this is the way we see it here in miami

UM - classical
FIU - modern

if you want to draw/sketch classical architecture, domes, arches...
UM is for you

I personally don't think it's worth the money....
but perhaps my opinion is geared to undergrad architecture.
what do you want to do? urban design? town planning?
can't say i know much about it...
time for the heat game, good luck :]

I would really love to hear from people who have gone to their graduate M.Arch program myself. Anyone?

i haven't been to UM but i know a woman who taught there until the politics forced her out 2 years ago. it is decidedly "new-urbanistic" in view, and alternative views aren't much tolerated (according to her)-- so i would think you should be of that mindset if you go. it doesn't interest me, personally. if i were you, i would go to a program that offers more diversity, unless you are absolutely sure you want to be a 'new urbanist'.

Would a degree from UM (with it's new urbanist leanings) have an effect on what jobs you can land after graduation? Or does it mostly matter on the portfolio you create?

Well everyone says that your job prospects rests almost completely on the strength of your portfolio, and that your degree means much less in the great god of the job market. But then again, UMiami has a very strong, very particular reputation: hard-core New Urbanism and embrace of classical architecture. Now obviously that would help you if you're looking for a job in firms with New Urbanist philosophies. But would this reputation hurt your prospects in firms that are not New Urbanist? I don't know. John Messengale (http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/) says that UMiami students will always find jobs and are desirable. I haven't seen any real proof of that, though.

if you apply to a firm that is aware of UM's leanings, you will immediately be seen in that light. it will skew the perception of you, for good or bad.

perhaps some firms don't know or care, entirely possible. depends on where you apply.

but if you are not convinced enough of the value of New urbanism to think about applying to non-NU jobs, why go to UM in the first place? have you researched the faculty at UM, gone there to talk to people? i would highly recommend you do that. do you have other universities in mind? what are they?

If you are after learning New Urbanism but Miami doesnt fit check here: http://cnu.org/about/_disp_faq.html#learning Those schools may be a bit more flexible with how they teach NU and may not cost what Miami does.

See, saying that there are NU and Non-NU jobs implies that they are seperate and that one can't go to a school that teaches NU philosophy and then apply for Non-NU jobs. It doesn't make sense to me. Why can't you learn some of the valuable ideas in an NU-oriented institution and then bring these ideas into the larger architectural world. (I'm really focusing on the urban and suburban focus of NU, I don't care about reviving classical architecture.)

I went for undergrad to UM for one semester(98)....Absolutely hate it! From the library (you were not able to check out books out of the arch library....to the studios...to the prof. to the fees!!! Not worth waht you pay for...I went for undergrad and grad to UF instead... I heard FIU is getting a lot better now...Are you into New Urbanism? because Elizabeth Plater is often available...

JMFruch,

I'm headed to U of M this fall to begin my M.Arch.

In May I had an opportunity to travel down to the school and meet with several faculty members and students. This is what I can tell you about the program:

1. In the words of Dennis Hector (asst Dean), the school sees its mission as that of 'architectural triage'. If you were to drive US 1 from Key West to Bangor, Maine you'd see the alarming scope of horrible development (architecture) that's expanding daily. To that extent, the school seeks to produce architects who are equipped to produce 'good urbanism' - high quality architecture that is responsive to the surrounding environment. Thus, the school is decidedly, and unapologetically, practical in its it outlook.

2. The practical emphasis of the school has many implications. While theory is addressed, its not a major component of the education. Every graduate student I met with was working free-lance for local firms. They are able to do so, b/c of the real world focus of the classes & studios. (This sitch is opposed to the environment at many other schools. At an open house of a 'reputable school' I heard the dir of grad studies explain that its not the purpose of architecture school to teach you how to become an architect, but rather to let you 'play with design' with the expectation that you'd just 'pick-up' how to be an architect when working for a firm.) That is all to say, firms are not hesitant to hire current M.Arch 1 grad students while they are in class b/c they are equipped to work. This obviously translates into 'hireability' after graduation.

3. With regards to style/approach: I'd say that Miami sees itself not so much classical as in the continuation of pre-Gropious/early moderns. That is, before modern architecture cut itself off from the past. The 2nd sem 1st year grad studio is to design a skyscraper. This past year the site was in NYC, next year it will be Chicago and then so on for the next 5 years. Obviously the design of a skyscraper wouldnt exactly fall under the classical rubric. What may be considered 'classical' about the studio approach is its consideration of context and emphasis on urbanism in the design for the building.

Yes the program entails a lot of hand-drawing in your first year. But its not that the faculty are a bunch of luddites. Drawing is taught and emphasized as a transformative activity. Learning to draw changes they way you see. All of the 1st year sec sem studio projects were produced on auto-cad, and other comp programs.

4. In general, Miami differentiates itself from the majority of architectural programs in that it considers architecture 'a civic art' that is intimately tied in with humanity, urbanity, and surrounding context rather than a study of abstract forms. As Massengale and many others have pointed-out, the 'great' moderns (Mies, Kahn, FLW, etc) were trained in the classical approach which provided them with a fundamental understanding of architectural and urban relationships from which they could then innovate. I have a close friend who studied at Notre Dame and then went on to have Eisenman as a thesis advisor for her PhD - so I wouldnt at all consider a classical/traditional/new urbanist background as a handicap. To be sure, you'll be coming from a different place than some other designers, but i think that could/would be a strength.

no one said there are NU and non-NU jobs.you can indeed go to a NU school and then apply to non-NU jobs.
BUT i was talking about the PERCEPTION of the employer when meeting a job applicant. he/she knows little about you except your portfolio and where you went for arch. so naturally he/she will associate you with schools that have a strong philosophy.

if you don't subscribe to the philosophy, the question is, well why then did you go someplace that taught it so religiously? why did you not go to a school with more diversity?

if you subscribe to the philosophy and your portfolio reflects that, it puts you in a position of being very attractive to employers who believe in NU, but at odds with employers who think it is bunk.

I'm sure there are plenty of employers who just want you to work on their toilet details and as long as you can do the work, don't care where you went for arch. the question is do you want to work for someone like that.

Thank you all for taking the time to respond.

Hey Guffman - Thank you for the thorough background on UM's program. I know it's been 6 years, hopefully you still receive messages from archinect.

I have been deciding between UM and  FIU's three-year M.Arch programs, but am now leaning a little more towards UM's program. Now that you've probably finished the M.Arch at UM are your perspectives on the program similar? Do you think the job prospects, given architecture's present, are better for grads from one school than grads from the other?

Are you still in Miami? I tried to send you a message but apparently we can't (or I don't know how to) in the new archinect format. Would you care to meet up for coffee sometime? I have some more questions that I think a relatively recent grad like you could answer, I would love to hear your perspective now...I would appreciate it. Let me know!

Thanks

Agree with Guffman.

UM is one of the few schools that teaches things along the lines of practicality. It is taught by very successful practitioners which is a very rare thing these days in arch schools. It isn't as "classical" as one might define Notre Dame. It definitely isn't the artistic film school you will find at Sci-Arc or the space-ship design school you will find at UPenn. It does draw heavily from precedents and understands that "civic art" of making a viable environment. Theory exists in the school, but more along the lines of things that has and can actually be tested.

You will be getting an architecture education that compliments town planning -  case studies/ historical observations which they mold into NU. I think a graduate has the option of going into architecture or urban design, and graduates who understands what works and what doesn't is better prepared to sit in an office meeting and have more input in the working world than someone who spends years learning useless design theory and Rhino scripting.