p

No, not at all.  Just comparing the schools discussed here.  Canada is a separate topic.

This reminds me of the undergrad students I used to talk to who kept complaining that they should always be designing grand museums instead of housing/commercial and that the school should teach them how to become famous instead.

fame I'm not a fan of.

Just see a difference in thinking.  I've worked under both types, lots of GSD grads up here, teaching and have practices.  Both types of grads are/can be leaders and at that level I see their differences in thinking.  Again not saying one is better than the other.  Sometimes I think the GSD people are being critical for the sake of being critical.

Is Princeton still free, you know, a cheap Ivy?  Anywho, is anyone going to sit here and claim that an architecture education we got was a financial investment?  That just sounds a little naïve, right?  If the finance world's rule of thumb is total debt = first year salary, it's pretty ridiculous. 

Of course the privilege of hanging out with starchitects and leading thinkers in the profession is pretty awesome, but crippling debt, especially in the first few years out of school is stressful.  I think those who have put their time into the profession can attest that after a few years, with a good track record and portfolio, you can make a decent salary to be able to handle large debt provided that you'll forgo other large expenditures.

Also on the point of elite schools, it's important to note that schools have different pedagogies, some that conflict.  This can lead to being more desirable to some firms but less desirable to others (read: it will put your foot through some doors, but some doors will be slammed in your face).

Princeton has an enormous endowment and their M.Arch program is small. They used to provide tuition waivers and living stipends for M.Arch I students. From what I can tell, however, that may have ended.

I think Elitism has something to do with it... but you know what? I think that the solution to the entire education problem is to make everything free and super competitive- like Cooper Union. Those who aren't cut out to be the best, have to pay for private school. Also, eliminate all competitive sports scholarships. Competitive Sports have no place in higher education institutions; sports is a mere distraction from education. (This last bit may perhaps be suited for a different thread.)

Another thought about the GSD: the idea isn't just that people who graduate from the GSD will be someone's boss... it's that all the other non-GSD people will know all the technical stuff to make the concept by a GSD Grad work. A GSD Grad will simply be "too talented" to waste his/her time with figuring out bathroom details and ADA-code compliance or structural framing issues. All the "little" people will be there to do that. As the saying goes- "[a client will] talk to the head, not the feet."

This is true not only in Architecture, but in finance as well. I knew someone who majored in Accounting and Economics at the Warton School at UPenn who said that his education focused on the larger picture than on the minutia. I guess in his profession, that's where the big bucks are.

Cooper Union isn't free anymore since it overdrew against its endowment to pay for that Morphosis monstrosity.

The cult of capital projects among universities doesn't work so well for a school that's supposed to preserve an endowment to fund all of its students.  

that wasn't my point... I know full well that cooper isn't free anymore.

@NonSequitor Also plenty of GSD grads with practices etc are working on projects like housing and commercial, and not only concerned with becoming famous or creating egocentric forms.  Even a young group from GSD formed a non-profit firm (I forgot the name) to build for impoverished countries etc..

I think the broad education exposes one to issues like politics and such.  I don't know, you seem to have a very narrow view of what comes out of the Ivies and their equivalent counterparts.  Granted there is plenty wrong with all educational programs, like commercially and with regards to business they might lack, but Columbia with MRealEstate Developement program is starting to incorporate more of that into their pedagogy. They realize to really make change you have to understand the finances as well. 

Again I don't think the price for that education is at all fair or wanted by everyone and shouldn't be.  Not everyone needs to go to those institutions and plenty of programs that don't fall into the Ivies also educate broadly and not just practically.  But I don't think its fair to paint everything with as broad a brush either.

@ Bulgar: I know that wasn't your point. I was just trying to emphasize the failure of schools in serving design students.

. it's that all the other non-GSD people will know all the technical stuff to make the concept by a GSD Grad work. A GSD Grad will simply be "too talented" to waste his/her time with figuring out bathroom details and ADA-code compliance or structural framing issues. All the "little" people will be there to do that. As the saying goes- "[a client will] talk to the head, not the feet."

 I was a BIM Grunt who did all the details, ADA - Stuff and basically put the building together - the clients and partners talk to the IVY heads not us "little" people down in the BIM engine Room - for they "lack sophistication" as one of the architects said.

