Hi, guys/girls! The admission process has ended for me for MArch I AP:

IN: Princeton, UPenn, Michigan

OUT: GSD, Yale

I am trying to decide between these two schools : Princeton vs. Penn

Has anybody been in the same boat and what made you decide between these two?

What I am looking for is:

-more intellectual/philosophical/historical approach to architecture
-not very interested into pre-fabrication/parametric design/pretty renderings
-might potentially enter politics/international relations
-wants to establish connections with variety of people
-looking for more prestigious architecture program
-has some entrepreneurial spirit and business drive

ANY feedback will be highly appreciated! THANK YOU!

@cardzlawnz Sorry, buddy! I posted this in the wrong thread! I can't help you on yours but I am having a similar problem like you! I haven't applied to any of those programs so I can't give you my opinion!

@tschural

Princeton OBVIOUSLY! They have, arguably the best M.Arch programme in the United States. Liz Diller is heading the graduate programme and Princeton has some great faculty including people like Mario Gandelsonas, Dan Wood, Christine Boyer. This is quite a no-brainer!

Penn's architecture programme has taken highly parametric/digital direction in the recent past and now plays second fiddle to their much superior landscape programme(s).

I applied to Princeton for the M.Arch II programme. It was my first choice along with Yale. Got rejected by Princeton but got into Yale. Princeton is a wonderful school. Don't even think twice. Especially since you're not interested in parametric design which is what UPenn does nowadays.

@tschural no prob. If you want my opinion though, go with Princeton. More theory based and less about making nice buildings. 

Once upon a time, that was my dilemma.  I chose UCLA, thought LA would be better for a future (mtn biking, snow boarding, tons of architecture opportunities).  I also thought I would not like Manhattan (I grew up in CT).

I was wrong.  LA was nothing like I hoped.  Probably would not have stayed in NY, either, but who knows  (I like the outdoors, but I know of some gorgeous lakes I am aiming to have a vacation home on, only an hour train ride, so there are options).

Personally, I was horrified with UCLA's studios (coming from UF).  I called Berkeley (I had turned them down) immediately and asked if I could do split between UCLA and them.  They said "yes", but with the gf, I ended up not doing that (moving back and forth would have been hard).  Ended up being fine, campus is gorgeous, but living in LA after school is not likely to be in Westwood or Beverly Hills.

If I had to do it over again I would choose Columbia ONLY because of their RE Development program.  That's knowledge you can't easily get and will open a world of possibilities for your future (regardless if you want to be a developer).  Good stuff.

Now, you might be thinking "I don't want that bs...", like I did, but I tell ya, it is knowledge and a degree I would easily pay large $$ for now.

Good luck.  Just remember that what you think now, there is almost 0% chance you'll feel the same in 10 years, so weight possibilities.

Trace-

good that i stumbled upon this post. Got into GSAPP but wary of going due to financial feasibility. I told myself..I would only go if I can make gold at the end (to make sure i can pay my loans within 10 years or so). If I was to go, I was going to do a dual and pick up a RE development.

care to explain some more of your statement? what makes this so worthy of you doing it if you had to redo it over again?

cardzlawnz, I faced the exact same situation four years ago now (graduated last year).  I chose UCLA, and largely don't regret it.  Even though the decision is hard I think you're lucky in a way, because both are very good schools in the two most interesting cities in the US, so you really can't make a bad choice.  That choice was super difficult for me though because almost everything penciled out essentially equal when I compared all of the qualities of the schools, even down to their locations within their respective cities (Westwood and Morningside Heights both roughly being boring rich areas far from the interesting parts of the city).  I had also lived in both NY and LA before grad school, removing the urge to move to a new place.  The programs themselves seem to be fairly similar in style and direction as well; both are structurally rather similar, with no thesis projects. Both seem somewhat formally/computationally driven, though I think UCLA edges out Columbia in refinement of representational strategies and especially in an interest in material/fabrication technologies (I was a bit turned off when I asked my friend who had been at GSAPP for a year where the shop was and what equipment it had and he said "I'm actually not really sure, everyone outsources anyway").  UCLA is on the trimester which turns some people off because it's so fast paced and intense, but in some ways I think it's good because you get 50% more studios (3 studios a year rather than two).  Both schools have shitty old buildings that are too small - Columbia's is slightly nicer but I've NEVER seen a school as crowed as GSAPP.  UCLA's is pretty likely to collapse in the next big earthquake though, so that might be a factor, haha.  LA is generally a much cheaper city, with bigger spaces for less rent, unless you want to live really near campus, in which case it's basically manhattan prices and sizes.  I always lived on the east side of town - shitty commute but much better quality of life otherwise.  At columbia I would have been tempted to live in my old hood in Brooklyn, but that would have been a worse commute than LA at rush hour.  I think UCLA has the edge in faculty, not just in famous names but in actual good instructors, though Columbia probably has the edge in name recognition and funding (though at the time it seemed to me that they had been coasting on their rep from the 90s for a little too long; maybe it's different now - and still, a name is a name and helps).  Eventually I let the money be the tie breaker - Columbia's sticker price was four times that of UCLA (as an in state resident), and the $10,000 grant Columbia gave me made it still three times the price.  I believe that incentive will be a bit dulled for you since UCLA AUD instituted a 'professional fee' to insulate itself from the budget cuts California has been making to the UC system, which in a way is good for the school but probably makes it only half the price of columbia now.

