Nice post. I am kinda in the same boat and have been looking at schools for some time now. 

 I am a planner in San Francisco and can tell you from experience, working with Berkeley planning, engineering and architecture students/graduates has been largely disappointing.  This school trains kids to be academics, not professionals.  If you're looking for a practical and comprehensive education, don't look at Berkeley. If you are after theory, fluffy, highly conceptual design and big egos across the board...then it might be the place for you.

UPenn seems to be one of the most dynamic programs because of all the dual degree and certificate options. 

Heard similar comments about Michigan. Mostly that it's very art intensive and little to no structural emphasis. However, I know they do offer a dual degree in construction management and engineering. 

If tuition costs are a concern, consider Arizona State or NC State. Both seem to be good programs without the fluff. 

Arizona State is a great program.  Some amazing teachers (most could easily teach at any ivy leage school if they wanted to), but the local economy is a wreck.  You will get a great well rounded education for a good price, their is a huge emphasis on urban design and sustanability, but students are really encouraged to pursue their specific interests so nothing is really forced on you other than good design.  Little tolerance for blobitecture and form for the sake of form, the school really wants student to engage urban issues .   I only warn you that the local economy is a disaster.  However in good times, there are a lot of good firms here and the cost of living is low.  I do feel that if you are interested in urban issues and the chance to imagine new architypes for cities its a good fit.  Also, there are great study abroad opportunities, and they are pretty flexable with you taking classes in other diciplines. 

In reference to Spackle's view on Berkeley.....

Does anyone else have a similar view? I am strongly considering the program for my M.Arch and am very disappointed to hear this.  Other viewpoints on the current state of Berkelely would be greatly appreciated.

Very good to know about Berkeley.  I still need to learn more about its program, but that does sound a bit unfortunate.  Would UCLA be a better option to look into?

I'm not really interested in living in Arizona, so I'll check out ASU but I don't anticipate its curriculum will change my mind about the location.  Ideally I'd like to work in an East Coast city, but California might be the exception to that.

I think I might eliminate Columbia.  Their computer projects seem kinda nuts to me.  Does that seem reasonable?

the 10 step program for applying to an architectural graduate school program

1. compile list

2. research list

3. compile questions about about specific schools and programs on list

4. ask specific questions about schools and programs on list

5. contact schools

6. visit schools

7. talk to students, professors and staff while on visit

8. explore city/town where school/program is located

9. revise list

10. apply to schools on list

Some practical advice... go to whichever school will result in the most minimal financial impact.  Even if you graduate from Yale, you will probably spend your first two years out of school doing renderings for $10/hr. Plus, getting a free degree is pretty sweet.

during this bad economy, just to be safe, imagine you do everything right, you are a stellar student, you get in to all of your top schools, you do great work, you get great letters of recommendation, you get a great internship --- and then a decent job with a liveable wage and decent benefits does not come --- so you scrimp, save, suffer, and work very hard to get by --- if you can live with this, then go anywhere --- if this concerns you, then be very cautious and think about which choice is the most sustainable and will lead to the least hardship if you have to suffer and scrape by when you graduate

FYI --- i've either taught or helped teach a few undergrad and grad classes since 2009 and though i'm very honest with the students about what awaits them when they graduate, somehow they all think they will be the exception, b/c they are smarter, b/c they worked harder, b/c they have talent, b/c they have a good portfolio, b/c they did everything right and everything that was asked of them, and then they find out it doesn't matter b/c there is no demand for their services.  the best skill you can have right now is knowing how to network (with non-architects) and the most valuable think you can have is your network.

the thing that worries me about your explanation of your circumstances and motives above is that you say, "My portfolio: my biggest flaw so far."  I would worry less if the opposite were true and you said that you were in all ways a complete screw-up but happened to have a kick-ass portfolio.  in your case, and given all of the artistic work you have and how motivated and accomplished you seem to be, I'm sure you'll pull it together and be fine.  but both for school and getting a job, the portfolio probably matters as much as or more than anything except your network,  so if this is the one area in which you are weak, then you have a lot of work to do.

Medusa, yeah, it is quite ironic that most students, whether from the best schools or not, end up doing the same low-wage busy work at various firms!  I guess my current philosophy is that if I'm going to end up with one of these boring jobs anyway, at least for a while, I want to have the opportunity in grad school to think, design, write, and build as many creative things as possible in a highly intellectual environment.  (Undergrad didn't quite live up to my expectations.)

jmanganelli -- True about the portoflio and networking.  Maybe I was being a little self-deprecating in my original post, because in my mind, my portfolio looks really bad, but the content of each project is probably pretty good.  I just think that visually, I need to bust out some much better renderings and concept diagrams to reach the level of some other portfolios I've seen on this forum.  I probably have 4 really solid building designs that I'll use, plus some tangential design/art work.... do you think that will fly?  (It just about reaches the 30 page limit at Harvard, so I guess I can't put much more in there anyway.)

