Hi, I also got admitted pending final results like ThomasK in my McGill applicant status.
I applied 2 universities in Canada (U of T, McGill) and they all gave me an offer. But I think McGill is much better in architecture undergrad.

I went for eng undergrad to Ryerson we had some of our classes across from the archi building there and I can tell you that those people worked their arses off. One semester I had an early morning class at 8am and then night school classes that ended at 10:30pm that same day, I remember that the same archi students were in their studio when I walked in and when I left that day. I knew one girl who took the interior design program there and she barely slept, so I figure that Ryerson has a pretty demanding schedule.
Also there's a bar next door with cheap booze and drug dealers two blocks down who will sell you all the uppers you could want to get through those long nights (and days)...if you're into that sutff (some of them might even be current or former Ryerson students ;-) )

It's an interesting campus nonetheless, I once saw a police chase on my way from the campus to the subway, it was straight out of cops or something.


As for UWaterloo and Cambridge, I live near the arch school so I'll try to give you as unbiased a view as I can. Don't expect anything like Hong Kong or Toronto, the arch school is in downtown Cambridge, but the downtown is a sleepy quiet area albeit with some nice restaurants and bars and some really nice older architecture. It does have its lowlifes (and I wanted to smack one of them with a 2x4 once) but there's not too many and they're mostly drug dealers and bums. If you want some fun, get a car or cab it to Waterloo, Kitchener or Guelph on Friday or Saturday nights, they're about 20 mins away.

From what I hear the major arch student's hangout in Cambridge is some nasty pool hall with cheap beers. I'm past that nonsense so I frequent the Kiwi Pub (visit the Kiwi if you like good beer and frickin awesome burgers). The arch building itself is really nice and the area is safe, they also have a pool table, and a foosball table, lucky buggers. They seem to have a pretty active student body and speaker series too, I'm cheap but interested in architecture so I frequent the speaker series and occasionally jump in on a class.

Everyone is really friendly, both at the school and in the town, which is a complete reversal from Toronto, where people tend to be angry and rude.

I am very interested in going to Waterloo now... I really enjoy living in a chilled out place, where I would be able to sit out all day. I guess different places have their own pros and cons. Regarding to Zigfromsa, I shall start playing some pool, and sharpen my cooking skills.

As for the Precise, I have referred to the fact how art is judged by judging the composition with previous works of art, where Poetry = Art. Art must be judged and compared with all of the previous works of all artists. Compositions cannot be judged on the work on it's own. Most compositions are not full of individuality, as almost everything has been done before. Therefore when there are new insights or new compositional ideas, the composition is looked greatly upon. Art is always influenced by the predecessors and acts as an inspiration for others. Most artworks are improvements of the inspirational compositions.
When altering a composition, a lot must be considered, as this may affect others....( i forgot what i wrote..).

I guess I blabbered too much on art, and didn't focus too much on the statement. I am an art student and have been naturally focused on the fact how architectural designs are much like the designs from artists.

As for my sentence : i kinda forgot it... but it should run along the lines of how art should be created to inspire others, so that our cultures could improve and move forward.

Well... I have found this site very useful, and was wondering how many people actually uses this site? would a professor or run into these posts?

Lawrence I hope you didn't summarize it when you wrote it.. its suppose to be a rewrite of the authors ideas, your not suppose to add your own. That's the difference between a summary and a precis.

Uhg I want to know why I haven't been admitted yet or anything for Mcgill.. it just says ready for review... review it already!! haha

Last year Carleton mailed out responses during the first week of May.

All the schools seem to send out acceptances pretty late.

im still anxiously waiting for decisions from waterloo.
did anyone else do the mail-in interviews?

*thomasK*
when did u apply??
and how is ur portfolio like?

i did the mail in

msg me at wanker_920@hotmail.com if you'd like to discuss

Hey,ThomasK don worry ^^
I'm an international student and my cousin living in Canada told me that the acceptances for Canada students may be sent in May or later
He is also waiting for offer now.

lowrence chow

which university will you choose? how do you find the UT? I received 2 offers that is UT and McGill. I didn't apply for Waterloo because the English requirement is too high and the tuition is very expensive I think.

xgracyx, waterloo said they'll be giving out admission offers by the end of next week, so you just need to hold out a little longer.

xgracyx I applied back in December
also my portfolio was pretty decent, I wish I could have some of the work I have done since then in it because its really good.. oh well

*ThomasK *

that early??
did u send in ur transcript?

i sent in everything the day before the deadline(march 15) and i got an offer on apr 15, so i dont understand why yours takes so long

Foreye, if U of T and McGill are the two places you got in for architecture, McGill is definitely the place to go. U of T is by far the least focused on architecture (it's only a major, and it does not start till 2nd year). Plus, it's infinitely harder to get into McGill's arch program than U of T's 'humanities program'.

