undergrad is really important, yet consider your options carefully, as there is a set of basic knowledge you have to acquire before you go on to post grad, and most of the "progressive" uni's tend to trow u in at the deep end and you end up missing that knowledge (that's why graduates from avantguard schools have a reputation for being useless in practice). its also interesting to knowthat most people in AA post grad are not AA students, and same goes for master programs... spending all your academic years in the avantguard is nto that good, in my humble opinion.
the timeless crap forms, one way or the other, the background to everything that is happening in arch right now (be it for reaction against or further development). i know its tempting to run toward what seems more flashy and hip, specially when you just started, but there is a lot to be learned from the "old school". i'm not saying dont change, just look around, and find a place that can give you a well rounded education, because you will change your mind n what you like and what you dont about 5 times a week in undergrad. try and talk to a tutor you respect or that seems more friendly than others. most than anything else, read all that you ca find, get a background in history, thoery, sociology, psycology, science etc, that, no uni can give you

I think I agree but am still looking around. I constantly read. Visited Steven Holl's chapel of st. ignatius today. Fairly versed in architectural history, small amount of theory, what do u recommend for the architecture student's time budget for psych, soc, and science? Thank you for responding I appreciate people's opinions.

difficult to say...look at an architect you like, read about him, see what his references are, follow the threads. i would say a very good book could be 1000 years of non linear history by de Landa, if you havent read it yet, its full of references. otherwise...as i said, try to find out what is the theoretical background to the works of architects that you find inspiring.

hurley: you going to PSU or UO/OSU?

U of O

i felt the same way during my 2nd year at school. i felt like i was going no where and thought it was a waste of time since i knew what was out "there." however, based on my own experiences, it got way better after my 2nd year. the remaining 3 years was very rewarding to me as well as challenging. so, just be patient - work hard - don't claim that it's a waste of time or your projects will reflect what you think, and simply work through it. there's a long yellow brick road ahead.

Thank you. Does anyone have anything they can recommend for short readings? I've been studying Koolhaas's stuff as well as Holl's 3 books anchoring, intersecting, and soon parallax. Is Tschumi's stuff inspiring?

i thought oregon had a pretty decent program when i visited...it also seem they have a forte for sustainable design. Nonetheless if i were you id transfer, or at least explore other posssibities. I understand what bigness was trying to get at with the whole avant-garde=non practical architecture, but that doesnt mean that you wont learn everything you need to know to practice arch at a vangaurdistic institution. Thankfully the NAAB patrols all accredited us institutions every few years and makes sure that the school is teaching the right things for arch education. For example i go to an east coast art school that is heavily into design, theory, materials...but when the NAAB visited (2 years ago) they praised my school and gave it 6 years immunity (the best). Furthermore my unsensible non practical school has shown up in the top 5 of some practioners rank survey. Nonetheless im sure there are schools out there that dont teach any practical values for an arch education, but eventually they will be found out and warned by the evil NAAB. If worse comes to worse their proffesional degrees will be revoked and the school will suffer. So no matter how "out there" the school is it still has certain classes and approaches to arch it must teach, However this is only in the united states. Schools such as the AA and Bartlett probably dont have as much red tape holding them down as to what they can and cant teach.
Overall im glad i do go to a more avant-garde school because i feel that im paying for an education i cant get anywhere else. Furthermore i feel that the practical issues of arch can always be learned during IDP (isnt that the point of it?) where i will get paid to learn. Or if i go for a masters i can always go to a school like u of I where i can concentrate on construction mangement, arch engineering, or whatever i didnt learn in undergrad. Look at it this way...your undergrad education is the most important education you will recieve...not only because it is the longest but also because it will lead you into your future and will help you decide what you want to do with an arch education. If you dont end up transfering its not the end of the world you can always get a masters degree from a school like cranbrook, risd, princeton, sci arch etc.

I'd say don't sweat it too much. If you want to go in the theory direction or whatever, just work that into your studio projects. It all comes down to you and what you want to do anyways. And believe me, once you get out of college and have worked for a while and have started to do some real world designs of your own, you will think the work you did at college was crap anyways. And I know this won't really matter to you much, but it is very annoying to the person at work who has to oversee an intern who doesn't know how to do anything that's productive for the firm and who has to redline the intern's drawing so much that the red pen runs dry. At least read an autocad book and a construction book before you're hired and do everyone a favor. rant ended.

maybe instead of redlining, you should educate your interns rather than blame them of what they've learned in school.

read Zumthor, Moneo, David Leatherbarrow

Blind pew, i took autocad this summer at a community college. I've taught myself the digital material i need to know for that purpose. I have been working in firms since christmas break of my freshman year to make sure I don't lose touch with reality. However, losing touch with reality for me now, allows me to take things further and develop the concepts much farther. The amount of theory/research/attempts I put into studio projects is something I'd like to keep as much as i can in practice and I just want to make sure I am at a school that nurtures that intent and the lack of things being contrived.

