HELL YES! AND BEST BARBECUE THIS SIDE OF THE PECOS!!! I PUT OIL IN MY CEREAL!!! WOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! RICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obviously this isn't of much help, however--

I also got into Rice and have similar questions about the program. I live in Massachusetts and won't be able to get to Houston on short notice. I've heard (perhaps on this site) that the graduate classes are getting larger and larger.

I also agree--the work on the website suggests that studio work is heavily research-based and somewhat "theoretical"--but it's hard to characterize a program based on three or four projects, I suppose.

For what it's worth, I worked with two Rice graduates in the late 1990's. They were both extremely sharp design wise and craftsmanship wise--it was pretty clear to me that they had both been through a pretty intense education. However, I would guess the approach and curriculum at Rice have changed significantly since the 1990's, like many other schools.

I am an undergraduate at Rice University.

I think the faculty exodus seemed bigger than it actually was because professors were going on sabbatical at the same time professors were leaving the program. In the end, William Williams and David Brown left Rice. They were replaced by Clover Lee and Helen Furjan.

The focus on Houston has a lot to do with Lars Lerup. He has an obsession/fascination with Houston.

I have to put a plug in for Nana Last here. Sanford is fine as a professor, but he gets WAY too much hype. If you go to Rice, I highly recommend taking one of Nana Last's classes.

I am not sure if there is a trend in the thesis students projects. I think it fluctuates from year to year, and has something to do with the background the students have come from. For some reason many of the thesis students had science backgrounds, but two years ago there were quite a few projects on literature and architecture.

Houston's fun too.

more blather--

I won't lie, I'm a bit scared by the work displayed on the website--it seems fairly intense and thorough (resembling princeton work, to be simplistic about it), but perhaps lacking in "traditional". tangible architectural work.

I realize times and education change, but I'd like to actually design a building in graduate school.

yet another post--

I went to school with Clover Lee several years ago when she was doing an MDES at GSD. She was pretty cool, whatever that means--again, that's probably of little help.

sahar, thanks for the feedback.

rogerc,

I think you can get a pragmatic experience at Rice. Depending on what graduate program you are in (option 1,2,3) you will have various option and core studios. I am pretty sure the core studios focus on a variety of building programs. The option studios vary from conceptual to pragmatic. Since you get to rank the options, if you put the most conceptual studio as your last choice, you will probably not get it.

You choose your faculty members that are your thesis advisors. If you wanted to take the craft oriented route, maybe you choose David Guthrie as an advisor over Sanford, etc. (You can also have advisors that are not within the department). I know quite a few students had Christopher Kelty from the Anthropology Dept.

I wouldn't be intimidated. When I entered the school, I was very intimidated by the other students. It makes you too self concious. Work on your weaknesses, exploit your strengths, but don't count yourself out before you even get there.

rogerc - did you get into / are you seriously considering any other schools?

sahar - are you applying to grad school? can i ask why you didn't apply to rice?

i plan to have a long talk with the graduate advisor tomorrow on the phone, since apparently there is no open house? anyway i'll try to post some of the results.

oh yeah, and rogerc, i kind of doubt that the classes are getting much larger. in my letter they said they accepted only 12 people (though maybe that was just for opt. II - either way, still quite small).

dillup,

I'm also considering Yale--going to the open house tomorrow. I'd like to visit Rice soon but the flights are too expensive on such short notice. Ultimately the only way to judge a school is to view their student work firsthand, in my opinion. In other words, I don't really know what to do at this point.

Again, I'd prefer to go to a smaller school like rice, but except for sahar's firsthand accounts, I don't have much more information to go on right now.

Yes, I got into the option 2 program as well. That would be great if you would post some info tomorrow after your conversation. Patricia Roberts suggested that a great time to visit would be during reviews (4/27-4/29), but that doesn't really work with the deadlines of other schools.

hey dillup, roger c, etc,

watch out for rice, there are deep structural problems with the program. too many to get into now though i'll try to post again tomorrow. but here are a few of the problems in short:

1. rudderless ship. the dean is basically an absentee landlord and most of the strong faculty left in the past six or seven years (william and david are just the most recent to go, there were several others prior to them.)

