guys , im opting for graduate degeree n wanted to apply at couple of colleges, can someone guide me which is the best college for graduate degrees , as im new to architecture so kindly tell me is columbia university supposed to b the best?
well.. the tops usually are the ivys which are princeton, yale, columbia, and harvard.... and more... i personally favor princeton (u might wanna read the thread i started about princeton "Grad Sch Admission: Princeton U." ).... but thats just me...not that i m in ..haha.. oh well
this question has been asked several times. it never gets old for me, but it never gets 'answered/solved'... i say columbia is tops and personally shy heavily away from princeton/harvard/yale... but as miyaki said "that's just me" :)
it's all subjective. personally, I haven't seen good stuff come out of the other ivy's, but it's been many, many years since I saw good work come out of Columbia (the real good work was in the early '90s, Harvard the 80s, I think, and it goes back, with each having about 10 years of good work, then it fades).
i'm in my second year (m.arch) at columbia right now and, while i know nothing of the other schools, i can say that there is a very good studio culture here. though everybody works very hard and it could accurately be called quite competitive, for the most part it is a very supportive environment where there are always a few other students around happy to discuss your project with you in depth. the studio content and methods will make you question everything about how you think of and approach design; because of the relatively experimental techniques, you can't help but grow intellectually, and grow a lot. while many people question the relevance of the 'blob', which many studios could arguably be categorized as, spending a semester learning what 'blobs' are all about and coming to your own, informed conclusion is actually quite valuable for young architects looking to practice in an ever-diversifying field. but, let it be known, not even close to all of the studios are about the 'blob', so don't be intimidated by that. the professors i have had so far, in classes from studio to architectural photography to building systems, have all been wonderfully insightful, supportive and, ultimately, effective in increasing my scope and abilities as a designer.
the first year is relatively regimented and abstract, taught by professors with some of the most process-based studio methods. the first semester of second year is dedicated to designing a large housing complex with a partner (which is good because there's a ton of work to do, but sometime bad if you pick the wrong person to work with...). the three semesters left after that, each professor has their own program and you generally have a great variety to choose from.
during most of my first year here, i constantly questioned whether i had made the right choice. the studio and drawing classes are so densely theory-based and seemingly detached from the realities of architecture. yet, as i went along, i found that being in a place that makes me question everything is actually the best kind of place to be for grad school. and, as i moved up from studio to studio, i have enjoyed them more and more. i have seemingly learned way more about architecture in my 1.75 years at columbia than i learned during my 4 years in undergrad at wash u in st. louis (which isn't to say that wash u wasn't great, but perhaps a bit less intellectually rigorous than columbia. but then, it was undergrad...)
i am sure you would enjoy and benefit hugely from going to grad school at any ivy, but i would certainly recommend columbia based on my experience here so far. hope this helps.
I agree with joed's assessment of Columbia. The school is more about questioning, defining, and theorizing than about blobs.
An important thing to remember is that there is a new dean, Mark Wigley. I personally think that he is great for the school and will push the school and the profession to radically rethink what it is we are doing.
That being said, here are some (hopefully) objective, knee-jerk reactions about the ivys:
Princeton: very small school, very close relationships with professors
Columba: the most experimental (up for debate), because it is the largest, it has best studio culture. I learned as much from students as from professors
Harvard: the work is safer than Columbia's, and thus better recieved by the professional culture
Professors tend to switch between these schools every semester. I had professors at Columba who would teach at Yale on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or at Harvard in the spring and Columbia in the fall.
What does that mean "princeton's post professional degree is not yet accredited"????
Why would post pro porgrams need to be accredited? The student already has a professional degree. No school has post pro accreditation. Post Pro is not a professional degree. From the NAAB website:
"The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) is the sole agency authorized to accredit US professional degree programs in architecture."
