a couple of questions i still have for current students @ berkeley...
why was the shop closed on friday during the day?! how embarrassing...they couldn't even find someone to open it up.
why are there so many desks (4) for each student? is this because only few individuals want to go there, or is the school highly selective?
overall, i wasn't so impressed with the thesis work/faculty compared to other schools i've visited so far. renee chow said that the thesis projects were chosen at random, which meant that they didn't get to filter through the work. i would have actually preferred if they would have been a little more selective with the thesis work they presented.
they also appear to apply the stereotypical berkeley "attitude" to their architecture program, which seems to be pretty laid back, allows the student the freedom to do whatever he/she wants to do, and incorporates green design throughout the process. eh. seems a little too laid back for me. i think i need a little kick in the ass every now and then.
i wouldn't say that the work at UCLA was any better or worse than the work at berkeley...also keeping in mind that was all mid-review stuff. the one thing you have to say is it was all very diverse, i heard someone mention that columbia's student work all looked the same...i could say the same for UCLA.
i do tend to agree with you on the faculty work, but im beginning to question the significance in a name. sure thom mayne would be great to study under...in theory, but its so hard to tell which starchitect is really interested in educating vs. serving their own agenda. speaking of which, i don't know why it never hit me before, but the whole notion of the research studio at UCLA is a bit alarming. basically your some starchitect's bitch for a semester. it does have a certain appeal, but once that wears off what are you left with? cloning? emulating?
oh...i am also baffled by the admissions process in general. i had a friend apply to 9 schools, he got into 8, including princeton, mit, yale, harvard and columbia...the one he didn't get into...berkeley. go figure.
i don't think that all of the work at ucla looked the same... perhaps all of the work from the first year studio, for example, looked similar because the studio's focus that quarter was centered around structure. some of the tech seminar stuff looked similar because they were interested in investigating a particular method of design via the computer. what was disappointing to me was that i've seen a lot of better undergrad work than most of those thesis projects at berkeley.
i feel that ucla certainly emphasizes a specific type of design apparent in the research studios, which is actually nice for me because i find this type of work particularly engaging. true, i would have more freedom to choose what i would study at berkeley, but i would most likely end up focusing on the methodologies that they teach at ucla anyway.
it seems like there is more rigor involved in the studios at ucla, whereas at berkeley, there is more time to contemplate early constructs and perform more research for each project. actually, i think this extra time could make the end result much stronger.
ahh! every time i write something about one school, i end up changing my mind and siding with the opposing view of my original thought. is that happening to you too? this could be dangerous.
actually, i forgot to address what you said about star architects. at some level, the model that you're presented with might pose as sort of a precedent study versus a method with which to clone yourself after someone with more expensive shoes than yours. i look for the reasons/motivations behind their projects, hoping to harness some of that energy for later use.
as for the berkeley admissions rates... i've heard this before and i'm confused about it. what exactly are they saving these extra spots for? i don't get it either.
it is dangerous. and it does happen to me, although a lot less after friday. for me i just think i would get more out of berkeley. i hate to generalize, but if i had to, i'd say UCLA produces good designers while berkeley produces good thinkers/problem solvers.
i don't know, the more i think about it the less i like becoming a maya robot at UCLA. i know at the open house they said they weren't all about the computer, but those who have gone to school there know where the line is drawn and where allegiances lie. if that's what you like, great, i just don't think that's a worthwhile endeavor for me. and while i would hardly consider myself a hardcore environmentalist, i'd be stupid not to look outside and realize that the profession is going to have to adapt and change with the changing environment. this doesn't seem to be a concern AT ALL at UCLA, so again i feel berkeley would "educate" me more.
i don't know, it was also the gut feeling i had at berkeley, which i didn't have at UCLA. not to mention that students never really scream great things about UCLA, in reading posts on here and talking to people everyone seems so ambivalent, while at berkeley everyone i talk to, including two very good friends can't stop raving. at some point this decision became less about checklists and more about intangibles and gut feelings
i have to say that is a great point you raise in regards to the starchitects and i think its great that you realize and embrace it, want to learn from it. i don't get that sense from the larger student population however.
