has anyone asked for more time yet regarding accepting declining offers? i've got an april 1st deadline that is coming up way too soon and still haven't heard back from two schools.

how did you do it? email, call? help...

can.not.decide.need.more.time.

laurilan, one of my coworkers has the same problem. I recommended that he just say that he is awaiting the decision of another school. Honesty is the best policy. If they have already accepted you, then they are the ones who are gambling. To them, you are $$$ in the bank. Regardless of scholarship/grants, the money still goes to the school. They will hold on to you because they have already made a small investment. Also, the more students they accept who enroll the better they look. It makes them look like a first choice school. They will wait for you in hopes that you choose them. They don't want to lose you to another school, just because of an arbitrary deadline.

laurilan, it's definitely okay to ask for an extension. this is something i have done in the past and am about to do again. one of my schools has asked me to make a decision by april 4. its just not going to happen. i'm still waiting to hear from some schools and i feel i also need to visit that program before i decide.

in the past i have sent a email explaining the situation but i might call. i know it probably feels weird asking for something from them when your awesomeness isn't firmly established yet, but they believe in you and picked you from a hell of a lot of applicants. they can wait a few more days.

I asked for an extension from one of the schools and they gave it to me. I just said that I did not have time to visit before the deadline, but was very interested in the school and would really like to visit. Even if you are not intending to visit, this at least buys you some time. Like ryhane said, they want you to accept their school, so they are going to try to accomidate your needs.

Beyond that, this whole thing is crazy. It blows my mind that I am accepted at better schools and rejected by not as hot schools. What is up with that!?!?

like which ones whiz?

laurilan, I brought up the issue again with my coworker, He responded with what I think a lot of other applicants might be thinking.
He wrote:
"To them, yeah they want the best students, but they are waiting to hear back from you, if you say no, then they will give your spot to someone else on “round 2”. So either way they are getting their money, they will fill that spot most likely. But in my mind what you said makes sense, and it doesn’t hurt to try. Whats the worst that could happen…they say no. Ok so."

I responded:
"I think they want their first choice students, the same way student’s want their first choice schools. Once again, that makes them look good. Yeah, they might go to some second tier students, but they wouldn’t start denying first choices. If they were to renege on their decision, then it would damage their credibility. They are used to let’s say 75% of accepted students to come. If they get an indication that less than that % are likely to attend, then that is when they will accept more students. I think that grad schools are aware that students are applying to more and more schools and they are adjusting their practices to evolve with that trend. I really think that they will be accommodating, but who knows, there might be a few people out there who are tyrannical in nature."

Tersely put, I really think it is silly to think that they would drop you, because they have gotten the sense that you are (heaven forbid) applying to multiple schools.

well I got my rejection from Cornell... 2 for 1

UMich - Accepted
Cornell, UCLA - Rejected
Berk - still waiting
VTech - still have a chance

I was so confident going into the application process compared to last year. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong...

afrdzak, sorry to hear about cornell. i don't think it's anything you did wrong. there's just so many applicants.... just curious, did you do an interview at vtech?

Cincinnati...they have a March 31st deadline. It also helps though that this date is before their open house, so they are pretty much making the extension available to anyone who asks.

Also, I just got an email from a professor asking her advice on schools decisions and I was very surprised about what she said about SCI-ARC considering she went there and her husband was a professor there....

She said:
SCI-Arc is not a match for you either at this time. It is a totally different school than when we were there, it is too homogeneous now, everybody's doing the same maya/rhino/digi-fab thing, which in itself is not good or bad, but the way in which they are doing it I feel is quite boring and non-conducive to any interesting debate. It all looks the same. LA is a great city but the school is not.


Very interesting I think...

mailman just came, still nothing...
so far, Berkeley - accepted, Columbia - accepted, MIT - waiting, GSD - waiting...

which is great actually bc the thought of Berkeley makes me really happy and also I can't stand Cambridge/Boston...

but for the love of god, what could they possibly be doing over there? i live just down the street...

my significant other said he saw a bunch of envelopes of various sizes sitting in the admissions office yesterday... at this point it would just be nice to know.

no interviews. I'm an M.Arch 1st-professional applicant and I don't interviews for us exist.