And if you download the list, Princeton's MArch program is accredited.
this might be irrelevant, but for many foreign students who came to US for post-professional degree, it makes a lot differences when you try to get the NCARB certificate, since NCARB and most state registration board ask you for a degree from a NAAB accredited program, so, based on the NAAB's criteria, those who got a post professional degree should not be qualified to take the exam and NCARB certificate, this is not so true for some of my friends who got a post-pro degree from GSD, YALE, they got post-pro degree, and are qualified to get the NCARB degree, so I assume, the Princeton (2 year) will be the same !!!
What? The 2 year program is a professional degree - MArch 1 AP. Do you mean the three year degree? Either way, they accredit the entire MArch program. If someone doesn't have a professional degree already they should be in either the MArch 1 program or the MArch 1 AP. If they do already have a professional degree then they should be in the MArch 2 program which takes 3 years.
i think that reedtimothy is dead on.
reedtimothy: what do you base your info/what experience have you had with the schools? as i said, i agree very much. those descriptions detail why i prefer columbia, especially as far as wigley goes. i think he'll be better for columbia than bernard...
i pretty much agree with reedtimothy...ive done alot of research on schools and although i didnt go to any of the following (went to a state school for MArch) here were my impressions
harvard: very design oriented. students create beautiful work, always within the realm of 'real' architecture. but still pretty diverse faculty with varied intersts, ie scott cohen, toshiko mori, koolhaas, h&deM. seems to be the best recognized outside the US. can be competitive (true of all the ivies)
columbia: experimental, like sci arc. but sciarc focuses a bit more on the tactile. form is heavily stressed. although columbia work is sometimes criticized as being merely illustrative. but its difficult to have everything. horrible studio spaces/facilities compared to the other ivies. but its in nyc
princeton: extremely smart students, hardest to get into. the school is very small and students have very direct access to the professors, but they are also very independent and expected to be self-motivated. although known to be theory-based, the direction of the school now is more practical, and the student work seems to attest to that.
yale: no real focus, which is how they like it. although one of my undergrad profs regarded it as "a mess" of ideologies. weaker permanent faculty. star visiting critics (zaha, gehry) attract students who want to study under them. some strong points are attractive like the building project, if that interests you.
I'm sorry, but some of these comments are "all fluff no substance." There's no real way to know a program unless you spend some time there. These sweeping generalities and outmoded stereotypes are getting you no where.
"I haven't seen good stuff come out of the other ivy's"
"harvard is ranked number one."
"princeton's post professional degree is not yet accredited"
"because it is the largest, it has best studio culture"
"the work is safer than Columbia's"
"heavy on aesthetics"
These statements don't mean anything. You guys can do better...
anatomical gift, i agree with what you said but the perception of a school has a lot to do with its reputation and which student go. the sweeping generalities are just that, and although one couldnt judge an individual based on what school he/she is from, those views mentioned above are based in reality to a degree. plus most people made it clear that they were THEIR views based on numerous factors, not hard facts
The last thing you should do, is go to a school because of the visiting faculty (ala zaha, gehry, etc.) The only time you will see them is on your mid and final reviews. Trust me, choose a school based on its full-time, permanent faculty.
I went to Columbia. It is a great school and anyone who says "all fluff" has absolutley no idea what they are talking about. I would assume, as anatomical points out, that this is true of most steroetypes re: schools. That fact of the matter is, all the top schools are good and the value of your education is largely dependent on your own effort in studio.
spelling bee champion is officially my favorite participant in these discussions...
my two cents: if your talking about a first professional degree, you really need to be more informed about the pedagogy of each school than are those who apply to every ivy. i know that when people apply to all the ivies they are hedging their bets because they aren't sure where they'll be accepted.... but the school can be very different, and their reputations will follow you throughout your career. i think your really splitting hairs trying to figure out if columbia is better than yale or vis-versa...etc. they are each better in specific areas. my personal advice is that if your not sure where you stand in this elitist ideological mess- try your very best to get into the gsd.
all this bull on who's the best. I've seen it all before...
Colombia's are OK with a full-bodied with a well-balanced flavor, however Blue Java coffee has hints of smoky bittersweet chocolate - and that's the best.
HI everyone!
Now I have to make a decision like this:
MIT's MArch or Columbia's MSAAD ?
How is the MIT's MArch degree program?
