nice to see UofO in the top 15 undergrad. they've been dropping over the last 7 years or so and the school a few years ago started focusing on the grad program and trying to turn it in to a "teaching" college (meaning to produce professors rather than practicing architects)

Wow, UT fell a great deal in the undergraduate rankings. Perhaps it will be easier to get in now? Do many people base where they apply on this list?

Apparently Ann Coulter is just anti-clubs. Maybe no one would let her into any when she was a child. What a douchebag...

DI is so completely retarded. Who the hell will believe their ranking -- in completely leaving Penn, UCLA and Berkeley out of the top 15 grad programs and putting friggin Cincinatti in second place for GRAD?!? And for that matter VPI and Illinois Urbana have better grad programs than the above? Come on, they're fuckin insane...

I don't go by the rankings, but it is curious. We've all been talking about that. What did cause Penn to go from 3 to NA? Would be interesting to know why.

I have been told that Penn has gotten themselves way to into generative architecture. Its cool and interesting but shouldn't be the focus of any school. I'm not sure that Berkeley has ever been a good school, atleast I have been told that it relies heavily on its name. Just letting you know what I have heard from some professors and students, but they could of just had bad experiences.

we need a playoff.

UPenn certainly seems to have lost some of its cachet... Once upon a time it was my top choice for grad school, but they seem to have gotten themselves wrapped up a little too heavily in digital masturbation for my tastes. I'm still applying there for a number of reasons, but of all the schools I'm applying to, they're probably the least appealing to me now.

Yeah I was all for applying there too until about 2 weeks ago. I just keep hearing so much negative feed back coming out of the program and everyone I know that has ever been to Philly has nothing nice to say about it. Not that matters too much, but they are definitely a different program now then they were even 2 years ago.

While we're on the subject of wierd placements - who here even knew that Notre Dame had an architecture program?

I did.

I did... They're famous/notorious for teaching classical architecture and only classical architecture. Nary a digital blob in sight.

I don't understand why DI continues to qualify their rankings based
entirely on reputation solicited from professionals. Basically, DI surveys Partners and PM in firms and asks..."What school prepares them best to perform in arena of professional architecture..."
I think there should be more to that question?

Why not ask arch profs who they think has a good program?
Kind of like a "Coaches Poll"...just something else to add to the mix.

Also...small schools like Rice who have quality graduates but in small quantities will probably get a higher yield of positive feedback as opposed to the larger programs where there is a mix of quality.

I agree that the rankings are suspect. However, I'd still love to see the undergrad and grad ranking for LA programs. It would be great if someone could post them. Thanks!

Well its also a bit silly to rank architecture schools at all. Any school in art is so intangible, it really depends on the student and what they are looking for. Its not like law school or med school where they are teaching a science which can mathematically be ranked.

Gin- hadn't known before, but your description fits perfectly with the impression I have of Notre Dame as a university. I am now officially insulted that they are ranked above USC.

yay SCI-Arc!

i've seen both rice and ut and i was the least bit unimpressed if not bored. it's a shame no good work is being produced at either.

if we've learned anything from the BCS, its that rankings are a complete waste of time.

that said, this is an email i got from the SCI-Arc librarian that spells out how some west schools were ranked in the latest DI

rankings may not be important, but perhaps the direction the school is going (up or down) might raise some interesting questions:


>> Computer applications (page 15)
>> 1. MIT
>> 2. Columbia
>> 3. Harvard / SCI-Arc
>> 5. Cornell / University of Cincinnati
>>
>> Most innovative architecture programs / National (page 20)
>> 1. University of Cincinnati
>> 2. Harvard
>> 3. Cornell
>> 4. SCI-Arc
>> 5. Columbia
>> 6. Rice
>> 7. Kansas State University / MIT / RISD / Syracuse University
>>
>> Most innovative architecture programs / Western schools (page 20)
>> 1. SCI-Arc
>> 2. Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
>> 3. Arizona State / University of Oregon / California College of the
>> Arts / UC Berkeley, USC
>>
>> Architecture Schools Regional Rankings / National (page 18)
>>
>> Graduate
>> 1. Harvard
>> 2. University of Virginia
>> 3. UC Berkeley
>> 4. University of Cincinnati
>> 5. SCI-Arc
>>
>> Architecture Schools Regional Rankings / Western schools (page 46)
>>
>> Undergraduate
>> 1. Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
>> 2. University of Oregon
>> 3. SCI-Arc (in the 2004 rankings SCI-Arc #5)
>> 4. Cal Poly, Pomona / University of Arizona / USC
>>
>> Graduate
>> 1. UC Berkeley
>> 2. SCI-Arc (in the 2004 rankings SCI-Arc was #9)
>> 3. University of Oregon
>> 4. University of Washington / Washington State University

^^wow. That's....er.... highly interesting. Just in the west, so much contradiction to what I've heard and seen as being consensus around here.... 1) How is USC ranked as on par with Pomona and UofA? 2)How is UCLA not in the top four on the grad schools list? 3)Likewise, how is ASU left out?