as far as the admissions go...i guess feel honored, i do. but to answer your concern i think the small numbers are much more of a reflection of high standards and actual thought in putting a class together than people not wanting to go there
When I applied to the UC schools oh so long ago (2001), if you get into one or both of them, you are accepted into the University of California as a whole-so you can enroll at Berkeley and spend a year at UCLA and vice versa. I don't know if it is still like that or how feasible it is (since UCLA is on quarters and Berkeley is on semesters), but it was an option back then. I don't know how many people take advantage of it.
at berkeley, i believe each m arch 1 class has about 25 students who join 1st year m arch 2's (also about 25) for the second and third year making the total around 50 students.
okay, out of all the professors who spoke that day, i was only truly impressed with lisa iwamoto. the other professors there seemed to have ideas similiar to profs i had in undergrad... nothing really new to me. lisa iwamoto applied for the chair postition at ucla. does this mean that she's looking to leave berkeley?
oh chair, as in sylvia's chair...hmmm. that's public knowledge isn't it? i ask because i wonder how i go about corroborating this. i don't want to email renee if she doesn't know about it...that wouldn't be good.
obviously they don't advertise all of this during open house because it would raise a lot of questions about the future of the program. i pretty sure we did talk about lavin leaving... which raised the question as to whether or not greg lynn (her husband) would follow.
um...i don't know if it would make or break it for me, instructors will come and go, at UCLA and berkeley. its hard to make a intelligent decision without doing hours of research. at UCLA you know the names, pick up any magazine. berkeley is a little tougher. i liked lisa's work, i liked what she had to say, but that was such a small sample size of the faculty, so who really knows....
"i'd say UCLA produces good designers while berkeley produces good thinkers/problem solvers."
that sums it up pretty well, March 06. Im assuming that by 'design' you mean physical design or graphic design....
yeah, exactly.
i see more "cool" stuff coming from UCLA, but more thoughtful things coming from berkeley. cool is certainly fun, but at the end of the day i want more from my education.
what is your story, are you applying now, did you go to either school?
by studying things other than design. i gave you one example above, but "green" architecture WILL be the future, it'll have to be. the rate at which we are killing this planet is rather sad.
UCLA offers ZERO classes [to my knowledge] on the subject. i think that's irresponsible. sure the UCLA student could whip up a fly rendering in maya, but i'd rather know how to use design to save energy. now i realize im being flippant with my generalizations, but you get the picture...
i agree with what you say about our necessity to address ecological issues with respect to architecture.
but i didn't feel that ucla was that largely into maya... they didn't even require renderings for the first year projects... just a model, plans, sections, elevations, detail sections, and diagrams. they use rhino a lot - mainly because you can take elevations, sections, plans, from the same model without having to redraw each drawing separately. i'm probably biased towards ucla (over berkeley) because i know a lot more about their program.
As for UCLA offering ZERO courses on sustainability, I went to Berkeley's fall open house and Rene Chow made a point of letting everyone know that although UCB is associated with sustainability/ green arch. there are NO courses in sustainablility/green arch., it is more of a philosophy that is generally encorporated into their design approach...
also, as far as ucla producing good designers vs. thinkers, isn't ucla known for it's emphasis on Critical Studies? This is what drew me to their program (Sylvia Lavin, Bob Somol, etc.)...
skeerd: are you going to ucb? (congrats on getting in!)
rhino or maya, no difference. i mean there is to those who use it, but my overall point is they stress the digital above all else. i think you realize that, if you don't just take a look at who runs the school.
by no means am i saying that the digital has no part in architecture, im not one of those computer haters, far from it. but i just feel that i would have an easier time pursuing the computer at berkeley than i would pursuing sustainable design at UCLA. i just think berkeley is more diverse and more open to new/different ideas and ways of representation. and for me that diversity is a better overall education. at least that's where my head's at now...if we talk tomorrow it could be the opposite. ;)
because i actually think the two schools are SO different it makes comparing them almost impossible.
