and I am glad there is some freedom too. I think that's something that will work itself out for me in the next year. got a bit of time to think about a more specific topic.
my research area is not in tokyo, though i live here. it takes me about 4 hours by bullet train to get to where i am doing field work. i am more or less finished with that but went once a month for a few days each time for quite awhile. my school did not fund this, but i had a place to stay and made arrangements to teach english to a kindergarten when i was there and they paid for my train ticket (about 200 bucks both ways)...so didn't lose any money.
we get travel bursaries (about 800 dollars, once a year) as part of our scholarship, which is nice. the university also finds travel abroad if you can plan a year in advance (i am only slightly joking when i say that). i was invited to speak at conference in europe this year but the announcement came 2 weeks after the deadline for the travel bursary...and cost was about 4000 dollars... so didn't go. i am going to try next year even though i will only nominally still be a student. it turns out that getting money for these kinds of things is a lesson in itself.
Now that this thread is onto its second page (with the original post again at the top), I see that our OP is no longer with us. Did we succeed in scaring her off, I wonder?
From my experience, Joe, your application should certainly be written as though you have a diss topic in mind. This is so you'll sound as though you'll hit the ground running and not have to grope around for a subject and extend your stay. That said, no one really expects someone to take 2-3 years of coursework in a field, hear the latest research at conferences, learn research methods, and then stick to that initial half-baked idea written back before you'd become a scholar-in-training. Coincidentally, my diss did end up along the lines of my admissions essay, but that's pretty rare, I'd guess.
On money, some programs offer lots, others little: "Your fundage may vary." Part of finding a program that's a good fit is finding out how much $ is available for which activities: assistant teaching, research, conference travel, et cetera.
The advice I always give those considering a PhD is this:
Figure out (to the best of your ability, by looking around and talking to lots of folks) what you want to be doing professionally in five years, ten years. Specifically, what work do you want to be doing?
Next, does that work REQUIRE a PhD? Not many lines of work do. A second master's degree will suffice for higher level professional work in many cases.
If the answer is "yes," start filling out forms. If the answer is "no," run! Seriously, though, having the ,PhD after your name is a great achievement, but it's a major life choice that will take several years out of one's life.
Joe--I didn't have a set topic when I came in, and I spent the first year sort of digging around in my field of interest looking for one. I stumbled across the sites about which I'm writing doing research for a paper my first semester. In my statement of purpose, I did outline my general intent (South Asian architecture, postcolonial theory, landscape) and highlighted the parts of my academic record that would contribute to my success in those fields. I also indicated the faculty with whom I would like to work in these areas. I thought I would be working on a British colonial site in India, instead I'm writing about a series of 18th c. sites that predate colonial interference. Still have an exam field in postcolonial theory, though.
In my small, three member cohort, two of us know exactly what we're dong for our dissertation, the third is still searching, and that seems pretty typical.
My conferences are all covered in one way or another--let's see...a travel grant from the Center for S. Asian and M. Eastern Studies...a NSF grant...travel grant from the Graduate College...departmental funds. One conference trip--hotel, airfare, etc.--is being paid for by the organizers of the conference. That = very good deal.
I wrote a lot of "extracurricular" papers, but one is now under review as an article, and another I'm revising for the same purpose. They weren't really directed toward my dissertation, but were still useful in this way. Thinking back, I guess only 1 paper was totally out of my field (20th c. American!), and will never lead to anything whatsoever for me. The rest were at least about South Asia.
And having typed all that...I'd have to say that a lot of my energy these days seems to be directed toward tracking down sources of external funding. The closer you get to the dissertation, the more true this seems to be.
Citizen's point is well-taken. If one's goal is to be a practitioner, then the PhD is rather unnecessary. If one's goal is to teach studio, then the PhD is still unnecessary (there is some debate as to the utility of the PhD as a prerequisite for studio instruction). However, if your goal is to complete serious academic research, and to possibly teach at the university level, then a PhD is definitely needed. Bear in mind that this does not leave the possibility of professional practice out of the picture -- bear in mind that there are PhD's out there who still practice, but you can bet that academia figures prominently in their professional lives.
I'm curious that no one has commented on the tag "History and Theory" with relation to Architecture PhDs. There is a fascinating article by Stanford Anderson written in 1999 that comments on the relationship between Architecture History, History of Art, and Theory during the 1970s and 1980s. Anderson argues that many of these programs originated with the idea of training historians to teach in architecture school. I would like to posit that perhaps that is not the case anymore. Graduates of PhD programs in architecture seem to be able to work in History of Art as well as Visual Studies departments.
