i think is a practical question asking for our personal preferences or opinions. fair enough

however, like in this thread, http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=54305_0_42_0_C many posts are made and no one seem to have intention to answer the questions and start critique on other things.

not very helpful indeed.

at the end of the day, your education doesnt matter that much. If you are smart, can design, and have a good work eithic, you will go far....these are things that school cant really teach you.

My Ivy Leauge friend has been unemployed for 2 years now.

i had a crit once where one of the jurors, an acquaintance and an all around good guy got into an argument about fashion with one of the faculty. the faculty member accused the visiting juror to be as influenced by fashion as any one else, citing his geeky elvis costelloish-circa 1979 dressing style. the visiting critter replied, i dress this way because i am poor. by the way he went to harvard and risd.

Hear, hear, Apu! And ditto mdler.

You have to admit though, the Columbia vs. threads are pretty funny.

I'm currently one of those "Ivy League" students in question. I don't think we're as elitist and removed from the practice as you might think. I work damn hard and see the same out of my fellow classmates. Education does count for what you get out of it (personally), and there are arguably more opportunities at an Ivy League than other universities, more access to important professors, practitioners, lecturers etc...

I get a little sick of the "folk" bashing the Ivy Leaguers motives and personalities (and vice-versa). I'm studying here because it seemed to be the best school in the country, period.

Yes, I'll have debt. Perhaps I'll be paid no more than the next guy.

Did I pick the best school presented to me at the moment? I believe so.

So there's my two cents.

key word, 'arguably'. a lot of the people we talk about in these forums these days came to both of my non-ivy schools, whether as instructors or visiting critics. these schools weren't better or worse than ivies, just different.

...but putting too much imptce on getting into an ivy is cute.

steven...

sorry, don't understand..

cute on my part or others? I really don't think I put that much importance on the "Ivy-ness"....just the quality of the education

in regards to "arguably"

Yes, but I went to a state school for undergrad....which wasn't bad by any means but I can tell that the level of education is quite a bit better where I'm at now for grad school.

perhaps its more about a general direction of the school than the individuals?

no, not you, brut.

per your comments, you chose the best for you at the time AND acknowledge that arch students get out of their education what they put into it.

there are some, though, who seem to be clamoring for ivy for ivy's sake.

There's nothing like graduating debt-free. Colombia, Harvard and Yale can keep their degrees because NJIT is paying for mine.

I agree with brut there is far too much ivy bashing. do you seriously think everyone that goes to an Ivy goes there feels entitled and waits for their degree to feed them for the rest of their life?

Thye ivy's are the best schools not only of this country but the world, someone getting into one is something to be proud of, whether your gonna have debt or not. Is the argument that accomplishment is wrong? Or is it insecurity? If you went to a state school and you are doing well, good for you we are all happy, but dont bash others for their decisions to seek excellence in the best schools in the world.

not interested in ivy-bashing, just in pointing out that name-brand education is not necessary for success. as has been noted many times before, these discussions of __ vs __ ignore the fact that each school has completely different facilities, faculty, and resources and can cater to different talents and goals. those doing well with non-ivy educations may not be doing so despite but possibly because of their choice.

your comment, paperharbinger (great name, btw) illustrates one of the problems > presumption. i'd change your statement to: "the ivy's are AMONG the best schools in the country."

medusa if you'd have gone to a better school you would have spelled columbia correctly. just messin with ya!

frankly, i say go to any school you like. i feel the intent of the thread is a worthwhile. many people come on this site looking for information and although the questions are asked in good faith, many of the questions seemed to be asked before doing any basic research about the schools in question. perhaps this is thread is the beginning of the research who knows. it seems as though the schools themselves may want to up their presence on this valued resource.

Steven, what is a school:
faculty, facilities, and other students

The ivy's have the most successful faculty out there. Real practicioners that are well known all over the world. They may not be the best teachers out there but just being presented with their ideas is education enough.

Not too many schools have the facilities the Ivy's have. They have and experiment with the latest technologies. You may or may not use them but you are comfronted and are forced to take positions on these emerging technologies.