Sure My total tuition was equal to my first year pay - Level C at Skidmore - However

200K is a lot - but you can buy access, long term career success and immortality with it

So do you want to be a average Jill or Joe who just gets by from job to job fearing layoffs?  or do you do what it takes to really make it into the majors.

- One of the "little people"

Choresi.

"I don't know, you seem to have a very narrow view of what comes out of the Ivies and their equivalent "

Nothing could be further from the truth. I've already said I have no problem with the GSD, but I do have an issue with claiming elite status simply because one can afford to attend a certain program. I've also found plenty of great student work to come out of the less shiny institutes so I find the general assumption that they are better to be marketing. This is reflected in the rants from our GSD friend above who hopefully is getting some rest after a tiring day of internet vigilante work.

If you were to remove the cost hurdle of such schools and allowed admission based on academic merit solely, I would then be more inclined to see such students in a different light. But this is not the case.

@non sequitur the more you talk, the more I question your intelligence. 

You act as if we've bribed admissions - the truth you so conveniently ignore is that not everyone is accepted and has the chance to even consider paying $$$ for an education here - and I'm not even stating this based on pride but rather based on fact. And never have I claimed ANY elite status just by virtue of the cost of my education, you've obviously skipped all my posts which have stated these facts yet continue to lie and say youve read them - or you are actually just a dull knife to begin with, which wouldn't surprise me. 

By the way, it's illogical to say that just because great work is produced outside of a certain institution, that that institution is worthless beyond its branding. thats like saying just because just because great cheese is produced outside of France that suddenly french cheese is only good because of its marketing. It's illogical, just like all of your other posts.

Your last statement also is questionable - if the cost of both ITT tech and GSD were equivalent, which would you attend? Based on your previous posts, you obviously see the two institutes as equals at best since, after all, according to you a technically focused education is more important than one based on actual design. how drole. 

@richard Balkans, thank you for the informative post. You've perfectly supported my argument that I've been trying to get everyone to understand since the beginning! Cheers!

you have given me the statistics that back up my claim - that the industry is broken, the only valuation of architects entering the field is their technical skills which will only render architect grads as autoCAD Monkeys for the rest of our lives because - in your words and in mine, *no body fucking cares about quality design anymore*!!!! This is the current state of the industry and a lot of it is based on economics, which is why I have stated, SINCE THE BEGINING, that an education in actual architectural design is no longer a good economic investment. But do you blame this on the school who is still teaching quality design, or on economic depression, industry issues, and overall disregard for quality design? THAT is my point, and you have successfully defended my argument! Thank you for your posts, I appreciate the support of someone who actually knows what he's talking about  

I especially echo the sentiment that you brought up about the CLIENT - how the client sees architects as disposable and annoying, as a hurdle rather than a resource. Go back to page 2 of this thread in which I stated the EXACT same sentiment. It is because the general public and those who pay our salaries sees architects as disposable and unnecessary that quality design thinking has be devalued to the point where even non-design background engineers will have the possibility of overtaking the architect's role in the future. I haven't denied any of the true, cold hard facts of the reality of our profession. I've AGREED with these facts. That doesn't make them RIGHT, and denying this is only adding to the death of our profession, one that isn't based on solely technical skills, which is a means to an end, rather one that is based on actual intellectually and historically based design - something that non sequitur obviously doesn't understand in the least bit. The current state of the industry doesn't reflect this, and the entry level positions do not reflect this - but catering to the illness does not cure it - it only leads us to our demise. 

Avanine, I understand that it's easier to cry foul and ask for the world to align to your perspective than actively make a change. It would be more interesting if fees would be based I ivory tower thinking but no one is paying anyone to just sit there and theorize. Clients need results and will not have the patience to let interns, regardless of the name on their degree, waste their money on "intellectual excersises".

I know I'm reiterating what Richard said above but it's worth repeating. By the way, thanks for that shout-out Balkins. Our friend just doesn't recognize that some here have already passed through the same thing and have real world experience, perhaps even relatively "elite" design education themselves.

Back to the point. Avanine, you strike me more of the phd type who chooses a life of academia because the working world just "cannot understand". That's fine in the same cyclical way that philosophy students can really only aspire to teach philosophy to future generations of students.