To get a bit of a feel for my experience at UCLA you could check out my blog here - http://archinect.com/blog/21448949/ucla-scott

And feel free to message me with any specific questions.  Good luck!

I agree the price is hard to justify (and like Sk, they offered a nice chunk, but still it was pricey, living in Manhattan, etc.), for architecture it is simply crazy.

batman - when I was younger, naive and idealistic, I thought that architecture alone would be what I wanted, so I paid no attention to RE Developments (well, I always knew business was important, so got a minor, took classes, but never thought about it "seriously").  Things completely changed, a 180, really.  Now a business owner and no longer interested (half way through grad school I realized this) in fighting for pennies at the bottom of the profession, pretending what I was doing was important, praying for that big competition win, etc., etc., etc.

So, RE dev is something I find interesting and a win/win (well, depending on the economy, but everything depends on that).  There is the possibility of designing a building you can be proud of and making money doing it.  It takes a lot more than dreams, though (ie it takes MONEY), but you have to start somewhere.

An MBA or similar just prepares you for the real world.  Even if you never go into re dev, you'll have business knowledge that is crucial to running your own show.  Sure, you can learn as you go, as mostly I have, but it is so much more thorough to be prepared from the start.

As for the cost, look at MBA programs and Columbia starts to look reasonable (look at starting salaries, too, which are many times that of architecture).  For architecture, an Ivy League is absurd (pure ego, unless you come from money), but for business it is something that will pay you back later on (both in doors opened, salaries paid, possibilities for futures). 

On top of that, you'll make connections to those that do have money, which is as valuable as anything you'll ever learn.  Money makes architecture happen, regardless of what some idealistic folk might like to think, and having access to those investors gives you the power to control the architecture.  That's exciting.

(as a side note, I've considered executive MBA programs focused in RE Dev - there are only a few in the country - and those will come close to 6 figures just by themselves.  Given that, Columbia's dual degree looks pretty attractive)

Good luck!  Feel free to ask more questions

@Trace,

I've been curious about the RE dual degree and the whole business side of design. Is there a better way to reach you?

we need a group chat with trace.

seems like searching through the forums trace has been in numerous threads about M.RED and if i assume correctly, he has chosen that as his current career path?

if that is true, i do too want to talk to you.

@batman

I recognize you through a few threads here and there as well. You seem to be interested in Columbia and the whole other side of incorporating Business and Real Estate. We definitely need to start something (conversation) among at least the 3 of us. I kind of wish I knew more about this before. @batman & trace do you know how the dual degree program works? I am assuming if I applied to Columbia M.Arch this coming year I am probably too late to initially start the Dual RE, or?

I honestly don't know what the requirements are getting in to Columbia's MSRED (I think that's it).  Could be harder, given the business component, easier given most architects won't pursue that. 

Feel free to email me at my email address in my profile (not my main email, but I check it fairly regularly).  I'll gladly offer what I can.

ill post what i get from asking the assistant dean since I did ask them about scholarship money

@bat

Any Updates?

"...with all dual programs, you would just need to apply to the other program you are interested in.
Students interested in dual programs apply separately to each program, if admitted to both - we arrange a dual schedule.
i.e. March students can indeed apply to the RED program while they are first year or second year students and start the RED program in the summer between years 1 and 2,  or 2 and 3.  The RED degree requires two additional semesters of full time study ( summer and fall)"

@ batman @ Trace @Narddog

I emailed the office, and they said we can apply during the first semester but require an additional summer and fall.