Whoops, I was gonna say, it's infinitely harder to get into McGill's arch program than U of T's 'humanities program'. So if you got accepted, GO.

i agree with sanjeevan.
i also got into UofT, but don't plan on going there. Their undergrad program is not accreditted, and with limited arch. courses available.

Mcgill on the other hand, has one of Canada's strongest arch. program with very selective admission (24 ppl/yr)

gracy, no architectural undergrad program in Canada is accredited.

Sanjeevan thanks very much ! I accepted the program of McGill and paid the deposite yesterday and I think I will get an excellent education there.

Has anyone here also already accepted the offer of McGill? ^^

slant what do u mean by accredited?

lawrence chow

see this topic http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=73945_0_42_0_C
slant has made an explanation about the accredited school in Canada.

Hmm... Yeah, I think it's probably true, McGill is tougher to get into than U of T, since you enter directly into the B.Sc. program, and it is a much smaller program... U of T you just enter as a general arts and sciences student and you apply for the major after your first year...

However, I've mentioned earlier the advantages of choosing a flexible program in your undergrad... Keep in mind that, as hard as McGill may be to get into as a highschool graduate going into the undergraduate program, the bachelors, as a piece of paper, really doesn't matter. This is not to say anything about the quality of the programs, but neither the B.Sc. (Architecture) at McGill, nor the B.A. (Architectural Studies) at U of T are accredited architecture degrees. The only accredited degree, in the long run, the only degree that matters as far as becoming a registered architect is the M.Arch. You can do a degree in Sociology, or Philosophy, or Greek Mythology, or Music, or fashion, or industrial design, or art, or math, and if you then get into an M.Arch., in the end, your professional qualifications upon finishing the M.Arch are the same as a person who does architecture four 4 years prior to doing an M.Arch...

I'm not certain, but something to look into regarding McGill's undergraduate program: I'm not sure about this, but this is more of a question mark... that while the undergraduate B. Sc. (Architecture) degree is a required prerequisite to apply to the McGill M.Arch, from the website, it seems that it *does not guarantee* that you will be accepted into the M.Arch program... It sounds as though you may have to undergo another application process after completing your B.Sc. in order to continue on into the M.Arch, which is the real professional architecture degree program... Call them and ask if this is the case. Because, the B.Sc (Architecture) at McGill is a 3 years bachelors (rather than a 4 year honors bachelors which is the minimum requirement to apply to any M.Arch. at U of T, UBC, or most american schools)... The B. Sc. is also not an accredited degree, so I would call the school and check to see whether or not doing the bachelors guarantees that you will move on into the M.Arch., and if not, and you can't get into the M.Arch., what are the options...? Can you at least upgrade your B.Sc. to a four year degree to qualify for applications to other M.Arch. programs? Because if you cannot, a 3 year B.Sc. by itself is of less value than a four year B. Tech. from Ryerson, which does allow you to most M.Arch programs.

I would just double check on this question... What is the percentage of students who will be accepted into the M.Arch. from the B.Sc. program? And what are the options for those who don't make it into the McGill M.Arch.? This is just about covering all of your bases... It may be that everyone who gets into the bachelors is automatically accepted to the M.Arch, but I would check to be sure...

if its like u of manitoba program then the deal is that you do undergrad (at UM in b. env design) then apply with everyone else to do m.arch. no gurantees, but not a real problem if half decent.

one thing to keep in mind is that the undergrad in b.env. des. at u of m. and i imagine the bsc in arch. at mcgill, is a full-on architectural education, not a regular university program at all.

when i did undergrad at u of m. it meant we had to do a much heavier courseload than a regular undergrad student would and there was basically no option to do anything BUT architecture. Beyond that, essentially the 4 yr BED +2.5 year M.arch were treated as a single continuous education, the same as a B.Arch as offered in the usa.

not to suggest the 3-4 year march for those without that background is not good, but i do think a proper architecture undergrad is better than doing a degree in philosophy or science or whatever. firstly because it will take a year or two off of the total education, and second because you get exposed to more architecture...which makes things much easier for m.arch.

*bRink*
Thanks so much for your long reply and I should say that the thing you mentioned is really a case.
I checked the website in McGill just now and it said that the program of B.Sc is a 4 years program for the students out of Quebec because the students in Quebec have already finiched their freshman program in their CEGEP(hmm...is it spelled right?) . Just like UofT, McGill allows the students in Freshman Program to change their programs easily or even to change the faculty.

jump, good point, I think it's really a philosophical question, focused education vs. diverse education? Is it better to have additional years of architectural training, or to have a greater diversity of experience (to learn something completely different)?

