One thing to know about Michigan's undergrad program is that it is 2 years and not 4. You can transfer into the program after 2 years at another school if you have the required classes taken care of. From what I remember, its not particularly competitive and they admit over 100 students per year in the undergrad program.

it is competitive to be admitted to umich out of high school, but once you are in it isn't that competitive. this is what differs from other programs. probably there are only 3 or 4 students in ugrad there who did an associates degree at another school. its pretty selective in that regard. also, michigan is not the same program that it was 15 years ago; not even the same program that it was 5 years ago.

U.Va. is quite competitive for transfer students. They accept around 14-15 students for their transfer program and then you take a summer studio IF ACCEPTED to see if you could start as a 2nd year arch student, meaning you have to get a B or higher in the 2 summer studio courses you take. All I know about U.Va's program is that their focusing more on "green architecture" as with a lot of other schools are now a days. But what I also heard is that they also focus more on the conceptual side. The best person to ask for U.Va on archinect is probably, EastCoastArch, I think he/she went there. (I live in Va, and have applied to UVa as a transfer student and w/ill again to give you an idea, i had a 3.7 over 35 credits when applying, and I took a lot of hard core courses, not that many easy liberal art courses.)


But I am curious, why do you want to leave California, they have a lot of great arch schools down there. I personally I am trying my hardest to transfer into USC.

thanks for all the info!

>lebossman:
what is the change of umich in these years..?

>sunsetsam:
you said there are some other great schools in CA....can u tell me more about that please?
I want to leave California for several reasons...
first of all as I am looking for 4-year program, I can only find berkeley, ucla and usc (are there any other choices actually?). I can't fulfill berkeley's requirement because my school doesn't offer arch courses; ucla's program is new and I am not sure is it good or not; usc require all tranfer arch students to start from year 1, and 4(or 5) years in usc is expensive. so..that's why I am looking for more choices in other states.
the second reason sounds stupid....I simply want to broaden my horizon and explore new things in new places. I am from hong kong, and there are so many chinese in california. I have cousins living in san francisco, and I have many friends studying in ucla and usc. I like that all, but just want to be independent at least once in my life. that's it. =P

************

One thing I am curious about UVa is that why don't they require a portfolio....does that means they focus more on history and theories instead of design?

actually are there any other schools that you guys would recommend? UVa and Umich are too competitive and I really need some "easier choice".

in the 2.5 years i was at UM it seemed as though the rigor of the students and their work increased, and descriptions of the program from people who went their ten years ago tend to sound more negative than those of today. now is a good time to be there as tom buresh has done a lot of good things for the school, mainly in improving the facilities, the abroad studios, and the visiting faculty. that said, personally i feel like the pre-arch (1-2 year) part of the program isn't that rigorous. instead of designing buildings, the program is pretty drawing intensive and the students build things like cardboard furniture, the value of which is a bit suspect to me. the 3-4 years of the program and the grad school are much better.

uva is a good school too, and i have a lot of friends who went there. i would say uva's program as i know it seems a bit more craft oriented and traditional, while michigan is more technology based. uva also has a great landscape program. there are as many good students at michigan as there are at uva, but michigan is larger and the percentage of stellar students is probably lower overall at michigan. uva is harder to get into. it is also a lot cheaper and probably more of a "name" school and will get you more respect on the east coast.

personally i would prefer michigan for graduate school as the facilities and programs available will provide more opportunity to persue your own interests, whereas uva has an undergrad program which will likely help you lay down the fundamentals of how to design (and make beautiful things).

Some schools require portfolios while others don't, Reason: I don't Know. There are some "easy" schools to get into for arch, but most of them are 5 year programs. Personally, I would chose UVa's Masters, for the sad reason that it is a well known program around the nation, most of the time ranked under the Harvard and another ivy.

I think you should AT LEAST apply to one cali school as a back up. I know for USC you don't necessarily start as a 1st year automatically, it depends on your portfolio and courses you took. .