you may be correct, my verbiage may not spot on [classes vs. ideology] but my point is unchanged nevertheless. i just feel there are more opportunities to pursue those interests and concerns of mine at berkeley than UCLA.
as far as critical studies, i agree slyvia built that school up to what it is and im not arguing that it isn't a great school, more so that i don't think its the right place for me. but as im sure you are aware sylvia is leaving and bob solmol is less and less a part of the school's vision as the years go by. am i not correct?
they did seem VERY different. considering that i'm torn between ucla and columbia (two very similar schools), you can get a better understanding why i wasn't so thrilled with the work at berkeley. you're probably right about using a computer at berkeley versus learning about sustainability at ucla. anyone can learn how to use a computer program... it's the thought behind what's generated that's important.
this is my viewpoint on it - so many projects at berkeley were generated out of the same the line of thinking/reasoning from my undergrad program. as a result, i'm interested in learning something completely different. my biology degree gives me that extra dimension that a lot of architects don't benefit from, which explains why the interdisciplinary emphasis at berkeley isn't of great importance to me. for a lot of other people i could see how berkeley would present a lot more options if you have other interests outside of architecture.
so many variables...i too may change my mind tomorrow.
yeah i hear you. i hope this thread isn't turning into one of us defending one school and one defending the other. in the end its a very personal decision. i obviously think very highly of UCLA, it was one of three schools i applied to, i just think it would offer me less of what i ultimately want than berkeley would.
but i appreciate this discussion, its nice to hear other people's impressions and opinions.
march06, i went to the ucla march2 program back in 2001, but followed the march1 program too....thats how (i think ) i can offer opinions on the ucla march 1
I went to the UCB open house and was left with an excellent impression. I consider the admin issues (such as the shop being closed) to be irrelevant to the overall quality of the program. The 'laid back' attitude definitely speaks of a different philosophy from most architecture schools in the US. graduate studies should not be about production. There are plenty of 'kicks in the ass' to be had working im most architecture offices... Yeah... a lot of exciting construction docs await you... Grad schools is your last chance to find your voice...
As far as the concern with sustainability, I agree with MArch06: it is the future... and it's not optional. We're all going to have to face it, and not just professionally.
I also like UCB's slight direction towards demystifying stardom and the cult of progress. it's very oblique but noticeable... Hence the apparent lack of visual exuberance that might define UCLA (so i've heard :-))
by the way, did you get that website i emailed to you? pretty fantastic, those quotes, talking in the 3rd person...wow. you telling me that doesn't make you want to go to berkeley?
thanks, vman, berkeley is definitely one of the frontrunners but i think i'm going to yale instead. i'll make my final decision after i visit berkeley this week (hopefully, but it's looking doubtful). i'm trying to read as much as i can regarding berkeley but it seems to be something i need to see for myself. i was really impressed with yale and i think it's the best fit for me.
From my experience, a lot of the instructor's main goals did NOT 'seem' to include education as a main priority. I base this judgment on my observation of their personal outside work schedule vs the attention given to the students. Some of the instructors’ usage of school facilities/equipments adds to the impression that they are there to focus on getting the resources for the school in order to drive their own projects rather than to teach. This can be proven (at least during my years) of very limited, if not no accessibility to laser cutters and 3d printers for undergraduates. By no means am I generalizing the entire faculty, but I’m just letting you know of my personal experiences. Most of them are quite responsive and attentive during studio times, but you hold on to them during studio time because once that clock hits the end, they zip on out. Anthony Burke is a great example as his feedback on his instruction is very positive yet, the guy is so busy with his own projects that during one of my semesters, we had a substitute instructor which proved to be quite unproductive and waste of a good week or two… this had happened to me several times along with other professors (their names are mentioned several times in this thread).
