So i’ve been told. Interesting how big bullshitting is. I never thought I’d use interesting and bullshitting in the same sentence. In all seriousness, the most intelligent architects i’ve met are bullshitting enthusiasts—they all use the term frequently.

It also helps if you've never actually done any architecture like Hejduk and Eisenman.

You will need a special line of bullshit babble that represents your "interest " that you "investigate" like "the rhyzomatic tendencies of post-industrial queer space in Asian megacities".

Don't forget the insufferably superior smugness, too! It's just as important as the humorless disposition. 

(To be fair, this is not unique to our field or to the Ivies, of course. But we've been given a lot of ammunition by some of these folks over the years.)

(Also in the disclaimer category: exceptions. A brilliant guy I went to HS with ended up as a historian teaching at Harvard. I met up with him after several years, and he had not changed at all. Still nice, friendly, and engaging. So it can happen, I'm just not sure of the frequency.)

Finish this sentence, those who can, do; those who can

can't...

... mess up typing a snarky reply on the internet.

teaching is also a kind of doing, good educators are more valuable than mediocre practitioners

How can you possibly teach something you can't apply to achieve success in real life?

A bunch of kids graduating college, thinking that achieving success without knowing grasshopper and scripting rather than really understanding scale is a big mistake. Kids graduate school thinking they are great designers, and when they sit down to do a floor plan, know NOTHING about how to even space plan. They spend $150k paying people like you- for what? How to THINK about architecture? Oh- right: at the ivies, you're grooming the senior designers, and think dverone else will know how to do the real work.

well if you dont know how to think, how can you DO anything? I've worked on three continents and with students from all over the world, both as an employee and later as director of my small firm. We've hosted about 50 students as interns over the last few years and I can say that the only thing really common among them is that they need experience. This is my entirely biased and narrow view from a self-selecting sample of students from ivies and otherwise. The big fallacy from so many critics of architecture school is that they want it to be a purely technical education, when all of our history clearly shows it is NOT. Our built history comes from the architects who surpass and push/pull culture in one direction or another. Nobody gets there straight from university, nor does anyone learn to build until they have spent several years making mistakes in an office and actually building stuff. University is the starting point not the end point. If there is anything a graduate needs, Ivy or otherwise, it is an ability to learn.

You can't break rules without knowing them. Its kind of like a musical education... its much easier for a classical pianist to play non-classical piano than the other way around.

lol. Thats not my experience (not just in japan). And trust fund babies myth is mostly myth. Its a nice tactic to alienate people but its largely bullshit. In any case it doesnt matter. Architecture is not a trade it is a profession and the scope of problems we face are expanding not contracting. We need to expand our capabilities as a result, not contract them to a technical sub-category based on a days-of-yore myth that never existed. This list of deans (https://archpaper.com/2019/08/countrys-newest-architecture-architecture-deans/) in the USA is pretty inspiring. Some have built serious stuff, others have simply DONE serious stuff. None of them are particularly lightweight. And again, we need ALL of the ideas if we are going to be part of the problems coming down the pipe. As for the babble, OK I grant some profs are full of shit, but the babble with the good ones, who are thinking properly, is more akin to the wax-on wax-off of the karate kid than anything. Not every lesson at architecture school needs to lead to a window flashing detail. Sometimes its just a collection of tools that allows you to deal with an amorphous profession where our job description constantly changes. Not that any of this has much to do with teaching at an ivy school ;-)

I believe the original question was about Studio Profs. at Ivy Leagues, not Deans. Obviously the Deans have to be of a certain pedigree, as there is way more oversight on that level. "
Non Building" studio profs and instructors are way too common in Ivy Schools. I do agree with the discussion being about more than built form, but I have a hard time believing that a lot of these discussions have anything to do with advancement of the profession, and more about the instructors furthering their own research agendas.

I've got that requirement going for me