Question my intelligence all you want but at least I grew above my design & theory heavy degrees and my peers' naive views. But maybe I can change. I'll halt production this morning on a few dozen million dollars worth of construction to rethink the philosophy behind the million spacing. I don't think the client will mind, I'll just beg for more fees come the end of construction admin because I now value deep intellectual theory over actually practicing architecture.

"But do you blame this on the school who is still teaching quality design?" Which schools aren't teaching quality design? Is the quality of the schools professorship a function of the tuition the school charges?

I personally think you can't really "teach" design. Design is intuitive. You can make it more focused and steer it in a certain direction, but you can't really "teach" design. It's something every human being is capable of. 

On another note- I personally think that quality design is cohesive. It entails all the different elements that make a project realizable. Quality design isn't quality design when the design process is stuck in grasshopper. Not all theory is responsive to a particular problem. So I think it is a cop-out to label the academic agenda at the GSD as "Quality" and that at other institution as something else. 

I have a friend who is currently studying at the GSD who says the GSD's structure classes are a joke. So much for Vitruvius' Firmitas, Utilitas, Venustas. The GSD education focuses primarily on Venustas (delight)- and so does that of many other "revered" American institutions. But again- the question is what makes a good and affordable Architectural Education? I don't have one simple answer for that, but at a bare minimum, you have to walk away with a solid understanding of the these three things. 

@Avanine: Other than the exorbitant tuition (which is common to most schools  - public and private), I have no real axe to to grind with the GSD (other than maybe Gund Hall-- that place is a fucking dungeon). 

But at it looks like other posters are pointing out-- and you're refusing to acknowledge-- there seems to be a disconnect between the "preciousness" of GSD's du-jour design education its applied value in the real world, i.e, the world of practice. 

Clients aren't willing to pay a lot for design services because their concerns of bottom line-- it's not because they "don't understand" the value of good design.

The term "adding value" is overplayed these days, but just to be clear: lawyers get paid a lot so that corporations don't incur massive civil or criminal liability for being noncompliant under current regulatory frameworks. Cardiologists command a premium because people don't want to die of catastrophic heart failure. Bankers make a ton of money because they have the necessary capital to keep the gears moving in companies that are cash-strapped and will otherwise flounder or go out of business without working capital.  

As the practitioners in this thread are pointing out-- your "value" as an architect doesn't really come into play until you're out of school, developing skills with things like construction documents, construction administration, etc. 

The entire point of this thread was to point out that there is a massive disconnect between cost and value at schools like the GSD and its ilk. I agree that many alums of the GSD have been successful-- there are many VERY smart, driven, dedicated students at the GSD.  But a lot of successful alums graduated when school was MUCH, MUCH cheaper (and it was still expensive back then).

I also think that design is important-- but it's absolutely unconscionable that young people are being held up in Gund for FOUR YEARS just to learn "high design"-- only a component of an architecture project.

Keep in mind that you're in professional school.  The value of your education can be measured by the professional skills that you take from it-- design is only ONE component of that package of skills.  

Good luck on final reviews.

I told you that eventually ol' Rich B'kins would start making sense, thus proving the Infinite Monkey Theorem.  Keep typing, sir -- all the knowledge of the universe awaits!   Infinite Monkey Theorem people....Infintite Monkey!

richard should think of knocking each paragraph down to 2 non-run-on sentences.  it would be much easier to read.  typically it isn't the content that detracts form the post, but rather the tediousness of reading through it all.  however, in the spirit.....

i would also point out that design sensibility often comes down to a matter of opinion, which really isn't worth anything at all, no matter how important you think you are.  you can look at the debates over the eisenhower memorial or the south carolina thing.  they're just opinions, with nobody really giving a shit whether it's good design or not.  everyone has an opinion, and if your opinion is that you like swoopy crap instead of blobby crap, it's still all crap.

in the real world, your clients, employers, coworkers, and everyone else also have opinions.  yours doesn't matter.  so, if you have an opinion that you had at gsd v. state college. v. elementray school, the fact is it isn't worth anything more.  there might be some things that you're better at thinking through, due the fact that you've practiced thinking through those things, but your opinion is still as worthless as everyone else's.

so that gets to the point of what you're learning to think through.  it's probably not the sort of thing an employed architect thinks through.  that's why you start at the bottom, and why you'll likely stay there if you don't focus on learning what architects actually do, rather than focusing on the 'intangibles' or whatever you think you're getting at the university you happen to go to.