Even if it is for a couple of days, I feel that if they sign on to be instructors, I would like their full and undivided attention rather than having a few holes here and there during the semester which is certainly a waste of my time.
eion, as i mentioned before sometime i went to the m.arch 2 program, but keenly observed and followed the m.arch1 program too, and had quite a few friends in that program. The way i saw it, i felt that the whole program was too focused to serving some interests fo some professors, so that they could train the students for their own selfish purposes of having their discussions and pimping their own agenda. I dont think most of the M.Arch I's WHO DID NOT HAVE AN ARCH. BACKGROUND learnt much about 'real' architecture. I understand that most students, me included go to schools like UCLA, to get an innovative take on architecture, but i just dont feel pimping ones agenda leads to an advance in the discourse of architecuture.
Having said that, the M.ArchII program was very good, but all of us had a professional architecture degree and had an exposure of the real world.
All in all, the way i see it, go to UCB and learn about architecture and reflect on the whole discipline, or go to UCLA, make sexy graphics and crazy blobs (well, not to crazy-just as much as the profs like it).
Just want to clarify a couple things as a current UCLA student...
1) There are classes offered in sustainability. In the first year you take Climatology which is almost entirely focused on sustainability. It is not a design studio however. As far as I know we do not offer a design studio that is strictly focused on sustainable architecture, but instructors frequently do address this. In fact in the Steel House Studio during the second year, sustainability is dealt with in depth.
2) There are very few projects that would classify as "blobs". You might see some of those coming out of the third year option studios (Lynn, or Payne typically), but in the first 5 core studios buildability is definitely stressed. I don't think I'd seen a studio project from the first two years that doesn't include detailed sections, plans etc. Compare our core work with Columbia or Sci-Arc and you'll see what I mean.
3) Computer use is really stressed. Mostly Rhino rather than Maya actually. But I think the use of technology is really something that like sustainability, you can't ignore. Using a program like Rhino is a huge timesaver if nothing else and allows for much more than just renderings... it's very easy to get sections, elevations or unfold a complex surface etc. For a school to have an ambivalence towards the use of technology is really not a forward thinking ideology.
UCLA does start you off from day one using the computer, and I completely agree with that philosophy. The studios are by no means "paper-less" like Columbia, and believe it or not, you do hand draw a lot of stuff in the first quarter. But I really feel like the computer was taught as a tool to assist in the design process and it's used in a very controlled manner.
3) Regarding representation - There is really no restriction on how you represent your work. Some people rendering, some don't. There are first year students that taught themselves how to use the CNC milling equipment and made wood formwork which they then covered in resin to mold their model. I think its pretty open to what you want to do and what works best with your project. I've seen anything from felt to basswood to wax being using for models.
4) Last thing and then I'm done... it is true that the "star" professor's are frequently absent. That is something that is really only an issue for the third year though, and by that time you get to choose your professor so it's up to the student how much interaction they need or want with a professor. I've been very satisfied with the level or interaction I've had with the core professors.
was anyone at the Berkeley open house on friday?
what did people think?
a couple of questions i still have for current students @ berkeley...
why was the shop closed on friday during the day?! how embarrassing...they couldn't even find someone to open it up.
why are there so many desks (4) for each student? is this because only few individuals want to go there, or is the school highly selective?
overall, i wasn't so impressed with the thesis work/faculty compared to other schools i've visited so far. renee chow said that the thesis projects were chosen at random, which meant that they didn't get to filter through the work. i would have actually preferred if they would have been a little more selective with the thesis work they presented.
they also appear to apply the stereotypical berkeley "attitude" to their architecture program, which seems to be pretty laid back, allows the student the freedom to do whatever he/she wants to do, and incorporates green design throughout the process. eh. seems a little too laid back for me. i think i need a little kick in the ass every now and then.
i wouldn't say that the work at UCLA was any better or worse than the work at berkeley...also keeping in mind that was all mid-review stuff. the one thing you have to say is it was all very diverse, i heard someone mention that columbia's student work all looked the same...i could say the same for UCLA.