I had no clue what I was doing until the last semester of my 2nd year. I worked as hard as anyone, but still could not seem to 'get it'. But then I had an incredible professor (Mario Gooden) that worked us hard, but had clear strategies and unique approaches. This brought me up a huge notch, and from then on I 'got it'. I wouldn't always do something I liked, or others liked, but I knew what was good and what wasn't.

Point being, if it hadn't been for him, I am not so sure where I would have ended up. I think you need professors like this for your first few years, or until you 'get it' (some never do, of course).

I say go for the school that looks inspiring to you (UF was my undergrad). Make sure they have a solid program that offers diversity, and inquire as to how the grads (assuming we are talking undergrad here) are received by graduate programs, ask how many get into the better schools (UF is superb in this regard).

If you like the avant garde/progressive/cutting edge/etc. architecture go for it. I won't say it's easy to design a good spanish med., but it ain't too difficult, either. To make something contemporary that is successful is far more difficult. Aim for that, and the rest will come easier, if you have to do it later on working for someone.

I disagree that you will look back and think your school work was crap. You shouldn't, anyway. It should be something you are proud of, things you created without the limitations of the real world and that you would love to do if you ever had the opportunity (most don't, but some do and that's what counts).

Thank you. I realised with my final project of this year that I wanted to be proud of the things I did rather than please my professor. After trying to use some of zaha's theory etc. my studio professor said that I shouldn't and that stuff was better of unbuilt. I realised that architecture school is for me not for my professors. I realised that I would have to fight for what I want to do this coming year. This along with not-so-great facilities as well as busting my ass at the university and receiving very little scholarships and funding for a near 4.0 all year and dedication that I know very few people have at school. This is not the university's fault as it is underfunded but this is a contributor to my thinking about if it's the right place for me.

Good professors should embrace which ever direction you choose to follow, whether it be crazy avant garde or conservative modernism. They should also guide you and provide you with insight into ways you can further your own creativity. Sometimes it does require a 'that is NOT the right directin', but for a prof to dismiss one of the most substantial architects based on a purely subjective view is a example of negligent teaching.

Some of the best professors I had would bring books to class and help people look at established designers, from FLW, Corbu, to Hadid and Tschumi, and help you understand why and how your work related to theirs, how you could benefit from looking at them and their inspirations, etc. It was invaluable, simple things like why Hadid's paintings are successful for her work as well as why Meier's ink on mylar was appropriate for his designs. This kind of stuff can help a student to develop not only their desired 'style', but understand how it can be furthered throughout their education and practice.

If you haven't seen them, the Columbia Abstract's from the late 80's and early 90's where superb (forget about the ones once computers were introduced, at least imo). Incredible examples of models, experiments with space (don't expect a lot of complete buildings, most is 'abstract'), and fundamental aspects to design that seem to have been brushed over with the advent of FormZ/Maya. They are aslo prime examples of why Columbia was such a great school back then, and how things change, how schools change, etc.

Worth the $20 bucks or so.

read MAD magazine...will keep ur mind open and awake while u go thru the "timeless-crap" undergrad

I just picked up a columbia deconstructivist geared studio monograph from the 80's. Stuff was phenomenal. I don't know about MAD haha I try to get into industrial design and art for distraction haha.

I don't quite understand bits of this - you speak of not having to waste four more years before going to the AA to do post-grad. Why don't you just go to the AA for your undergrad? Is it finance - forgive me if I don't understand US education financial arrangements.

jimland has a good point. I am not sure if you are thinking of finishing and are just planning for down the road, or if you want a change now.

I did a similar thing. I started at Wentworth Inst of Tech. A second rate school, at best, but that's all I could get into. I worked hard, got my great grades, made a portfolio, then took a year off to apply (and ended up at UF). I highly recommend doing this if you are not happy. If it's ok, maybe you just try to apply for next year and try to get what you can out of this year at UoO (like taking a lot of computer classes, business classes, etc.).

I think it's better to take time off, versus finishing somewhere you don't like.

I'd guess anything Columbia did back then was pretty good. Great documentation (that every school should have). Mario Gooden was the guy who introduced us to those and it really made a difference in the studio (he was a Columbia grad back in those days and is in one of the abstracts - great project).

Hey, uh... Dozer,
Do you think maybe that redlining a drawing does educate interns? That way they can see what they did wrong. Oh, OK. And I do blame their school for their lousy performance. I give you the black spot *

yes, redlining does educate interns to a certain amount. however, "till the ink runs dry" tells you that they aren't learning. i understand patience is a virtue with an intern at the office. my point really was, instead of prescribing with the mark ups - maybe sit down and teach them a detail and the basics. that's why they're called interns, they're going through a learning experience.

Ok maybe I am coming across wrong. I am going to enter the second year of my bachelor's degree this fall, meaning I graduated from high school in spring 2003. Finances are an issue. I am very motivated and want to make sure I am applying it in the right school. I plan to give it one more year here at u of o and transfer if it doesnt cause me to grow. I am thinking about cornell can anyone recommend me any other non-grad schools that are avante garder in their strategem however offering a balanced curriculum and other education areas.