I am interested in MIT because of it's new chair (Yung Ho Chang) and the media lab program.......
but Columbia ...NYC also attracts me .....
give me some advices, guys!
for the record i never said there was a best, and dont believe there is. just gave my personal views on the school. unbiased as i didnt go to an ivy for grad school
raji, it might make me biased against ivies on the whole (which im not) but not biased toward a particular program. and since i only mentioned ivies, it doesnt matter
Spelling Bee Champion...I am a novice...and feel sorry about that...
I will notice that next time....
I hope that you you guys can give me some advices and informations about the two schools.
I am Looking foward for your replies.
hola champ :
please finish sentences with correct punctuation, even if using sideways smileys.
should read: "don't worry about it." instead of "don't worry about it"
I really feel that whatever school you choose is somewhat irrelevant, if your want to do cool sh@t, do it. Don't let the pedagodgy and politics any particular school sway you from what you really want to. You can really get a decent education at any of those schools but it's on you to actually do it. Picking anyone of those schools won't instantly make you better than anyone else.
thanx, Mr geek n althose who gave me the advices, but still the dilema prevails as to go which university, since ill b applying to rice, yale, ucla, sci-arch,mit and of course columbia.
Apr 9, 05 5:56 am ·
·
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.
is columbia the best?
guys , im opting for graduate degeree n wanted to apply at couple of colleges, can someone guide me which is the best college for graduate degrees , as im new to architecture so kindly tell me is columbia university supposed to b the best?
well.. the tops usually are the ivys which are princeton, yale, columbia, and harvard.... and more... i personally favor princeton (u might wanna read the thread i started about princeton "Grad Sch Admission: Princeton U." ).... but thats just me...not that i m in ..haha.. oh well
this question has been asked several times. it never gets old for me, but it never gets 'answered/solved'... i say columbia is tops and personally shy heavily away from princeton/harvard/yale... but as miyaki said "that's just me" :)
it's all subjective. personally, I haven't seen good stuff come out of the other ivy's, but it's been many, many years since I saw good work come out of Columbia (the real good work was in the early '90s, Harvard the 80s, I think, and it goes back, with each having about 10 years of good work, then it fades).
but to simply answer your question: no.
I think Columbia's glory years are over, but if you want to go there, go.
I truly, truly do not understand picking a school for a ranking. You can consider it, but it should be far down on the list, no?
i'm in my second year (m.arch) at columbia right now and, while i know nothing of the other schools, i can say that there is a very good studio culture here. though everybody works very hard and it could accurately be called quite competitive, for the most part it is a very supportive environment where there are always a few other students around happy to discuss your project with you in depth. the studio content and methods will make you question everything about how you think of and approach design; because of the relatively experimental techniques, you can't help but grow intellectually, and grow a lot. while many people question the relevance of the 'blob', which many studios could arguably be categorized as, spending a semester learning what 'blobs' are all about and coming to your own, informed conclusion is actually quite valuable for young architects looking to practice in an ever-diversifying field. but, let it be known, not even close to all of the studios are about the 'blob', so don't be intimidated by that. the professors i have had so far, in classes from studio to architectural photography to building systems, have all been wonderfully insightful, supportive and, ultimately, effective in increasing my scope and abilities as a designer.
the first year is relatively regimented and abstract, taught by professors with some of the most process-based studio methods. the first semester of second year is dedicated to designing a large housing complex with a partner (which is good because there's a ton of work to do, but sometime bad if you pick the wrong person to work with...). the three semesters left after that, each professor has their own program and you generally have a great variety to choose from.
during most of my first year here, i constantly questioned whether i had made the right choice. the studio and drawing classes are so densely theory-based and seemingly detached from the realities of architecture. yet, as i went along, i found that being in a place that makes me question everything is actually the best kind of place to be for grad school. and, as i moved up from studio to studio, i have enjoyed them more and more. i have seemingly learned way more about architecture in my 1.75 years at columbia than i learned during my 4 years in undergrad at wash u in st. louis (which isn't to say that wash u wasn't great, but perhaps a bit less intellectually rigorous than columbia. but then, it was undergrad...)
i am sure you would enjoy and benefit hugely from going to grad school at any ivy, but i would certainly recommend columbia based on my experience here so far. hope this helps.
no.
harvard is ranked number one.
whatever that means.