2. no critical mass. never has been and never will be. the program is simply too small and too distant (literally and pedagogically) to generate the kind of internal combustion you need to produce good work. don't be fooled by comparisons to princeton in terms of size, either...

3. conflicted self image regarding its location in houston. by most accounts the city is a hellhole and the school doesn't know whether to be embarrassed by this (which it is) or overcompensate with a kind of weird pride. it chooses the latter most of the time which explains all of the houston-oriented urban theory you see there. but that gets old fast.

4. their particular version of research-based pedagogy is a strange hybrid of data-mining, scenario planning, and an unwavering insistence upon the false ambivalence of generic form (which they refuse to talk about). this odd combination of polemics may work itself out in the next few years or it may not. the question is, should it at all?

5. houston is really, really, really far away from everywhere and everyone.

6. while there are actually a number of very strong teachers, most of the time they don't work collectively on an overarching agenda for the school so their accumulated intelligence never seems to gel into anything substantial.

7. a longstanding and extreme aversion to design. this leads to some pretty serious consequences in the studios. more often than not after a couple of semesters students are afraid to do just about anything. also, there really is no design culture to speak of in the building. there just isn't that sense of purpose and excitement one normally finds in an architecture school.

8. a relatively conservative and homogeneous student body. there are a few exceptions every so often but they are rare. because of this, those individuals often become resentful of their surroundings and difficult to approach. some transfer out.

9. okay, enough of the negatives. if you do decide to go there i'd look into each of the profs and try to establish a strong working relationship with those that interest you. standouts include albert pope, sanford kwinter, carlos jimenez, mark wamble, doug oliver, dawn finley, sean lally, and clover lee.

good luck with your decision. this is definitely not a school you want to enroll in sight unseen. and talk to as many students as you possibly can. not 3 or 4, more like 20.

troglodite,
it sounds like you graduated from rice? if so when? I am probably going to start in the fall, option II - would love to hear more or understand some of your ideas, both negative and positive, further - or anyone else that has criticism or praise to offer, there might be other readers that would love to hear from you here.

dillup,

I needed a change that is all. I had a better idea of what I wanted out of my architecture degree, and a few things are things I cannot get at Rice. I can't say I hated it or didn't get anything out of it. I got a great education, and feel like my work is above average in terms of work coming out of undergraduate architecture programs.

I agree/disagree with a few things troglodite has to say.

1. It is true that quite a few strong faculty members have left the program since I have been a student, which include Jason Payne, Luke Buhlman, Keith Krumwiede, etc. My senior year, I felt like Rice was heading downwards, but I think the new hires and a few of the other young faculty members are breathing new life into the program.

2. I think this is true. The student body is small and enough of the people are apathetic about problems within the program or have given up on trying to change them. I know a few of the graduate students wanted to bring change to the school, but it is EXTREMELY hard when you are by yourself.

3. I like Houston. It has great museums, music, food, etc. Hell, that is how cities that are expanding now are going to look.

5. It depends on what everywhere is. It is definitely spread out.

8. I kind of agree with this.

how is it that you people write such thourough entries about rice while failing to mention the valhalla? i like lars

haha.

I forgot. If you aren't completely sold on Rice, remember Valhalla, graduate student pub, is directly across the street from the architecture school and beers are $.75. You should go on this reason alone.

troglodite, which program did you go through at rice? what you said is a bit troubling. there does seem to be a bit of an 'aversion to design' based on the work presented on the website... research is fine but in the end I want to design a building.

seems like you really disliked the program. are there any strengths, in your opinion? what are you doiong now?

'reseach is fine but in the end i want to design a building'

good luck--granted it may depend on what school you go to, but i have friends at a lot of different schools and their sentiments are the same as mine. research has been the core of grad school, both in and out of the studio. i don't think this is necessarily bad, and most of the time i end up designing buildings, but in undergrad i felt that my work had achieved a certain critical sensibility; now that i'm almost done with grad school i feel i was just messing around with forms. i believe, in general, the purpose of grad school is different than that of undergrad.

no offense, but if i wanted to design a building, i probably would not go to grad school, but continue to work. looking back, i did not do enough research in undergrad, i focused on process and making - I was not pushed enough to do solid research, and now feel a bit cheated - i am concerned about some of the criticism of rice, but much of what i have read above and otherwise has me excited about the school - i believe it would take a weak person and student to become scared to design, in response to trog's point no. 7...