I don't think*

i thought any applicant could interview. it wasn't a requirement, but i did it since i thought it could only help my chances of being accepted. hopefully the guy i interviewed with is pulling for me......

i had the same assortment of bills and bank statements in the mail today, nothing from schools. this is agonizing. what is the consensus on how annoying it is to call or email schools and ask when you can expect to hear from them?

pbandj, i want to second your thoughts on berkeley vs. boston, i and living in boston area now, and thought i would love it, but really do not and would be really excited to move back to the bay area. i can't help but wonder what is taking them so long. they had an early application deadline but don't seem to have sent much out yet, at least from what i can gather here and on gradcafe.

to cou2 the others who i might be joining on the '09 thread, i've had pretty good luck with calling or emailing the schools that rejected me and asking if there was someone who could give me pointers on what went wrong and how to make my application stronger. so far i've spoken with people at the two schools who have rejected me, RISD and UW Seattle, and both times the feedback has been almost entirely about improving my portfolio.

'09ers, what are your ideas on what to do in the next year to improve your standing next go-round? anyone looking into the GSD's summer career discovery or other programs or classes?

is there anyone the same with me waiting for the GSD "MAUD" decision?

I guess it might be the time to get a small envelope.

so c'mon, GSD. Dont make me wait, I am ready!

thanks for your opinions on deadline extensions. i'll be contacting them this afternoon to see what the response is!

in anticipation of becoming an '09er, I am

1- getting some time in a ceramics studio to produce some good 3D work

2 - going to Italy for 10 days (Venice, Florence), trying to learn italian before then

3 - online design competitions

4 - upping the volunteer/community level activities

5 - going all out on the free culture thursday nites around town to keep inspired

6 - thinking of other stuff to do.

andytee, where are you from in the Bay Area? did you go to Berkeley undergrad?

I just wanted to quickly say something about those who will re-apply next year. I’ve sat down with a couple of Graduate Admission Directors about my portfolio (after being accepted to their schools). And I have to admit that my portfolio was embarrassingly simple. It was bare bones all the way. I started at first trying to make it graphically pleasing…but that’s like sending in a scented resume on pink paper: it won’t help and it’s distracting. So, I wiped all of that stuff out and left only what was crucial.

That being said, the most important thing you can do is show process. They cannot stress this enough. It can be dirty and smeary and untidy; they don’t care. All they want to see is HOW you think and not so much WHY or what becomes of it. also, it is imperative to have a point of view that informs how you systematically analyze problems…i.e., how do YOU think abstractly? How do YOU process a problem…they could care less about the physical result, whether it be a hot dog stand or a museum. They couldn’t stress this enough: process and abstraction. Show every germ of thought, every clue you were given that lead you to your final result (whatever stage it was in)…and again…you must have a perspective. It can be music, poetry, plants, Russian history, whatever. They just want to see that you having something in you that speaks to you and manifests itself in your creative thought process.

Also, you need to find what makes you special for the school. It seems that every school (and I’m talking non-arch backgrounds) wants (and LOVES to brag about) a diverse class. Meaning, they want one person from economics, one from comparative literature, one from music, one from history, one from BFA, etc. they seem to love having that kind of dialogue among students. The more you can position yourself as having a distinct and passionate point of view, the more they will want you.

You simply cannot get away with putting a pretty picture in a pretty layout: it must mean something to you.

And I have the Columbia Summer Program to thank for all of this…I’m serious. If I didn’t go and take it seriously, I would not have had the success that I had. They really strip you down and try to take your background and translate it into the physical world. That program was crucial for me. It was all about process, metaphysical translations, and abstraction.

Sorry, I don’t have the wherewithal to publish my portfolio…how do you guys do that? Mine is in a PDF….

Anyway, best of luck to everyone…I know you all deserve the best. Now get it!

hmm, interesting stuff, thanks smith...

by publish do you mean posting it here? if its in pdf I imagine that'd be rather easy. check back in the low teens of pages and someone showed me how to post mine. I would love to see yours as a bit of comparison to mine. thanks!

smith,
thats an impressive insight.