i do tend to agree with you on the faculty work, but im beginning to question the significance in a name. sure thom mayne would be great to study under...in theory, but its so hard to tell which starchitect is really interested in educating vs. serving their own agenda. speaking of which, i don't know why it never hit me before, but the whole notion of the research studio at UCLA is a bit alarming. basically your some starchitect's bitch for a semester. it does have a certain appeal, but once that wears off what are you left with? cloning? emulating?
oh...i am also baffled by the admissions process in general. i had a friend apply to 9 schools, he got into 8, including princeton, mit, yale, harvard and columbia...the one he didn't get into...berkeley. go figure.
i don't think that all of the work at ucla looked the same... perhaps all of the work from the first year studio, for example, looked similar because the studio's focus that quarter was centered around structure. some of the tech seminar stuff looked similar because they were interested in investigating a particular method of design via the computer. what was disappointing to me was that i've seen a lot of better undergrad work than most of those thesis projects at berkeley.
i feel that ucla certainly emphasizes a specific type of design apparent in the research studios, which is actually nice for me because i find this type of work particularly engaging. true, i would have more freedom to choose what i would study at berkeley, but i would most likely end up focusing on the methodologies that they teach at ucla anyway.
it seems like there is more rigor involved in the studios at ucla, whereas at berkeley, there is more time to contemplate early constructs and perform more research for each project. actually, i think this extra time could make the end result much stronger.
ahh! every time i write something about one school, i end up changing my mind and siding with the opposing view of my original thought. is that happening to you too? this could be dangerous.
actually, i forgot to address what you said about star architects. at some level, the model that you're presented with might pose as sort of a precedent study versus a method with which to clone yourself after someone with more expensive shoes than yours. i look for the reasons/motivations behind their projects, hoping to harness some of that energy for later use.
as for the berkeley admissions rates... i've heard this before and i'm confused about it. what exactly are they saving these extra spots for? i don't get it either.
it is dangerous. and it does happen to me, although a lot less after friday. for me i just think i would get more out of berkeley. i hate to generalize, but if i had to, i'd say UCLA produces good designers while berkeley produces good thinkers/problem solvers.
i don't know, the more i think about it the less i like becoming a maya robot at UCLA. i know at the open house they said they weren't all about the computer, but those who have gone to school there know where the line is drawn and where allegiances lie. if that's what you like, great, i just don't think that's a worthwhile endeavor for me. and while i would hardly consider myself a hardcore environmentalist, i'd be stupid not to look outside and realize that the profession is going to have to adapt and change with the changing environment. this doesn't seem to be a concern AT ALL at UCLA, so again i feel berkeley would "educate" me more.
i don't know, it was also the gut feeling i had at berkeley, which i didn't have at UCLA. not to mention that students never really scream great things about UCLA, in reading posts on here and talking to people everyone seems so ambivalent, while at berkeley everyone i talk to, including two very good friends can't stop raving. at some point this decision became less about checklists and more about intangibles and gut feelings
i have to say that is a great point you raise in regards to the starchitects and i think its great that you realize and embrace it, want to learn from it. i don't get that sense from the larger student population however.
as far as the admissions go...i guess feel honored, i do. but to answer your concern i think the small numbers are much more of a reflection of high standards and actual thought in putting a class together than people not wanting to go there
When I applied to the UC schools oh so long ago (2001), if you get into one or both of them, you are accepted into the University of California as a whole-so you can enroll at Berkeley and spend a year at UCLA and vice versa. I don't know if it is still like that or how feasible it is (since UCLA is on quarters and Berkeley is on semesters), but it was an option back then. I don't know how many people take advantage of it.
at berkeley, i believe each m arch 1 class has about 25 students who join 1st year m arch 2's (also about 25) for the second and third year making the total around 50 students.
I was a Berkeley undergrad arch student, and I really, really loved the program.