The advantage and disadvantage of Rice as an architecture school is probably its lack of Grand Unified Design Culture. So what this means is that you won't be explicitly told what to do, unless you give up and allow yourself to be pressured by students and professors who would honestly much rather see something done with careful thought and effort than have students fit their particular niche. I've seen talented students fail miserably when indecision and stagnation take over and become incapable of producing anything resembling a building or idea.

You won't have your arm twisted to work hard and produce heaps of quality work there. Only those that take it upon themselves to diversify and use the available academic resources to their advantage will be rewarded in the long run. The Dean is not there to pat everyone on the back, but to encourage students to stand up for themselves while contributing new ideas to the discourse, regardless of image and fashionability.

But if you're looking to go to grad school to get acquainted with hip new design trends, use state-of-the-art technology and meet a lot of famous and exciting people, then Rice will be a total waste of time for you.

Not that I need hip design trends, but technology would be nice, is Rice's equipment outdated? And it seems that they have some exciting people coming for lectures and symposiums...

dill,
a buddy of mine is visiting rice now - the only thing i told him he needed to ask about for me was equipment and resources: 3d printers, laser cutters, milling machines, etc - i know their woodshop is supposed to be good, but i want the digital manufacturing stuff, too - i think some of it is not directly accessable to arch students, but you can be hooked up with the stuff, and probably have to pay...i'll let you know when i find out -

Keeping equipment up to date had always been an issue, especially in the last 8 years or so. Again, the advantage of small size becomes a disadvantage when it comes to facilities and equipment. Things are far better now than it has been, and they have a very good woodshop as well as a badass metal lab in a mobile shipping container. I know a new shop expansion is being planned (though still a few years out) and they might even have some new digital manufacturing equipment now.

But I remember driving to these strange warehouses in the outskirts of Houston looking for plastic fabricators and lasercutting workshops. There's something to be said for that old-fashioned research and outsourcing, as it more closely matches the professional environment.

thanks for your input, dherman - sounds okay - managable at least...

Rice is planning to get cnc, laser cutters, 3D printer, hopefully in place by next fall.

I called the Graduate Secretary today. Some basic info:

She confirmed that some faculty left a few years ago but in her words, it hasn't affected the program at all. The class size I think is generally 24 per year, split into two studios. A lot of graduates end up in new york, boston, and the northwest, though of course they are dispersed all over the place. Studios are very often related to urbanism, houston in particular. What she called the middle-ground between between city and suburb. not sure if i'm too excited about that. also, it sounds like many students live in neighborhoods right around campus and it may even be possible to have no car...

dillup,

You can have no car, but you need friends that have cars. Quite a few graduate students have bikes, but for supplies you need a car to get supplies. Almost everyone in the department has a car, so it is possible for you to not have one.

dillup,

It is also cheaper to live off campus than in the graduate housing. Houston is cheap.

Hey Matr,

a few more remarks for you:

you're right in your response to dherman's comments about technology: "manageable" is a good word for it. if you aren't into using emerging technologies intensively then you should be okay, there are places around town for laser cutting model pieces and so on. but that's very different then knowing you've got the stuff in-house. in-house allows for continual experimentation, making mistakes, and so on because it's there for you all the time.

also, in ref to standardstopage, i'd be wary of promises to get eqpt by next fall or any other time. they've been saying that for years and haven't done it. it's not a matter of money, it's a matter of commitment and there really isn't any. they know that this kind of eqpt will encourage physical design work and they have a long standing interest in this not happening as mentioned above.

in ref to remarks about the faculty exodus being somewhat reversed by the hiring of a couple of new faculty: they lost much more than they've gained. plus, rice is notorious for not being able to hold onto younger talent so don't be surprised when the newer hires currently there leave for greener pastures.

in ref to "new momentum": consider the fact that a number of very talented, very capable faculty (listed above) have been there for some time now and have been unable to get anything substantial started. this is much more telling than the desires of a hopeful few new hires. the new hires are no more talented than the ones who've been there for awhile and they are likely to run into the same deep structural obstacles that the experienced ones have. they will then either jump ship or settle in for the comfortable, if isolated, long haul.