I'm appreciate of @Richard Balkins for being practically the only person in this thread that has understood my position. 

@Volunteer Purely technical schools in which all they teach is the programs for design but not how to apply them to actual design. That and conceptual - overload schools in which actual practical production suffers due to the lack of technical skills. Like what we've been repeating so many times, a BALANCE between practical skills and design thinking is required. Somehow, a couple of people in this thread believe that the GSD is ONLY conceptual thinking with zero practical skills, which is complete bullshit. 

@Richard Balkins - Yes, there exists a divide with what is taught in school and what is practiced in the real world - which is why I've been saying that the GSD's exorbitant prices are not a prudent investment if all you're looking for is ROI on your college tuition. Non Sequitur does not understand this divide - he obviously sees the sole value of an architectural education as one based PURELY on technical skills, as that is the only "billable' aspect of an architectural education because as we've all agreed, the GP and the clients DON'T respect good design. They don't care.

I am also pessimistic about the profession, which I've stated before. But if we only cater to the lowest common denominator of design education - autoCAD, Rhino, etc., ie. the means of production and not the actual design skills, we are never going to change anything except get grads those low-paying, dead end entry level jobs to become AutoCAD monkeys for the rest of their lives because they can't actually design anything of worth, they can only PRODUCE what the senior architect as designed (which, for top firms, more often than not has a degree or share design philosophies from a non-technical university).

I am not sure if non sequitur is clear but I do believe you both actually are agreeing on several things but may not realize that. There is some differences in perspectives and some disagreements but I think you both need to slow down and try to really see where you are agree and disagree. Emotion can surprisingly blind each other from seeing each other's points.

This is what I've been saying for POST after POST after POST yet NonSequitur still does not understand - he is obviously a stubborn old mule with a chip on his shoulder can't think of actual arguments to rebut what I'm saying because we've been saying practically the same thing but from different viewpoints.

Thank you also for pointing out the necessity of a holistic process of consideration when choosing a school - the best fit is specific for the individual based on a lot of different considerations - thinking that you should attend ITT tech because it's the cheapest way to learn autoCAD is backwards thinking and a stupid decision. Conversely, thinking you should go into heavy debt to attend the GSD solely because it's the GSD is ALSO a stupid decision.

@non sequitur

It's also easier to accept the world as it is instead of affecting change - something someone in your position as a working architect has more power to do than a current architecture student. 

You're once again drawing a false dichotomy between technical skills and design thinking - as if each school only teaches one or the other. Balance is the key, as we've been repeating over and over - yet you only value technical skills, which is pretty stupid if you ask anyone who is a senior partner at a top firm. Do you think, if your aspirations are ANYTHING beyond entry level autoCAD monkey positions, that going to a purely technical school with little design education a good idea for when you finally (if ever) get that promotion to a position in which design thinking finally comes into the equation?

Also, you're ignore the little fact that I have had real world experience as an intern with two major firms, and I personally know more than a few working architects, who actually agree with my sentiments, just as Richard Balkins do as well. Just because the practical reality of the profession is discordant with the values we hold dear as architects does not mean we should passively accept the status quo, but alas, as I've already said, the clouds aren't parting any time soon because there isn't a simple solution, as we all agree.

Question my intelligence all you want but at least I grew above my design & theory heavy degrees and my peers' naive views.

No, you've only simply accepted reality and are only supporting the terrible state of the industry. Like multiple people have said in this thread - a purely technical training in architecture only produces shit designs. A purely conceptual training in architecture may NOT EVEN produce real buildable designs. A balance is necessary. Entry level positions value technical training because you are not designing anything - you are merely producing the senior architect's designs. It's once you rise above the low-pay, slave-work entry-level positions that the balance becomes necessary, or you might not even make it pass that level.

@Bulgar I agree with almost everything you've said - I was generalizing, which is helpful when my posts are as long as they are already. The GSD produces quality architecture. So do many many many other schools who value good design thinking, both elite and non-elite. What Non Sequitur was so blindly arguing is that the GSD is purely conceptual and that technical schools are better because the value of an architectural education should solely be base on the technical knowledge they provide that the GSD doesn't. Nothing could be further from the truth. But back to my analogy of French cheese - just because good cheese is produced outside of France doesn't mean that French cheese isn't good. It's an illogical statement.