I agree with joed's assessment of Columbia. The school is more about questioning, defining, and theorizing than about blobs.
An important thing to remember is that there is a new dean, Mark Wigley. I personally think that he is great for the school and will push the school and the profession to radically rethink what it is we are doing.
That being said, here are some (hopefully) objective, knee-jerk reactions about the ivys:
Princeton: very small school, very close relationships with professors
Columba: the most experimental (up for debate), because it is the largest, it has best studio culture. I learned as much from students as from professors
Harvard: the work is safer than Columbia's, and thus better recieved by the professional culture
Professors tend to switch between these schools every semester. I had professors at Columba who would teach at Yale on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or at Harvard in the spring and Columbia in the fall.
Hope that helps you.
princeton's post professional degree is not yet accredited
What does that mean "princeton's post professional degree is not yet accredited"????
Why would post pro porgrams need to be accredited? The student already has a professional degree. No school has post pro accreditation. Post Pro is not a professional degree. From the NAAB website:
"The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) is the sole agency authorized to accredit US professional degree programs in architecture."
And if you download the list, Princeton's MArch program is accredited.
dammson & anatomical ..
u guys are both correct....
it doesnt make sense to accredit post pro degree and that degree is not accredited
but the pro degree is the one thats accredited by naab...
i know its confusing with all the text thats floating around but thats what it ultimately burns down to...
this might be irrelevant, but for many foreign students who came to US for post-professional degree, it makes a lot differences when you try to get the NCARB certificate, since NCARB and most state registration board ask you for a degree from a NAAB accredited program, so, based on the NAAB's criteria, those who got a post professional degree should not be qualified to take the exam and NCARB certificate, this is not so true for some of my friends who got a post-pro degree from GSD, YALE, they got post-pro degree, and are qualified to get the NCARB degree, so I assume, the Princeton (2 year) will be the same !!!
What? The 2 year program is a professional degree - MArch 1 AP. Do you mean the three year degree? Either way, they accredit the entire MArch program. If someone doesn't have a professional degree already they should be in either the MArch 1 program or the MArch 1 AP. If they do already have a professional degree then they should be in the MArch 2 program which takes 3 years.
i think that reedtimothy is dead on.
reedtimothy: what do you base your info/what experience have you had with the schools? as i said, i agree very much. those descriptions detail why i prefer columbia, especially as far as wigley goes. i think he'll be better for columbia than bernard...
if were to give my knee jerk reaction about columbia it might be
"all fluff no substance"
heavy on aesthetics and less emphasis on context, meaning, etc
that's the impression I got from the book of work they sent out. and how people at my school seem to think of it.
It's better to look good than to feel good...
i pretty much agree with reedtimothy...ive done alot of research on schools and although i didnt go to any of the following (went to a state school for MArch) here were my impressions
harvard: very design oriented. students create beautiful work, always within the realm of 'real' architecture. but still pretty diverse faculty with varied intersts, ie scott cohen, toshiko mori, koolhaas, h&deM. seems to be the best recognized outside the US. can be competitive (true of all the ivies)
columbia: experimental, like sci arc. but sciarc focuses a bit more on the tactile. form is heavily stressed. although columbia work is sometimes criticized as being merely illustrative. but its difficult to have everything. horrible studio spaces/facilities compared to the other ivies. but its in nyc
princeton: extremely smart students, hardest to get into. the school is very small and students have very direct access to the professors, but they are also very independent and expected to be self-motivated. although known to be theory-based, the direction of the school now is more practical, and the student work seems to attest to that.
yale: no real focus, which is how they like it. although one of my undergrad profs regarded it as "a mess" of ideologies. weaker permanent faculty. star visiting critics (zaha, gehry) attract students who want to study under them. some strong points are attractive like the building project, if that interests you.
