Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
Would GSD MDes be a worthwhile program for someone with ambitions to become an art director?
So I have a marketing and finance undergraduate degree and I was set on M.Arch for some time. I was waitlisted from GSAPP and fairly certain that with enough effort I can get in -but I started looking at more affordable schools. In short, I became fairly good at CAD, rendering, graphic design and animation from working on my portfolio and side projects. Most importantly, I am constantly improving my intuition for design.
Anyway, my ambitions are to eventually become an art director and maybe open my own media firm one day. I am looking into different MFA programs and leaning to the affordable ones. I really do like the concentration topics offered by MDes and the courses look interesting. I am just reading mixed things on Archinect regarding programs like MDes.
Some say that these programs are just a way for architecture graduates to add an Ivy League name to their resumes. But doing so will not increase any job prospects or pay because architecture is mostly about experience over brand-named schools.
Others say that graduates from these programs often go into high paying fields. I do think that a degree from a great school does stand out and does open doors, but I can't find MDes portfolios on Issuu to gauge the type of work they are looking for. Apologies if this post does not relate enough to architecture.
If you want to really get into media, it does not seem like the MDes course is for you.
You're better off looking into programs at schools that offer degrees in media - and more importantly, alumni network and business contacts. That's not what MDes is for.
What would you say MDes is for?
The school has changed up the tracks quite a few times.
The last time I paid attention to it, the Tech track was for computational folks, the Cultural track for budding academics, the Resilience track was a mash-up of landscape/UD practitioners and theory people, a real estate track for would-be developers (I might be wrong about this one) ... and there was an Art track for architects looking to break into the installation/sculpture/art curation world.
None of the tracks were the creme de la creme of their respective domains and they were heavily influenced by the GSD theory's penchant for French philosophy. Great moneymaker for the school at the time though. Some MDes students were pissed about the relatively poor bang for the buck, as they were not assigned individual working areas unlike the other students.
if i wanted to learn about art and curating, why would i go to an architecture school? fool's gold.
You're totally right. That track attracts a lot of international architectural grads drawn by the Harvard brand, but does quite poorly in job placement IIRC. Its alumni network is simply non-existent compared to degrees that actually specialize in curation. GSAPP has something similar as well.
My biased view is that outside the M.Arch programs and certain rigorous MDes tracks, a lot of the other post-professional degrees cater to students who still want the Ivy diploma despite not making the cut for the more selective programs. The MAUD program experienced a boon when it allowed its graduates to have a 'Masters in Architecture' degree even though there's a big qualification - It's not the actual M.Arch. Great moneymaker.
absolutely do not get one of these degrees- they're really nothing more than cash cows for private schools and leave you with very few tangible skills or connections that you are looking for. and loads of debt on top of it which you will never break free from on the salary of an art director (think about all of the low paying positions you'll need to get there..)
i think the mfa route is much smarter; look for art/design schools that combine more rigorous education in the arts and liberal arts with some sort of management/strategy angle, and hopefully some $$$.
at the eod it seems architecture schools can barely be trusted to educate architects for normal architecture jobs.. i would never consider them a credible source for an education outside of it.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.