Do they mix them when the B.Arch's are in their fifth year? I may be wrong but i think thats pretty normal. If they are together the entire time then that seems a little strange to me.

The way it works @ RISD is that 1st year March's get mixed with sophomore Barch's and go on together for the next three years.

I think the mix works very smoothly in studio, largely because the few undergrads that stick with the program (around fifteen this year) are pretty dedicated, talented, and smart. Also, they tend to have less of an ego than most grad students, so they're much more fun to work with.

I don't think the mix is a very good idea for theory and technical classes though, simply because grads come in with more experience in both those areas.

My undergrad program (which was a 4-year non-professional architecture program) mixed undergrads with M.Arch students for most courses other than studio. There was no mixing of studios. M.Archs took history courses, structures, theory, drawing/representation courses, etc. with undergrad juniors and seniors. It worked pretty well, but actually most of the complaints came from 1st year grad students who felt that the undergrads had the advantage in having taken pre-reqs within that school and so were better prepared and already knew the faculty and such.

My school mixes grads and undergrads in most courses. Topical studios (studios that focus on specific projects, theories, or methods) are mixed for two semesters with fourth year undergrads and grads.

Grad students are on their own for studios specific to their program and for thesis work.

To be honest, I'm a grad and I'd have a better time without the undergrads (sorry to you all). Many are great and wonderful people but they tend to skirt around their work and almost never delve further than absolutely necessary. I find crits boring and uninspiring as well. Let me emphasize, this is a generalization. A few of the fourth years do well.

As far as undergrads having an advantage due to pre-reqs, etcetera, I do not see that here.

As far as grad students having egos, no, not really, but I can see if some grads are flaunting their practical knowledge. Yes, that's annoying. I've found that the biggest egos are from the successful fourth and fifth year undergrads, having been stroked by the faculty for years and years.

dmc knows I agree (hey there, studio mate!). I have to admit that I was skeptical about having undergrads around at first. However, I have found that the ones that are dedicated to their studies are valuable colleges who can challenge just as well as some bozo who's been a CAD monkey in a firm for a few years. The ones that stink just drop out soon enough.

By the third month at RISD you'll tend to assume that the stronger and more mature undergraduate students are graduates anyway...so who cares, right?

what is your impression of RISD's pedagogy/ideology??

At Oregon the undergrads are on by themselves fro the first two years, and the Grads for the first two studios. They usually take 6 total with the last two being terminals or "comps", while under grad usually take 10. In my first studio with grad students, I found that the professors gave us about a week to adjust and then cut us little slack. From my point of view, I liked the fact that we were forced to produce at a much higher level. I can see how the grads would/could chafe at being in studios with undergrads though. But like in any situation, it usually broke down into those who were serious and passionate and those who weren't, regardless of grad/undergrad. I'd like to think I represented the undergrads well as a lot of my friends from school were grad students.

"can't we all just get along?"