i'm confused why you got either 2 years or 3 years ... doesnt your undergrad background decide for you whether or not you need the extra year?

well UCLA has two programs, one for those with a 5-year professional degree and one for non-professional. berkeley breaks it up 3 ways, professional, non-professional, but architectural and then everyone else.
i may get AP at UCLA, but that has yet to be determined.

did you apply to the march1 at ucla? i thought the march 1 was 3 years and the march2 was shorter.

I had to make that decision laster year when I did the california trip to visit grad schools. I first visited Berkeley for a couple days. The first day I spoke with professors and (I can remember her name now but the department head) They told a good story...but then when I questioned a lot of the students they brought up some issues for me. Berkeley seems to be really behind in the digital realm...and not just advanced modeling and milling stuff...numerous students told me it was a total pain to just print an 11x17 sheet of paper and the politics between administration and faculty slow down the process for making things happen it the school (there is a laser cutter but it isn't hooked up because certain people didn't want some of the budget to go toward ventilation....etc...stuff like that. Also, I peronally didn't get a great feeling about living in Berkeley...it's not SF...it's not a small town...somewhere wierd in between and a friend who was attending the grad program told me most people live with someone and are more removed from the student scene...

Also I have thoughts that the stronger an undergrad program at a school is, the more that can potentially hurt the grad program, since the administration/facultys interest is split.

When I I visited UCLA (which was on their open house) I liked most of what I saw. I found a mix of faculty who I was really interested in studying with and some others that I really did not want to take. The students I met who were planning on attending I thought were friendly, they would be 2nd years now. The facilities seem to be pretty good, milling machines, laser cutters, all that jazz, and LA in my opinion would be fun to live in for a while if you can accept the high cost of living.

UCLA wound up being my second choice school as I opted for the east coast over the west...

i am confused in general.
so far i've got UW, Parsons and UPenn.
with what criteria do i weigh programs?
they are different lenghths, which is confusing to me.
some are offering money, some not.
curricula is totally different at all of them.
cities are totally different.
again, i'll state, yes i am confused as hell.

thanks tagalong...not only are those great cookies, but your words were helpful and words i've heard before.

thanks!

I actually sent my $500 to Penn, but wasn't sure I was going there because I had 3 more weeks to decide on Wash U. I just wanted to hold my place at Penn, then could have taken a loss if I decided on Wash U.

hasselhoff-

just spoke to the folks at WU, financial letters are going out on monday.
are you going to the open house? its the same day as berkeley's so i think i may end up going to berkeley's instead

Sorry to confuse you, that was in 2004. I was a finallist for the full ride, so I actually didn't find out until a few weeks after open house. I got a buttload of money, but went to Penn. I think Wash U is pretty generous for everyone from what I hear. Like $10,000 is pretty common. I got $4800 from Penn.

ahhhh....they offered me $23K. UC schools are still cheaper and are certainly better geographically. and i don't know what to think of WU's grad program right now...they are in major flux.

Penn gave you $23K? You bastard.

no...didn't apply to penn. i was put off when they gave me the model number of the binder i should submit my portfolio in.

WU gave me $23K

my decision is between UCLA, berkeley and WU

8's - the one thing about Parsons that makes no sense is that the studio closes at 2am. So if you think you're gonna have an all-nighter, you'll have to hide until after they close, or go somewhere else to work.

On the other hand, they have a very good faculty and the Design/Build project. You can access resources from Columbia, Cooper Union, Arch League (if you have time.)
My friend goes to UPenn and she loves it: resources, projects, faculty.

UCLA and Berkeley are so different in terms of their 'schools of thought', their location and context etc that it should be pretty easy to decide which way you want to swing.

1 year is not that big of a deal, imho.

very true doctor...i guess i need to finally decide what i want. because i wouldn't say that the typical answers, digital [UCLA] and sustainable [berkeley] really matter to me. i want it all, so is one school more open to different approaches than the other? big difference in faculty and resources?

these are the questions spinning in my head

i'm going to blow the foam off this confusion, and enlighten you people as to the fact that it really doesn't matter that much where you go to school.

i went to UCLA (for the M.Arch II, mind you), and i dont really think that the way UCLA is now, it allows students to be very much open to different approaches. At least when i go to open houses etc. now, most of the work looks the same, and there is not much advancement from the last 4 years, just the version of Maya being used is new.

That is my view from an outsider who used to be an insider before, and I have a pretty good suspicion that I am right.

I dont know about Berkeley first-hand but from second hand info, I would think that berkeley should be much better for a well-rounded, hardcore architecture course, if you are doing your M.Arch I.(if you dont have a professional arch. degree) I think the atmosphere and context too is much more conducive to intellectual stimulation and reflection, rather than the go-man-go type extremely competetive (and sometimes bitchy) UCLA M.arch I.