It was JSAH, vol. 58 no. 3, September 1999. It's "Architectural History in Schools of Architecture."
There are differing notions of the architecture PhD student and the role of such a person in the field. Not surprisingly, the old garde wants the PhD program to be composed of architects, people who come from a traditional notion of practice. But that doesn't reflect the reality of architecture programs, nor of the changing nature of architectural practice. In the PhD programs in our area, students come not only from architecture, urban planning and building technology, but also comparative literature, philosophy, art history and (in my case), German. For nearly half the students in our program, this is their first experience with an architecture school.
This begs the question: how do people here see themselves practicing architecture (or planning) or teaching in a design sense?
I intend to practice in varying senses and look forward to teaching studio in some regard -- though I do not have an architecture degree, I've been an interaction design professor (I've mentioned this elsewhere in this thread, please excuse the repetition). The incorporation of technology, in particular sensors and other communicative elements, is something that architects are beginning to take on; computer science and interaction design are applying sensors to cities and architecture. I'd like to be able to teach in this realm. I'm hoping the desire to do so is not naïve. We'll see.
I'm still bewildered by how broad what I want to study is (at least at this pont). for instance I fall under the geography dept at ohio state, environmental psychology at cuny, and architecture at others. but for the most part I have narrowed my list down and am tring to start looking for particular faculty. I'm finding that to be difficult becuase I do want to have some I dea of their backgrounds and study areas before I go visit schools next year. I suppose I have plenty of time though.
what are some architecture journals that you guys write for/read? I went over to carnegie mellon (I'm local to that school) and was pretty suprised by the lack of architecture resources.
this thread has turned into something good. I bet I will read and re-read it several times over during the nex year. neato.
Doesn't Anderson also talk about the perceived importance of having those with architecture backgrounds receive PhDs in architecture schools vs Art History in order that they not bore the design students when teaching them about history? Or was that another article?
On journals ... I have two pieces coming out. One in the next couple of months, the other in early 2009. However, these two journals are not necessarily ones I would turn to for elucidation in architecture topics.
For starters, I always look to JSAH and JAE to get a handle on how historical topics are being handled these days. I also think that the interdisciplinary nature of architecture demands a similar approach when you are journal-browsing. And this means looking at periodicals in diverse fields such as art history, geography, city/regional planning, design history, history, et cetera.
It's interesting, because sometimes I find that the best writing about architecture is not to be found in architecture journals. But perhaps that is due to the nature of my own research interests.
javier - I could easily see that being the case with me too. I'm all over planning, psychology, urban, arch... and now that you mention it I did find some very interesting artical last time I was down at CMU in the psychology online journal website.
Smokety wrote: "It's interesting, because sometimes I find that the best writing about architecture is not to be found in architecture journals. But perhaps that is due to the nature of my own research interests."
It's not just you, Smokety. Unless one is really doing old-style, old-school architectural history, what most of us are studying (each in our own way) is the Built Environment. That, of course, encompasses economics, politics, public policy and institutions, demographics, cultural attitudes, social relations, land patterns, real estate practices, geography... what am I forgetting here? Oh, yes: each of these phenomena operate through time and across space.
So, yes, we can get a great insight into buildings and landscapes (and their production and interpretation) by reading in other fields---maybe one that doesn't even mention buildings and landscapes!
Joe, I meant to respond to an earlier question you had -- about how strong an idea you should have about your dissertation topic. It's a little tricky because you want to be able to demonstrate that you're serious about the PhD, but not sound like you're totally formed. I had two ideas I listed in my statements of purpose: one a continuation of my undergraduate research on German housing developments; the other a broader continuation of my master's thesis on Cedric Price's Generator project, focused on responsiveness in architecture.
The reality is, the two years of coursework I'm taking now will have a big influence on what I choose to do. I could be doing cyber-stuff right now and instead am drawn to Germany in the 30s and again 60s and 70s. (This broadens previous work I did on the 20s and on the 50s-70s in East Germany). But on the other hand, the same elements will always come together for me -- technology, responsiveness, industrial design, wacky visions of the future, ecology, Germany. Somehow, a dissertation topic will emerge from this soup.
