Thank you for spelling it correctly.

What you need to take into account is that the co-op program at Cincy is like a little "trial work" program. As a co-op, you are guaranteed a work term of no longer than 6 months at a place, which is a very attractive proposition for many firms who like interns to come in and work hard for a time and then leave. Co-op therefore puts you in front of a huge number of firms, some of which are very high profile, and you get to put that on your resume, whereas when you graduate from a "regular" school, you are just like everyone else - trying to get a job with no work experience. In this respect, if you start out at the bottom and try to work your way to a better position, it might take quite a bit longer. Make sense?

define cutting edge...

DAAP students make the best employees (in general), which is what the DI ratings are more or less about

why is there sooooo much discussion about Cincinnati????

people need to accept that it is one of the best schools out there, ranked in the top programs in the country, produces great employees, sweeps Lyceum design competitions, has a campus with a collection of great buildings, has a very strong arts community (only going to get stronger with Aaron Betsky as director of the Cincinnati Art Museum)

I know it isnt an Ivy Leauge, but who cares...

I would go for it, if I were you.

Sorry for the ranting, but this is a topic that is brought up all the time...

hell, 2/3rds of the Garwondler went to DAAP

Yeah mdler!

Yes, and if the wondler in Garwondler say it's OK, you can't go wrong.


Or else you might get Garwondlered.

plus, i hear your degree comes with a complimentary elephant thong.

i know i'll be applying when my time comes (seriously).

And monkeyboy came from UC.... nuff said

I would think that spending the extra year in co-op would be an advantageous offer. If you did a normal 3 year, graduated and then looked for work you would be so unattractive to prospective hiring firms that you would be the coffee runner (maybe the sequel to "the kite runner"). Contrastingly, you will lean into many aspects and responsibilities over the course of 2/3 internships that you will be rounded in technical, and obviously design oriented tasks.

what up monkeyboy?

not much, just riding a high after helping Ball-Nogues win the PS1 comp.

I am bragging.. I know.

I am stopping

ann _culture,

here are my two cents,

Any option you decide for school is fine. What is nice about UC is that you can test whats out there through co-op. You could try a signature firm, a boutique firm, or a corporate firm. Each has its perks. Once you do this you can decide which is the best environment for you. Then, you will know what kind of firm to look for following graduation.. most likely where you will be working for a while. Its a less ricky approach and it gives you an edge to others coming from good schools with no experience.

The downside is that if that you are set on working for a cutting edge firm, there are less "cutting-edge" faculty at UC than say at an ivy-league. But, in my opinion, most of these so-called cutting edge faculty at those schools are full of shit anyway. Learn to be critical of what gets people claim to be cutting edge. That is another thing you will learn at a school that prides itself on creating good and currently significant practitioners.

Despite the fact that UC lacks signature faculty, their faculty for the most part is very strong. Shoot for a good education.. not what looks better on a resume. You will be happier in the long run.

I could tell you what I think are the top "cutting-edge" schools are.. as far as technology. If you want my opinion.. just email. I dont want to start an argument over what the top schools are. This site has seen too many of them.

Hey monkeyboy, how's it going? I'm going to grad school this fall. Exciting right?

also you should check out the latest posts on the "architecture sucks t-shirt" thread. mdler has something to show you.

holy shit.

Dood you better be carefull what kind of pics you put of yourself on the web. You cant run for mayor of Cincinnati anymore. Well.. maybe you could.

Wow! you guys. Thanks so much for your input. Very, very, very helpful. The edge the co-op prgm gives now makes a whole lot more sense to me.

Your information is very valuable because I am looking at having to move across the country again in less than a year (I moved out to LA from NYC last July). This means leaving California where most of my friends and family are located, and doing the long distance thing with my girlfriend.

Oh, and Monkeyboy, I am very sceptical of the Ivy League. The ivory tower sometimes seems to be nothing but puff pastry. Actually, the thing is I'm trying to decide between Sci-ARC and Cincinnati. They are so different it seems so I'm pretty confused. Also trying separate myself from my separation anxiety (no easy feat).

Anyway, you guys rule.

BTW what is Garwondler? I'm kind of new to architecture.

Sci-Arch could be cool.

I think they are pretty a good school as far as digital fabrication. A professor I had last year here at Stevens is now teaching there. Matt Melnyk. He is a structural engineer at Buro Happold. Amazing professor.

might clear things up a bit.


Also, ann, I didn't realize the choice was between UC and SCI-Arc. Not to throw a wrench in your plans but I didn't know that was an option. I don't know that I would move for UC if I were in your place. SCI-Arc is a good school too.

PS. Garwondler has visited it and agrees.