I'm sorry, but some of these comments are "all fluff no substance." There's no real way to know a program unless you spend some time there. These sweeping generalities and outmoded stereotypes are getting you no where.
"I haven't seen good stuff come out of the other ivy's"
"harvard is ranked number one."
"princeton's post professional degree is not yet accredited"
"because it is the largest, it has best studio culture"
"the work is safer than Columbia's"
"heavy on aesthetics"
These statements don't mean anything. You guys can do better...
ditto
i agree with netizen,
although yale doesnt seem as competitive of an environment as the other schools, which is both good and bad
anatomical gift, i agree with what you said but the perception of a school has a lot to do with its reputation and which student go. the sweeping generalities are just that, and although one couldnt judge an individual based on what school he/she is from, those views mentioned above are based in reality to a degree. plus most people made it clear that they were THEIR views based on numerous factors, not hard facts
The last thing you should do, is go to a school because of the visiting faculty (ala zaha, gehry, etc.) The only time you will see them is on your mid and final reviews. Trust me, choose a school based on its full-time, permanent faculty.
I went to Columbia. It is a great school and anyone who says "all fluff" has absolutley no idea what they are talking about. I would assume, as anatomical points out, that this is true of most steroetypes re: schools. That fact of the matter is, all the top schools are good and the value of your education is largely dependent on your own effort in studio.
ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer
none of these schools made the final four. get yer priorities in order.
ha! your mom is the best.
What kind of answer is "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer"? Why perpetuate these uninformed "opinions" by mindlessly regurgitating this crap?
anatomical gift ... you used a split infinitive in your previous post
I apologize Mr. BEE and appreciate the correction. I will be more mindful of my ungood grammer in my subsequent posts.
make it so ... you are officially on notice
spelling bee champion is officially my favorite participant in these discussions...
my two cents: if your talking about a first professional degree, you really need to be more informed about the pedagogy of each school than are those who apply to every ivy. i know that when people apply to all the ivies they are hedging their bets because they aren't sure where they'll be accepted.... but the school can be very different, and their reputations will follow you throughout your career. i think your really splitting hairs trying to figure out if columbia is better than yale or vis-versa...etc. they are each better in specific areas. my personal advice is that if your not sure where you stand in this elitist ideological mess- try your very best to get into the gsd.
all this bull on who's the best. I've seen it all before...
Colombia's are OK with a full-bodied with a well-balanced flavor, however Blue Java coffee has hints of smoky bittersweet chocolate - and that's the best.
i must agree with BOTS
HI everyone!
Now I have to make a decision like this:
MIT's MArch or Columbia's MSAAD ?
How is the MIT's MArch degree program?
I am interested in MIT because of it's new chair (Yung Ho Chang) and the media lab program.......
but Columbia ...NYC also attracts me .....
give me some advices, guys!
asunaro ... please verify your subject-verb agreement in your latest post
for the record i never said there was a best, and dont believe there is. just gave my personal views on the school. unbiased as i didnt go to an ivy for grad school
actually, doesn't that make you biased?
i think the best cocaine comes from Columbia
raji, it might make me biased against ivies on the whole (which im not) but not biased toward a particular program. and since i only mentioned ivies, it doesnt matter
Spelling Bee Champion...I am a novice...and feel sorry about that...
I will notice that next time....
I hope that you you guys can give me some advices and informations about the two schools.
I am Looking foward for your replies.
asunaro ... don't worry about it :)
hola champ :
please finish sentences with correct punctuation, even if using sideways smileys.
should read: "don't worry about it." instead of "don't worry about it"
i skimmed this post...
has anyone said "different schools teach different things" yet?
I really feel that whatever school you choose is somewhat irrelevant, if your want to do cool sh@t, do it. Don't let the pedagodgy and politics any particular school sway you from what you really want to. You can really get a decent education at any of those schools but it's on you to actually do it. Picking anyone of those schools won't instantly make you better than anyone else.
thanx, Mr geek n althose who gave me the advices, but still the dilema prevails as to go which university, since ill b applying to rice, yale, ucla, sci-arch,mit and of course columbia.
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.