I suspect that for Smokety, things might be different, though he'll bring many things to bear on any question that interests him (airplanes and punk rock, to name a few, as readers of his blog well know!) :)
All of this is to say, Joe, that you're on point. In terms of CMU, you might want to check out the design program there (in terms of its resources) -- though it is not architectural, it is an outstanding design program with great faculty. You're right to be talking to people and figuring out those who get what your interests are. I'd even suggest that you come to the open houses and consider applying this year, if you can pull together the materials.
unfortunately I dont have the financial ability to apply to schools this year. and I still have to ake the GRE and some other things. and visiting schools isnt cheap. bummer. but I'm going to start saving money so I can next go around.
so I think I could come up with a couple solid ideas for the statement. I'm not too worried about that now. you guys have kinda put me at ease
You can probably do a lot of narrowing down among programs without visiting, via the web and other means. (Phone staff; email current students; read the work of faculty, then email them.)
Once you have a good idea of what kind of work you want to do, and which scholars/faculty you'd like to work with, you'll be able to knock at least a few schools off your your list. Save your visits for the two or three programs on your short list.
i went and spoke to a few professors at different school and e-mailed several more and was able to decide fairly quickly from those short mails or discussions whether we were a match. it sounds presumptuous and perhaps even kooky to say so, but the match between student and prof at phd level is very important. in retrospect i think i was quite lucky to end up where i did; my prof and i disagree about some things, but there is a shared approach to the topic that is important.
citizen's advice about whether a phd is necessary or not is also good. personally i am here mostly because i wanted to do the research. i didn't really think about career choices, except ina vague way, which is probably silly. The only real strategic idea i had was that i wanted to meet some very motivated people and see what might come of it...and if i stay in japan a phd from my university has a lot of weight behind it... so if i want to teach it would open a lot of doors. beyond that i just wanted to see what i could learn...
as far as topics go, i changed mine a few times, and my first stab at making a proposal was really really awful in retrospect. my prof must have seen some potential in me or the work somehow, and some of the broad ideas have been carried through, but the details are so different it is remarkable to look back on how thoroughly the work has changed. that is normal.
books/articles from other fields are great. the work often feels really fresh cuz the assumptions are usually different from what we are used to in our own specialties. makes reading a pleasure.
i have been a little M.I.A. since posting this thread. sorry. i ended up not doing the phd. i was accepted to VT and Carnegie Mellon - and instead decided to do a post-pro M.Arch at UVA. i am so glad i did. i think i would have killed myself if i had done a 3-5 year phd program because it has been SO difficult to get used to being back in school. i thought i would love it, and i thought i was so ready to go back. turns out... everything i thought i'd give my left hand for- i dont even want. funny how that turns out sometimes.
i have to say that probably around May 2008 i will be glad i came back- even for this short time. ive done a good deal of research. geez, let me take that back, WAY more than i thought i'd get done in a few months... and i've submitted two publications. it's hectic and tiring- and it's a lot of work for barely any money. i miss making money- as trite as that may sound to some of you. i have come to see the life of academia- and i have to say- it's not for me. i am so glad i found that out now... instead of a few months into a phd and then leaving with nothing.
After ten months and all this palavering, our original poster decides "Nevermind." I'm not making fun of you at all, +I, just laughing at all the banter your post generated among us windbag academics. You sound thoughtful and well-reasoned in your journey. Best of all, you escaped this fate!
hi guys, as i mentioned in thread central, i've been accepted to mit's htc program [also with full funding]. i am also ecstatic.
...and although i haven't participated in this thread at all, it was very very useful- i just decided not to mentioned anything about applying until i knew the results. so, thanks all for your help!
architphil - congrats... thats awesome. I am definately going to be applying there this fall and am very curious as to the process you went through with that school or your thoughts about anything from that school/program in general. also, is it understood that all phd students there are funded? or is it just funding for the first year? whether or not I go basically comes down to money since I'm already pretty significatly in debt.. so any info appreciated...
here's a quick outline of my entire process of deciding which schools to apply to and the application process...
i started out be looking at the websites of EVERY architecture program in the country and creating a list of all of the schools that had phd programs... i also listed the stated specialties/focuses of each program... from there, i narrowed down the list to about 10 schools that made some reasonable sense with the fields that i want to study... i requested information from these schools and began looking into them in much more depth... eventually, after researching everything about my shortlist of programs (including professors, classes available, research interests, etc) i narrowed it down to 5 schools that would best fit my interests... these ended up being Princeton, Harvard, Penn, Michigan, and Georgia Tech (where I did my M.Arch)... i actually wasn't able to visit any of the schools and i think that was a definite disadvantage... if i did it over again i probably would plan on it being a two year process... the first year would be spent researching the programs and narrowing it down... then i would have figured out a way to visit the programs and talk with a professor or two... i did actually do that at IIT since a had to visit chicago anyways, but i ended up not applying there... i think that the most important things that i did over the last year were write a few papers... i presented one at a conference in copenhagen and expanded further on that research for a lecture that i gave at a symposium here in tampa...