SIDENOTE:  When non-architecture undergrads and B.A. or B.S. architecture undergrads are admitted to the same programs... how can they possibly compare those porfolios??? I hear that a lot of arch students don't get admitted to the Advanced Standing programs but do get admitted to the longer programs.

FYI, for now, I am going to ignore the costs of these schools because my undergraduate education was very cheap.

Oh and also, Ether, I unfortunately do not have the capability to visit these schools before December 15th.  I'm going to have to apply and then visit in the spring.  So any words of wisdom on what these schools "feel like" are very welcome!  I'll post more specific questions soon.

@kd489 thanks for the great questions, I'm in the same boat and tagging along to hear all the views.  Why'd you drop Princeton from the Ivy list? 

Berkeley and UCLA are two different schools, no?

I am applying to berk hoping for their M.arch/Urban planner degree, but that comment is quite disappointing. 

regardless, i am still applying tho.

I guess I'm not 100% sure why I dropped Princeton from the list so soon.  Its website and course listings didn't catch my interest as much as the others, I think..... then again, that could have been a result of sheer exhaustion after looking at all those websites.  Should Princeton be reconsidered?  I feel like it doesn't come up as often on this forum.  Any reason for that?  How does it differ from the others?

I'm kinda narrowing things down, I think... DEFINITELY applying:  Yale and MIT.  And UIUC, just because everyone here does it (waste of $100? maybe?).  As for Harvard: I want to apply, and my teacher is really pushing me to try it, but it might be an embarrassing waste of time for a very likely rejection.  It might be sad to never have tried, though.  Can't decide.

MAYBE applying: UPenn, Wash U, Berkeley, U Cincinnati, U Michigan, UCLA.  Better chances of getting in at these places I think, but I'm not as passionate about the programs.

Probably eliminating Columbia because I'm not into all that parametric computing stuff.

What do you advise I do when one of my letter of recommendation writers gave me a 5-school limit?  I'm just worried it will all be for nothing if I get a slew of rejection letters from Yale, MIT, Harvard, UPenn, etc.  Should I just suck it up, apply to only the best programs because I want the best possible education, and if I don't get in, deal with it??? (And work for a few years?)

Dear kd489:

Let me suggest something you probably haven't considered at all: apply to the College of Architecture & Design at NJIT. the Dean is from GSD, the School of Architecture Director is from Columbia, and the Graduate Faculty Coordinator came to us from PENN where he coordinated the first year program.

We're thirty minutes from mid-town Manhattan by light rail; our projects are a mix of urban, suburban and exurban; our faculty is drawn from the same pool of metropolitan New York design professionals who teach at Columbia, Parsons, Pratt and Princeton; our digital design studios include a balance of representative and generative design approaches; our studio and networked computer facilities are second to none in the New York metropolitan area; and even if you didn't take into account the fellowship and assistantship opportunities we make available to students such as yourself, we would still be the best value in design education in the New York metropolitan area.

If you actually do take those opportunities into account (drop me an e-mail and I'll lay them out as plain as day) you'll see that NJIT's College of Architecture & Design offers a path to a first-rate graduate design education at a cost that will leave you free to take the job you want when you graduate, rather than force you to take the job you need to pay off the loans you will most certainly have to take out to attend one of the admittedly fine and better-known, but rather pricier alternatives you have under consideration now.

Best regards,

Fred Little, Manager of Graduate Programs, NJIT College of Architecture & Design

little (at) njit.edu

Sounds like UCLA would be a good fit for you.  I am currently in my 3rd year master's after graduating from Ohio State and then working in Chicago for 6 months.  UCLA brings in tons of talent and used to be (in my opinion) the most affordable, forward thinking and talented public program that continuously stacks up to the quality of architecture that is pumped out of all those impossibly expensive ivy league schools.  I say "used" to because they recently jacked the cost of tuition up, and the state in general is in shambles, financially.  That being said, I still believe we have one of the best (definitely the best public school) faculty for architecture in the U.S....Look into it.  And faculty doesn't include the countless well-respected critics that we bring in either.  

-Downsides-

1.facilities are not the greatest

2.cost is uncertain

3.3 year program

-Upsides-

1.faculty is unrivaled

2.you are in Los Angeles.

3.super talented students to learn from

4.new technology oriented

5.you are in Los Angeles.

Hope this helps, best of luck.