@SeriousQuestion but I've acknowledged the disconnect - post after post, in fact... I don't understand how people are so blindly misconstruing my argument?

I KNOW all these things. I've never argued AGAINST them. Yet everyone seems to think that I'm naive and don't know the professional world when all my posts have actually showing this to be FALSE....

How we've been learning at the GSD is that technical skills are developed in the work field, design skills are developed in the educational sphere. This is the cycle of education that we have the GSD - you learn design and the fundamental technical skills (rhino, autoCAD, rendering, etc.) in school, but the education is focused on design thinking. Summer internships and winter externships provide hands-on, practical experience with real work in firms being an autoCAD monkey and learning CD sets and whatnot - and the design skills you learn during the school year along with networks/brand recognition helps you get those coveted internships. Once you graduate, you'll have both skills and can work full time in a top firm because not only do you have the practical skills but you also have "high design" training. Is there something wrong with this? For some reason, people seem to think that the GSD only produces thinkers and not actual workers, when in fact the GSD produces a lot of grads that go on to work full careers in top firms. 

Thank you.

@curtkram you seem to be talking out of ignorance, so I won't hold it against you.

"I'm appreciate of @Richard Balkins for being practically the only person in this thread that has understood my position."

Few appreciate the omniscience of the Infinite Monkey.

how is my opinion on opinions ignorance?  your opinion on swoops v. blobs is somehow more valid than mine?

The GSD produces quality architecture

you already said the gsd produces students who get low paid entry level jobs, the same as everywhere else....

you're comparing gsd to itt tech, which does not even offer an accredited architecture degree, does it?  maybe the point is that most schools actually do offer a more balanced education than you give them credit for, which is why the balance at your school doesn't make it 'elite' when compared to other institutions.

don't see it as 'you suck because you go to gsd,' but rather 'you're average because you go to gsd.'  there's nothing wrong with that. you have plenty of time to prove your value, just like the rest of us.

also, once you graduate from gsd you become an intern (if you want to be an architect.)  that's how it works.  you start an idp record with ncarb, and fill out paperwork for a few years, then take a test.  it's the same at all schools that offer accredited architecture degrees.  so, the gsd produces interns. 

curtkram -- if I'm reading correctly, you're saying that all design is arbitrary and that -- because of the needs of the profession -- all schools are the same.  

i think you can look at design from a broad context, which is largely arbitrary.  for example, some people on the forums here think architecture should reflect historic styles.  that's an option, but it's not the only option, and it really isn't up to the architect to decide if it's right option.  the people who hire architects often have opinions on what they're hiring the architect to design, and their opinions matter.  sometimes the the surrounding community's opinion is important, such as in the south carolina example.  sometimes politicians just want to bitch, such as in the eisenhower memorial example.  the architect's opinion was not held with much esteem in those cases.

good design differs from bad design in the way it's carried out.  whether you're imitating a historic style, making a blob, or a box, it's how you think through the design decisions that makes a difference.

you don't have to go do gsd to learn how to think through design decisions.

@curtkram - it seems like you're now the only one in the thread that hasn't understood what we've been talking about.

The disconnect between academia and the professional world is why all students start at the bottom, regardless of the quality of their architectural design work. It's practical skills that are valued.

About ITT tech - it does not have an accredited architecture degree, but it does teach autoCAD and Sketchup and other architectural programs, which according to YOU and Nonsequitur, is all that is important for an architectural education - hence my hyperbole about YouTube Academy taking over architectural education, because I'm sure you'll be able to find quite a bit of instruction on technical skills online.

don't see it as 'you suck because you go to gsd,' but rather 'you're average because you go to gsd.'  there's nothing wrong with that. you have plenty of time to prove your value, just like the rest of us.

The students may be average because the industry values technical skills for - entry level positions - but based on the quality of student and faculty work being produced here, I would not say we are "average". Not every student here produces good work - not every student at ANY institute produces good work. But the majority of the work being produced here, I would argue, is of very high quality. The same goes for many other top schools, which is why we are considered "top"schools. The fact that we end up getting the same low-paying entry job upon entering the industry is because design quality is not considered when all you're going to be doing is making construction document sets for the first 5 years. 

All architecture grads are basically *interns* because you can't legally call yourself an architect until you're accredited. 

Saint, I think Curt means that since all schools are equally accredited and that all who pass still have to proceed through all of IDP, then all graduates should be treated as equal regardless of the shininess of their institutions or the height of the pedestal they give students during their first week of classes.

