Not to be a creeper hooper but you and i went to highschool together, haha. My silly name on archinect are the first 6 letters of my last name. I never knew u went to UCinci, coincidentally i went to MiamiU for undergrad arch. Small world eh?

no dude, listen, you have a good chance!...., because most schools automatically take like a fair percentage of people from different backgrounds.

Us Arch-Background kids are hedged in with you guys. Your first studio will be all degree levels. (personally I think it is Bullshit, but its good news for you....you should compare yourself to someone with bldgs in their portfolio)

sorry thats for chop...I meant you should "NOT" compare yourself with arch students. My apologies.

wow, go figure. So how's life?

chopsky, I have no Arch background at all.

ff33, why the doubts about UCLA and Sci-Arc? You were pretty excited about Sci-Arc not too long ago.

maybe because if you dont like making pretty glittery surfaces you shouldnt go to a school like that

Further, the reason it is Bullshit is because, people like myself, can go into a 4 yr program unsuspecting of the accreditation nuances. So you take 4 yrs of Arch based coursework, then still have to apply to gruesome 3yr long MArch1 and get tossed in with a bunch artists. Moreover, you would be hard pressed to even find a 5 yr school in most states. Of course, being in school for 7 or 8 years allows you to rack up a hefty debt...which is disproportionate to the average wages entry level interns can even expect, no matter how many years you hav been studying Architecture.

afrdzak, thanks for asking...I am so down with SCI Arc. I love blobbly glittery shit built in a1/4 mile long train station.

anyways.. I got an email today from UCLA,..they lost my portfolio. Well they found shortly after, but the instance of having contact with them made me all pensive....and i dunno I wonder if I had to choose which one would be the best pick. Thats all.

oh , and they said their announcements go out , via email , in March.

That reminds me, I need to contact a school or two to make sure they have my portfolio.

I sort of feel like im missing something by not wanting to apply to the sci-arcs/upenns/columbias out there...anyone else get that feeling, like I dont get what they do, and I dont know if thats me or what?

I assume you mean programs heavy on scripting, generative theory, and digital tectonics.

bingo. on that note not a big fan of stuffy eclecticism either...i like a happy medium I guess. Just sort of feels like putting all your eggs in one basket by going to a place like that (kinda like Rudy and Florida)

Well, design/build and fabrication are also big at similar schools.

yeah chopsky, i wouldn't worry too much about being compared to people with arch backgrounds - most schools i think have an idea of what percentage they want to admit with or without arch degrees, and each kind of applicant is measured against others from the same group. plus a lot of schools will have an m.arch 1 "advanced placement" option that exempts people with arch backgrounds from some required classes and sometimes even a year of studio, so those applicants are pretty much being considered for an entirely different program, even though it's still technically "m.arch 1."

then, as ff33 says, there are other schools that put everyone who doesn't have a professional degree in arch together from the get-go, regardless of whether they spent four years in undergrad studying architecture. i know this is pretty much yale's policy (they claim to give advanced standing to particularly amazing students, but according to bob stern no one actually gets it), and it's pretty bogus as far as i'm concerned. the implication is that any and all of your undergraduate work in architecture was worthless and a waste of time and money, and as a result your m.arch program should be able to collect an extra year's worth of tuition to teach you things that may in large measure be remedial.

however, even in that kind of a program i am pretty sure the applications are judged by different standards depending on background. they'll still be looking for creativity, understanding of graphic and spatial narrative, and passion for art and design. in that light, your portfolio should definitely serve you well.

haha, no need for be bringing political metaphors into it....

I shamelessly follow digital tectonics, and all the other stuff i just mentioned because i know it is right for my interests. I can see how much of this sort of thing might not quite fit into what many are looking for out of an "Architectural education". That's is what i like about it.....

Wigley recently wrote something about Columbia and a design curriculul that is 10 years into the future. Its on the Columbis school thread somewhere. maybe he is dead wrong , i dunno...

Why did you pick your schools,asbuckeye?

just figured it out, i think people in my situation (ie. 4 + 2 path) should do undergrad at one type of school and graduate at a different type. So my deal, presumably, is that I went to an undergrad that stressed the whole digital fab/chaotic/scripting/emergent design/whatever ya want to call it...so im looking for something different. It just seems to me after spending 4 years trying to reinvent the wheel constantly im ready for something different. Im not sure where im going with any of this, just letting you all know that you shouldnt get too excited about programs that present themselves in sexy packages because you might wakeup one day and realize you wasted alot of time/money.