You shouldn't forget about fin. aid (well, if your applicable) private schools give much more money than public. Also, you will be paying more if you go to Undergrad then Masters right away. Youll be doing two years of masters (don't forget that courses for masters are REALLY expensive compared to undergrad) because you did a pre-professional program, if you did professional undergrad you will only do one year masters.

But I am curios, why do you want to do 4 years? If you KNOW you want to study architecture and become an architect, then just aim for 5 year professional program. People who mainly choose the 4 year program are the ones that also want to explore other academic fields while studying architecture, more like testing the waters before diving into the heart of architecture academia.

The funny thing is that we have the same mentality, and we want to move to the opposite coasts lol.

yeah but if you want the name, uva is uva, regardless of if it is an m.arch or a b.s.

do what you want to do, but don't think about the name. the name isn't enough. we just got an applicant who went to the gsd and penn and we aren't hiring him because he doesn't have enough experience for the position. name isn't everything.

>lebossman:
thanks for your advice, it is very helpful
and one more question, how would you choose between the path of 4+2 and 5? And which one do you recommend? (for a transfer student)

>sunsetsam:
of course I will apply schools in california, and I will apply 5-year programs too. I have a friend who was in my school has transfered to usc this year, so I will apply usc too. and I'll also try ucla. I am just looking for more choices.
I like to study a 5-year program, but seems that the curriculum of the 4-year programs are more suitable for transfer students. I'll need 7 years to get a bachelor degree if I go for the 5-year program...there's pressure from family...you know, my parents and grandparents don't want me to gradate so late(they know nothing about architecture programs, and all the things in here are different from things in my home country, so it's difficult to explain to them about this) so in this case, go for a 4+2 is a more "balanced" choice, as I can get a bachelor degree faster, and I can still become an architect. it's a tough choice...I haven't determined to go for 4+2, but it just seems better in this case.

personally i'd choose 4+2, and go to two different schools. you will get a different perspective on architecture and probably a more well rounded education this way. by your senior year, you'll know more about what you are interested in and be able to choose your grad school accordingly. i also have a broader network than a lot of people because i went to two large schools in two different regions of the country. everywhere i go i meet an alum from one school or the other. also it's just me, but i feel that a lot of people i know who went to a one school, 5yr program are maybe a little more narrow minded design approach than those who went to a 4+2 program with two different schools. no offense to anyone who did a 5 year, but i think a two year masters is better.

5 year is cheaper and faster, however. also, most 4+2 people work for a year or more between ugrad and grad (which i feel is a great idea) but that said, you won't make as much money in this time than if you do a 5yr degree.

>lebossman:
I see...I really want to have a broader mind and I really want to try the 4+2. but I am afraid that I am not well prepared for the M.Arch if I choose the 4+2, because my community college does not offer any arch courses, which means I will miss 2 years of education in arch history/theory if I can successfully transfer to a 4-year program.

the 5 year choice is not faster for me....most 5 year program require transfer student to start as a freshman(as I haven't taken any arch courses), so I need 5 more years to complete a bachelor; but if I choose the 4+2, I can transfer to the junior year, and it's 2+2=4. but it might be still more expensive for the 4.

I am a bit lost now...

how far along are you in community college? if your grades are at a certain point, i would head out at the end of this semester. cc won't get you far, unless you can find a school you can transfer to in third year. i knew a couple of people at michigan who did this, and managed to do fine in the masters program. that said, you'll have some catching up to do, but it isn't impossible.

I am year2 in cc now, and I will transfer in Fall 08(hopefully). I believe I can maintain my gpa above 3.7 before application. for portfolio...I hv taken an arch summer course in my home country, so that I have 2 architectural-related works, and some sculptures. I also have some logo, graphic, and web design works. (just don't know what work should I put in the portfo)

and I heard there are 3-year M.Arch for students who has studied a 4-year BS/BA in Arch....it that true?

yes, a lot of schools (including UM) do this, but it is a long haul.