regarding Penn specifically, i think that it is the school that best aligns with my interests... the presence of their landscape architecture program was very important... my assumption is that all of the students that get admitted are fully funded, but i can't really confirm that... in my case i've received full tuition, health insurance, and a nice stipend for living expenses for three years, which is how many years of coursework there is for the program... after that i get insurance and half tuition for the fourth year... i plan on supplementing the fourth year money with either a teaching position or outside funding, but i'll cross that bridge when i get there... i haven't yet received the full information package, so i don't really know all of the details...
anyways, that's a pretty rambling answer... if you have any specific questions, i'd be happy to try to answer them...
that sounds similar to my own experience, archiphil. my funding was also to cover tuition and a living stipend that was pretty generous all in all...it lasted for 3.5 years and ended last fall. i am now in final stages of dissertation and expect to graduate this fall.
making money to cover expenses has been a bit difficult as i needed a flexible schedule and not many jobs are ready for that...in end i joined with dutch architect to make office. since he doesn't mind my funny hours or the fact that i will not work much for a few months at a time while i write, it is quite ideal...on other hand i have watched friends abandon the dissertation and others take years to get through it, and struggle to finance the research. once done though they all went on to cool stuff, so i guess it works out in the end...i definitley recommend thinking about exit strategy once you get nearer to needing it though.
archi - phew. I'm glad thats what you said as to your overall process. I've narrowed schools down and am trying to do more specific research about classes, research interests, and specific professors. so I'm close. and as for you thinking it should be a two year process, I agree. I've been thinking and researching this for a long while now and feel confident that I will at least be able to give it a go this fall. I've scheduled a roadtrip so I can visit all my schools of interest in the north east this summer, so I'm sure that will help greatly.
on interesting thing is that I've found a lot of overlap between different programs within a school, be it geography, architecture, various sociology programs, environmental psychology, and there a couple joint programs that are very interesting too. so now that I'm at this point I just have to bear down and keep at it. and all the while working a fulltime job, studying for ARE, and trying to get going on LEED. sheesh, it will easily keep you busy as much as you let it.
oh, and now I'm trying to find if getting this level of degree in another program would hinder me being able to teach in an architecture department since my interests have strayed from the technical aspect of architecture. I can see reasons for both and thats something I'm trying to get a better grasp on now.
anyway, thanks for your response, I appreciate it.
joe, looking at the broader university for potential overlaps with geography, sociology, etc. as you suggested was another part of the process that i forgot to mention... that was another part that helped narrow down my choices... in fact, a lot of my coursework/research will draw from the landscape and city planning departments rather than architecture...
regarding the ability to teach in architecture with a phd from a different but related field... i don't think that it would be too much of a problem... in fact, i would imagine that it could even be an advantage... if javier happens to be lurking around maybe he could chime in on that front... take a look at his contributions to the early part of this thread if you haven't already...
hi architphil, congrats right back at you! my uni research was much more erratic than yours, but i'm very very happy with my choice. most of my research was through the web, since i'm in south america and traveling would have been very hard, but i also talked [emailed] to my recommenders and they had great insight of course. i also got something published and followed two key pieces of advice from this discussion: emailing and generally showing interest in the programs i was interested in, and being very aware of how i was presenting myself and how my resume related to my research proposal.
Im in the verge of finishing my Mphil.in architecture. and love to do a Phd. I love both academia and practice as well. my interest is specializing in energy part of the building.
can you all suggest the universities in States where they offer PhD in architecture
is it really tough to get into a Phd in top ranked university?
2007 PhD Candidates? Anyone out there a Phd Student?
yeah, as I figured. thats good.
and I am glad there is some freedom too. I think that's something that will work itself out for me in the next year. got a bit of time to think about a more specific topic.
my research area is not in tokyo, though i live here. it takes me about 4 hours by bullet train to get to where i am doing field work. i am more or less finished with that but went once a month for a few days each time for quite awhile. my school did not fund this, but i had a place to stay and made arrangements to teach english to a kindergarten when i was there and they paid for my train ticket (about 200 bucks both ways)...so didn't lose any money.
we get travel bursaries (about 800 dollars, once a year) as part of our scholarship, which is nice. the university also finds travel abroad if you can plan a year in advance (i am only slightly joking when i say that). i was invited to speak at conference in europe this year but the announcement came 2 weeks after the deadline for the travel bursary...and cost was about 4000 dollars... so didn't go. i am going to try next year even though i will only nominally still be a student. it turns out that getting money for these kinds of things is a lesson in itself.
sounds vey cool snjr
Now that this thread is onto its second page (with the original post again at the top), I see that our OP is no longer with us. Did we succeed in scaring her off, I wonder?