The students, I feel pretty confident to say that the brightest most motivated and ambitious students go to the Ivy's. That is both a good and bad thing, lots of competition, but you learn from them a lot.

This isn't t-ball, not all teams are the same and not all players are as good: fact. The fact that our profession doesnt recognize the fact that these schools are in fact better is an institutional failure.

On all 3 criteria the ivy's (+sciarc and berkeley) beat out any school.

Speaking as somebody who applied to five Ivy League schools this year, I agree that the Ivies typically represent the cream of the crop. But... I respectfully disagree with paperharbinger that the cream of the crop is comprised soley of Ivy League schools.

What is the Ivy League? It's nothing more than an athletic conference comprised of eight specific schools in the Northeast, and nothing more. For architectural education, the "Ivy League" label is totally arbitrary; non-Ivy schools such as UCLA, Michigan, Rice, WashU, and some others can easily hold their own among the Ivies.

paperharbinger, how can you seriously think that is some sort of fact and not opinion? i think berkeley is incredibly conservative design-wise. SCI-ARC is a great school, but the administration is a mess. penn and cornell are fairly average design schools. risd is creative, but the students don't work particularly hard. osu has one of the best theory departments in the country as does ucla. you see where i'm going with this....

BTW, whoever thinks the Ivies always have better facilities has obviously never been inside Avery Hall at Columbia... You're likely to find more personal space on the subway train at rush hour.

the ivy league is not an athletic conference. the big ten is an athletic conference.

my advice is don't get your m.arch. go get some real work experience, and then get an mba.

Sorry for my contribution to this. I've been trying to keep it onto the two designated threads (commiseration and accepted).

... in the original spirit of the thread...some additional suggestions to pick a school if you have little money/time for travel [although i agree that the best thing you can do is make the effort and go there, sometimes and specially for international students this is basically impossible]..

- use the archinect school blogs- that's one of the reasons they're there, they should help you see what the environment of the school is like. you can try emailing the bloggers, but...

- only use email after you've done the legwork and researched all available information on the web. this is just good manners. don't expect people to do the work for you.

- research the teachers... what are their interests? do they work and teach? if they only teach, do they write? what are their interests? if they also work, do they have a website? have you seen their work? what do they have to say about it?

- same thing as email goes for posting new threads. there's that 'search' button there. tons of good info stored just waiting for you.

finally... there really are a lot of people here that can help you and that have good info, but the more informed your question, the more we can help... those wide open, i'm so lost and i haven't the faintest idea what each school is about, kind of questions, just tell me you're too lazy to do some research on your own and expect us to do it for you.

I may have exagerated to make a point, I know there are no blacks and whites on this issue. There are many schools that are good, I guess that what I am against is the attitude the captain has described above. It seems to me that Ivy-bashing is part of a "good enough" "get'er done" professional attitude. That attitude is pushing architecture and design more and more towards the ITT model. There need to be schools that lead and people motivated to go there and work hard. The Ivy's (in a rough generalization) provide a yard stick of excellence.

...important professors??? Please explain


also, University of Cincinnati is #2..not an Ivy

Going to the University of Cincinnati, I had the opportunity to work in the offices of many of the 'important professors' while in school

my 3 cents

Okay, think of your ten favorite architects. Ask yourself where they went to school (don't look it up)? And then ask who was on the faculty of that school when they were attending school (do look that up)? Doesn't matter much does it? Great designers come from all kinds of different schools with all kinds of different professors. You get out of school what you put into it. Graduate education is self education.
my 2.5 cents
j

josh, I can come up with the AA, Harvard, Cornell, Princeton, and Yale

i still don't understand what UC is #2 at (or what DI's criteria were)...
is it graduating:
compentent professionals?
good designers?
theorists?
maya scripting monkeys?
humanitarian/social justice architects of the world?
sustainable designers?
most renouned faculty influence the next generation of starchitects?
or
biggest/best library?
most CNC 5-axis milling machines?
Peter's second best building?

working for chew me or peter isn't the same as being taught by them...