--Cody Campbell, Master's of Architecture Candidate M.ARCH1 2012, UCLA AUD

It sounds like you've already sketched out a good plan.  Apply to 5 schools:

1) where your heart is: Yale, MIT, Harvard

2) solid backup that happens to be free: UIUC

3) pick one of the MAYBEs: i would pick the school based on the city you'd love to live in

If it were me, I would pick #2, have the freedom to work those crazy unpaid internships with your favorite starchitect, and spend the extra year and $100,000 (plus interest) to travel around the world like a baller.  

You should seriously consider the free degree - post-grad life without debt is a ton of fun.

If you are afraid of 'stuffy'.. I would be wary of Yale as well as Harvard. From my experience working with people you went to Yale and/or harvard, a lot of them tend to think they are Gods gift to architecture. Furthermore, you won't really see the starchitect teaching staff apart from at one crit or review here and there and they are usually too budy fluffing their egos to really give good feedback.

"best program' is a relative term... figure out the best program for YOU, not the one with the best reputation. Grad school is really intense and expensive and it is far more valuable to spend that time in a program that you are really itnerested in than one you went to because it had the best reputation. Different schools have different 'rankings' in the professional world depending on what it is you want to do.

Columbia, MIT, UCLA and SciArc seem to avoid this attitude a bit more and in my opinion the easier it is to interact with your fellow students and teching staff the more you will actually learn.

My experience with Berkeley Grads is slightly different... they do tend to have progressive theory but do have a solid 'practical' background.I

Good luck!

OP, it's unfortunate you have a BS and not a BArch. I find most of the criticisms on this thread is relatively accurate of the programs and from having worked with quite a few of them, GSD grads have left a bad taste in my mouth - I'm not against their education but they just happen to be semi-incompetent architects who just happened to have a degree from there. Of those I've had most respect for over the years, I can't even remember where they got their degrees from.

None of these degrees your are seeking are worth the school loans attached to them - particularly in this economic mess. You're going to get accepted to most of these schools, be prepared to play the "I'd like to attend your school but X university is offering me more $$$" game because at the end of the day, the only thing that makes the degree worth anything is you.

I only read the first two or three posts, so I'm sure my entire post repeats what others already wrote.

You need to talk to students, faculty, visit, etc. to see what each school is about. You just named a bunch of programs that all do different things, so you need to find something that you're interested in. For example, if you're into structure and parametric tools but still want a grounding in general and pragmatic design, then MIT would be good. The campus is great and they have tons of well-known buildings by famous architects. Although Harvard has the only Le Corbusier building in North America or Western Hemisphere... Anyway, I have friends at MIT and they like it.

Another friend went to Columbia and he liked that as well. He said he was so busy he never actually got to see much of Manhattan let alone the rest of the city, but that's true everywhere. I think they focus more on digital and emerging technologies... UCLA as well?

I didn't think USC had an accredited program. RISD is artsy...

My point is all those schools are good, but you need to figure out what you're interested in and then apply to those programs that fit your needs/desires.

Also, money is a factor since architects don't make a lot. I hope you've got a silver spoon. And I would think that a school like Harvard, Yale, MIT, Columbia would offer the most connections, plus you would actually be living where most of the good design offices are located.

If it was me, I would prioritize and 1. figure out my interests and apply to programs that foster them 2. of those programs that I'm accepted to weigh the financial costs 3. factor in connections I could get from attending a certain school and also if I want to live in a vibrant city or out in the boonies, if I have a car, if I hate snow, etc.

As a recent graduate of Michigan's Bachelor's of Science program, I can comment a bit on it as a school. 

First off, the facilities are indeed not excellent. The University of Michigan has some fabulous architecture, but somehow the Art and Architecture Building got the raw end of the stick. That being said, I also did not feel that it was that much of a problem for most of my peers and I. It is very spacious, and was more than adequate as a studio. The single biggest issue with it is it's location on North Campus, a roughly 15 minute drive from the University's downtown Ann Arbor base. If you have a car, it is not a problem. Waiting for (free!) buses in the winter can be sort of irritating. This can also be avoided by choosing to live in the North Campus neighborhood, which is convenient for studies, but also sort of exiles you to a lone, hostile wasteland deprived of the (pretty neat) culture of downtown Ann Arbor.

Secondly, I think it's important to recognize that Michigan Architecture is a program in transition. Over the past few years, they have brought in a new dean, Monica Ponce de Leon, and a new department chair, John McMorrough. Both of them have done a fantastic job, and they have brought in a host of new professors and appear to be changing the program's "weird" reputation a bit, at least in terms of what is actually being taught.