From my experience, Joe, your application should certainly be written as though you have a diss topic in mind. This is so you'll sound as though you'll hit the ground running and not have to grope around for a subject and extend your stay. That said, no one really expects someone to take 2-3 years of coursework in a field, hear the latest research at conferences, learn research methods, and then stick to that initial half-baked idea written back before you'd become a scholar-in-training. Coincidentally, my diss did end up along the lines of my admissions essay, but that's pretty rare, I'd guess.
On money, some programs offer lots, others little: "Your fundage may vary." Part of finding a program that's a good fit is finding out how much $ is available for which activities: assistant teaching, research, conference travel, et cetera.
The advice I always give those considering a PhD is this:
Figure out (to the best of your ability, by looking around and talking to lots of folks) what you want to be doing professionally in five years, ten years. Specifically, what work do you want to be doing?
Next, does that work REQUIRE a PhD? Not many lines of work do. A second master's degree will suffice for higher level professional work in many cases.
If the answer is "yes," start filling out forms. If the answer is "no," run! Seriously, though, having the ,PhD after your name is a great achievement, but it's a major life choice that will take several years out of one's life.
Joe--I didn't have a set topic when I came in, and I spent the first year sort of digging around in my field of interest looking for one. I stumbled across the sites about which I'm writing doing research for a paper my first semester. In my statement of purpose, I did outline my general intent (South Asian architecture, postcolonial theory, landscape) and highlighted the parts of my academic record that would contribute to my success in those fields. I also indicated the faculty with whom I would like to work in these areas. I thought I would be working on a British colonial site in India, instead I'm writing about a series of 18th c. sites that predate colonial interference. Still have an exam field in postcolonial theory, though.
In my small, three member cohort, two of us know exactly what we're dong for our dissertation, the third is still searching, and that seems pretty typical.
My conferences are all covered in one way or another--let's see...a travel grant from the Center for S. Asian and M. Eastern Studies...a NSF grant...travel grant from the Graduate College...departmental funds. One conference trip--hotel, airfare, etc.--is being paid for by the organizers of the conference. That = very good deal.
I wrote a lot of "extracurricular" papers, but one is now under review as an article, and another I'm revising for the same purpose. They weren't really directed toward my dissertation, but were still useful in this way. Thinking back, I guess only 1 paper was totally out of my field (20th c. American!), and will never lead to anything whatsoever for me. The rest were at least about South Asia.
And having typed all that...I'd have to say that a lot of my energy these days seems to be directed toward tracking down sources of external funding. The closer you get to the dissertation, the more true this seems to be.
Citizen's point is well-taken. If one's goal is to be a practitioner, then the PhD is rather unnecessary. If one's goal is to teach studio, then the PhD is still unnecessary (there is some debate as to the utility of the PhD as a prerequisite for studio instruction). However, if your goal is to complete serious academic research, and to possibly teach at the university level, then a PhD is definitely needed. Bear in mind that this does not leave the possibility of professional practice out of the picture -- bear in mind that there are PhD's out there who still practice, but you can bet that academia figures prominently in their professional lives.
I'm curious that no one has commented on the tag "History and Theory" with relation to Architecture PhDs. There is a fascinating article by Stanford Anderson written in 1999 that comments on the relationship between Architecture History, History of Art, and Theory during the 1970s and 1980s. Anderson argues that many of these programs originated with the idea of training historians to teach in architecture school. I would like to posit that perhaps that is not the case anymore. Graduates of PhD programs in architecture seem to be able to work in History of Art as well as Visual Studies departments.
Smokety, was that Anderson piece in JSAH? I seem to vaguely recall it, and would like to take another look....
It was JSAH, vol. 58 no. 3, September 1999. It's "Architectural History in Schools of Architecture."