Big part of it is also not to pick a school that's one dimensional....there was a great ny times article on Yale's program and how they stress pursuing every angle of design out there, and they basically have an open door policy for design philosophies...it just gets me when you open someone's student work site and their stuff either all looks exactly the same and equally unimpressive, or its a mini design shop for the all star architect running the studio

There are those ( around archinect) that say Architectural Graduate School , altogether, is a waste of time and money.

so where did you apply ?

Well it should be noted that for many people a graduate program is not about pursuing every angle of design. Many of us have studied architecture for 4+ years and have established more specific design interests that can be best accommodated by more specialized research environment. To answer your question, no, perhaps you're not missing something by not applying to various institutions buckeye, only you know that, but neither is anyone necessarily missing anything by wanting to go there; and what's good for one isn't good for everyone and perhaps that's the most interesting thing about architecture academia.

yeah, well said...Me, I want to go to GSchool so i can experiment with crazy scripted multidimensional Architronics , that could only be built by robots from the future...


I can leave the brick, studs, and drywall at my job.

hmm, well ive been studying arch for over 4 years now and I just dont get that urge to go pursue one specific thing...thats probably just a personal preference though.

I applied to all "top programs" that dont seem excessively driven by the surface/computer. Look I dont mean to sound pessimistic...I think what lots of people interested in that sort of design do are brilliant. I guess I struggle with the dogma that each side brings to the table vs. their final product vs. what is it all really adding up to? Is it about fundamentals? Pretty things? things that say things? or things that do things? I would just not want to be pigeon-holed into any one of the above, and wonder if Im missing something/being naive for thinking the before mentioned schools are interested in that. What were going to be doing is complicated enough, dont need to be tilting at windmills for 3 years to pursue a false dream.

Guys.... A question around my head during this time...

I studied a 5-years program of Civil Engineering in Spain plus several courses in New Mexico State University of Structures, Environmental Engineering, Layout Development, Drawing, etc etc....

As you can figure out, I toke lots of structures courses. I guess comparing with the US System, kind of 7 or 8 curses. If I get in some Master of Architecture, I could jump the Structures courses and take another thing instead of?

I find the insinuation that because you aren't personally interested in a collection of ideas and working methodologies that people like ff33 who are interested in said ideas are "pursuing a false dream" a little narrow-minded.


I personally think architecture needs all of these ideas, it needs people who are passionate about building technology, design methodology, digital resources and representation, environmental sensitivity and sustainability, theory, history, engineering etc. down to the most practical aspects of managing construction projects and detailing documents. It is all of these ideas and more importantly the invested passion of a diverse group of people who further these ideas that make studying architecture so rewarding for all of us. Don't condemn things just because it's not what you're inclined to investigate.

but you just restated, essentially, what I was arguing?? I am for a multi faceted approach. and in no way shape or form am I trying to down people who are interested in robots designing for them. Im just curious whether or not im missing an underlying multi-dimensioned approach that these schools are taking. I actually was quite inclined to pursue those things in my undergraduate...and they're very interesting indeed.

I think Columbia,Upenn,SCIArc all have pretty amazing faculty. They all have a established History,Theory, and Criticism enforced curriculums. You will admit , at least, that trends in digital tools aren't going anywhere, and I am not sure embracing them means we limited to them (or means one is "specializing")

yeah ybth,,,you 'll probably get out o those classes

agreed, great faculty. Will I admit they're not going anywhere? No not quite. Im sure they're going somewhere..do we/I want to go there? Jury's still out on that one. Hm, I guess this is a complicated/sensitive issue and is hard to approach. Any film makers that use scripting? any other artform really? I guess thats my problem...why let science participate in a fundamentally human act?

jhooper. Nice portfolio. May be you should include some drawings or another kind of art works accompanying the photographies ...

Move on ... this thread is reflecting our anxiety hahaha.

Because science is a fundamentally human act?

These guys can debate this stuff better than me:


http://archinect.com/features/article.php?id=17584_0_23_0_C


I just want to play with robots.

I think science tries to take humanity out of the equation usually....especially when science and art mix (see detroit). No anxiety here, I just like to think about these sorta things, and some people tend to take it the wrong way...its nothing personal though.