I've just returned from a trip to NYC and have visited Pratt and Parsons. It was spring break but the security guards let me in and I got to walk around the empty studios and found some people working on their projects. So I asked them some questions.

Parsons:

it's in manhattan
has great lecture series + super close to AIA lectures
small class sizes + one on one with profs
old school - every desk comes with a built-in horizontal ruler
they have the design+build semester

Pratt:

it's in brooklyn
has great lecture series
small class sizes + one on one with profs
new school - every student has to have a laptop
digital focus - means that you will know how to use the programs

At the moment I am leaning towards Pratt. If you go to the archinect jobs section, you'll see that every employer has a list of software that they want you to know. And Pratt will teach you all of this. Parsons will let you present your architectural ideas in whatever form suits your project best.

What I didn't find out about is how much emphasis the schools put on the technical side of things like strength of materials and structures. I think it's important to know these things well, especially if we want to work in the field.

I would appreciate your comments.

smithwillb, I have heard the "HOW you think" suggestion before. I heard it when the Director or the Architecture program at Georgia Tech gave a seminar on what to do with your portfolio. I just wanted to second, or third, your comment.

nariman,

although i think it is important to learn and understand computer programs and it is certainly applicable for jobs in the future, i would rather spend money on design classes and learn computer programs on my own time. I think you will more or less learn the same programs wherever you decide to go, but i would be surprised if too much coursework is dedicated specifically to learning them. Just a thought though:)

smith,

I agree...you bring up valuable info. I wish I would have read that a while back. You can upload your work fairly easily by making a flickr.com, tho i'm sure there is an easier way.

man, there are quite a few of us gatech grads on here.

its so funny how smith holds the keys to getting into to the top schools in thr country ( look at his record) with a non arch background, but digitally posting his portfolio is thr hitch...

haha
no offense, really, just kind of humorous.

I agree with him. Everywhere, everyone stresses process. I have been pulling my hair out trying to figure out how to show that in my work which entails only "final products" such as a drawings, paintings, scupltures, etc. The art classes I have taken, only teaches technique. I'm sure there are other non-arch people with the same issue. So my question is, if one does not have such a program accessible, what is one to do? I would love to take 3 months off and attend the Columbia program, but there are too many legitimate reasons why I easily cannot do that.

nariman, I wouldn't worry at all about knowing these programs or not, and certainly wouldn't let it be one of the guiding factors in your decision.

First, because I think you'll get a healthy dose of all of these programs in any school, and if you really feel like knowing these programs is necessary I’m sure parsons has digital modeling electives as well as a ton of students who are knowledgeable in a verity of architectural software. And honestly this stuff isn’t that hard to pick up on, once you know one the rest will come easy. And second, architecture school is not a technical education, it's about more than learning how to run a program and it’s more than likely that the programs we're using in school now will be painfully outdated in the professional field fifteen years from now, but the education you received won’t be.

nariman - thanks for the Pratt analysis. What was your overall vibe of the campus and the area?

On another note, is anyone else bored with waiting for the last few schools? I'm getting to that point...

Thanks for the ideas smithwillb. Would love to see your portfolio. You must have done something right.

Conormac - I was thinking about taking classes over the summer and fall. Maybe a welding class at the local community tech. I've always wanted to learn how to weld anyways. They have a few different classes including one geared towards artists. I've also been thinking about taking a higher level freehand drawing class at the local art institute.

I'll also try to improve my CAD skills. Downloaded a rhino trial about a month ago. I really like using it. Much easier to use than AutoCAD. It would be nice to include some computer stuff in my next portfolio. Any suggestions for trial software. I've been told that there is some stuff available to students for free or cheap$. (you just need a college email address)

I wasn't sure if many people were aware of this but for all us arch background applicants: this summer I talked with admissions at the GSD and they told me something interesting regarding AP admittance. All students applying for AP are put into a pool by themselves and selection into the school is determined out of that pool. Since about 10% of the incoming class are AP students, that leaves only about 10-15 spots for potential applicants. So all students with architecture backgrounds have a much more selective application process at the GSD than non-arch background students.

FF33 - no offense taken. i'm an idiot with computers. truly. oh well.

