can go either the licensure route or the PhD route, you don't need both to teach at most schools, you only need one. So if you're licensed and you want to teach I don

whoops, prematurely pressed enter. -- So if you're licensed and you want to teach, I don't think you need to go for a PhD unless you just really want to get a PhD. You can still find opportunities teaching with just your license as qualification

It depends where and what you want to teach. For studio and most technical subjects the M.Arch is considered the terminal degree in the field. For history and theory it depends on the university: it's become increasingly difficult to get on the tenure track without a doctorate - though some architecture programs have no or nearly no tenured faculty in the first place. But look at nearly any architecture program at any university and you'll probably find some faculty teaching those subjects with only an M.Arch or masters in some other subject - though it depends on the school as to whether that's the norm, or whether they're an exception based on the length of time they've been doing that or their name recognition/significance in the field, or both. In some universities you can teach for a certain length of time as an adjunct, with lesser academic requirements than for tenure track faculty, but you can only do so for a set number of semesters due to union agreements...   It's all very school-specific.  If your ultimate long-range goal is to teach history or theory in an architecture program then a doctoral program would make sense, but for anything else it may not.