There are differing notions of the architecture PhD student and the role of such a person in the field. Not surprisingly, the old garde wants the PhD program to be composed of architects, people who come from a traditional notion of practice. But that doesn't reflect the reality of architecture programs, nor of the changing nature of architectural practice. In the PhD programs in our area, students come not only from architecture, urban planning and building technology, but also comparative literature, philosophy, art history and (in my case), German. For nearly half the students in our program, this is their first experience with an architecture school.
This begs the question: how do people here see themselves practicing architecture (or planning) or teaching in a design sense?
I intend to practice in varying senses and look forward to teaching studio in some regard -- though I do not have an architecture degree, I've been an interaction design professor (I've mentioned this elsewhere in this thread, please excuse the repetition). The incorporation of technology, in particular sensors and other communicative elements, is something that architects are beginning to take on; computer science and interaction design are applying sensors to cities and architecture. I'd like to be able to teach in this realm. I'm hoping the desire to do so is not naïve. We'll see.
I'm still bewildered by how broad what I want to study is (at least at this pont). for instance I fall under the geography dept at ohio state, environmental psychology at cuny, and architecture at others. but for the most part I have narrowed my list down and am tring to start looking for particular faculty. I'm finding that to be difficult becuase I do want to have some I dea of their backgrounds and study areas before I go visit schools next year. I suppose I have plenty of time though.
what are some architecture journals that you guys write for/read? I went over to carnegie mellon (I'm local to that school) and was pretty suprised by the lack of architecture resources.
this thread has turned into something good. I bet I will read and re-read it several times over during the nex year. neato.
Doesn't Anderson also talk about the perceived importance of having those with architecture backgrounds receive PhDs in architecture schools vs Art History in order that they not bore the design students when teaching them about history? Or was that another article?
On journals ... I have two pieces coming out. One in the next couple of months, the other in early 2009. However, these two journals are not necessarily ones I would turn to for elucidation in architecture topics.
For starters, I always look to JSAH and JAE to get a handle on how historical topics are being handled these days. I also think that the interdisciplinary nature of architecture demands a similar approach when you are journal-browsing. And this means looking at periodicals in diverse fields such as art history, geography, city/regional planning, design history, history, et cetera.
It's interesting, because sometimes I find that the best writing about architecture is not to be found in architecture journals. But perhaps that is due to the nature of my own research interests.
kablakistan ... Anderson does mention that, but reminds us that Vincent Scully, Spiro Kostof and James Ackerman were exceptions to that rule.
javier - I could easily see that being the case with me too. I'm all over planning, psychology, urban, arch... and now that you mention it I did find some very interesting artical last time I was down at CMU in the psychology online journal website.
sorry I think I got your name wrong. just wrote something and didnt think about it.
Smokety wrote: "It's interesting, because sometimes I find that the best writing about architecture is not to be found in architecture journals. But perhaps that is due to the nature of my own research interests."
It's not just you, Smokety. Unless one is really doing old-style, old-school architectural history, what most of us are studying (each in our own way) is the Built Environment. That, of course, encompasses economics, politics, public policy and institutions, demographics, cultural attitudes, social relations, land patterns, real estate practices, geography... what am I forgetting here? Oh, yes: each of these phenomena operate through time and across space.
So, yes, we can get a great insight into buildings and landscapes (and their production and interpretation) by reading in other fields---maybe one that doesn't even mention buildings and landscapes!
Joe, I meant to respond to an earlier question you had -- about how strong an idea you should have about your dissertation topic. It's a little tricky because you want to be able to demonstrate that you're serious about the PhD, but not sound like you're totally formed. I had two ideas I listed in my statements of purpose: one a continuation of my undergraduate research on German housing developments; the other a broader continuation of my master's thesis on Cedric Price's Generator project, focused on responsiveness in architecture.
The reality is, the two years of coursework I'm taking now will have a big influence on what I choose to do. I could be doing cyber-stuff right now and instead am drawn to Germany in the 30s and again 60s and 70s. (This broadens previous work I did on the 20s and on the 50s-70s in East Germany). But on the other hand, the same elements will always come together for me -- technology, responsiveness, industrial design, wacky visions of the future, ecology, Germany. Somehow, a dissertation topic will emerge from this soup.
