You haven’t specified what your research and work is about- which would help a great deal. The GSD could cover much of what your interests are, layered with the blanket of the GSD (for better or worse depending on your agenda).  

Penn could accomplish similar, but they are busy updating their McHargian legacy thanks to the newish department chair and some wrk from energized younger faculty.

Cornell has some interesting faculty and offers a strong horticultural foundation, and embraces the more technical aspect of core to the mission of the program. That said, there are some strong designers and an interest in representation. The big benefit is the program is small, 15-20 per class. You’re easily seen by the faculty if you want to become a presence (for good or for bad).

I’d echo the some of those same qualities for UVa. Smaller cohort sizes, and some level of closer connections with faculty. Things to keep in mind- Beth Meyer is fabulous as is Julie Bargmann. Added are Brad Cantrell and Brian Davis, adding novel technical approaches. TBH the more I think about that faculty, the more I’d say don’t rank them so low. Lot’s of legacy/depth and innovation.

Hi Ando,

I too have an architecture background and just applied to MLA programs at most of the schools you listed for Fall 2020. It ended up coming down to Penn and the GSD. Ultimately I chose Penn for a myriad of reasons but it truly was the hardest 'easy decision' of my life.

Of your list I applied to Penn, GSD, Berkeley and RISD, and can give you my brief positive impressions of each.

Penn:

I found that Penn's strongest attributes had to do with its faculty. The faculty list is slightly smaller than Harvard's, but the faculty as a group seems very cohesive with a diversity of interests. Penn right now sounds like an empowering community where students can frame their own agenda within the context of the program.

GSD:

I found that Harvard's strongest attributes had to do with its student culture. The students are exceptionally engaged and able to advocate for their work with great vigor. The faculty list is diverse and consists of several leaders in the field. Harvard seemed like a big community where individuals can find their advocate with the right amount of networking.

RISD:

RISD really emphasizes the idea of making and doing in all their programs. The MLA program has less of an agenda than Penn or GSD, the faculty seemed more student focused than research focused, and they allow their students to explore their own agendas. Those individual agendas range a lot in quality and intensity, but if you are driven it sounded like a good place to explore your own process.

Berkeley:

Berkeley is a little harder for me to talk about, I was never able to break through the UC wall, and get an understanding of the program beyond what's on the website. That said the program has a strong list of faculty. The program has two focus areas, urban or ecology, from your interests it sounds like the ecology focus could be a good fit. Berkeley sounded like the place to go if you wanted to write policy and be socially active in design. 

I didn't apply to Cornell (didn't want to live in Ithaca) or UVA. But both programs are highly ranked here in the US. UVA would be my preference of those two.

If you want to chat further feel free to email me. Good luck!

I’ve edited your comments to what I understood as the core below. Correct me if I’m off:

“The practice is in its early days, but the primary motivation of our work is to find ways of intervening in the world; to forefront experts in the bio and life sciences to collaboratively shift environments out of destructive scenarios. We consider our role as mediators, and we wish to find meaningful ways of facilitating these individuals. This might sound naive, but there are so many capable people in the world of science who don't have the platform to practically apply their knowledge in a very productive way. It's important to note that we also consider the work we want to do as cultural production - as a form of art - and we're very interested in critiquing ideas of environmental aesthetics. “

Still the questions of how comes to mind. Each of these programs offers you a different form of working. I’ll reference the program I mentioned: 

The GSD would allow you to theorize and fetishize the criticism of Landscape and engagement. 

Penn’s McHarg center would provide opportunities to think about people and place across multiple scales, including exploration of how to create opportunities for landscape as a form of social/political leadership.

Cornell would provide you with opportunities to participate in community engagement directly through service learning opportunities.

UVa also has some public engagement, but also has some interesting mapping and technological explorations present in the program.

Finally, in all of these you’re have to have to go out and find the scientists. Eg. Cornell’s situation in the AG school gives you primary access to people in horticulture. The remainder of the College doesn’t have as clear an interaction. Incidentally, this call into question why RISD is so high on the list...

Hi Marc,

I find your comment about theorising and fetishising at the GSD quite interesting: do you not think that there are examples in the school of an interest in the practical application of knowledge? 

Your comments about Penn are useful, and I can sense the potential of the McHarg centre which seems incredibly ambitious; and hopefully effective at contributing to the social and political discourse it is setting out to engage with.

I can certainly see the opportunities to develop my interests within the Cornell college of agriculture - and would value a solid grounding in horticulture - but the school's lack of transparency online worries me sightly. I'm concerned about the quality of work that might result from the department not being part of a design school: in the absence of nuch student work online, I can only speculate. While it may be a USP that the department is embedded within a college of agriculture and life sciences, I wonder might it suffer from a lack of parity across the disciplines: is it regarded as a distinct discipline in the college with specific and unique output? Excuse me as I think out loud.

Your point about RISD is well judged on the science side. My attraction to the school is partly a result of the liberal arts program Nature Culture Sustainability Studies: which explores many contemporary issues in philosophical ethics (such as environmental aesthetics and critical animal studies); interests which are closely embedded into the work I explore. This could provide interesting crossovers.

Am I correct in thinking you are a member of the Stuckeman School? I've been studying the school's symposium document from 2017 on Ecology and Design quite closely. There are some incredible insights in there which I've been finding very useful.

Thanks for all your input Marc. 

Thanks for comments on the GSD. 

Environmental aesthetics is a relatively new area in philosophy which I find particularly useful in terms of conceptualising how we might begin to rethink the world around us. Sight is fundamental to how we (as humans) experience our place in the world. But our perception of the environment is significantly coloured by cultural production, particularly with the emergence of landscape painting (both pre and post the 'picturesque'). But the condition of environmental systems are - of course - independent of our perception of them. There is a lot of interesting intellectual opportunities for exploration here.

On a very practical - and basic - level however, we are currently working with a community to explore how certain areas in their town can be less rigorously managed: to allow space for wildlife to thrive. This is very hard to convince people of because the beliefs 'lawns are a public amenity' and 'public land is for public (human) good' is held by the large majority of the population, even if they have never thought about it. Trying to negotiate a space for both humans and nonhumans in the world requires exploring what other opportunities might look like. 

I think it will turn out that there are lots of opportunities, and that carving space for humans out of an area set aside for wildlife would be significantly more enjoyable. Unfortunately this exploration is on hold for obvious reasons, but look forward to seeing if it produces useful results. I hope that answers your question.