Archinect
anchor

Portfolio AND Arizona Arch Schools

swisscardlite

Hey, sorry for making this topic into two subjects because i had two questions in mind.

I'm currently a junior in high school right now and I am working on building a portfolio. What is a 'good' portfolio? Ihear people online talk of having good portfolios but I never have an idea of what 'good' is. Are schools looking for creativity? and if so, what are ways to display your creativity? Are they looking for art skills? Are they llooking for the concepts behind the work?
Currently I have a lot of paintings in my portfolio but I hope to add some arch models in it if I get accepted from Cornell and attend their summer program. I'm also working on some sketches.

And does anyone know anything about the school of architecture for both Arizona State University and University of Arizona? What's the difference?
I hear that they are both very hard to get into. What are the schools like? Do they have a lot of reputation? Are they more conceptual or more practical? My dad is an engineering professor at ASU.

many thanks!

 
Apr 4, 05 8:22 pm
Archi-F

The biggest difference between ASU and U of A is the fact that ASU is an accredited professional program, and U of A isn't. It pretty much means the difference between an B Arch or a B Art in Architecture.

In most states, IDP is required for licensure along with a B Arch.

However, if you’re planning on pursuing your M Arch, either is fine and roughly take the same amount of time to get through.

As for portfolio. It sounds like you're well ahead of the game. I applied to ASU and got accepted, and I don't remember having to even turn a portfolio. I'd look at the acceptance requirements and go in and talk with people at the University to see what they think. Often they also have a box full of portfolios that you can look through.

Apr 4, 05 8:38 pm  · 
 · 

non-accredited architecture school is a bit scary. thats cuz the program is unique and good, or unique and bad?

A good portfolio for entering undergrad arch. school is a bit different than what most of the posts here are talkin about. Seems the schools look for all of he things you mentioned, but mostl importa

Apr 4, 05 9:11 pm  · 
 · 

woops. (wireless mouse went crazy)

...but most important is to show commitment to architecture/art. I transferred to architecture school after a year of fine arts; portfolio was stuffed with paintings and a few installations but nothing particularly architectural. essay and grades probably count as much if not more.

Apr 4, 05 9:16 pm  · 
 · 
liberty bell

Archi-F, either you have it backwards or things have changed since I graduated with a 5-year BArch from University of Arizona - the one in Tucson. Their website still states that they offer a 5-year Bachelor of Architecture, AKA a professional degree. When I was in school, ASU offered a 4+2 program resulting in a MArch.

The BArch, Justin, allows you to get registered without further schooling, the B Art or B Science in Arch requires a Master of Architecture degree to get licensed.

Apr 4, 05 10:04 pm  · 
 · 
danarellano

I agree with Liberty Bell, Arizona is a accredited. I am a student at UofA (tucson)or CALA, I love it! The program is tectonic. There is a concentration on materials and structure. The structure classes are not just a bunch of math problems but rather building and learning. The studio classes are small and only 47 students are allowed into the program. and drawing is taken very serious, computers not so much. I really don not know what they are doing up north (ASU), but we have a couple of students that came over, because they did not like it up there.

Apr 4, 05 10:31 pm  · 
 · 

It is Uof A that is accredited for undergrad- ASU is only accredited for grad school. In fact, ASU is not even a standard 4+2 program, it's a 2+2+2. They admit you pre-architecture pretty easily, but your first two years are spend taking General Education classes and really basic design courses. THEN you apply to the architecture program for real, and to be honest they admit way more people pre-architecture than they can afford to have stick around the whole way, so a reasonable amount of people get rejected at this juncture. ASU has a good reputation, but frankly UofA offers a lot more stability.

Apr 5, 05 3:00 am  · 
 · 
swisscardlite

thank you everyone for your input! i really appreciate it!

Apr 5, 05 8:01 pm  · 
 · 
le bossman

i agree, i haven't heard that UA isn't accredited. ASU is more reputable in arizona, although rick joy did go to UA so that isn't set in stone. i remember applying to ASU's upper division, what a pain in the ass. completely stressfull and they only accepted 47 out of 120 applicants. on the day portfolios were due, students used to stand outside the office to watch the show; when the doors close at five they don't let anyone in. there were people standing outside the door crying, pounding on the door, but the people in the office wouldn't open the door. i don't think the pre-arch program at asu is all that great, but the upper division program is really good. also, they aren't basic design courses in the first two years, but regular design studios. i know michigan's pre-arch program consists of lots of abstract spatial studies, but at ASU you design buildings. i would go to ASU over UA without a doubt.

Apr 6, 05 3:00 pm  · 
 · 
adso

According to the NAAB website, UofA is accredited for a 5 year BArch degree.

Sep 29, 05 2:44 pm  · 
 · 

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.

  • ×Search in: