University of Cincinnati is a public school and one of the top schools out there...

no

<rant>

This is one of the very few things I hate about these forums: Why does it appear on here that everyone is going or went to any Ivy League school?! For every Ivy Leaguer there are probably 30 state school grads. There are good and great educations to be had all across this country and globe, why does it appear that only a handful of schools are even worth considering?

<end rant>

erutitecturebackwards: with a BArch and a quality portfolio you'll be able to go anywhere you want, assuming you research what you actually want to get out of your education instead of blindly deciding to apply to the schools everyone else is talking about. Don't stress about grad school now, just focus on getting the most possible out of your current education. Which means working hard, asking lots of questions, and following up EVERY time a professor suggests looking at some architect/building/article.

Thanks Liberty Bell.........sorry if I'm a little stereotypical about this.......I've looked at some of the forums on here, and your really helpful.....do they give out any medals or gift certificates for really helpful Archinectors. ;)

There are two reasons liberty bell -- the first is that the Ivy League programs are much bigger than most of the other programs, so Ivy Leaguers constitute about 17% of the MArch population (a quick count from the NAAB stat report). By the way, the same stats show that ivy leaguers account for only about 1% of the MArch grads.

The second is that the first thing they incaulcate into you at most "top-tier" schools is to announce every connection you or anyone else has with the institution whenever you get the chance. So, ever been in a room with a harvard alum for more than three minutes without them telling you so? I doubt it.

i wrote on another thread earlier today:

i don't know about name-brand grad schools...because mine wasn't...

from the networking angle, a regional school can provide just as much (maybe more!) networking benefit if you plan to stay in the area where you go to school. i, for example, had been in ky for a decade and intended to stay in ky. university of kentucky has ended up being a perfect choice, both for what i wanted to do in school and for expanding my network in the state. as much as i REALLY wanted to go to rice, it wouldn't have helped me nearly as much.

Most of the Nation goes to Public Schools...Thank God we are getting something for our Tax Dollar. When I hear about people tossing away good money after bad thinking the Five Star Education is going to open doors for them which might not have otherwise opened I want to toss my cookies. If you have a good sound Public Education, you should have no problem getting into one of those Ivy Schools, that is if your good enough. The question is how do you get to be good enough. Well if you didn't toss away your time in highschool taking sluff courses and not push yourself in the math courses....well
it is those very courses which will keep you out of a good graduate program, because you need high marks in those courses along with an excellent body of work inorder for the door to open.

you'll survive. you can always transfer later if the school does suck.

personally, snooker

i'd say that tax dollars aren't doing jack for my state school tuition (MD), each year that in-state tuition increases.

now, i'm going out-of-state to school to pay even more, but for a better education in my eyes.

i went to a little known university in one of the most unknown states of australia and never once in the past 6 years of working in both australia, and in europe did i ever feel that that was an issue. ppl look at your portfolio, your attitude and you.
don't lose any sleep over this.

i'll second that p2an

i applied to all sorts of "prestegious schools"(for undergrad), but being that my transfer school was a two year school, they certainly frowned upon that.

i know i'll be happy when i transfer into my new out-of-state public university though.

The people here are certainly not all going to ivy league schools, or SCI-Arc (NOT ivy)- I went to a private (non ivy) undergrad, and will be joining w3 for grad at a public school. Several other people here went to or are going to USC, Pratt, and other non-ivy private schools, MANY are going to UCLA, and many graduated from Cincy, and I've heard some OSU talk as well. We're actually a pretty diverse group as far as alma maters go, though I've felt like it gets ivy-centric in here occasionally as well.

I think that impression actually comes from the dozens of people who come here every year to ask how they can get in to an ivy league school, or how much money they'll make with an ivy league degree vs. the rest of our regular degrees, etc. These people usually post about 1-5 posts, then leave, so are actually pretty unrepresentative of archinect as a whole, though they add a lot of volume to the discourse on that topic.

as long as you have the degree, no one cares. i cant afford MIT or Harvard for undergrad, but I could always go there for my Masters. Not that I will, since my school has a BArch w/out the 4yr internship.

I'm really glad I didn't know about archinect when I decided to go to arch school.