Also I found a interesting page talk about this program too:

http://forums.businessweek.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=73399.531&nav=messages&webtag=bw-bschools 

that thread is so long. i dont know what to take out of it. MIT > GSAPP??

@gsd110

Thanks for the thread and welcome to this convo! Are you deciding on Columbia as well?

@Batman

Yea that thread is so freaking long but I'm going to try to read some of it. I definitely think MIT and GSAPP are both great choices. (You probably already know this but) I think now it's a matter of which direction of technology focus you want to go into. While both schools are heavily computer-oriented, MIT has the edge in facilities and cross registering (courses with other schools, i think) opportunities while Columbia has the edge (in my opinion) in digital work, dual degree development, and location.

And lol to the fact that I just realized this thread is no longer really about helping cardzlawnz (maybe indirectly). Lo siento.

@Cardzlawnz which direction are you leaning towards?

Lol ya this thread took a turn to a different direction. I appreciate the extra information... definitely food for thought. Right now I am just trying to pick a school... baby steps.

@Trace and @Scott Kepford Thank you for the input.

I am undecided now. GSAPP offered me a scholarship so that pretty much bumped the price down to UCLA price. So in a sense, money is not a concern (even though I still have to take out massive loans). I am just weighing out the options.

UCLA student work looks so good and I feel like they would help give me an edge in becoming a better designer and implement contemporary design techniques (if you have to call it parametrics then fine, but it takes more than just scripting to make it look good). I feel there is a sculptural quality in the way they want students to look at buildings in addition to making functional buildings and I am a fan of that. I know that won't get me a job as much and it won't get built more than likely, but I like it. Don't lecture me on this because I've heard it all.

That being said, GSAPP seems more likely to make me a better thinker which I feel is just as important if not more important in the design process. Not to mention the name has weight to it. I could get a job easier coming from here. I can't help but feel they will not be as concerned with what the building or project looks like but more what it does and the thought process behind it. Is that a wrong assessment?

Both have good faculty. UCLA has more "starchitects" but I don't care so much about that. The likelihood of sitting down maybe drink a beer with Thom Mayne and discussing my studio project seems unlikely. I think of it as more of a marketing technique that UCLA has to attract more students and lecturers. Again, is that a wrong assessment?

So east coast or west coast... any more opinions?

@cardz

I may be biased but for me, especially in your case if finances aren't the biggest concern, GSAPP is a no brainer. I personally don't like the flashy works UCLA puts out but I will give credit where it's due. I think UCLA has come a long way in terms of its architecture program (regarding curriculum, faculty, etc.) but it isn't a top 5 school in my opinion, not yet at least. A sexy portfolio no longer means much. You have to ask yourself where do you want to end up, who do you want to get to know and network with, and what are your interests as a designer.

Coming from UCLA AUD's BA program, I know what to expect from its M. Arch I program more than that of Columbia GSAPP. As a school in architectural design, UCLA competes with the top Ivy League schools (although more liberal.)

What holds back AUD is its budget, or lack thereof. A new $8000 annual fee doesn't sound appealing, but if it's visibly going to help the program, I'm fine with it (the new total cost is still under that of most private schools, disregarding grants and scholarships.) There are only a few laser cutters, which is fine if you're good with time management.

@cardzlawnz

Regarding the "starchitects" at UCLA, I think it's wrong to assume that they are there as a "marketing technique." These professors teach at UCLA because they believe that it is an up and coming school in architecture. If they didn't believe that, I doubt they would have considered a job there in the first place. Thom Mayne has taught at a few Ivy League schools. Wouldn't you think that he could find a job besides UCLA?

Go to the UCLA Open House both days.

anx- have you decided where you are going? and what schools did you get into?

^ Most likely UCLA, I got waitlisted to Yale :(

congratz to ucla and yale!

Actually, it is very much likely that you'll get to talk to starchitects at UCLA. Thom Mayne is really quite friendly and while he's probably too busy for a beer, he's definitely willing to talk about studio projects (barring any appointments he has).

Also, while I was there, Neil Denari (Anxiety, you know him know him, right? lol) popped into the undergrad studios with surprising frequency just to see what we were up to. Have Red Vines on hand for an easy conversation starter.

@gsd110

Just wondering, in the previous post by batman he said we could apply first and/or second year. Do you mean "first semester" of each of those years? or only the first semester in your first year? 

Thanks!

