well, penn is really easy to get into...everyone i knew who applied there from undergrad got in...one of my friends got a crey scholarship, which is apparently relatively prestigious, but he went to umich instead. i'm not really sure if penn competes with the other ivy's. it feels more like a big 10 school to me. berkeley is really hard to get into. a friend of mine was outright rejected from berkeley but offered a scholarship to yale, not that berkeley is a better school, but they look for a certain demographic of student. if i were you, i'd go to mit...is that university of washington or wash u in st. louis.

To further complicate things - where do you want to work when you graduate? Penn, and UW have reputations that vary a lot regionally.

thanks.

le bossman, thats good to know. Now could I get into MIT?
Janosh, that's also a worthwhile consideration. I guess I would work where my grad education would allow me the best possible situation.

First off, you are more, and perhaps on the higher tier of quality for Ivies. Basically if you have decent grades, 3.3 or above and score at least a 1250 on your gres and have a decent portfolio, you will get into most places, and if know one believes me, just go around and ask anyone in the grad studios at penn, yale, columbia (can't comment on princeton and GSD, but I suspect you have to be a little more successful there).

Your problem basically stems from what kind of pedagogy you want to be trained under. Before it was a little easier to gage because, Columbia was theory, Penn was rational/tradionalist (design tradition that is), yale pragmattic, princeton academia, harvard basically all these but always perceived as number 1. Everyone is of course going to have their 2 cents on these overgeneralizations and stereotypes, but quite frankly, they were true.

However, now all this is up in the air because there are some new deans involved. Penn seems to be desperately jumping on the digital band wagon, which is both a good and bad thing, and Detlef seems to be a pretty stellar guy. Mark Wigley seems to want to redefine the discipline, which may be interpreted as an extension of Tscumi's ideas, although a lot of people think he's trying to distinguish himself and the school (which definitely is a good thing for Columbia). However, most of the original faculty remains there, so i don't think the school has changed that much at all. It's still very early though.

I think Janosh brings up a really good point: where you may want to wind up in terms of cities is probably a good place to start for where to choose a graduate education. The best way to get a sense of everything is to visit the schools, not during the open house tours, and talk to the students. I've found that most are more than willing to share their experiences and personal feelings about the programs and you get a good sense of who is actually going to the school.

I think each school has its own vibe to it, and you can clearly get a picture of where you'd like to be.

Any other schools I might consider? I'm glad to see all the negative comments about UOregon as that was a program that I wanted to apply to, but probably couldn't join because MArch I starts in the summer. What are people's thoughts on Yale's location? I've heard that New Haven residents don't really like Yale students.

yup. Townies vs. yalies.

Your biggest problems with higher ranking programs will probably be:
1. sadly having at least 1 "name brand" recommendation is often as important as what the letters actually say. Did you have any professors or employers who have ever taught at the schools you wish to attend? Or did you have any who were alums?
2. The bigger problem: as you may be aware there was a bit of a controversy about Pitt's "architectural studies" program a few years ago. This program was accused of deliberately trying to pass itself off as a track toward professional registration as an architect, when in fact it is not an accredited program. The university was charged with misleading prospective students about this, and was ordered to change the name of the program and cease its misleading marketing and recruitment efforts. Because this is a school that was involved in this fairly well-publicized scandal there is some backlash against it, and grads of that program sometimes seem to have a harder time with admissions elsewhere, and with employment searches (a lot of people mistakenly think this was an accredited program that was forcibly "unaccredited" because of academic shortcomings.)
Things may be better these days, as this happened long enough ago that recent grads should have come after the point at which the university reformed its practices and pretty much cleaned house in that department.

You should apply where you want. Applying to name schools is fine, but research your options (I always hated when people would tell me this, but it is somewhat helpful advice). Your application is only as good as the effort you put into "positioning" yourself. Don't worry about fitting in to someone else's conception of what a "typical" candidate for this- or that- program may be. If you are serious about this, work on finding your "voice" (as cheesy as it sounds) ... in the end, you will be answerable only to yourself. The best school will be the one that enables you to develope and hone your vision. And that has nothing to do with the pedigree or geographical location of the school.

eeayeeayo, I never heard of such craziness. There is no possible way that Pitt could ever try to pass as an accredited program...they only introduced a studio style course in my Junior year. I guess the marketing has changed quite a bit, as it was made relatively clear when I applied that the Arch Studies major was a subcategory of their History of Art and Architecture, which is one of the CAS's stronger programs. Very interesting though. I came to know the director of the program quite well...he will hopefully be my strongest recommender as I worked with him closely for 4 years. However, I always felt that he had quite a strong bias against the Ivies. He is putting the program in the right position, but if what you say is true, that might explain his tilt away from the Ivies. How long ago was this?

ANd the question still remains, do I have a good shot at top schools? Should I add another big name or another "safety" to my original list?

Does anyone know if Karsten Harries still lectures at Yale?

Yes, Karsten Harries still lectures at Yale. He isn't usually affiliated with the Architecture School - he teaches in the Graduate School - so his courses are electives and sometimes competetive to get into.

I think the whole Pitt thing happened in the early 90s. I don't think the current program bears much similarity to what was going on then. Essentially the accusation was that Pitt was trying to pass this off as an architecture school. Perhaps at the time they might have had some aspiration to eventually create an NAAB-accredited program - I'm not really sure what the motivation was.