Afrdzak - i've seen your portfolio...and i thought it was very elegant...yet i can see where you said you're having trouble showing the process....i think a little hindsight should do the trick

after the columbia program, i spent a couple of months re-visiting my project and expanded upon it greatly. i investigated and re-evaluated some decisions i made that i THOUGHT were intuitive...but in fact, they all root themselves somewhere deep in my creative unconscious.

at the columbia program, you're (at least i was) continually drilled about my decisions and why/how i was making them. it definitely felt like CIA interragation at times...but they really help you take a seemingly mundane/literal idea and turn it into a creative abstraction devise.

so, specifically for you Afrdzak, i would try to re-visit some of your older projects and attempt to re-discover the critical life line that informed your decision making at the time. does that make sense...asking yourself WHAT is this about..and WHY is it about that? this all sounds stupid, i bet...but i think it's really the key to understanding thought process.

and the columbia program is only 5 weeks...you can do it! i did it AND had a full time job...but it was worth it.

smithwillb - thanks for the insights, you said it well and it matches a lot of what i have heard.

pbandj - i was born in brooklyn and raised in cleveland, and my undergrad studies started out at hampshire college (loved the area, hence my interest in the UMASS Amherst program) but dropped out and ended up finishing my degree in the bay area through new college of california's eco-dwelling program (led by architects joe kennedy and steve bekc) in santa rosa). but i lived in the bay area for from 2000-2004, first in berkeley (curtis and channing) and then in san francisco (24th and folsom). moved away in '04 to new mexico with my then gf (now wife) so she could apprentice in a midwifery program there. moved to boston from there to be closer to family, and to research and apply to schools. anyhow, we both like it a lot less than we thought we would and, frankly, would be happy to leave.

and, to cou2 and anyone else waiting on news from UMASS Amherst, here's the latest update from jean crossman, the program secretary:

"The reviewers should be done this week, one of them had a disk go out
over the break. That means letters (regular mail) will go out sometime next week. Thank you for your patience."

@nariman:

i think the comments so far regarding software are dead on - you'll find either electives or knowledgeable peers to teach you the programs you're interested in at any good grad school (definitely true of both pratt & parsons). even if the digital tech stuff isn't the focus of a program, it will be almost omnipresent and very easy to get exposed to if that's your thing.

i also wouldn't sweat the building tech stuff - if you're m.arch I you'll absolutely have to take some building/construction and structures classes, but these will mostly serve as an introduction to common methods and conventions. the vast majority of technical knowledge will be gained through professional experience rather than school, and employers will rarely expect new graduates to know much about construction issues.

it's kind of counter-intuitive considering architecture school is a professional education, but i'd try not to think too long on what school is going to teach you trade skills. i'd focus instead on what school is going to make you a better designer, and the skills and expertise will follow as you start to define what kind of practice you're interested in.

i have to second j2H. it's a much harder process for you guys...so...downplay your architecture background and try to get into the regular people's pool.

but i guess that's impossible with your transcripts.

quicksilver -
your thoughts between the programs as yale and mit parallel mine. i'm also a big fan of meejin yoon, but i did not apply to the m.arch program, rather the shape grammars research group under the computation department. i am particularly interested in potential collaborations between the computation department and media lab, both not primary agendas in my architectural thinking or education, but have definitely excited me in the past few years. mit offers an impressive extension of resources and facilities and so does yale, but it definitely limits itself to the confines of architecture. i think where yale becomes stronger is through the diversity of studio choices which allows for the experience and experimentation of multiple pedagogies which is in my opinion very important. i have a strong preference for new haven because of its proximity to manhattan in comparison to mit. are doing m.arch I or II? what are your thoughts about princeton? see you at yale open house.

if anyone has thoughts on the agendas at yale and princeton, i'd love to hear what they are.

hey! that's perfect! wonderful explanation

@citrus / @diet coke / @snarkitekt

thanks for your comments. the students that i spoke to at pratt gave me the impression that software was integrated into the classes. the forms that they're able to design, are impossible to visualize without a computer. it's true that i can sit at home and teach myself how to use maya. so isn't it better to be learning the software simultaneous with architectural design strategies?

or... maybe i was confused then... what does it mean when they say that their school is digital?

my entire undergrad arch background was process driven....and, in fact, our end products were kinda shitty by comparison (IMO)... so I think my problem lies in something else. Or perhaps its an entirely different game with arch background vs. non-archs. not sure. good thing I have a year to figure it out.

snarkitekt I have to disagree with that statement about not needing to know construction issues and focusing on design. Design doesnt mean shit unless you can simultaneously address construction issues in the process. Thats the problem with architecture graduates, they dont know anything about construction, materials, etc. Most employers dont want to teach you the basics of that stuff. The most successful graduates i think are the ones that can walk into a firm and draw some details and sections with minimal explanation as well as contribute to design.