You can always go for a m.archII at UCLA later.

Again, i will repeat ive not been in the m.arch i program in either of these schools, but can offer a pretty good judgment.

thanks doctor, that helps.

that's certainly the stereotype of UCLA...the columbia of the west, go maya go. its hard to guage from student work whether that is by choice or if its being force-fed to them. thanks for your insight.

a hint: its not force fed, but if thats all the profs do, you dont have of a choice, do you?

true. but do they all do "it?"

clearly there is a difference between greg lynn, mark lee, mark mack and roger sherman. a gradient if you will...no?

yes there is a big difference, but if you go to a UCLA open house, most of the work featured is of the students of Mark Lee, Greg Lynn, David Erdman, Jason Payne, Dagmar Richter (dont know if she is still there, but you get the whiff, right).
Well to put it blunty, i dont think the ucla core faculty give a shit about the Mark Mack, Craig Hodgetts, Ben Refuerzo club, and that lends a very unhealthy and skewed dynamic to the school. That not exactly what i call a well rounded education with lots of choices to choose from.

I think Im going to shut up now - dont want to pee on anyone's parade, but im just divulging just so that prospective ucla students know what they are getting into.

well you've been very helpful...you certainly haven't peed on my parade. and i understand exactly where you're coming from.

ok, i'm going to put it all out there too, pardon me if i'm too blunt, but...:

i've been accepted to both berkeley and ucla for m.arch 1 [still waiting on two more schools], and i'm leaning heavily towards ucla. i've heard the criticisms of student work at ucla appearing too professor-influenced, but overall the work from the website looks MUCH better than that on berkeley's website.

to those who continue to praise berkeley: where is the proof? i have yet to see any truly compelling student work [especially on the unflattering website], and it seems like the school may be coasting on a reputation secured years ago. i'm not familiar with the work of many of the professors, and for me [a NYer] the school seems totally off the radar...

at least at ucla i can get a good sense of what i'd be getting myself into.


any comments??

max'm don't use a website to decide where you go to school

yes dont get seduced by cool images,my friends

i, am not seduced by cool images, but i will say that there is very little chatter on here from current or past berkeley students, like max'm...i want to know. and i can't say i disagree with the claim they are coasting on a reputation, which by the way is an undergrad reputation, right?

MArch06, don't use a website ((((ARCHINECT))) to decide where you go to school.


just because there is little or no chatter on here from current or past berkeley students, means shit.

if you are seriously considering, visit the school. talk to students. talk to people. do not lean on our opinions.

you're misunderstanding my reasoning for my posts.
im not looking for a vote and which school gets the most votes im going to attend.
i realize the importance of visiting schools and talking to students but you also must realize that there is a certain amount of propaganda that happens at these events, if you truly think that you can go to these open house and get unbiased opinions from faculty and the hand selected students, that's nuts. i want to be able to supplement that info with experiences of students on archinect that may not have an agenda.
im smart enough to discern information, so the more information the better.

MArch06 - a good thing to do is to go to the open houses and then show-up the next day when it's business as usual (say you left something behind if someone asks.) And try to go at different times in the day (studios are a lot different after 9 or 10pm than during an open house and the later in the day you go, the more honest current students will be with you.)

i like that AP....get them while they're tired. ;)

march06: i agree with you, i think we're all smart enough here to seduced neither by sexy images nor slick open house presentations.

to the rest of you: of course no one is deciding where to go to grad school based on this post. and, as march06 noted, there's no shortage of happy/disgruntled students willing to spill all on archinect, so why not try to glean as much information as possible from this forum?

not to rant....but....not everyone has the time, money, ability to take off of work, etc, to traipse around to every single school. we might as well inform ourselves as much as possible before shelling out for airfare and hotel. thanks very much to the students that have been helpful!! for better or worse, i've heard a TON about the other schools i've applied to and it's at least turned me on/off...but i just don't know if i know enough about berkeley at this point to make a trip out to california.

i any case i do really appreciate the feedback, it's been really helpful.

couldn't have said it better max'm.

so besides UCLA and berkeley are you deciding on any other schools? are you going to UCLA's open house?

i'm still waiting to hear from sci-arc and the gsd.

i'm not optimistic about the gsd, but i feel much more confident about sci-arc. plus, after visiting harvard i think that the west coast might be fun for a few years. i think i have enough roots here on the east to not worry about 'going hollywood,' haha.

yep, i'm going to ucla's open house then spending a day or two at sci-arc afterwards, hopefully.


you?

i'll be out of town on that sunday, but i will be there monday. sunday is the LA bus tour and tour of arch offices...since i live here, that's no big deal. but monday's schedule is more of the meet n' greet.

so i guess i'll see you there...amke sure to put max'm on your nametag. ;)

i'll be at open house too. very interested to see the potential social climate we get to experience next year.

we'll see you there shaybug!