As for whether you have a good shot at top schools: it really depends almost entirely on your recommendations and your portfolio. GPA and GRE are very, very secondary factors in most M.Arch decisions. Also, do you have all the pre-reqs? (You'd usually need just one semester each of physics and calculus, at least one semester of freehand drawing, and at least one art or architecture history class.) If you've got that covered you should be all set to apply anywhere. Your current list is a little all over the place. Maybe do some research on a much bigger list of schools (maybe just think geographically at this point, and get the catalogs from 10 to 20 programs, research these and see what your interests are.)

just a comment about your portfolio....

first off your drawings are very nice, in general it all looks great!

however, (considering that i havn't actually seen your portfolio some of what im gonna say might be completely ignorant, and not appropriate.) what i was told to do for my portfolios, is to really explain your projects. the final product isnt everything, the steps you took to get there are just as important. it can be interesting to explain your projects in detail, even showing your first sketches.

if you're interested i can send my portfolio (in no way is it perfect though!!)

guigg - what track program are you applying to? 3+?

So that you may sleep well:

You are so awesome. The work is great! its mind blowing. the sensitivity to space, light and iterant topolomorphologies is fascinating.
You will get inito every and any school you want-make the call. You should be dean, in fact! please choose us! PLEASE!

Cloutier, I'd be very interested in seeing your portfolio. On my website I only really included the main pictures. I have VERY basic study sketches that I included in the portfolio I had to finish for undergrad that I didn't include on my website. Is it terribly wrong to fabricate study sketches? I have a disadvantage that I am in Japan, away from all of my original materials. all that I have is digital and was done in a huge rush...terrible I know, but I had studio projects finals, and moving to a different country to worry about.

eeayeeayo. Thats good advice. The thing is most of my decision making has been made geographically. I consider myself an east coast boy and 4 years in Pittsburgh, though I came to love it, makes me think that I wouldn't want to get any more midwest than that. Also, I don't tthink that I can live in the South.

I'm applying to 3+.

Suture, thank you! Thats all that I was looking for. I just had to make it look like I was interested in advice so it wouldn't look like I was fishing for compliments. Honestly though, I realize that this thread is self-involved but I really don't have an idea of where I stand among other candidates and therefore if I'm top school material or not. I've only been able to judge myself on other Pitt grads which would make me think that I am indeed fit to be dean.

grad schools are not worth it if you're going there as a "safety" unless they're paying you to be there.

"Safety" is the wrong terminology. What I mean by that, I guess, are schools that have a less competitive applicant pool, but that I would still be satisfied going to. If everything went perfectly and I was accepted to all schools that I applied to, I would still be left with choosing between the name (Ivies) and the cost (safeties), or something along those lines.

I have been looking through Yale's website and like their student work area, it has transcribed excerpts from critiques. Giving thought to applying there. Whaddya think of New Haven? Whaddya think of my chances (had to throw that one in, sorry).

I'm looking for another school on league with UOregon or UWashington. Perhaps not as revered but interesting subdepartments and enough recognition. Any ideas?

guiggster,

Just wanted to comment on your portfolio and reiterate an answer to your earlier question...

You have a good, a really good chance of getting into any school you apply to. Definitely, you need the prereq's of physics and calc (and it wouldn't hurt to have done well in these). You graduated SCL, which means you rocked at your school and although grades and gre are secondary, they are considered so if you score under a 1000 on GRE your not getting in anywhere.

About your portfolio, it shows good technique, skill and some projects. I would limit that to about half of your content (you may have only included images for web site). What you need is to show conceptual thought and critical analysis. How you do that is part of the creative process by which you will be judged. You mentioned something about a thesis on Heidegger and Japanese architecture. I would dedicate about a third of the space on this alone. Why you chose these subjects, what led you to their connection, what questions did it reveal, what work did it produce? Even if this was just a paper, include the paper. The portfolio is a reflection of your creative ability and mind. Everyone knows that an architect needs to know how to draw and draft. You can do that in about 2 or 3 plates. What you need to do is show your, as Smokey put it, voice. Demonstrate why your thesis merited a cum laude graduation.

Also this brings up a really good example for those who are applying to schools for next fall.

guiggster,

Your portfolio is good, your grades were good, I am sure you will have a good score on your GRE. I think you should sit down an make a list of things you want to get out of architecture education, and then start doing some research. You seem interested in MIT. Why are you drawn to that program in particular? If it is someting besides the name, try to seek out other programs with similar qualities.

Since people haven't been as critical of your portfolio as I imagine you had hoped, I have a few suggestions.
Your portaits (including the had study) could use some work. You have definately taken the time to home your drawing skills to accurately represent the object of each drawing, but there is a complete failure in describing the surroundings of the object, crucial in a true representaion of an object, AND showing your prospective school that you know a thing or two about space. Looser sketches of streetscapes, interiors, anything to do with volume of space would be helpful for the school to better evaluate your work.
Copies of corinthian columns will peg you out for a traditionalist when reviewing a portfolio, these drawings, and the following renderings, may show that you understand CAD programs a bit, but I think you should instead fill that space with drawings that describe the models that you've presented, as there is nothing to describe the thought process behind these models, and ultimately, the only thing one walks away with is that you can glue chipboard together, I imagine your projects go a little deeper than that. Try to include sections and drawings that thouroughly describe your project, probably one or two drawings for each project, as well as the corresponding model.
thats my two bits.

guiggster - one major criticism of your portfolio, you obviously have great drawing ability from the portraits I’ve seen but i would also expect you to have more interesting drawings, ie. blind contour, quick figure drawings...ect.
maybe i should explain myself some, im in the same boat as you. I will be applying next year, Im starting to look back at my work and pick which pieces are relevant for my portfolio. I find that some of my more interesting drawings are quick sketches, or quick figure studies under 5 mins. While I think one portrait would be suitable, look deeper at your drawings.. I find my self developing a portfolio of scribbles and abstract paintings, I think to myself where am I going to fit my architecture projects.

Good luck, maybe some of the wiser archinecters who have already went through the process can further elaborate

I appreciate everyone's input so far. This is exactly what I was looking for.

4b
38g