Interesting exercise. Ten of my favorites off the top of my head, in no particular order or logic:

Norman Foster: Manchester University, Yale
Satiago Calatrava: Architecture School and Arts and Crafts School, ETH
E. Fay Jones: U of Arkansas, Rice
Tadao Ando: No formal education
Richard Meier: Cornell
Louis Kahn: U of Pennsylvania
Eero Saarinen: Cranbrook, Yale
Renzo Piano: Politecnico de Milano
Richard Rogers: AA, Yale
Thom Mayne: USC, Harvard

(Yes, I cheated by looking that stuff up.)

a few seminal professors have shaped the world of starchitecture/architecture schools over the last 5 decades:

Peter Cook
Rem
Colin Rowe
Peter (see Colin Rowe)


I'll omit all those pomos that history has already forgotten. most of the tenured faculty today can trace their pedigree back to these few in less then six degrees.

Gin, gotta add to that:

Frank Gehry: USC, Harvard

You guys all have good points, but I find these tips a lot more helpful in deciding where to pick a school:

1. Rely mainly on the school's website. The cooler the better. If their website is wack, just think how bad the school is.

2. Second and third hand information about programs is always better than speaking to someone from the school. First of all, people that go to a school are always going to have a bias about going there. Even if they hate it, they'll never admight to making the mistake of going there. Second and third hand info naturally filters the loyalty BS right out.

3. The worse the gossip is about the school, the more it has to be true. If it's a really good program, no one will ever talk bad about it.

4. If the school has a Top 10 football or basketball team, don't go there. It's obvious these schools are just filled with jackasses that care more about athletics than academics. I'm talking about you OSU, Michigan, Florida, LSU and UCLA.

5. The more attractive the people in the program, the better. Goes without saying.

6. If name-dropping your school in conversations automatically raises your IQ points, go there.

7. If you're embarrased to name-drop your school, don't go there.

8. If the school has been rumored to being linked with secret societies running the world, definitely go there. There's no need to actually work the rest of your life.

9. If name dropping professors from your school raises your IQ points, go there.

10. If you actually think I'm being serious, you're stressing over this process way too much.

wikipedia don't make it so gin. i'm talkin sports man.

Are we trying to provide 'cents' or 'sense' here?

I think this discussion is characteristic of one of the most self-handicapping issues of the architecture field. As many of the posts have displayed, and through my own experience, it has become QUITE apparent that the name on top of your diploma means nothing. Talent, drive, and skills of communication (visual AND verbal) are what sets life-long CAD monkeys apart from successful designers.

The most visceral by-product of conversations simlar to this is that architects further alienate themselves from the professional world. In these masturbatory fits of pretension, we further promote the stereotype that we are aloof, academic, poor, and suffering. When will NCARB and AIA get away from advocating this quasi-academic professionalism (we all know what we talk about in schools is COMPLETELY subjective), and move the arch. educational institution towards a more practiced based education?

This is why UC is so highly rated. They have a program which not only harvests and develops young talent, but also gives them the tools to know what the hell they are talking about by getting them into actual practices early and often, and out of school quickly. (I am not a UC alum)

Arch. ed. is expensive. We harm ourselves as a profession by coming out of school with 5-6 years of debt, making not enought to pay it off quickly. This looming debt makes it hard for young designers to have the certain kinds of freedoms and mobility other professions enjoy. This expense also turns much young talent at the high school level away from arch. design. Real talent in low-income situations may not pursue a life in arch. because of a lack of resources, and then, not only they, but we as a field suffer.

Cut the academic bullsh*t, cut the expense, and lets free ourselves to regain respect as a field.

-End of rant-

ITT here we go...

^
^
^
^
the people who will teach you about xref's and paperspace.