I suspect that for Smokety, things might be different, though he'll bring many things to bear on any question that interests him (airplanes and punk rock, to name a few, as readers of his blog well know!) :)
All of this is to say, Joe, that you're on point. In terms of CMU, you might want to check out the design program there (in terms of its resources) -- though it is not architectural, it is an outstanding design program with great faculty. You're right to be talking to people and figuring out those who get what your interests are. I'd even suggest that you come to the open houses and consider applying this year, if you can pull together the materials.
unfortunately I dont have the financial ability to apply to schools this year. and I still have to ake the GRE and some other things. and visiting schools isnt cheap. bummer. but I'm going to start saving money so I can next go around.
so I think I could come up with a couple solid ideas for the statement. I'm not too worried about that now. you guys have kinda put me at ease
Joe,
You can probably do a lot of narrowing down among programs without visiting, via the web and other means. (Phone staff; email current students; read the work of faculty, then email them.)
Once you have a good idea of what kind of work you want to do, and which scholars/faculty you'd like to work with, you'll be able to knock at least a few schools off your your list. Save your visits for the two or three programs on your short list.
that is very good advice.
i went and spoke to a few professors at different school and e-mailed several more and was able to decide fairly quickly from those short mails or discussions whether we were a match. it sounds presumptuous and perhaps even kooky to say so, but the match between student and prof at phd level is very important. in retrospect i think i was quite lucky to end up where i did; my prof and i disagree about some things, but there is a shared approach to the topic that is important.
citizen's advice about whether a phd is necessary or not is also good. personally i am here mostly because i wanted to do the research. i didn't really think about career choices, except ina vague way, which is probably silly. The only real strategic idea i had was that i wanted to meet some very motivated people and see what might come of it...and if i stay in japan a phd from my university has a lot of weight behind it... so if i want to teach it would open a lot of doors. beyond that i just wanted to see what i could learn...
as far as topics go, i changed mine a few times, and my first stab at making a proposal was really really awful in retrospect. my prof must have seen some potential in me or the work somehow, and some of the broad ideas have been carried through, but the details are so different it is remarkable to look back on how thoroughly the work has changed. that is normal.
books/articles from other fields are great. the work often feels really fresh cuz the assumptions are usually different from what we are used to in our own specialties. makes reading a pleasure.
i have been a little M.I.A. since posting this thread. sorry. i ended up not doing the phd. i was accepted to VT and Carnegie Mellon - and instead decided to do a post-pro M.Arch at UVA. i am so glad i did. i think i would have killed myself if i had done a 3-5 year phd program because it has been SO difficult to get used to being back in school. i thought i would love it, and i thought i was so ready to go back. turns out... everything i thought i'd give my left hand for- i dont even want. funny how that turns out sometimes.
i have to say that probably around May 2008 i will be glad i came back- even for this short time. ive done a good deal of research. geez, let me take that back, WAY more than i thought i'd get done in a few months... and i've submitted two publications. it's hectic and tiring- and it's a lot of work for barely any money. i miss making money- as trite as that may sound to some of you. i have come to see the life of academia- and i have to say- it's not for me. i am so glad i found that out now... instead of a few months into a phd and then leaving with nothing.
good luck to everyone.
LOL...
After ten months and all this palavering, our original poster decides "Nevermind." I'm not making fun of you at all, +I, just laughing at all the banter your post generated among us windbag academics. You sound thoughtful and well-reasoned in your journey. Best of all, you escaped this fate!
Good luck to you in your work...
bringing this back to life...
are there any people out there that applied to phd programs for admission in fall 2008?
i just found out that i've been accepted to UPenn's phd program with full funding... needless to say, i'm ecstatic...
i'd also like to hear how some of the phd veterans like smokety are doing after a year or so in their programs...
Congrats, architphl!!!! Penn has good architecture and art history resources for your disposal. You'll have a great time.
As for me, I'm on the symposium circuit. And writing. And reading. Lots of writing. Lots of reading.
hi guys, as i mentioned in thread central, i've been accepted to mit's htc program [also with full funding]. i am also ecstatic.
...and although i haven't participated in this thread at all, it was very very useful- i just decided not to mentioned anything about applying until i knew the results. so, thanks all for your help!
oops, i just remembered i was going to not mention this, on account of some privacy problems i've been having. oh well.
architphil - congrats... thats awesome. I am definately going to be applying there this fall and am very curious as to the process you went through with that school or your thoughts about anything from that school/program in general. also, is it understood that all phd students there are funded? or is it just funding for the first year? whether or not I go basically comes down to money since I'm already pretty significatly in debt.. so any info appreciated...
Congratulations to architphil and aml!
congrats to aml!