Which brings me to the third point, "the weirdness".  As I understand it (and there is a very, very real chance I don't understand the whole picture from my perspective as a student), over the last 10 or so years under the previous regime of leadership, Michigan brought in a lot of faculty from SCI-Arc and began adopting some of their attitudes on architecture.  SCI-Arc has ideas about architecture that are a little weird, and so Michigan began to take those on as well. In practice, this meant that they began to focus on representational theory over strictly architectural theory. I have heard horror stories from graduates of 5 to 8 years ago of people working on their master's thesis without ever having drawn a plan or section, or the like.

Given the aforementioned transition, however, I think Michigan is actually a really cool place to be right now. It is still very, very theoretical, but it is also a much more grounded place to be than it was. Professors come from a huge range of academic backgrounds (I had profs from SCI-Arc, Harvard, Yale, Cal, UCLA, Texas, and The Bartlett) and you really get a lot of perspectives in your design work, from the truly wacky to the more clean-cut, by the book types. It is neat in that it genuinely encourages you to experiment with a variety of ideas. Because of the variety of perspectives and backgrounds, there is no particular way of thinking or designing that they force upon you. That being said, it is probably not the place for people that are especially technically-minded. A number of my classmates didn't appreciate the design theory, and would have preferred a more rigorous focus on design as it pertains to construction systems.

Hope this helps!

I would look international as well, but be careful if you want to actually get licenced in the US someday because most EU countries diplomas wont qualify - which is kind of crazy considering some really amazing schools in the EU compared to nearly 90% of the schools in the US which rely on basically teaching you sketch up and autocad for the whole course of your degree.

I know you don't like the parametric side of architecture, but for anyone else checking this thread out who is interested in algorithmic/parametric/digi-fab stuff check out

Columbia

AA London

IAAC

University of Applied Arts Vienna

Sci-Arc

USC

UCLA

Bartlett

UPenn

MIT

Pratt

this website has most of the schools and some work: 

http://www.a-b-b-china.com/en/Student.aspx?id=8

LA and New York are good because there are so many schools fairly close by each other that there is a pretty good network of public lectures you can attend within the same city, so that's a great resource to learn from as well.

Could someone give me a better idea of what this parametric stuff includes?  Maybe it just sounds intimidating to me -- I don't mind using computers, and I'm getting semi-comfortable using Rhino, V-Ray, etc., but sometimes I find the computer more annoying than helpful.  What kind of algorithmic stuff can architecture students possibly be expected to do (compared to real computer science majors)???  Basically I want to get the best possible education, and it seems like parametric computing will play a big role in the future, but I'm nervous to put myself in an environment where I might constantly be struggling to catch up.

Specifically regarding computing at UPenn and MIT: to what extent is it emphasized at each school? And if anyone is familiar with those programs, do you know if students tend to be helped out a lot or sort of left on their own?

it depends what you mean by parametric.  are you referring to tools with parametric capabilities or theory and criticism associated with such tools? 

using parametric tools is practically inevitable now.  you really don't have a choice unless you purposely try to avoid such tools, and even then it would be very difficult to completely avoid them.  rhino + grasshopper, sketchup, or revit are probably the ones you'll most likely learn.  revit kid has great, free, online revit tutorials.

as far as the theory goes, you can probably engage it or not depending upon which school you go to, but i think a lot of it is a bit sophomoric and pretentious, imo.  that's not to say it is not cool or important, and if it gets you into the material, great.  but you have to understand, most of these "parametric design" approaches have been around in other fields for a long time (going on two to three decades).  architecture is just catching up, not innovating anything.  if anything, imo, some of the "theory" associated with parametric design methods seems to be reinventing or repackaging ideas and methods that have existed in other design professions for quite a while.  Most of the relevant concepts, methods, and tools have been innovated in the CG, special effects, and large-scale engineering fields.  Those fields still are driving innovation.  look up MASSIVE software tool.  on the MCAD side, Catia and its suite of tools and Siemens NX +team center+tecnomatix are worlds ahead of Autodesk Inventor+revit+navisworks.

all of which is to say this may seem new to architects or something to be considered, contended, debated, innovated, etc, but for our sister disciplines, it is pretty much old hat.  so there's no reason to get worked up over it or take sides -- which is just indicative of how far behind our field is, as this debate has been over a very long time in other fields.

WashU has great study abroad programs that makes them a very different program from the others you list there.  Many of my friends there spent 3 of their semesters abroad from Asia, to S America to Europe, so being in STL, where the cost of living is 1/2 to a 1/3 of west or east coasts btw, isn't as much of a drag.  Having been there in college and at another mulch-disciplinary design school for grad, I would highly recommend being in an environment where building architecture isn't the only design discourse you'll participate in. 