As far as the "cutting-edge" thing goes, UC was ranked the #1 most innovative program in the country recently.

innovative because of their use of work experience (co-op)...right?

I'm not sure what went into the selection there. You'd have to buy the DesignIntelligence report, I think.

Wow. I hope it's UNStudio. I love them.

I would suggest that the innovation rating is also related to the new 2nd year undergrad studio, which from my understanding is unique. It puts seven great faculty members into a melting pot class of 18 credit hours. It's the only class the sophomores have that quarter and it's quite intense. Each week is an iterative process of revising one's design based on a new set of criteria.

Further, while I haven't gotten this benefit because I'm graduating this quarter, they've recently hired a spat of incredible new faculty. The aesthetic focus of the school seems to be moving toward sustainable techtonics with a highly critical thought process.

@archtopus: I can attest to the intensity Immersion Studio. But we were lucky enough to get some of the new facutly (I had Rebecca Williamson, whom I adore).

[That should read "I can attest to the intensity of Immersion Studio."]

What I find ironic is that cincinnati is very focused on professional practice, yet none of the faculty are building anything. Terry Boling, Karl Wallick and McInturf are the only members that are working on projects on a consistant basis, and by consistant I mean, the three build something once every 4 years.

The thing about Cincinnati is that you have many great resources and they have a strong core faculty, but there are only 4-5 students each year that are really pushing themselves the rest float through like crap in the Ohio river.

I don't know what you are talking about, but several of my professors (David Lee Smith and Jim Postell among others) won Cincinnati interior design and architecture awards for their projects last year, and Vincent Sansalone used to commute between Cincinnati and Detroit on the weekends becuase he had a practice there.

And about your second comment, yes. I agree with that, but I'd say it's more like 30% of people are really working hard.

thats a freakin' shame that only 30% work hard. i applied and was shot down due to "space limitations", being that they took 0 transfers for fall of 2007. well, don't let all those slackers bring down cicni. because noone in the staff knows their head from their ass when i've tried to talk to them as well.


don't even get me started on jerry larson....

I would not put the names I mentioned in the same category as the names you mentioned. Look at UCLA, Yale, Princeton, H-haaarvard and see what their faculty is doing.

Ha. I love Jerry Larson.

All you said is that the professors don't practice, and all I said was you were wrong. No one was comparing them to professors from other programs.

Ha ha, Jerry Larson. Jim Postell is hee-larious. Does he still wear that sweater?

What years are you guys at DAAP, anyway? I graduated Class of '02....

I'm a second year (class of '09).

Beware of Jerry...in all seriousness, be careful.

what's to know about jerry larson ? are there huge bony skeletons in his closet we should know about ?

The reason most of our professors aren't able to practice is because that's how the university has structure the faculty lines. It's a public institution in one of the worst states in terms of funding for higher education (hopefully that'll be changing soon now that we have a Dem governnor who's very interested in improving that statistic), so the faculty have very busy teaching loads. Almost all of them outside the central administration are teaching at least two courses per quarter. And even though most of them aren't actively involved in practice currently, I'm pretty sure all but the PhDs have worked extensively in practice before and some continue to do side competition work.

Plus, because of the co-op program, all students have a good connection with and perspective of real world practice, which means we wouldn't gain much from having professors who are there as well. If anything, having professors who are more idea- and research-based helps balance theory and practice.

The perception that we're a boring technical school is entirely inaccurate. While we more or less know actually how to put buildings together, it doesn't mean we're not involved in critical inquiry. And really, I see the younger students as being in an even better situation now that the school has really fleshed out the new curriculum to which my class were guinea pigs six years ago.

yes...yes...yes

Archtopus, could you clarify what you meant by, "The aesthetic focus of the school seems to be moving toward sustainable techtonics with a highly critical thought process."

And hi everyone, this is my first post.

Two quick comments:

1. Be very, very skeptical of the DI ratings. They're little more than a popularity contest among Jim Cramer's buddies. There's no rigor to the research at all.

2. UC produces consistently strong graduates. They are extraordinarily well balanced in the skills needed to design and deliver strong buildings. Our firm has more than 15 years experience with their coop program and we've not once had a bad experience. In particular, they always seem to have solid interpersonal skills and work well on teams. Several of their graduates are part of our senior staff today.

Good luck and best wishes.

Completely anecdotal, but I'm a third-year student at Cincinnati. I interned at a large, well-known DC firm in the spring and fall 2007 with another UC student, and the staff of the firm preferred to have us on their team rather than one of the other architects at the firm. Which I think either speaks very badly of that firm, or very well of the education we're getting.

Yay UC. My alma mater, woo hoo!

</totally useless post>

(watch out kids, that's how you get to almost 5000 posts)