Congrats!  They would have both laughed at my application, so I don't know if you'd even consider my plebeian opinion.

Your gut reaction counts for a lot.  I'm stunned to find such different attitudes reported for these 2 schools which are practically adjacent to each other.  I would have thought MIT to be more foreboding, with that big gray building they always show as its "icon."  So your report is enlightening.  If a "nasty edge" is not your thing, and MIT is giving you more money, then go to MIT.  (In interviews for my first job after graduating, I was interviewed by a Harvard GSD principal, and the arrogance was unmistakable).  Sure, Harvard always causes jaws to drop, but then, so does MIT.  The other thing is that you can infuse as much discipline into your MIT education as you want.  Had Harvard been more supportive and collegial, per your perceptions, I would have said Harvard. 

same here observant, I applied but wasn't accepted to either, but have a very similar impression of each.

Initially I was all into the GSD. The studio space is much better, and yes the work being produced is impressive. Not to mention all the connections. MIT's building was confusing and maze like. Then I went to the open houses.

I had a great impression from MIT. The faculty were much more open to conversation; I didn't feel like a number. The students were more open too. I was also way more impressed with the faculty and student presentations than Harvard's.

I went to the GSD open house and had the exact opposite impression. Non of the faculty cared to talk to anyone. I got an over all cold feeling and bad impression upon leaving the place, so much so I was hardly excited to apply anymore. I immediately favored MIT after my visits, hands down.

I'm sure the 'competition' factor will be at MIT. You're still in league with some of the best and brightest students, but the culture seems more inviting than at the GSD. I view that as a huge positive. If you want to turn out like the alum observant mentioned, then the GSD with it's 'nasty edge' is your best bet. If you want some sanity and care about your health, maybe MIT is the way to go. And there's more money. 

To me this is a no brainer: MIT.

couple questions - are you planning on staying in the area?  what do you intend on doing with your degree?

So a smaller, friendlier, more accessible school with more or less the same level of reputation is giving you an extra ~$24,000? (as a 3.5 year program.) I would go to MIT.

I've never met a MIT grad ... in any field.  Do its alumni take care of each other the way Harvard's do?  Where do MIT architecture grads typically end up working?  I think part of the equation for the OP is letting go of brushing with the Ivy League mystique, which is understandable if someone is admitted, but the decision isn't as painful when the other school is MIT.

@observant - thanks for the input, I judge it based on content and tone, not educational background :) You mention 'jaw dropping' and 'Ivy League mystique': just to be clear, I care naught for the reputation beyond it's tangible benefits, ie finding a job, getting what i want to do done. In fact, I've been disenchanted with Harvard since high school, and MIT was my first choice applying to grad. Indeed, MIT grads are much sparser and more independent than Harvard grads, and outside of research, those ties afford fewer opportunities for professional connection. The painful decision is, do I want a hit or miss environment (MIT) where the 'hit' is a bit of a toss-up or a consistently high-functioning one (Harvard) that might break me and reshape me in their image. I do not want to get pigeonholed into an architectural legacy, since to me, architecture as a field seems pretty broken. 

@zags - I definitely see why you got those impressions. The GSD open house was crowded and impersonal, and you definitely had to assert yourself much more in order to find an audience with the faculty. I know their work though, and so I know which faculty members I wanted to talk to prior to both open houses. I'm certain I'll be happier and saner at MIT - but yanno, got a bit of that crazy in me, and that's actually what pushed me into architecture in the first place. Not a workaholic, but just thinking a lot about a lot does that to you.

@toasteroven - love theory but set on getting licensed, will stay wherever I can find a place. I have profs in their early 30s who own firms and teach with just a master's, and I kinda like that route, but it's up for grabs. In the end I want to build though, I want design with integrity and if I can't find a firm who is up to par on that then I want to start my own.

@snail - smaller doesn't always mean better. In this case, I love the diversity of Harvard's incoming class, 55% non arch, 50% international. I love that I can talk linguistics or econ or ecology or philosophy with those kids, and unfortunately my conversations with the MIT crowd simply didn't offer such a vibrant community. Though of course, this is just based on three days of stuffy formal open house interactions, so it's highly skewed. Friendlier = less criticism/fewer challenges, and I like having my ideas contested (that's the science research background speaking right there).

Thanks to all of you for your input though, and I applaud you if you've read this far :P

calamist -

You seem to be a free thinker and somewhat unconventional (both good IMO), so maybe MIT is what you need.  I imagine the people at MIT will be supremely smart and you can engage in the kind of dialogue you seek.  As for the hit and miss environment, you can make a miss a hit (a possible dud for a studio, for example).  You'll just have to take the bull by the horns.

When you go to a solid, yet slightly ho-hum a-school, these issues don't come into play.  When walking around studios during my visit, I struck up extended conversations about "life" and "school" with 2 people, and then was friends with them when I ran into them after matriculating.  Some things about the school bothered me, though, and that night at my hotel, I threw up.  Now THAT'S a gut reaction.  The things I sensed that I didn't like in fact manifested themselves.  My biggest complaint is that, at the less in-demand schools, you have a lot of people in design studios who seemed ambivalent toward design, they did not produce designs which showed thoughtfulness and thoroughness yet were graduated, and they were not dependable as learning resources.

I believe that the more you learn, the more you realize how much you DON'T know. That makes it both interesting and kind of depressing at the same time.

MIT

calamist -

Did you decide?  Which school?