I'm curious as to your list as the range of pedagogy and emphasis is very varied (As I recall from the open houses MIT and Harvard were very clear about their differences and how applying to both seemed odd), more in depth research into the programs, the research and student work will give you better targeted letter of interest content to work from.

Do note that many of the best young practitioner-teachers in NYC teach around at all the schools there.

I'm gonna suggest a school that teaches you how to rob a bank, and get away with it, along with your MArch.

Regarding your comment about SCI-Arc being too intense on the computer use, I have to disagree.  The M.Arch 1 and M.Arch 2 have two completely different pedagogical approaches.  M.Arch 1 being heavy on drawings and geometry.  In the first year of M.Arch 1 there is no Maya or rendering allowed.  M.Arch 2 is heavy on computers and technology without much regard to drawings.  As you mentioned you hold a B.S. and not a B.Arch, you would be an M.Arch 1 at Sci-Arc.

My #1 was UCLA, over Columbia and Berkeley (my #2 and #3).  I was accepted to all three and quite happy.  Arriving at UCLA I was shocked at the small school (coming from UF's large, incredibly well rounded and thorough arch program).  I called Berkeley and asked if I could do a 1 year there, 1 year in LA, etc., or whatever.  They said "yes" as both were UC schools.  I decided it was too much of a pain and my gf at the time wanted to live in LA.  But it is an option (apparently others do  that).

If I were you now, I would go to Columbia's MArch/MSRED.  Even though, at the time, I thought Columbia was too expensive (even with their generous offer, it is still damn expensive and to live in NY...) I would take that extra debt on for a MSRED (or MBA), in a heart beat.

And Joseph Kosinski went to Columbia's arch program (would have been a year before me, I think).  He directed the latest Tron movie (which, I have to say, was not nearly as bad as people say).  That's gotta count for something!

[personally I am with you on the parametric/cnc'd stuff.  Looks pretty and is fun for making 'art', but after 12 years of talking it up we still have not seen any practical application for it.  At UCLA, and I assume Columbia would be the same, you could choose to take different professors, I, for one, avoided Lynn like the plague!]

If you improve your portfolio, have good GRE, good rec... you will be in in most (or all) of those schools.

Apply as many as you can, and then make your decision based on 1) financial aid and 2) preferred one.

Hopefully if you are in 4-5 top programs, one will offer you a good scholarship stipend..., that's the one to go.

Would it be pointless to choose a West Coast school over and East Coast school simply because of the film industry out west?  I think the only reason I really want to go to UCLA or Berkeley is to have the opportunity to take film electives and be involved in discussions about architecture's role in film, and vice versa.

Maybe I should just aim for my top East Coast schools (I've always wanted to go to Yale or Harvard.)  Then, if I don't get in, I'll just say "f*** it" and go to film school instead?  (That's my real dream job.)

Concerning the GSD application's optional video file:

Does anyone know what sorts of videos students normally send in?  Certainly, being optional, I assume that only a really phenomenal video would do anything to increase one's chances of getting in.  I'm working on a brief animation of my studio design project... but would it do me any good to send that in?

(This would just be a 3DS animation -- so if people are sending in videos at the level of the "Third and Seventh," there's no way I'm showing mine!)  It will essentially include a fly-around, a tour of the inside, and some daylighting effects in my design.  Worth Harvard's time, or no?

Kd489, is the studio design project that you have an animation for also in your portfolio? And will said animation reveal much more than what's being shown in the portfolio? I'd only include the optional video file if it 1) relates to a project mentioned in the portfolio, and 2) adds an extra dimension that a 2D format could not.

I'm including an excerpt from a Super-16 film I shot, as in my portfolio I could only show screen shots of scene progressions.

Dear ???

who is/was trying to find her/his way to a Graduate School.. i think, if you like to explore NYC, why don't you try the NYC College. A friend of mine, has been advised by an European scholar and practitioner to apply for NYC College, where Michael Sorkin teaches. If you need more info, just let me know. Good luck. abi

Cross Berkeley off the list.

Add Princeton.

As someone who graduated with an MArch last year I would suggest (in addition to what everyone else has said) to go to school in a city where you could see yourself living after graduation. I made a lot of good connections with professors and other students while in school and had to cut all those ties when I moved back to the east coast after graduation...felt like it made the job search that much more difficult.

Aside from that I would weigh total costs of your education very heavily - unless you work while in school, which would be difficult, you will need to add all of your living expenses on top of tuition.  Best thing you can do is objectively try and figure out all of those costs for 3 years in school and determine where that money is going to come from and how much debt you'll graduate with.  That's a real number.