I've talked about this same topic with some people who went to school with me at UIC - maby the cheapest in state school in America. And agreed that although our school was at the time ranked near the bottom, the ability to go to school and work and live in a great urban setting was just as important as the faculty - maybe more so.

I work with grads of a known unimpressive school - who cares? No one.

Can we please stop saying 'Ivy'? I think it's inflammatory because it brings up everyone's favorite stereotypes.

Not all great architecture schools are Ivy, and not all Ivies are great architecture schools.

Some great state schools: University of Florida, UVA, UCLA, Berekely, Cincy, UTAustin ... I'm sure there are many more that I'm not thinking of right now, and that's not even bringing up the non-Ivy, non-state schools that are great: MIT, Sci-Arc, etc.

Ivy has nothing to do with good architecture school, to keep suggesting otherwise is just stupid and lazy.

Well, it's a helpful distinction. Obviously, I prefer the PAC10, but to each his own.

I had this discussion with a number of prestigious architects in my area during my application to graduate schools. The responses were mixed. Some felt that it did matter because the caliber and competitiveness of students is maximized at "Ivies" and other tier I arch programs.

Others said that it did not matter as long as your willingness to learn and your capability to produce meaningful work is evident in your presentation upon graduation.

Your education depends on what you decide to make of it (I think I heard that in an orientation speech in undergrad...)

I think it ultimately depends on what you want out of life. My dreams - my choice of school that can't be influenced by what other people think

ahhh these threads are frustrating on two bases. first, no you dont have to go to ivy league to get a good education. two, those who respond likewise, also tend to bash on the ivy league schools as being a waste of money, etc.

are there good ivy league architecture schools? yes. are there good state school architecture programs? yes.

please stop bashing either.

if you want to go to an ivy league school because you like the program and it has something to offer you , go for it... do research on schools, just dont choose one for the name, go where you think you can get the most out of it.

i went to undergrad at a state school and now ivy league for grad school. so i am getting to see both worlds. there are differences in resources, but i had great professors at the state school and wouldnt have got into a good graduate school without them.

isn't cincy private?

cincy is not private

major in economics please

dude, ivy league schools are much better. It's a fact, every knows.

where does the expression 'ivy league' come from?
for me, it always brings up images of blond haired good looking guys with ralph lauren sweaters tied over their shoulders.

exactly!

the ivy league is a football league, just like acc or sec.

i'd like to see harvard play osu or michigan. hahaha that'd be a game.

the term ivy league actually comes from IV - the roman numeral for 4. Originally, it was an athlectics conference with four schools: harvard, yale, princeton and columbia (i think).

oh...to be embarrassingly honest, i thought it was because at those fancy old university all the buildings had ivy growing over them...really i did!

i had to do a little search

the ivy league

No need to search, ESPN tells you all you need to know!

What...no talk about The University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee?

michigan's dominant offense lead by senior gunslinger chad henne and elusive running back mike hart will destroy any ivy league defense. we're coming for you, princeton pussies.

...and look what USC did to Michigan the last couple times we've met! I like re-watching those games with remote control in hand, so that I can create a montage of Michigan's quarterback eating grass time after time.

ooooooh, just you wait, rationalist. this is our year. john david's booty is going to on ground an awful lot this year when we meet for the national championship. we will take revenge.

That may be. Ryan Kalil rocked at center, so we may be vulnerable there. = ( But our defense does kick a lot of ass still, so I don't think anyone will be able to get up many points against us either.

there is a subtle irony in that a post based on this subject would develop into a discussion between elitism and socialism....in the context of american 'football'...

...i'm going to ruffle a few feathers here, but I beleive that elitism (in this case ivy leages in the US and places like the AA in britain) is holding our profession back. from my experience (and this is purely opinion - i don't want to get they elloquent hate mail from those with yacht shoes) there is a lot absolute raw creativity in the smaller, less funded school that cannot rise to the surface because of class divides within architecture...

having a certain school on your CV does not make you a better architect, but it makes it easier to get the better jobs. an example of this is with AA graduates, who spend their diploma replicating their starchitect tutors, leaving without any personality, but being able to jump straight into starchitect jobs amongst the AA alumni

i find this very sad, especially as many students from underprivelidges backgrounds and school with real talent feel that they cant apply for work in the world class offices, and so the pattern continues.

however to answer the original question of the post; i am from a very low end school in the uk, bottom of the food chain...and i'm spending my first year-out post BA in Rotterdam in the most influencial office in the world...therefore, if you really want something you can get it no matter what, and if your dedicated enough you dont need the money and the name behind you.

in the words of some very wise men; 'fight the power'

although they didn't specifically mention architecture schools, i'm rather fond of radar's recent list of the worst colleges in america list. cornell is the worst ivy league school and brown and dartmouth don't even have architecture programs so that should make your college choices much easier.

