thanks!

I agree that where you get our degree from won't really matter. 

I would argue that actual program can matter a great deal. 

If you're only learning the bare minimum about building science, detailing, and general constructability you're probably going to have a rough start in your career.

Then again most fresh grad doesn't have a great understanding of the topics I listed.  You need to have a proficient understand though.  Then again I've met some established, successful architects who don't so what do I know?  

This is a pre-professions Master 1 degree. It will cover all the base topics. Design studio, arch history, structure, construction, environmental, and then reinforce with electives. If you don't believe me, review all the program's syllabus, they are all very similar. They have requirements to meet in order to get accredited by NAAB. So all of those areas have to be taught. 

Oh I believe you. It's just that some schools do the bare minimum in certain areas to gain the NAAB accreditation. I'm saying try to find a program that isn't doing the bare minimum in the areas of building science, detailing, ect.

While publicly conforming to NAAB's requirements, and putting on a really nice show during accreditation visits, US architecture programs vary widely in their quality and quantities of teaching in various subjects. None of them are going to publicly acknowledge in what curriculum areas they are half-assing (usually technology, history, professional practice, etc.). Prospective students have to do some research and digging to attempt to see the real situation inside a school.  I say all of this based on my undergrad versus my grad schools, which were both NAAB accredited, but had very different strengths and weaknesses in their teaching and faculty.

Exactly reallynotmyname. I'm a bit concerned that Jay doesn't realize this.

Which of the schools on that list are shit for non-professional entrants? Is it MIT? Or Columbia? Or U Mich? You gotta name names after a take down like that, especially when the list is so short.

FWIW nobody is good at detailing after graduation, even if you went to a technically oriented school. Personally I am more annoyed when students come out of school not knowing how to think critically. Or when they follow dogma instead of curiosity. The best staff we have hired over the years are always the curious ones.

Curiosity and critical thinking are basic requirements. You're correct that no one is good at detailing right out of school. Hell, I know architects that are horrible at it. The point is that fresh grads need to have basic building science, detailing, and general constructability knowledge. I know several masters programs that in past years did a poor job teaching these skills. (Yale, U of M, UCB are a few examples). I don't know how the various programs are currently so current research is needed.

As someone who loves detailing I agree with where you are coming from, but not sure it is as important in education as it might seem on first blush. If the school teaches critical thinking then good detailing will come, assuming graduates end up at a good office. Practice after a few years is mostly about PM in any case and a lot of the detailing stuff will become process-based and professionalized as a person progresses, especially in large offices. Architecture school needs to teach the basics and the balance is important but I dont think a school that has a fetish for details and revit is necessarily any better than one that has a thing for K Michael Hays...;-) From where I sit, after practising and teaching at the same time for about 20 years, critical thinking is not always taught, and it is becoming harder and harder to engage with at all, especially in North America. But it certainly is part of the curriculum of all the schools above (in different flavors). Isnt it?

FWIW, I've never seen a Harvard grad not get offered any job they applied for or ever be unemployed for more than a few days. Even the really dumb ones.

what do you mean by sucked lol

Stuffy, over intellectual, devoid of construction knowledge or interest, self important, poor work ethic.

That was my experience also many decades ago. Private schools would give you a lot of grants and you could attend for less money out of pocket than the public colleges where the aid was basically a $700 dollars or so of grant and thousands of dollars of loans.