Don't know if this sways anything, but two studio professors in particular are outstanding:
Renee Chow
Lisa Iwamoto
Other faculty people really like/liked:
Marc Anderson
Greig Crylser
Ray Lifchez
I also loved:
Tony Dubovsky for Visual Studies
Gail Brager for Building Science/Tech stuff
skeerd-
according to renee at the open house, the option 2 [which i am] had 18 students last year and they expect about 22-24 this year. great number i think.
samsonoio-
i did like lisa's work, what do you know of anothy burke? was he there when you were?
Sorry, I don't know anything about him.
okay, out of all the professors who spoke that day, i was only truly impressed with lisa iwamoto. the other professors there seemed to have ideas similiar to profs i had in undergrad... nothing really new to me. lisa iwamoto applied for the chair postition at ucla. does this mean that she's looking to leave berkeley?
didn't know that, where did you see/read that? good question though.
my friend at ucla verified this. they've been interviewing people for the new chair position, which included lisa.
oh chair, as in sylvia's chair...hmmm. that's public knowledge isn't it? i ask because i wonder how i go about corroborating this. i don't want to email renee if she doesn't know about it...that wouldn't be good.
obviously they don't advertise all of this during open house because it would raise a lot of questions about the future of the program. i pretty sure we did talk about lavin leaving... which raised the question as to whether or not greg lynn (her husband) would follow.
would it be an issue for you if lisa iwamoto was looking for other options?
another good point.
um...i don't know if it would make or break it for me, instructors will come and go, at UCLA and berkeley. its hard to make a intelligent decision without doing hours of research. at UCLA you know the names, pick up any magazine. berkeley is a little tougher. i liked lisa's work, i liked what she had to say, but that was such a small sample size of the faculty, so who really knows....
was it really a small sample or professors? did they say how many professors there are in the program?
oh maybe you didn't hear, they said that they represented about 1/6 the faculty, if you check the website its a pretty long list
"i'd say UCLA produces good designers while berkeley produces good thinkers/problem solvers."
that sums it up pretty well, March 06. Im assuming that by 'design' you mean physical design or graphic design....
sameolddoctor -
yeah, exactly.
i see more "cool" stuff coming from UCLA, but more thoughtful things coming from berkeley. cool is certainly fun, but at the end of the day i want more from my education.
what is your story, are you applying now, did you go to either school?
so at berkeley, how are students made to be better thinkers?
by studying things other than design. i gave you one example above, but "green" architecture WILL be the future, it'll have to be. the rate at which we are killing this planet is rather sad.
UCLA offers ZERO classes [to my knowledge] on the subject. i think that's irresponsible. sure the UCLA student could whip up a fly rendering in maya, but i'd rather know how to use design to save energy. now i realize im being flippant with my generalizations, but you get the picture...
i agree with what you say about our necessity to address ecological issues with respect to architecture.
but i didn't feel that ucla was that largely into maya... they didn't even require renderings for the first year projects... just a model, plans, sections, elevations, detail sections, and diagrams. they use rhino a lot - mainly because you can take elevations, sections, plans, from the same model without having to redraw each drawing separately. i'm probably biased towards ucla (over berkeley) because i know a lot more about their program.
MArch 06:
As for UCLA offering ZERO courses on sustainability, I went to Berkeley's fall open house and Rene Chow made a point of letting everyone know that although UCB is associated with sustainability/ green arch. there are NO courses in sustainablility/green arch., it is more of a philosophy that is generally encorporated into their design approach...
also, as far as ucla producing good designers vs. thinkers, isn't ucla known for it's emphasis on Critical Studies? This is what drew me to their program (Sylvia Lavin, Bob Somol, etc.)...
skeerd: are you going to ucb? (congrats on getting in!)
vman - i was at ucla's and berkeley's open house. were you at both? have you decided on a school?
rhino or maya, no difference. i mean there is to those who use it, but my overall point is they stress the digital above all else. i think you realize that, if you don't just take a look at who runs the school.