On the one hand, more architecture education is definitely good thing... On the other hand, if all you know is architecture, I think that can be a bit redundant... My personal, very biased feeling is that to the extent that architecture is sometimes a creative exercise, diversity of knowledge can make ideas and perspectives broader and stronger... I just personally think 4 extra years of something totally different is better than 2.5 to 3 more years of the same thing... It's harder to think out of the box, come at a question from left field if all you know is architecture... I think there's versatility that can come with a diverse education...

This point of view says nothing about the *difficulty* of your undergraduate education... I'm pretty sure that McGill, Carlton, and McGill will be tougher as far as intensity goes, if they are really closer real architecture professional school... (studio intensity, etc.) It's true that I don't imagine that U of T at all comparable to its M.Arch education... It will be more seminars than studio I think... (which is not necessarily a bad thing)

But I don't necessarily think *harder* is not necessarily *better*, and difficulty is relative... What is *hard* for one person is might not be *harder* for another person... All education is what you make it... And I think it's a mistake to discount the value of a general arts and sciences education, or education that is more focused on reading broadly, lectures, seminars, writing papers, and taking exams, than designing in studio for example... One could argue for example that Engineering Science at U of T is more difficult than most architecture programs to get into or to complete... Or that it's more difficult to get into med school at McGill than it is to get into the M.Arch. at McGill... You can't really compare, these things are just different, and different is not necessarily good or bad, it's comparing apples to oranges...

I'll give some examples. Computer science or certain engineering majors know how to computer program, and will understand certain ideas about logic structure and systems that architects don't typically understand or know about... Programming is tough, it's more math and logic than just code syntax.. Exams are harder I'd say than most exams in architecture school, involve tough problem solving of a different kind... An architect who had this background, might be able to, for example, approach something with a certain kinds of logic that other architects don't, or for example, understand computer software more quickly than an architect who doesn't know anything about it... Generative Components and parametric modelling for example are much much easier to understand and learn and maybe design with if you have a foundation in programming.

A philosophy major for example might be more widely read, and have a stronger foundation in a variety of different points of view than most architecture undegrads... They will also be better at constructing an argument that use different kinds of logic, and may be better at academic writing... They will be better able to talk about philosophy and to understand some of the history and theory readings that they do in architecture school...

A fine arts major might have more experience with a variety of mediums of communication... A better knowledge of art history, contemporary art... Maybe different and creative ways of thinking.

An industrial design major might have more knowledge of marketing and product design and construction, working in different materials, and communications.... An economics major might understand the forces at play that affect architecture in different ways, a different way of looking at a project... A structural engineering student would likely have a much better understanding of how structures work, the forces at work on any element, and this might produce a certain approach to design work, have a different eye... a film major might know about, and draw inspiration from film... Have been more or a student of popular and media culture... Or use technical knowledge of filmmaking and use it in architecture, in communication, or in design...

In an M.Arch program, I think without a doubt, those students with prior architecture degrees came into first year as the strongest students... They were the fastest at work, had the most knowledge of graphics and software, had seen the most architecture projects before, and had the easiest time with the work load and intensity from day one, they had certain skills that those of us without prior experience didn't, they already knew something about what they were doing... But even if they made nicer physical models in first year, they we'ren't necessarily the most creative in the studio, and didn't necessarily do the best in other coursework... And by the end of 3.5 years, I think the playing field had been equalized, and those who had been studying architecture for 7 years were not necessarily more skilled than those who had been studying architecture for 4... In fact, I think some of the most interesting work, and strongest thesis work came from students who had come from other backgrounds... They were sometimes able to see things in a different way, which would lead them to be more innovative than those who only knew the field from what had already been done before within the field... By their final year, they usually had a more diverse or broad knowledge than the students who only had architecture...

jump, sorry for playing devil's edvocate here, it's really just a philosophical difference in opinion...

Just wanted to add one thing: IMHO, in architecture school, in studio, you learn as much from your classmates as you do from your professors... A diverse student body in the M.Arch makes for a better education all around...

In the States, the 3.5 year M.Arch is becoming a standard... Schools that take students straight out of highschool are becoming the exceptions rather than the norm...

I have to say that I agree with bRink on that last point. I doing a qualifying year to get into the M.Arch program at Manitoba, so I have courses with grad students AND undergrad students.

The difference I see between the studio work of the people who've come up with an undergrad arch education and those, like me, who come in with a different background, is that us 'outsiders' have something to draw into and out of with respect to approaches, ideas, and being critical. The undergrads, with their previous 2-3 years of architectural education, are much less critical but are far stronger with their tools, especially modelmaking (hand and computer) and fancy graphics.