in ref to remarks about just having courage in the face of the anti-design forces: naive. the ones with the most strength are the ones who transferred out. the second most strong were those that buckle down, do their own thing, become difficult to approach, and get the hell out. sound fun?

lastly, regarding the Grand Unified Design Culture. it's not so much that, though it is totally lacking and that's a big huge problem not to be underestimated. rather, it's more about momentum and energy. there is almost none. dherman had to make his own but he would have been far more powerful in a place with a reservoir of energy already in place from which he could draw and to which he could contribute. instead people like him, however well they do, are self-contained.

trog,
you sound bitter - please allow us to understand: when did you graduate from rice? what degree did you get from rice? what graduate option were you involved in at rice? good point about my comment, "managable"... at most schools, when the equipment is in-house, is it free for you to make what you want when you want? i have heard of schools charging for use of 3d printers, etc... how expensive is it in houston when you do something outside the school, which it sounds like you need to do?

Hi Matr,

i'm not bitter at all, i'm just letting you in on my view of the inside workings of the school. i'm sorry i don't have more positive things to say about the program but it's not meant as an attack at all, just the way it seems to be. i have mentioned a couple of times the strength of a number of the faculty and how important it is to work with them should you go there - that's positive, i think. but that's about it in my opinion.

it doesn't matter who i am, i'm giving you info that i have that you asked for. you should weigh it against all the other posts, ask questions of others involved in the school, see what advice seems most credible and go from there. good luck.

trog - you are sensitive, too - the bitter comment was my humble, uneducated judgement - who said anything about an attack? i believe it to be very relevent when you went there, and what program you are in, no?

WERE in i meant...what program where you in? i didn't measure twice before i cut...

Hi Matr,

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound sensitive, I just didn't want you to get the wrong idea. I'm not critical of the school to try to do harm to it, as a bitter person might do. Rather, it's more about posting advice to help someone thinking of going there. i'd rather not say what program, if any, i was ever in. what i will say is that the graduate program there, regardless of which track you are on, is what i'm describing in my posts. the undergraduate program is somewhat different since it's more of a fundamental education.

matr, dillup, etc,

forgot to ask: you thinking of attending any schools other than rice? which ones?

allright - fair enough - and trust me, i appreciate the honesty - i am meeting with my good friend who is back in nyc and graduated from there tomorrow for drinks and discussions on rice - he too has several issues with the school and his experience there - trog, make my life easier: float me the cash to make up the difference between 2 yrs at rice and 3 at yale, a?

btw: i also have the opportunity to attend U Cincinnati 2-year, yale 3-year, Iowa State 2-year, Wash U, UT Austin, risd - i've ruled a few others out - i applied to so many because i have been out of the academic game since '99 and did not know what to expect, wanted to spread myself out and make sure that i had options - i dont know if i would have gotten into gsd or columbia, but i am from boston and don't want to go back, and have my issues with columbia and would not want to go there...i do think yale is pretty rad but crazy money for me - and i have this really good feeling about rice - i'm just going to keep researching my ass off until i feel comfortable enough to make a decision - i guess in a week -

btw = in response to your ?s about 'schools other than rice', trog...iowa state is tempting, too in that it would be free and their digital manufacturing facilities seem sweet and ultra accessible...know anything 'bout that? most peeps never heard of the place...

yep, that's how they get you. and of course, in case they haven't told you yet, your two years at rice are almost free. this is why the student body there is relatively strong: they are pulled from the same pool applying to the ivys and other top schools. problem is, rice doesn't deliver the goods like some of those other schools. ask yourself why a school would be so inexpensive?

listen well to your friend from nyc and maybe give him my list of criticisms...see if s/he agrees. then let me know.

as far as yale goes, i don't know quite as much about that program though i do believe it's getting better rather than worse or remaining the same. most of the word on the street these days on Y is rather vague but generally positive.

any other schools?

dood, read my post above yours - too many schools - no other ivys and definitely not trendies but supposedly some strong programs...

yeah, i don't know too much about most of those beyond basic reps. you'd better start some threads on each one and hope you get as much action on them as you've had on this rice one.

which ones do you think are the trendies?