by no means am i saying that the digital has no part in architecture, im not one of those computer haters, far from it. but i just feel that i would have an easier time pursuing the computer at berkeley than i would pursuing sustainable design at UCLA. i just think berkeley is more diverse and more open to new/different ideas and ways of representation. and for me that diversity is a better overall education. at least that's where my head's at now...if we talk tomorrow it could be the opposite. ;)
because i actually think the two schools are SO different it makes comparing them almost impossible.
vman-
you may be correct, my verbiage may not spot on [classes vs. ideology] but my point is unchanged nevertheless. i just feel there are more opportunities to pursue those interests and concerns of mine at berkeley than UCLA.
as far as critical studies, i agree slyvia built that school up to what it is and im not arguing that it isn't a great school, more so that i don't think its the right place for me. but as im sure you are aware sylvia is leaving and bob solmol is less and less a part of the school's vision as the years go by. am i not correct?
would you say you are leaning towards UCLA?
they did seem VERY different. considering that i'm torn between ucla and columbia (two very similar schools), you can get a better understanding why i wasn't so thrilled with the work at berkeley. you're probably right about using a computer at berkeley versus learning about sustainability at ucla. anyone can learn how to use a computer program... it's the thought behind what's generated that's important.
this is my viewpoint on it - so many projects at berkeley were generated out of the same the line of thinking/reasoning from my undergrad program. as a result, i'm interested in learning something completely different. my biology degree gives me that extra dimension that a lot of architects don't benefit from, which explains why the interdisciplinary emphasis at berkeley isn't of great importance to me. for a lot of other people i could see how berkeley would present a lot more options if you have other interests outside of architecture.
so many variables...i too may change my mind tomorrow.
yeah i hear you. i hope this thread isn't turning into one of us defending one school and one defending the other. in the end its a very personal decision. i obviously think very highly of UCLA, it was one of three schools i applied to, i just think it would offer me less of what i ultimately want than berkeley would.
but i appreciate this discussion, its nice to hear other people's impressions and opinions.
march06, i went to the ucla march2 program back in 2001, but followed the march1 program too....thats how (i think ) i can offer opinions on the ucla march 1
ah, i see. do you have anything else to offer, any other tidbits that may help us given the topics we are discussing?
thanks for the input.
I think i mentioned most of what i had toin one of my prior posts (i think i was responding to you)
no time to search for it now, but later
i'll take a look. thanks.
yeah.... all i hear from current berkeley students is that they love it there. sameolddoctor- do you love ucla? hate it? love to hate it?
march06 - so... when are you moving to berkeley ;)
I went to the UCB open house and was left with an excellent impression. I consider the admin issues (such as the shop being closed) to be irrelevant to the overall quality of the program. The 'laid back' attitude definitely speaks of a different philosophy from most architecture schools in the US. graduate studies should not be about production. There are plenty of 'kicks in the ass' to be had working im most architecture offices... Yeah... a lot of exciting construction docs await you... Grad schools is your last chance to find your voice...
As far as the concern with sustainability, I agree with MArch06: it is the future... and it's not optional. We're all going to have to face it, and not just professionally.
I also like UCB's slight direction towards demystifying stardom and the cult of progress. it's very oblique but noticeable... Hence the apparent lack of visual exuberance that might define UCLA (so i've heard :-))
shay-
good question, im still working on my baggage. ;)
by the way, did you get that website i emailed to you? pretty fantastic, those quotes, talking in the 3rd person...wow. you telling me that doesn't make you want to go to berkeley?
eion-
thanks for contributing, perhaps i'll see you there. are you option 1, 2 or 3?
thanks, vman, berkeley is definitely one of the frontrunners but i think i'm going to yale instead. i'll make my final decision after i visit berkeley this week (hopefully, but it's looking doubtful). i'm trying to read as much as i can regarding berkeley but it seems to be something i need to see for myself. i was really impressed with yale and i think it's the best fit for me.