I don't know where you are going to school in Texas. If you said you're not headed to UT Austin, then you're either headed to UTA, Tech, A&M, UH, or somewhere else I don't know has a BArch. Anyhow, I go to UH. I am in the graduate program. Plenty of BArch students are heading to "prestigious grad schools" or "well known" schools for grad work: I have talked to kids headed to Columbia, Yale, Harvard, Sci-Arc, Parsons, Pratt, etc...etc...Keep your head up man. The reality is, regardless where you go, you will have the opportunity to develop your skills and abilities. Schools don't make talented students, they can only refine you and open the doors to possibilities. If you're good you're good, no matter where you go.

'elitism is holding our profession back...there is a lot absolute raw creativity in the smaller, less funded school that cannot rise to the surface because of class divides within architecture'

As a graduate student at a public institution I couldn't agree more.

I've had friends from Texas Tech go on to Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Sci-Arc, CCA, in the last two years. If you work hard and research what program suites your specific career goals you can go anywhere.

^He beat me to it. Also a TTU COA kid with friends at Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Sci-Arc, and CCA. TTU has a pretty top notch undergrad right now, or so I hear.

in short, yes. if you do not go to HAARvard, Columbia, Princeton, Yale or Cornell - well maybe not Cornell - j/k - you will suffer the indignity that we all do. quit now. go to AA or Bartlet or Cooper or Cranbrook - that's where all the losers go.

so my exgirlfriend/future wife is finishing up a phd at cambridge(the real one) and although not in architecture thankfully, her report is that its just as fucked up as any other school...

ALL schools are fuked up. its all the inbreeding i am sure of it. the more i get into the whole world the more scary the politics gets too. life was much more comprehensible when just a reglar student...


highend uni tends to mean good students and profs. more so than at reglar schools. not sure if that matters so much, just that you might not have to avoid that really flaky guy who keeps making models out of donuts and cake if you go to ivy.

connections and opportunities are def better at the fancy schools. that means something for some, may not for you.

goodness shows no matter where you are or go etc etc. so don't worry bout it.

the biggest difference [and this is a real difference] any private/ivy leage /inter academy offers is resources - people and other things that one really doesnt understand doesnt exist at other schools -

i taught at 3 us schools and the private had a great lecture symposium / lib -- the public bare bones lecture [faculty and locals] and the lib was dismall.

in the uk - the aa is absolutely amazing who is coming to lecture / give workshops etc. this puts the school always at the forefront of ideas [theoretically]. the bartlett on the other hand has a weekly lecture series but perhaps only 1 or 2 a year that are just regular friends of the school. i teach at 2 uk schoolst that i wont mention but what goes on at the aa and bartlett are at least 5 years ahead of those other schools -- i will also say the bartlett is behind the aa in what it is looking at [most here think the computer is a representation tool only] --last year at the aa there was an outside lecture at least 3 days a week.

better schools attract better students[generally] and it where you will learn the most - with the creative people that are in studio with you.

you will get a job, get licensed, be a sucessful practioner no matter where you go to school - but i truly do believe, the potential to learn more, be more creative, have access to as much as you can possible take in is higher in schools where the resouces are greater - that generally means a private institution.

It's really important to be able to keep your steam up & stay excited & engaged - in a top school, that's pretty easy (they can attract a lot of inspired people). In a regular school, sometimes people are not as motivated/excited etc, and the general attitude of the place can seep into you.


that's the key, keeping your chin up! and working hard - then you can do what you want.

If you have the passion for this field, you can drive your self to become the best, regardless of what school you attended.

But lets dab this a little bit with some reality, when applying for your FIRST job/intern, the school and grades will have a slight affect. But after that, its all on experience.