i've got to thank dillup for starting this thread!
trendies? you know: sci-arc, columbia. maybe that's it. not that people don't do nice work there, but i have my issues those schools, so i didn't apply there, no harm done.

hey thanks for starting this tread too... i got accepted by rice last week but i am unable read my acceptance letter coz i am now working on a project in a very remote part of china... unable to ask my friend to mail the package to me coz i dont know my address in english...
but yeah. i wanna know more on rice.. i got 1/2 tuition off and i am thinking if i should go or not. i am still waiting for princeton's reply since i am on their waiting list. i saw nice projects on rice's website, personally i think they are more interesting than other schools' work. what do you think?

trog-

the main other ones i'm considering are ucla and yale. ucla seemed quite strong when i visited, again, a bit "hip" but some strong faculty nevertheless. it also seemed to have more "direction," at least stylistically, which actually I consider as a negative. cost is a big issue for me, yale seems out of range, and l.a. seems to have much higher living costs than rice.

unfortunately my 2.5 years at rice will not be free, i also got only 1/2 tuition... seems that i should be disappointed about this.

as of now, the main concern i have with rice is what seems like a focus on suburban conditions. i appreciate their willingness to approach such an underexamined subject but frankly, i am not totally excited about spending my graduate education mining for data on wal-mart....

dill, i think they save more than half off for those who are really in need, like seriously, kids that would never otherwise be able to study at a university in the US - that is what my bud that went there said anyway - he got half off, and said some had 75% and some full, but not the norm...

maybe trog works there! that is why he won't fess up to who he is and when he went there, etc...

Okay, I just clued into you guys, but I thought I'd give you some imput--I'm in my first year in the Rice grad program. After reading trog's bitter,secretive posts I'm reluctant to be totally transparent about my own details, so I'll just leave it at that.
About a direction for the school and faculty, I agree with what dherman said above--there's no unified style or doctrine overall, but this is a good thing in my opinion. THere are a number of different ideas coming from faculty and no major stylistic or process push, so you can do your own thing. Which means if you don't have your own thing, you can flounder. And I would agree with dherman that there are lots of resources you can take advantage of, but you have to be really self-motivated to do so--you can definitely slide here if you let yourself. Which doesn't mean people don't work hard- they do, very much so--but it's probably not the same boot camp feel as some other schools.
I have no idea what trog means by 'aversion to design'. There is definitely a focus on process and research as a way to arrive at form, but not everyone is about that--there are a number of professors who are solid designers and can help you develop your own process and aesthetic. I think this list includes Doug Oliver, David Guthrie, Dawn Finley, Blair Satterfield, Carlos Jimenez, Nana Last, and CLover Lee. There is an emphasis on diagraming, and on learning how to present information in a certain way--the student work you see on the website will give you an idea of this. If you are not interested in this, I would imagine you'd have to work pretty hard to avoid it altogether, but it only shows up in a couple of studios. And when it comes to the actual look of the projects you are designing there's no particular style that is favored. Certainly if you want to develop your own very particular aesthetic--an aesthetic that is quite different from most of the blobby, techy, moddish stuff that seems to be floating around all the trendy schools these days--professors would try to poke holes in it, but most of them would only be trying to make you defend yourself and fully think through your work--which you should do anyway. I think it always takes a really strong person to go against the dominant culture, regardless of the school or faculty support. If you've got a spine and a voice, you'll get a good education at Rice. If you don't, you'd have trouble anywhere.
There's certainly a 'supermodern' bent--neo-traditionalism and new urbanism won't go over well. But if you wanted to design deluded neo-classical mega-mansions you probably wouldn't have applied here in the first place...
And if you 'want to design a building' you can. There is one required research studio taught by Chris Hight that is very theory heavy and experimental and is kind of a hassle--he's got all there very specific ideas aobut network theory that he's just working out, and he can be pretty insecure about them and about the student work that comes out of that studio--but other than that the required studios are pretty straight forward design projects, and the options studios are a mix of pragmatic and theoretical.
THe high tech facilities are not here. They say CNC and stuff by next spring, but I"m not holding my breath. I for one don't care that much. It would be fun to work with that stuff, but I really think it's rather peripheral to a good design education, even if it is super trendy right now. And like someone said, you can outsource laser-cutting and 3-D printing, and there is a focus on trying to investigate and utilize the industrial resources of Houston--get things manufactured and die-cut and CNC'd and such. It's true that if this really matters to you, don't come here.
I can say more, but I gotta do studio now...

trog inspired. Unlike him, my handle has been a been MY handle since high school so anyone can know who I am. and in his defense, Rice is a small school and as such, and if s/he gave any specific info, it might leak out pretty clear pretty quick who it was.