@ joe...
here's a quick outline of my entire process of deciding which schools to apply to and the application process...
i started out be looking at the websites of EVERY architecture program in the country and creating a list of all of the schools that had phd programs... i also listed the stated specialties/focuses of each program... from there, i narrowed down the list to about 10 schools that made some reasonable sense with the fields that i want to study... i requested information from these schools and began looking into them in much more depth... eventually, after researching everything about my shortlist of programs (including professors, classes available, research interests, etc) i narrowed it down to 5 schools that would best fit my interests... these ended up being Princeton, Harvard, Penn, Michigan, and Georgia Tech (where I did my M.Arch)... i actually wasn't able to visit any of the schools and i think that was a definite disadvantage... if i did it over again i probably would plan on it being a two year process... the first year would be spent researching the programs and narrowing it down... then i would have figured out a way to visit the programs and talk with a professor or two... i did actually do that at IIT since a had to visit chicago anyways, but i ended up not applying there... i think that the most important things that i did over the last year were write a few papers... i presented one at a conference in copenhagen and expanded further on that research for a lecture that i gave at a symposium here in tampa...
regarding Penn specifically, i think that it is the school that best aligns with my interests... the presence of their landscape architecture program was very important... my assumption is that all of the students that get admitted are fully funded, but i can't really confirm that... in my case i've received full tuition, health insurance, and a nice stipend for living expenses for three years, which is how many years of coursework there is for the program... after that i get insurance and half tuition for the fourth year... i plan on supplementing the fourth year money with either a teaching position or outside funding, but i'll cross that bridge when i get there... i haven't yet received the full information package, so i don't really know all of the details...
anyways, that's a pretty rambling answer... if you have any specific questions, i'd be happy to try to answer them...
that sounds similar to my own experience, archiphil. my funding was also to cover tuition and a living stipend that was pretty generous all in all...it lasted for 3.5 years and ended last fall. i am now in final stages of dissertation and expect to graduate this fall.
making money to cover expenses has been a bit difficult as i needed a flexible schedule and not many jobs are ready for that...in end i joined with dutch architect to make office. since he doesn't mind my funny hours or the fact that i will not work much for a few months at a time while i write, it is quite ideal...on other hand i have watched friends abandon the dissertation and others take years to get through it, and struggle to finance the research. once done though they all went on to cool stuff, so i guess it works out in the end...i definitley recommend thinking about exit strategy once you get nearer to needing it though.
archi - phew. I'm glad thats what you said as to your overall process. I've narrowed schools down and am trying to do more specific research about classes, research interests, and specific professors. so I'm close. and as for you thinking it should be a two year process, I agree. I've been thinking and researching this for a long while now and feel confident that I will at least be able to give it a go this fall. I've scheduled a roadtrip so I can visit all my schools of interest in the north east this summer, so I'm sure that will help greatly.
on interesting thing is that I've found a lot of overlap between different programs within a school, be it geography, architecture, various sociology programs, environmental psychology, and there a couple joint programs that are very interesting too. so now that I'm at this point I just have to bear down and keep at it. and all the while working a fulltime job, studying for ARE, and trying to get going on LEED. sheesh, it will easily keep you busy as much as you let it.
oh, and now I'm trying to find if getting this level of degree in another program would hinder me being able to teach in an architecture department since my interests have strayed from the technical aspect of architecture. I can see reasons for both and thats something I'm trying to get a better grasp on now.
anyway, thanks for your response, I appreciate it.
joe, looking at the broader university for potential overlaps with geography, sociology, etc. as you suggested was another part of the process that i forgot to mention... that was another part that helped narrow down my choices... in fact, a lot of my coursework/research will draw from the landscape and city planning departments rather than architecture...
regarding the ability to teach in architecture with a phd from a different but related field... i don't think that it would be too much of a problem... in fact, i would imagine that it could even be an advantage... if javier happens to be lurking around maybe he could chime in on that front... take a look at his contributions to the early part of this thread if you haven't already...
hi architphil, congrats right back at you! my uni research was much more erratic than yours, but i'm very very happy with my choice. most of my research was through the web, since i'm in south america and traveling would have been very hard, but i also talked [emailed] to my recommenders and they had great insight of course. i also got something published and followed two key pieces of advice from this discussion: emailing and generally showing interest in the programs i was interested in, and being very aware of how i was presenting myself and how my resume related to my research proposal.
hi people,
Im in the verge of finishing my Mphil.in architecture. and love to do a Phd. I love both academia and practice as well. my interest is specializing in energy part of the building.
can you all suggest the universities in States where they offer PhD in architecture
is it really tough to get into a Phd in top ranked university?
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.