From my experience, a lot of the instructor's main goals did NOT 'seem' to include education as a main priority. I base this judgment on my observation of their personal outside work schedule vs the attention given to the students. Some of the instructors’ usage of school facilities/equipments adds to the impression that they are there to focus on getting the resources for the school in order to drive their own projects rather than to teach. This can be proven (at least during my years) of very limited, if not no accessibility to laser cutters and 3d printers for undergraduates. By no means am I generalizing the entire faculty, but I’m just letting you know of my personal experiences. Most of them are quite responsive and attentive during studio times, but you hold on to them during studio time because once that clock hits the end, they zip on out. Anthony Burke is a great example as his feedback on his instruction is very positive yet, the guy is so busy with his own projects that during one of my semesters, we had a substitute instructor which proved to be quite unproductive and waste of a good week or two… this had happened to me several times along with other professors (their names are mentioned several times in this thread).
Even if it is for a couple of days, I feel that if they sign on to be instructors, I would like their full and undivided attention rather than having a few holes here and there during the semester which is certainly a waste of my time.
eion, as i mentioned before sometime i went to the m.arch 2 program, but keenly observed and followed the m.arch1 program too, and had quite a few friends in that program. The way i saw it, i felt that the whole program was too focused to serving some interests fo some professors, so that they could train the students for their own selfish purposes of having their discussions and pimping their own agenda. I dont think most of the M.Arch I's WHO DID NOT HAVE AN ARCH. BACKGROUND learnt much about 'real' architecture. I understand that most students, me included go to schools like UCLA, to get an innovative take on architecture, but i just dont feel pimping ones agenda leads to an advance in the discourse of architecuture.
Having said that, the M.ArchII program was very good, but all of us had a professional architecture degree and had an exposure of the real world.
All in all, the way i see it, go to UCB and learn about architecture and reflect on the whole discipline, or go to UCLA, make sexy graphics and crazy blobs (well, not to crazy-just as much as the profs like it).
and yes, as for getting the full, undivided attention of profs at UCLA, good luck!
Just want to clarify a couple things as a current UCLA student...
1) There are classes offered in sustainability. In the first year you take Climatology which is almost entirely focused on sustainability. It is not a design studio however. As far as I know we do not offer a design studio that is strictly focused on sustainable architecture, but instructors frequently do address this. In fact in the Steel House Studio during the second year, sustainability is dealt with in depth.
2) There are very few projects that would classify as "blobs". You might see some of those coming out of the third year option studios (Lynn, or Payne typically), but in the first 5 core studios buildability is definitely stressed. I don't think I'd seen a studio project from the first two years that doesn't include detailed sections, plans etc. Compare our core work with Columbia or Sci-Arc and you'll see what I mean.
3) Computer use is really stressed. Mostly Rhino rather than Maya actually. But I think the use of technology is really something that like sustainability, you can't ignore. Using a program like Rhino is a huge timesaver if nothing else and allows for much more than just renderings... it's very easy to get sections, elevations or unfold a complex surface etc. For a school to have an ambivalence towards the use of technology is really not a forward thinking ideology.
UCLA does start you off from day one using the computer, and I completely agree with that philosophy. The studios are by no means "paper-less" like Columbia, and believe it or not, you do hand draw a lot of stuff in the first quarter. But I really feel like the computer was taught as a tool to assist in the design process and it's used in a very controlled manner.
3) Regarding representation - There is really no restriction on how you represent your work. Some people rendering, some don't. There are first year students that taught themselves how to use the CNC milling equipment and made wood formwork which they then covered in resin to mold their model. I think its pretty open to what you want to do and what works best with your project. I've seen anything from felt to basswood to wax being using for models.
4) Last thing and then I'm done... it is true that the "star" professor's are frequently absent. That is something that is really only an issue for the third year though, and by that time you get to choose your professor so it's up to the student how much interaction they need or want with a professor. I've been very satisfied with the level or interaction I've had with the core professors.
sorry... that last one should have been from me
fyi, my comments were of ucb
Thanks all for the great input on UCB & the comparables. MArch06, I am option 1, but I am almost for sure going to choose option 2.
eion are you female? i believe we talked briefly about that. i was the overtired fellow with the hat.
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.