Oregon and Columbia represent...

it seems strange that the underfunded oregon undergrad program could possibly be above sci-arc's undergrad, considering the difference in curricula, equipment, context, professors, etc.

but that said, go oregon!

why do you guys care about these rankings? i'm curious.

rankings are pretty meaningless. they say nothing about an architecture program. if your school is on there then great, and if its not then who cares. ranking an architecture school seems pretty rediculous. on what grounds could you rank them? what kind of statistical data could be tallied up to produce a ranking?

things i would not pay $30 for:

1) ziplock bag with broken seal full of used q-tips.
2) anything designed by karim rashid
3) warm 6-pack of coors light, missing one can
4) one of those toy led rings
5) signed copy of 'crib sheets'
6) un-opened cornflakes box from the early 80s, with c3po & r2d2 on the front (but thats just me)
7) collection of your high school english papers written after you learned about existentialism
8) a kick in the pants
9) DI school rankings list
10) school rankings, published by some other organization

Later: 'things i would pay exactly $30 for', and 'things i would pay more than $30 for'.

I also think the rankings dosen't mean everything.
However, at the same time, that indicates how wrong today's famous shools' positionings are.
Most people criticising DI ranking should reflect what their schools are exactly teaching.

In my opinion, most famous schools are teaching pseudo-digital arts or pseudo-philoshopy rather than architecture.
Of course, I know, today's architecture should be understood in the metrix of countless scopes, but that doesn't mean we want pseudo-architects. Moreover, how many M.Arch students of those who are talking about Deleuzes have actually read Kant, Leibniz, Nietzsche, Faucault, and so on.
For me, it is funny that most expensive schools want their student to be "Picasso", or "Corbu.".
However, as "Lem" said in his book, just a few people can become such a people, rest students are just sacrificed for star architect systems or just self satisfactions.
The fact that most student thinking they are avant-garde are just a kind of "Rem" proves the students are just pseudo-xxxxx. Although most architects thinks this is time of "diversity", actually this time is as monolithic as other periods were.

One thing we have to remind is that the CEO answered for DI ranking inquiry, whom you are thinking of boring, were also students at school where you are studing.

per?

Syp, what schools in the United States do you think are teaching 'pseudo-philosophy'?

Philosophers, as in professional academics, tend to see architects that feel the need to mumble on about this or that philosopher as pathetic. Little or nothing they say about philosopher X contributes anything to the philosophical debate. As such architects with 'theoretical inclinations' use theory for only two purposes, 1) to impress people with even less knowledge of philosophy or 2) to convince themselves of their own cultural or academic merit. Since the world of philosophy hardly ever takes most of their efforts seriously you begin to have a psuedo-philosophical cult of architecture isolated from everything else. This isn't to suggest that architectural theory is rubbish - far from it. It simply proves that philosophy or theory when 'tacked' on to provide something 'extra' loses most of its meaning.

If philosophy can't be taken seriously on its own then it shouldn't be introduced in architectural curriculums at all. Unfortunately, it often seems to be the case that we are incapable of making serious distinctions anymore, since in the name of making academics interdisciplinary entire fields of knowledge are mushed together.

It's like dancing on the graves of philosophy and architecture at the same time.

su-su-sussudio

"firetruck",
I don’t want to criticize specific schools as mentioning the names here.
Basically, I agree with your opinion.
As you said, we have to balance between philosophy and architecture.
However, in reality and history, just a few geniuses have achieved such levels.
Namely, that is a territory beyond “education”.
In a sense, education system is using the illusion that students can achieve such a genius level by virtue of “XXX University”.
Such a belief (I would say “illusion”) makes the student to easily criticize something like DI ranking whatever is different from the students’ prejudice (I would also say “illusion”.).

However, I guess the students also will be same kind of people as those who answered for DI ranking inquiry 20-years later, if they will be successful in their profession, because at least 99% students are not genius and most students are not enough rich. Unfortunately, that’s reality. At least, DI ranking better shows that reality than the education system of some famous universities.

PS.
I might not be able to post any more because my apartment is not available for the Internet, yet.
Sorry.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I present to you one reason that DAAP's architecture program at UC is, in fact, a top school:

DAAP students' "ingenuity" in our snow covered land...

don't lick it your tongue could get stuck!!!

Here's another ranking website (free) that isn't as popular.

http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/researchschool4.html

There are some obvious reasons why the Archsoc site isn't as popular.

Nevertheless, many blogs and forums across the web make reference to the ranking of architecture schools posted on the Archsoc website on the assumption that this is an authoritative resource.

The ArchSoc website is run by disgruntled ex-academic Garry Stevens. His unprofessional comments are littered across the site. It has no credibility as a ranking of architecture schools. His solely quantitative criteria to rank the “Best Architecture Schools” is to count up the number of publications by academics that are held in libraries such as the RIBA. This is a limited and arbitrary measure that will tell a prospective student next to nothing about the quality of teaching and research in any particular school. The site is entirely unreliable as a guide and should be avoided.

Prospective students deciding which Architecture school to apply for should carefully investigate the research culture and teaching outcomes of any particular school they are interested in.

"This survey is the bridge between academia and professional practice, holding academia accountable to the needs of the profession."

This statement assumes "the profession" to be a single, unified entity. There's a big difference between KPF or Perkins Eastman and Eric Owen Moss or Preston Scott Cohen.