I was shocked on graduation day when I realized who out of my class was an honor student. Really?

Strawbeary, I know a school like that too. Also, I had the same reaction on graduation day.

me too - and then I realized what classes some of these people took.

I went to school to learn - not to pad my GPA so I could put it on my resume.

a ranking system that everyone can see seems wrong

a ranking system that only you know your rank?
i guess that isnt that bad really
its like in high school when you heard what your rank was

it means very little in undergrad, unless you are on the very bottom of the list
half the classes are graded subjectively anyway, and some students dont really need to do anything and will get an A

if the rank isnt actually public, i dont see the harm (or the point) of it really
i imagine every school has that in some way, considering they could just organize their student lists by GPA


i at first thought you meant an overall rank that was listed publicly for everyone to see
that seems counterproductive and actually very stupid

I don't understand what the big deal is. Aren't grades some sort of ranking system? And doesn't every student with half a mind see who are the better designers in the studio, and who are the lesser gods? And where they fit in themselves?

I don't necessary see the added value of it per se, but it isn't that bad, is it?

On a slightly different note: in one of my studios in college, we did a small experiment: students rating themselves, while the three profs did the same thing (secretely). And the results were remarkable similar.

Legend states ... that students use to 'pass' or 'fail'. I think this is a great way to learn because it pushes people to pursue their individual passions rather then what they think the teacher wants.

Why it is important not to grade your students.

But that's not always a good thing, particularly with design. I know myself, I would have been lost had I started with that attitude.


I guess the problem is the ego, many people in creative fields (not just architecture) think that they have talent when they don't.



On the other side, I never had a grade in school until I was 10 and that was great. Never once did I compare myself to others abilities, I just learned at a rate that was comfortable (most of us spent about 2 hours a day studying, no homework ever, no tests).

Most of this is societal conditioning. Our test based society, constant comparing, etc. I don't know what the right answer is, as just giving free reign is sure recipe for disaster - most need strict guidance and rules or they'll just not perform.

I sort of disagree, trace. I've been graded since I started school at 5 or 6 years old (I'm doing a second four-year degree right now, so that's a lot of grading) and I've never, ever compared myself to others insofar as marks/grades go.

The only time I even consider what other people are doing, is to situate my own work within the larger body of work (ie Suzy's heavy on the rendering, Dan's got a lot of detail drawings going on, etc....) Others' marks are pretty irrelevant - but they are useful to use as a benchmark from which to improve. Yes, architecture school is subjective - I grade undergrad work - but you can also choose to ignore the grades if you want. I think it depends on the person. You are right about one thing - some students, especially those new to a hypercritical, subjective field of study such as architecture, get absolutely panicked when they're not given explicit guidance or expectations. Having talked about this with teachers and profs from elementary school to university grad programs, I think it says something about the current educational system as a whole.

You are correct in that each person is different. I was not graded until later, but yet I am extremely competitive, both in grades, projects, etc. I always looked and studied the work of my fellow students, and quite honestly, that is one of the strongest driving factors in my development.

Grades were tricky in architecture, and by grad school were essentially meaningless (as in politics). However, the goal of getting into the schools I wanted required managing my GPA.


I do agree that our systems is f'd up. Having a good GPA had nothing to do with learning, nothing at all. That was pure strategy on my part.

I wish we could be on a no grade system, like I grew up on, but you need more teachers, higher quality teachers and motivated students. Not many parents were as involved as mine (or my friends that went to the same schools) and most people, like it or not, are lazy and unmotivated.

Another discussion for another time, but I think the parental guidance is more to blame than anything. Kids rarely learn to be excited about learning and rarely learn a damn thing outside of school, compounding the mess in the first place.

so wrecking ball: you are not proud of your school? or you just had bad time, I mean after you realised how much debt you have?

I've never cared about how my friends ranked nor asked them.

from what i brokenly understand, the acsa actually requires the schools to keep a ranking of students. someone may check for this, i know picky we are. so whether you see it or not (your ranking that is) you are generally ranked for studio balance and course development. from what i experienced it was well received, if you had a cool teacher, they would show you if you asked, but most people never gave a fuck.

i can see how publicly advertising it could feel though.

I understand the need to express to the student where they stand relative to expectations, but ranking seems unnecessary. Any school with a relatively generous student/faculty ratio should be able to assign scholarships, etc by committee. Grades are fine, but some students will emphasize their studio work, at the sacrifice of other coursework, so overall gpa is unimportant. I've heard many grad programs asking for separate gpa for "courses in the major" and for "studio course gpa" - which makes better sense.

In undergrad we got grades (more on a curve to indicate how we stood vs the expectations of faculty) and a written evaluation form (1 to 10 rankings on various areas, drawing, models, articulation of ideas, effort, critical thinking, presentation, etc + a short comment from the faculty member) which I found very helpful.