In any case, I think he hates houston. I came here because if it, and it seems to run through his disgruntled nature in the initial list. If you can't stand Houston and you don't find it interesting, go somewhere else. I really think Houston is an interesting situation as the proto american city. NYC is cool and shit, but the rest of america is going suburban/exurban and if you want to play with these problems, you might as well be here.

What Rice does with this condition is another story and in my first year here I am hesitant to say yes or no. They don't ignore it but I have the sneaking suspicion that thier "research" is the sloppy stuff that passes for research in architecture but would be laughed at in any other field. This however is a problem endemic to architecture and Rice does try hard to go beyond.

his feeling of a lack of focus among faculty is a positive in my book. I don't want Rice to be UCLA or columbia with such a strong identity. Life is messy, architecture is messy, education should be messy too. I think its a shame that they lost some profs that seemed more interested in the social aspects of architecture and as such there has been an AA tendency (wonky shaped shit) with their replacements. I really think that the social interest in architecture is really non-existant in this school at this point in time -- and that is a DAMN SHAME.

If it was as homogenous as Trog seems to want it, I would have dropped out. The AA crap really turns me off but I tend to agree with Prof. Oliver that there is a wide variety of stuff that's going on in spite of its size. Rice IS a small school and that means that it is limited in some resources. And Berkeley (my alma mater, also studied arch there) is a BIG school and it has its own sets of problems. Faculty is easier to catch at Rice, for one.... I'm not saying its the greatest school in the world, I seriously considered transferring but in the end I think I'm going to be happy here.

Do some stiff research to figure out what's up with this school because Rice's image as presented in its working books is NOT what i think it actually is -- too much has changed in the past 3 years.

Pick your poison. Architecture at 5am sucks wherever you are, at least you have the luxury of choosing between some of the most acclaimed universities in America. In the end, you've got to make your own fucking education.

Hey aaargink, winter26,

yikes! take it easy guys, no offense...i'm just trying to help out a couple of people who seem sincere about wanting to know the inside scoop on your school. honestly, this is the last time i'm saying it, i'm not bitter...i have no reason to be, rice hasn't done me any harm, nor has houston for that matter (though you're right that i can't stand the place...me and about 90% of people who visit.) and the business about my handle...what's that all about? who cares who i am or who you are just so long as our assessments of the situation are accurate. and i think they BOTH are, mine and yours. we agree on more than we disagree. for example, i also find the aa-inspired (by way of the east coast a few years prior) junk tiresome. i don't worry about that though, it'll die on the vine down in that hot houston sun.

listen, my critiques aren't so much based on pedagogy and polemics (despite there being some questionable stuff going on down there) as they are on fundamentals. there's no energy at rice, never has been and never will be. if you can survive in a vacuum then get on the next bus south.

YA'LL PUNKS COME ON DOWN TO HOUSTON AND WE'LL KICK SOME SHIT UP!!!! WHO NEEDS THAT NAMPY PAMBY IVY CRAP WHEN WE GOT THE BIGGEST RODEO THIS SIDE OF VEGAS?? LOOKS LIKE TROG'S GRUMPY FROM THE SHITS, THAT'S WHAT COMES FROM EATING CHOWDER ON THE EAST COAST!!!!

BOOOO HOOOOO HOOOOO!!!!!! I'M TROGLODITE!!! LARS STEPPED ON MY MODEL CAUSE IT LOOKED LIKE A BIG RENDERED PUDDLE OF GOOSE CRAP!!!!!

MIES SAYS BETTER TO GROW YOUR OWN SPINE IN HOUSTON THAN TO RENDER ONE AT A GROUP HUG "DESIGN COMMUNITY" SCHOOL ON THE EAST COAST!!! IT ALL FALLS TO SHIT IN THE REAL WORLD ANYWAYS!!! THAT'S WHY I LIKES GUNS AND B-B-Q!!