We are probably past the deposit deadline, but I will say  to think long and hard about what it means to be at an environment as cutthroat as the GSD with a non-architecture background.  You will be pitted against students who have unaccredited undergraduate degrees in architecture, and who have essentially been working as architects before coming to grad school.  The school has a tendency of letting kids with non-architecture backgrounds  get lost in the shuffle.

^

Disagree here.  The students with no background take 3.5 years and those with a 4 year degree in arch. (by definition unaccredited) get advanced standing, and it's 2 or 2.5 years.  The non-architecture folks will be kept together for at least 1 year, and ought to get their bearings.  Whether they do or not is a different story.  A professional or graduate program at a Harvard looks for retention.  It would be really interesting to have a couple of people who graduated from Harvard with non-architecture backgrounds to weigh in on what the atmosphere was like, but I doubt that sort of person is on archinect to begin with.

observant: I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about here.  Not all applicants are placed into the AP program.  Even those with extensive professional experience.

^

Ok, I might be wrong, but Harvard does run a M.Arch. 2.  I don't know why someone with a BS in Arch. from one of the heavy-hitter schools such as UVa or U of M would even put up with being placed in a 3+ year program.  Some of the 4 year students in my school who went Ivy (one to Penn) went to their 2 year program.  If what you say is correct and/or has occurred, that means Harvard might mercilessly and unnecessarily extract extra money from students who are qualified for advanced standing. 

I know that CM undergrads come into 3 year programs and get some "advanced standing."  They have the introductory construction and structures courses waived if they present equivalent coursework, which is only fair.  It would suck if they made them stock up with electives in lieu of these to fill the same credit load as the other students.  They shouldn't have to. 

"I don't know why someone with a BS in Arch. from one of the heavy-hitter schools such as UVa or U of M would even put up with being placed in a 3+ year program."

Rather simple.  Because (i) they don't have accredited degrees and need the M.Arch I to move toward licensure and (ii) the Big H is a massive selling point to prospective students.

Serious is right here. it's hard when you switch schools from B.S. to March. I'm in that position now, and unfortunately it boils down to some schools not recognizing certain classes from other programs. In my case, I will be able to waive a few classes, but not enough to amount to a whole year. This lightens my load and allows me to take other classes if desired, but does mean 3 years even with a B.S.

If I stayed at the same program, I could have finished in 2 years. Why didn't I? A) wanted to experience a new school/pedagogy since I have the opportunity, B) I'm totally OK with doing 3 additional years, in fact I wanted to. I got a decent offer, so the money isn't a huge issue even though it's a private school. I also only have 2 years of studio in undergrad, so an additional 3 is probably necessary.

^^ and ^.

Ok, got it.  It's sad, though.  It's sort of implicit that a 4 year BA/BS from a school that has an accredited M.Arch. on the premises should lead to a 2 year program.  I knew of no one at my M.Arch., even from some lackluster u.g. a-schools, who was put into anything other than the 2 year M.Arch.  There was one social science major in my 3 year class who had moved IN and OUT of architecture while in undergrad somewhere, and was less competent than those WITHOUT architecture classes, so that person needed to be there.

So, it's a captive audience problem.  It's then regulated by the desirability of the school and the variability of the undergraduate curriculum, as well as the subjective judgment call about the portfolio.  That's why NAAB needs to clamp down on u.g. programs and demand some uniformity in the content.  Essentially, in a 4 year (using semesters):

6 studios, beginning in sophomore year / 1 or 2 graphics labs in freshman year, including digital / 1 theory-intro course / 2 history courses / 2 construction courses / 2 environ tech course / 3 structures courses / 1 or 2 electives, in some current area of concern, such as sustainability.  What's that? About 71 semester credits, leaving 49+credits for general ed.  Sounds like a good foundation for no more than a 2 year program.

Another indicator as to why architecture can be hosed.

Hey guys - I've the pleasure of informing you that I went against all of your advice pointing towards MIT and picked Harvard. It was painful and I agreed with pretty much everything that was said here, but it basically boiled down to (1) faculty + research and (2) the non-arch background experience.

(1) Got into contact with two GSD faculty members who are doing more or less precisely what I'm interested in. MIT's research didn't quite align with my interests.

(2) Half of the GSD's incoming class have non-arch backgrounds (compared to maybe a handful out of 30 at MIT), and there is a required digital media skills course we have to take the few weeks prior to fall semester. Talking to the non-arch people at both schools, it definitely appears that Harvard assimilates them much better than MIT does. In fact, of the student projects that were shown at the spring open house, the most impressive one was a second year MArch I's who came from a psychology/econ background, in terms of both concept and feasibility. I know I want to go into practice after grad and not swim around with research or consulting jobs, so I do value the ability to churn out functional architects from non-arch backgrounds.

note: @SeriousQuestion - That was precisely the attitude the undergraduate architecture department head at my school had when I talked to her about taking a second year studio without previous architectural training. Though of course her skepticism was rational - in most cases that transition would be very difficult - but when it comes down to it one should always judge based on their own circumstances and abilities instead of following general cautionary 'take the safe route' advice. I worked my ass off, enjoyed quite a few sunrises, and did really well - actually, I have a 4.0 record in all of my undergrad studios/arch classes (not that gpa is an entirely accurate assessment of ability). I am fully prepared to be outclassed in grad - looking forward to meeting people I can learn from :)

Congratulations!  Your silence almost implicitly indicated you had picked Harvard.  A person who gets into both Harvard and MIT has nothing to worry about.  I think they both would have shredded my application had it not been in a paperless scenario, though.

Congratulations on your decision, and good luck.  And, as counterintuitive as it may sound in architecture school, never underestimate the importance of regular sleep.