In grad school we had post-final crit interviews with out studio critics, it gave us a chance to discuss how we thought we did and how both the instructor and student could improve and move forward. Those sessions were invaluable in helping a continuous dialogue btw students and faculty throughout our years there - it also was an opportunity to prepare for life after school (academics, conventional practice, peace corps, etc - as the faculty could help us find how we could frame our academic work)

I hope more schools emphasize mentoring their students and allowing them to shape their school experience - it ultimately helps them in return (alumni loyalty counts for a lot, even if our endowment donations are puny)

bad idea. studios should be pass/fail. in every arch. school, the highest-ranked are the ones who attend and do well in the non-studio classes, and it takes a special kind of person to take all those seriously. (i was one of these, btw, before you all rail on me)

there are always those who are great designers and do well in studio but just can't bring themselves to care about some stupid required course they have to go to at 8 am...so it's never fair, because these are often the ones who deserve the awards and commendations.

when i was teaching, i recommended one of my best students for an award. this kid was great, talented, interested, did great work, only to find he had the 2nd lowest gpa in the program. consistent A's in studio and structures, never bothered with the other stuff. can't say i support that, but i was floored...

its silly to have a ranking system as well as a pass/fail system.
I took pride in knowing that my professor thought that I did the absolute best I could do by giving me that -A-

There is a huge difference between an -A- and a-C- - and they both "Pass" Shit, -D- even gets a passing grade

Whether you like it or not, we are all either rank-ees or rank-ers. If you don't like your current designation, change the relationship.

im all for ranking
but only if the rankings include a chili pepper to indicate if the student is hot or not

In graduate school, we were "ranked" by our relative order for term's final presentations. 1st = worst; last = best. It was an accurate assessment of student rankings as determined by professors' viewpoint.

I suppose it might be helpful to the students that are maybe struggling in a class to know who's doing well, maybe get some advice from them, or compare there work to yours if it's a studio, but I really don't know how helpful it will be in the end. It might make those near the top or in the middle more competitive, and might make those near the bottom give up faster...I don't know if either is really a good thing.

In reality, as you go along in school you kind of get an idea how your peers are doing compared to you just by the weeding out process schools do.

In my undergrad, they have a GPA check and portfolio review after your sophomore studios. You know who didn't do so well by who doesn't show up for the 3rd studio that fall (another GPA check). Then you know who did well enough to graduate. Then you did well enough to get accepted to the M. Arch program (yet another GPA check)...

Basically, you know how well you're doing by how far along you get. Also, come on, everyone should know that if you get an A in studio, you're doing pretty good, a B you're doing average, and a C or below you're in some trouble. Most grades (here at least) are in the B- through B+ range, with a few higher, and a few lower. Lecture classes may be more spread out, with more higher grades and more lower grades...

Unless you're an undergrad needing that 3.9 to get into grad school at Harvard, I don't see the point. Arch students have enough things to worry about as it is.

As a side note, every year we fill out end-of-semester evaluations of our professors. One year the chair of the department translated the multiple choice answers into grades and posted them in the commons. It was actually helpful, you could get an idea which classes your peers valued the most, etc. And you could also see which professors it might not be such a good idea to take...only one prof got a D, one that I had already taken two courses with, and I could honestly say that a D was a very generous grade...

ranking students? ok Mr Unicorn where are you at I know you gotta be behind this joke of a thread.

architecture ranking is like the color belts ranking in karate. they don’t mean anything. just learn aikido. you’re either a student or the master. no belts.

Interestingly, most arch grad schools rank admitted students to determine who gets which grants, fellowships, etc. Since TAs have to work with these lists and they're shared broadly among top faculty, they inevitably become more-or-less public record, leading to something of a star culture (since everybody knows who the most highly regarded students are).

Knowing the fellowship recipients can be dangerous - they can cause resentment (if those students are perceived to be not performing as well as others) and tension in studio. At my undergrad it was a tightly held secret (most never found out who had the full ride), in grad school it was also kept quiet, though they have since changed the policy to not guarantee any fellowships (must renew with acceptable standards, not every recipient ended up a "star," sometimes quite the opposite).

I agree with elinor: not every good studio student is a good overall student. Either way a student ought to be notified by faculty casually about the responsibilities and expectations for coursework - by the time grades are given out it's a little late. Design programs are small enough to be able to have office-hour chats midterm.

at my school there were 2 or 3 studios which had the best teachers and everyone got good grades. you had to know somebody to get in though cos it was all politics. and they all boasted their grades and a joe the plumber student would get the shaft at the end of the day. and don't get me started on the diploma...if you got above 8 (or B) then had connections, no two ways about it. fuck "architecture".

Right... Grades don't really mean much when it comes to career and work IMHO... Your body of work speaks for itself, there's some subjectivity to evaluating studio work and to grading generally IMHO, I'd say it matters more what your portfolio looks like, and what you've done than any number so don't sweat it... Honestly the guy with the squeeky clean gpa in architecture may never be successful in practice while middle of the pack may excel in career so who knows... Very few people in the working world care what grade point you had...