Im tired of seeing this architecture porn that has no sense of tectonics, structure, or materiality (beyond some glossy plasticy looking material). I understand that a masters program is a research degree but please, for the love of god, know how the damn thing can be built!

archca, I completely agree with you about what I think architectural education should be...however, I think your sentiments are reflected more so in going from school to the profession. I think when it comes to applying to grad school, process-driven "architecture porn" is more sought after.

yeah maybe, but its a shame. Everything you design comes from a process, so there should be no distinction between "process-driven" design and whatever you're calling the other way to design.

I think the most successful portfolio is one that explains the process, and presents a solution that is both "architecture porn" and relates to some sense of constructibility. If it doesnt you cant call it architecture. But thats just my opinion...

wooo! i got a 2 week extension! now i have until the middle of april until i need to make a decision. thanks guys! much appreciation for your direction on that.

archca-

I think you contradicted yourself a little, but I totally agree with you. A M.Arch is not a research degree, it is professional training. In architectural practice, being an effective professional is equal parts conceptual and technical ability. There seems to be a disconnect when it comes to addressing this reality in many master's programs.

To tie back into a separate topic, that seemed to be the case with the program @ Pratt. Too much emphasis on digitally driven form-making, with little attention paid to the fundamentals of design and critical analysis. I would love to hear otherwise though, as I'm still considering it as an option for next year.

archca, i didn't mean to say building tech wasn't important, or didn't belong in an architectural education (far from it!). i was just saying that every school will have some required construction courses, and i wouldn't necessarily use that as a determining factor when trying to decide what school to attend. my experience has simply been that the bulk of my technical knowledge has been acquired through experience rather than academic instruction, and i went to a very rigorous undergrad arch program with a lot of focus on tectonics.

i agree with you wholeheartedly about the best designers being the ones who can realize their "vision," and i am also not such a fan of shiny plastic renderings. i just think if you're starting your education as an architect with the m.arch, then your choice should be based first and foremost on the kind of designer you want to be, and the technical side will almost inevitably follow from that.

Nariman, I have to admit that I’m not very familiar with Pratt or Parsons, but from the sound of it (and my limited knowledge) it seems that you're describing a difference in design philosophy between the two schools. This is probably a subject more likely to start an argument so I’ll try to be as political as possible (and keep it simple so as to not make a fool of myself).

Many schools look at digital technology and computation as providing a new method for architects to generate ideas and spaces. Schools or individual professors, who see this as an important facet of contemporary design, push techniques that use computation to organize data, filter information and eventually manipulate form.

On the other hand there are people who regard these digital technologies primarily as tools for representing architecture, not as integral parts in the process of making architecture.

The reality is that there are professors at most schools who are pushing both (and probably neither) direction, but many schools lean more towards one direction than another. It's sort of up to you and what you're more interested in, but I’d encourage you to have a look at a lot of student work before making a decision, try to decide what values are driving the architecture you’re looking at and then decide what appeals more to your sensibilities and way of thinking.

aha! you nailed it citrus.

well i guess the distinction has to be made on pre vs post professional masters degree. For me (post-professional) I look at it as more of a research degree. The pre-professional degree is a whole other story.

My concern is just that all these pre-pro students are getting into a masters program because they want to be "designers" when in reality its very hard to do that without a solid foundation of knowledge about architecture under you. I learned a ton from all of my work experience, but I also learned about design through structures, environmental control systems, and professional practice classes. There's has to be initiative to learn all of this in a very short amount of time for pre-pro students if you want to come out of school as a well rounded, successful graduate.