@batman

Thanks!

@technophobia

lol I remember that...

cardz, good to hear that money isn't a major factor, because it's really a stupid way to have to choose!  I agree with you on UCLA helping you more as a designer, but I should warn you that if you really are interested in parametrics, UCLA and Columbia might be more evenly matched than you think.  Parametrics (especially grasshopper) is more of a student interest than a top-down pedagogical element of the curriculum, and as such is probably as prevalent and officially supported (or lack thereof) at Columbia as at UCLA.  Maybe someone from Columbia could confirm/deny this, but I remember seeing student work when I was applying that dealt with parametrics.

I think you're not far off with the 'sculptural' comment as UCLA is generally very concerned with architecture as a form of cultural production, and the conceit that affect is an important part of the performance of an architectural work at any scale.  The theoretical bent of the school deals a lot with disciplinary interactions and adjacencies, especially between contemporary art and architecture.  Saying that, I have to disagree with your assertion that GSAPP will make you a 'better thinker' - I think that's probably true of a place like Princeton, but from what I've seen it seems equally easy to get out of theoretical thinking at GSAPP as at UCLA.  The program works very diligently to instill a design intelligence even in students not interested in theory, and is one of the few things I think UCLA really gets right.  In regard to theory though, UCLA has some of the more relevant theorists in contemporary architectural discourse, both on the pure theory side (Sylvia Lavin), the design side (Jason Payne, Greg Lynn), and in public policy (Thom Mayne).  You can be as involved in that as you want to be; since I'm very interested in that stuff many of my quarters looked more like a phd student's than a design student's, I took more courses with Sylvia Lavin than with any one design prof, and I worked more closely with many of the pure-theory phds than with the design students in my own program.  Not sure how closely M.Arch students at columbia can work with phds or with Mark Wigley, but I'd imagine interest or disinterest in theory and design intelligence plays out about the same.  

Perhaps a better tie-breaker is in consideration of place - would you rather end up in Los Angeles or New York?  Personally, though I prefer living in Los Angeles, I actually find that many of the firms in New York are more closely aligned to my own interests.  It probably would have been easier to make the move to a firm there had I gone to Columbia, but the degree does translate from either school to either place.  All of my friends from UCLA who had an interest in working in NY were able to move there and get jobs (in multiple cases recruited before graduation), though I'm sure it would be easier to have done it from Columbia (I should say too that the NY defectors were a minority; a large share of the graduates I keep in touch with have chosen to stay in LA).  If you do think you'll want to be in LA though the same holds true - the networking you can do in school in the local scene shouldn't be underestimated. 

a quick word (since obviously I have a tendency to blather on way too long on these things!) on drinking with faculty - even though I never had a studio with him, I've drank with Neil Denari not only in LA but in Munich and Stuttgart Germany - so your dreams of drinking with faculty are imminently realizable, ha ha ha.  As another example Greg Lynn takes students in his studios out on his carbon fiber sailboat - probably not a reason to choose a school (or even a studio, but I'm not as sure there, ha ha), but a cute perk!

Stararchitects - the first thing I noticed at UCLA was how much behind the scenes schmoozing there was in architecture.  It is ALL politics and ass kissing!  Honestly, it was one of the first, possibly very significant, reason I left the profession.  Nothing has to do with talent, per se.

Back then, there was the Lynn camp and the Mayne camp, Maya vs. FormZ.  Not sure where Lynn is, back then he had "promise", if nothing important built.  I never cared for his work (ideas, yes, work, no) and happily chose the Mayne camp (Mayne and Isreal where what got me interested in UCLA).

So for the drinks, thing, yes, you'll have opportunities, but never think that they are all there for you.  So many crits were completely about the jury (Hadid, Moss, Mayne, Denari, etc., all talking, make for some good marketing material and they all care far more about talking to each other than to the students, imho).  I can't blame them, but it was quite a shock coming from a school that was completely for the student.

You might get invited to their homes, to their projects, etc., which is great (I recall seeing Diamond Ranch while still under construction - still one of my fav buildings to this day).  That's good stuff.

This will happen at any star driven school and is something you should be aware of and accept.'

Oh, lastly, be careful about thinking you know where you want to live long term.  I thought LA was ideal, great architecture, great weather, mtn biking and snowboarding.  I knew after a few weeks I'd hate it, eventually.  I lasted 5 years.

GSAPP

Trace: worth 150K+ in debt for m.arch/m.resd?