I was thinking more like this Institute of Technology

http://www.ethz.ch/studies/index_EN

Technical school does not preclude design excellence, ask this guy:

http://www.calatrava.com/

These either or attitudes makes me itch.

j

It may sound like i'm being hard on the ivies, but that's just because i feel that some people in this forum come into the architectural field thinking that the name of a school is important because they have these preconcieved notions in their heads. Those preconcieved notions can totally end a person when they realize that many of the stereotypes about architects being aloof, academic, and well paid are completely false. The point of my post is that it all comes down to who you are and where you want to go. I myself am thinking about grad school someday, either for architecture or engineering and I may have an Ivy or two on my list simply because that maybe a good school for me but the fact that it is an Ivy will not compute in my equation. I also have no problem when people come on here with SPECIFIC questions regarding school choice because they can really foster productive discussion and be enlightening. The more you bring to the table, the more we can give back.

this looks like a good place to drag out this oldy moldy quote again:

"What students (of architecture) fail to realize is that they are being trained for a career that does not exist in any practical context. One might as well go to rock star school or lottery winner school. The chance of actually practicing architecture is just as slim. The industry that architects actually work in is the building construction industry. It has little in common with architecture. [Architecture students:] Please update your future[plans] accordingly. – web site comment from ‘Architecture Hate Page’, circa 1998.

i drag that quote out once every year or so. it usually stirs things up.

That's a great quote, missed it the previous time, so thanks for re-posting.

And quite accurate, any discussion on the condition of architecture and the school system should start with the facing of reality. No use bicering about education when you don't know where you will spend the rest of your life (after the few year stint in academia).

does harvard have a lottery winner school?

the harvard business school = lottery winner school

a sobering but very realistic quote steven...

So Stephen ... do you think the schools have any inkling whatsoever about the truth behind the quote you share? Do you think they care?

sorrry ... "Steven"

well, since i've taught - and i've taught since finding that quote - i can say, yes, i think instructors/schools have an inkling. anyone who has been in practice understands that the school environment and the professional environment are at odds.

the question is, knowing there is an extreme disjunction between school and work, would you give up the transformative experience of architecture school?

my personal answer is 'NO!'

i'm willing to accept that i've had to learn the ways of the profession over 15+ years of experience in exchange for being able to have my undergrad education remain relatively idealistic.

That is a very sobering quote, Steven.

But I think the other side of that dilemma is even more relevant: a (good) graduate education in architecture is the best, most worthwhile education out there for your money.

Where else do you get to make things, draw, play with extremely high technology hardware and software, talk and write and research interesting, relevant ideas from just about every aspect of human culture and history, and compare and discuss it all with a group of some of the smartest people you'll ever meet, in an environment that rewards and praises versatility, hard work, craft and rigor?

Really, can you think of a better way to spend your time and money? If you hit some rock star lottery, too, all the better. But that's just icing, man. When you get out of a good grad school with an MArch you have learned to think, and make things that reflect thought. That's important and worthwhile no matter where you end up working.

I'm getting a little burnt out on the pro-tech-school mentality that's creeping through these forums lately. If you want to go and do that, that's fine, go for it, but if you want to challenge yourself and come out of school with some ability to apply critical thought, then don't cheat yourself.

I'll say it again: grad school for architecture, when done right, is the best education out there. Period.

useful discussion (seeing that people are trying to defend their positinons with logic...in some cases stronger than others). either way, not a bad idea, Apurimac.

*context: I will be applying to grad school in the near future and have spent the last 2 years since completing 6 years of undergrad (2 diff. schools) considering what i want to get out of grad school. at this point, one ivy is on my final list of places to apply, along with 2 non-ivy schools. that makes 3 of the 5 or 6 schools that i will eventually apply to.

paperharbinger:

They may not be the best teachers out there but just being presented with their ideas is education enough.

maybe, but i would take a dedicated, talented Educator any day as my studio critic rather than a "successful practitioner." Don't get me wrong, I hope to BE a successful practitioner, but teaching and doing are 2 different things. just because someone can make Architecture does not mean they can guide me along my own path to doing the same.

...

favorite studio professors academic background?
in no particular order:

Black Mountain College (A painter who studied under Josef Albers)

Cooper Union (BArch) and UF (MArch) (by way of a liberal arts undergrad from Harvard)

UF and UF (B.Design, MArch, also learned under the above 2 instructors)

Smith College (B.Arts), UVA (MBA), Virginia Tech (MArch); Emory University (Ph.D)

University of Barcelona (BArch); Madrid Polytechnic School(M.Eng. in Construction); Columbia University (MSArch)