From my own experience which is quite similar to you, I would say that you are still quite far away from a panic buttom.

I went to a quite conventional school in an upper state of New York for my bacherlor. I was fine untill when I got to third year, and I began to worry that I didn't learn anything out of this oldschool type of education. I felt like my design was borring and stuff, and I got pissed off w/ what i had. However, I decided to stick w/ my school. Luckily, I found out that in there were few theory class provided for 3rd to 5th student, so I took it. From then, once someone did open a door for me, i keep going back to library to read more and more, and I feel like I began to build my own of thinking.

Then a couple year after, I went back to more theoritical base school in the west for my master. First I was so excited that I will be, finally, learned how to build a 'cool' form.... and yet what i get out of that (well i only point out to studio class though, for a real hardcore and history class it's a plus however, i figure that this kind of classes are more appropriate for grad students or 4th and 5th yr students) was a master of bullshit (to be more percise blobmeister architecture is what i am talking about.). Those design a way too arbritary to the point that anything can happen, there is no precision in the design at all.

Well I'm not sure how do u understand the meaning of architecture, but for me, the excitting part of architecture is how can you translate your conceptual into a real built environment. So I percieve that the concept base also can come from the solid background of basic architectural foundation as well.

And now it is even more clear, as I am asking my own students, who had spent their first two years doing some kind of mapping technique in their previous studio, why they have to begin the project by using such a certain technique and how it will help them to design in the next level. They can't answer me at all.

Architecture is like a language, before you can write or create your own style of writting. You must spend a significant time learning the foundation of a certain language.

You can't go wrong with Cornell for under grad, but that's based on their reputation (I've never met anyone from the program). I strongly suggest looking at UF. It is one of the best in the UF, is pretty cheap, and puts emphasis on the fundamentals of architecture, allowing you to develop your skills and talents on top of a strong foundation. Gainesville is nice, too (I thought about Cornell and Syracuse, but the winters are too crazy, and they cost so much more).

Try some searches, you'll find older discussions about specific schools.

You are young, though, so don't worry about making permanent decisions. You can always change your mind later. Shit, I didn't start under grad until I was 21!

Another idea I'd highly suggest is going to a school's summer program. I did an intro to arch at RISD that was truly superb and helped me realize what I was missing while attending Wentworth, ultimately leading to a year off and the transfer to UF. It was a lot of fun, too.

Hurley...i think Kadam-F made a very important point:

..." I'm not sure how do u understand the meaning of architecture, but for me, the excitting part of architecture is how can you translate your conceptual into a real built environment. So I percieve that the concept base also can come from the solid background of basic architectural foundation as well. "

ask yourself what type of architect do you want to be?...what gets you up in the morning...the thought of photoshopping/maya'ing or seeing your designs built; something tangible?

i'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive, but you have to be able to apply what you've learned. otherwise your education has been misguided. You have to be able to build from your knowledge base. Architectural History is just like any other history, as the other posters here have noted...(also, check out the archinect thread regarding 'history of blobitecture') you have to make the connections yourself...names/dates/places don't do that work for you. find value in, and attain a critical eye through the ways and means of your 'non-avante garde' education. that may be the most important thing you leave school with...and it is priceless.

If you aren't happy at UO, fine...nothing we say can change your mind about being happy...all we can do is speak from experience and tell you that we've been where you are and we feel your pain.... and reassure you that it is just growing pains.

Challenge yourself and you will challenge your faculty. don't gain a reputation of being the 'difficult blobitecture guy' who has to be different; you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. your profs are teaching you things/methods worthy of perfecting and self-induced evolution....don't go looking for the surface value of a zaha or a tschumi, they didn't get their acclaim by briefly touching the surface...they have reasons, and they aren't reasons to be approached/perfected in a semester by a first/second year student (no offense intended...hell, i've been doing this for nearly a decade and i wouldn't try it)....

i don't know UO...their faculty...their studios...but i would doubt that you'll find true lifelong value in any single institution...Sci-arc has its value, so does Notre Dame...(for polemics' sake)...both graduate architecture students...not architects!

Thank you everyone for the advice. I know I am only 19 and just wanted to hear other people's stories. I don't exactly know what architecture will be to me in 5 years but right now it is designing spaces that improve people's lives through efficiency, effectiveness, stimulation (mentally and physically), and get some people rattled up. I enjoy all history, however, it is a learning tool not something to be re-iterated forever and ever. I am going to give UO another year and I'm sure I'll be fine. I plan on becoming a professor, if I can so I have a lot of school to look forward to. I also intend to travel a lot and experience other things, people, places. Thanks for everyone's advice and just ask yourself what you are doing with the talents you were given and how you are affecting your part of the world.

In the future, if possible, you should apply some kind of study abroard programs... it will open a new door of perception for u... I did went to Florence and it totally change my appreciation toward architecture.

I have my fourth year set for the University of Stuttgart. I plan to travel after the bachelor's too so I can find out what I want to focus on in grad.