Wow, so they lob the arch and non-arch students into the same classes together from the get-go? That's absurd. I can't logically comprehend that one. That either means the non-arch students sweat like polar bears in baghdad, or the arch students sleep through first year.

and snarkitekt, thanks

i think you guys (non archs) typically get a year start. also: architectural education works backwards...you guys actually know MORE than us

well, chop,
...they say after the first year, you can't tell the difference. I think there is a difference between knowing alot about Architecture and being really good at a design studio,...

asbuckeye
..I appreciate you speaking your mind. no worries on this end. :-)
I should really go get some fresh air...too much RHINO and Archinect already today.

After first year you can't tell the difference? Then what the hell are they teaching in those undergrads? Sorry, I'm very new to the US education system. I have been told in the past that the undergrads do tend to be quite general, so perhaps that's just the case.

I just review the Thesis booklet of SCI-Arc.... there is several amazing projects...

You know somebody studying there the m.arch 1?

just curious abt rarely see anyone applying for MIT MArch

any clue?

hey mike

wonderin the same thing... maybe this is a good thing?

chop..the undergrads go through a 4 year program that is about half architecture and half liberal arts..the idea is non arch people catch those two years up with an intensive one year graduate study.

MIT takes 30 ppl. I applied. I don't expect to have good chances out 500+ applicants....but i applied for the hell of it.

those odds are roughly the same for all of the top programs...they have to weed out all the people who just think they want to be archs, but have no idea

I realise this is possibly a highly unpopular way to look at it..and I apologize....but based on my visits to schools..I see a strong fidelity to broad class selection diversity...which philosophically I am 100% in favor of...and so if you take 30 ppl cut it in half based on gender,..and cut that in half based on ethnicity...you are looking at a few spots out so many people.

well, after reading that, I have to say it sounds all wrong...I was rambling, didn't think it through. sorry.

no, in a way, you're right...i mean its more complex than that...but a funny way of looking at it: Im probably competing for one of two spots at princeton allocated for white males over 6 foot. That does suck, but I can also see where they're coming from with the desire for diversity. Tough issue.

if you split the number of places available according to gender for instance, you also need to split the number of applicants according to gender, so your chances probably don't really change. As for race, I'm not sure.

Well I'm not sure if anyone lurking on these boards applied here but I thought I’d share the now excruciating rock on my left and hard place on my right.

So I got an email from the AA on Thursday that informed me I had passed the portfolio review and I've been invited for an interview in London in the beginning of March, after a few discussions with a professor from the UK with strong connections to the school I'm starting to feel like I can make it through this interview and gain an acceptance. So naturally I'm thrilled right?

But here's the thing, along with getting accepted to an institution in the UK, I'd also have to gain exemption from part 1 of the ARB (UK equivalent to the AIA) which is basically getting them to say that my BS arch from a school here in the United States is equivalent to one from the UK and (from what I hear) is an absolutely impossibly hard thing to do as most applicants fail under the crushing pressure of the very difficult oral exams. But what's even worse than the pressure (which after four years of arch studio I think I can handle) is that the fee to file is nearly three grand and I’d need to have this mailed in less than a month.

So basically what this means is that if I choose to pursue this opportunity that I’ve been presented, I’ll have to drop about four grand in plane tickets and application fees before I’ve heard anything back from the other schools I applied to. For me, that kind of money would be the same thing as a commitment. The AA is a (really) great institution and I’d absolutely love to study there but truthfully they weren't my first pick for a variety of reasons (ideological and monetary mostly) and I certainly feel really lucky to have this opportunity but it just sucks having to debate telling one of my dream schools that I can't make it to an interview because I’m waiting to here back from other institutes that very well may reject me come mid-March. I’ve emailed back and asked if it is possible to gain a later interview date but it’s difficult to say whether or not I’ll be able to stall them for long enough to here back from anywhere else.

Regardless, please don't get me wrong I am very excited and also feel really privileged for the opportunity, I've just been working this potentially life-changing set of decisions over in my head for three days now with very little sleep and had to get it out, so there it is. Any advice from you fellow applicants would definitely be very much appreciated right now.

err...*hear* back, sorry.

May be a dumb question, does the interview have to be in person? I would hope that the AA would be sensitive to the fact that many of their applicants may not have the resources to fly to England on 30 days notice.