@Non Sequitur - 

Saint, I think Curt means that since all schools are equally accredited and that all who pass still have to proceed through all of IDP, then all graduates should be treated as equal regardless of the quality of their architectural education and the architectural works they produced throughout their education.

Fixed for you. That here is the issue - the disconnect between academic and professional work as we've been discussing. 

Avavine, are you implying that you, or another "Top-Grad" as you call them, should just skip entry-level positions altogether? If I buy a real expensive car, can I drive it off the lot without bothering with driving lessons? Should we just segregate our office staff into 2 separate groups based on the ranking of their schools?

Further to that: "The fact that we end up getting the same low-paying entry job upon entering the industry is because design quality is not considered when all you're going to be doing is making construction document sets for the first 5 years. "

This is why you're arguments are not worth refuting, they are nonsensical. If you don't want to do construction drawings, that's your choice, but architecture is predominantly CD and your frustration will just get worse. Your school does not give you an inside lane simply because you expect it to. Every project I work on, concept to move-in, has design quality at every step even if it's not plastered in magazines and blogs.

BTW, I'm not an old mule. Just someone who enjoys watching holes reach new depths. You seem to have this whole professional work world all figured out, keep on digging!

Avavine, no, it's not fixed. You just can't see the point I, and most here, have tried to make. Schools like yours do a fantastic job at convincing you that you're special. I've seen too many examples of this and so will you the second you graduate. Chances are you'll get sick of it less than a year out, at least that's how I saw it... anyways...

An intern is an intern and I expect them all, given all schools are equally accredited, to  hit a minimum equal level of professional competency, technical knowledge as well as design flair. All 3 add value, concentrating on only the easy one is why you continually face opposition in this discussion.

we aren't really discussing the disconnect between academia and the profession because, as you've already made clear, we all agree on that.

what i'm saying is that your school isn't doing anything to justify consideration of their graduates being referred to as "top students," or top of anything really.  maybe if you're going into teaching or writing or something other than practicing architecture, but i'm specifically referring only to your preparation for becoming and architect and practicing architecture.

you start out at an entry level position because that's all you're prepared to do.  hopefully that entry level position will give you the experience and exposure necessary to prepare you to use those thinking skillz you have to design better buildings.  i don't think your school is doing that.

i'm going to go back to this statement:

how the client sees architects as disposable and annoying, as a hurdle rather than a resource. Go back to page 2 of this thread in which I stated the EXACT same sentiment. It is because the general public and those who pay our salaries sees architects as disposable and unnecessary that quality design thinking has be devalued to the point where even non-design background engineers will have the possibility of overtaking the architect's role in the future. I haven't denied any of the true, cold hard facts of the reality of our profession.

i believe architects are seen as hurdles when they try to force their opinion on their clients.  if an engineer and/or contractor listens to the client and tries to respond to their needs and what they want, while the architect is saying 'i'm a gsd grad, you need to make a parametric blob that is a testament to my ego,' (or historicist, or a red box, or whatever other opinion you hold that you think has merit), then of course the client is going to see you as a hurdle, because you are a hurdle.  you're not adding value, you're making it harder and wasting your client's time and money.

architecture is design.  im not following this idea that "design" is some kinda icing on the cake?  

I don't get the connection between the amount tuition paid and the quality of education received. I mess around with boats a lot as a hobby. Want to know what the very top college in Naval Architecture charges their students? The Webb Institute in Long Island charges $0. So getting financially raped by the Harvard bursar and justifying it by invoking an implied superior quality of education seems a real reach.

from what i have seen...i wouldnt be able to tell a harvard student from a state university student.  like anything else, there is a small precentage of "intetesting" work and alot of meh work. all the same though regardless of school.  What makes harvard different is that students have access to the world of rich fancy people. besides connections and a nice campus really no difference from what I have seen.  

I think all architecture schools simultaneously overeducates and underprepares its graduates. Doing well in school is not an indicator of doing well in the profession. Nobody really cares about your school once you have a few years of work experience anyways, your degree is a mere checkmark on a list, not a real indication of much at all, sorry to say. Experience matters more. 

Richard is right - NAAB degree ? Y/N Other than that, an Ivy degree may teach you how to speak better archibabble - 

Bump