i got accepted to march at pratt. i didnt go. basically, i was really really excited to go, with the curriculum, resources, location etc. then it came time to really figure stuff out (paying for it, scheduling classes that might make a cohearent study, travel opportunities, etc.) there was almost no aid (although they were very apologetic) a heavy focus on computer modeling which i was not too interested in, and a general lack of information. i made a lot of calls, showed up to ask questions, read, asked people, surfed the posts here, and still didnt feel comfortable with signing away 46000/year for two years. the school is in transition. and from what ive heard, the undergrad is much more stable, both administratively and financially. thats not to say that its a bad place, i just felt that it would take a lot of work to work there. maybe things well get more organized in the next couple of years. i felt like the place had amazing potential and intention. i just couldnt do it.
as for umich, i had a boss who went there a looooooong time ago. he had nothing bad to say about it, but that was then . . .
I went through the Pratt MArch I program, and would agree with the previous post for all the aformentioned reasons. I should mention that the faculty is comprised largely of visiting instructors, most of whom are young, talented, though often times juggling teaching positions at multiple schools. The chairperson (or previous chair...not sure the status), Catherine Ingraham, has basically pulled off a major turn-around for the grad program, by introducing fresh blood to the school, all the while getting the MArch I program up and running. It is true that both grad programs are heavy on digital tecnique, but this is not without the necessary theory and criticality that serve to broaden conventional understandings of architectural representation and production. In general, I would say that much has happened over the last few years under Catherine, and I would hope that Bill McDonald, the incoming chair, will continue to provide strong leadership for the program. Keep in mind though, as with any school, you ought to be very deliberate with how (and with whom) you choose to study--this means research EVERYONE. Again, there are some great minds in the school, but that doesn't mean there aren't hacks that have slipped through the cracks.
Oct 17, 05 1:05 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.
MArch at Pratt and UMichigan?
Anywords on these schools for MArch would be helpful. s.a. how respected are the programs? Do they have good financial aides?
thanks..
i got accepted to march at pratt. i didnt go. basically, i was really really excited to go, with the curriculum, resources, location etc. then it came time to really figure stuff out (paying for it, scheduling classes that might make a cohearent study, travel opportunities, etc.) there was almost no aid (although they were very apologetic) a heavy focus on computer modeling which i was not too interested in, and a general lack of information. i made a lot of calls, showed up to ask questions, read, asked people, surfed the posts here, and still didnt feel comfortable with signing away 46000/year for two years. the school is in transition. and from what ive heard, the undergrad is much more stable, both administratively and financially. thats not to say that its a bad place, i just felt that it would take a lot of work to work there. maybe things well get more organized in the next couple of years. i felt like the place had amazing potential and intention. i just couldnt do it.
as for umich, i had a boss who went there a looooooong time ago. he had nothing bad to say about it, but that was then . . .
I went through the Pratt MArch I program, and would agree with the previous post for all the aformentioned reasons. I should mention that the faculty is comprised largely of visiting instructors, most of whom are young, talented, though often times juggling teaching positions at multiple schools. The chairperson (or previous chair...not sure the status), Catherine Ingraham, has basically pulled off a major turn-around for the grad program, by introducing fresh blood to the school, all the while getting the MArch I program up and running. It is true that both grad programs are heavy on digital tecnique, but this is not without the necessary theory and criticality that serve to broaden conventional understandings of architectural representation and production. In general, I would say that much has happened over the last few years under Catherine, and I would hope that Bill McDonald, the incoming chair, will continue to provide strong leadership for the program. Keep in mind though, as with any school, you ought to be very deliberate with how (and with whom) you choose to study--this means research EVERYONE. Again, there are some great minds in the school, but that doesn't mean there aren't hacks that have slipped through the cracks.
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.