I think it all evens out in M.Arch, but that's my take. I can't make a fancy layout like some of the other kids can, but our crits are much richer in depth and exploration, and don't all come from the same two ideas, which happens when everybody has the same undergrad experience.

yeh, not to dis the alternate route at all. i was just thinking back on my own experience. but then i came from fine arts after working as a sous-chef for 3 years and had enough life experience to not want to waste any more time on other subjects...

i would still recommend to anyone who want to be an architect and knows it already to go straight into architectural school. life will take care of the diversity thing. no need to manufacture it...

jump, good point... life will probably take care of the diversity thing...

Yeah, I clearly have a biased opinion, but I don't think taking other subjects is ever a waste of time, given the diverse nature of architecture as an industry... But I guess what I meant to say is that the alternate route doesn't just provide diversity of life experiece, it creates a professional requirement of *academic* diversity, gives flexibility in career option, diversity in *qualifications* (i.e. you graduate with two pieces of paper that are in different fields), and a more diverse student body make-up...

The diverse student body may seem manufactured, but it's the same thing that medical schools, law schools, and MBA programs do... They intentionally select their student body based on diversity of experience, basically which students will contribute more to their program through the knowledge that they bring, as much as how good their grades are...

I think maybe my own personal issue with schools like McGill, Waterloo, and Carlton is, less that they accept students out of highschool, but more that they don't accept students from other degrees (unless they start from zero). In other words, these schools are in fact the *prohibitively long* architecture school option for those who did not decide on architecture straight out of highschool... This is okay, in the sense that more years of architecture education are a good thing, but as far as diversity of students in the M.Arch, you will end up with primarily students who came straight out of highschool and all of whom have the same academic experiences, since few students from another previous degree program would choose to go there if they could go to U of T or UBC or Harvard or MIT or almost any other American school for that matter, schools which are designed specifically for diverse college backgrounds... An M.Arch student body, if it is composed of entirely your own undergraduate students, is likely a more uniform student body, which runs a risk that there may be fewer critical points of view, less dialogue, and less juxtaposition of academic knowledge that reflects what the real world, the industry, actually demands... Plus, this actually makes me think that at the M.Arch level, these schools are actually *less competitive*... In the sense that, their students draw almost entirely from a pool of students that knew they wanted to go to architecture school out of highschool, rather than accepting the best students out of college from any discipline... Because architecture programs aren't just in competition with each other, they are really in competition for talent with other professional schools too (med schools, dental schools, law schools, mba programs), and if architecture schools put themselves at a necesary disadvantage in competing for the pool of college graduates, that may be one reason why we are at a competitive disadvantage as a profession out in the real world...

I feel like lengthy architecture schools are getting at the students too early, creating too prescriptive an academic regimen, and running the risk brainwashing them, churning out "attack of the clones" when in reality, there is no *right or wrong* in design, the industry demands critical diverse perspectives, and an openness to a variety of points of view...

I met a woman on a commuter bus last year who was going to Waterloo's architecture program. She had a five-year B.Sc, and they (Waterloo) were making her do their entire seven-year program.

Twelve frickin' years of university.

Right, and that's probably why, if you are already sure that architecture is what you would like to do, it is wise to focus your learning sooner. Waterloo is a great school for arch, but they need you to start from year 1, so they must see the need for architecture focused learning.

A B.Sc doesn't count at Waterloo because their M. Arch is for, "students with an undergraduate degree in pre-professional architecture, such as a Bachelor of Architectural Studies."

However, I can understand the comments about getting a broader education, but only if you are not exactly sure about architecture as a career for you. I think most people who want to be an architect and understand the effort, sacrifices, etc., would want to dive right into something like a B.A.S.

i don't disagree with you brink. diversity is cool.

it is worth remembering too that after you put in your 6-8 years at archi-school you still have 5 more years to get your licence, so sooner out the better. the official education is only half of the story.

lengthy programs are i think intended to ensure professional competency and is part of the accreditation thing. it makes sense from a professional stance that it not be too easy to skip basic requirements because of education in another field.

There must have been some major changes in the Canadian accreditation board lately, because our school is being put through the meat grinder this year (we're getting our scheduled review).

One of the rumors I've heard is that the students of our faculty will get the chance to improve our marks (by drafting our studio projects properly) over the summer, as an incentive. From what I understand, proper drafting of studio work hasn't been required in the past, so our admin is scrambling to figure out what to do. I have already done that work, so I'm not stressing.

Anyway, back to the point - some people, like me, don't know that they want to be an architect when they're 18. Or 22. Or 42. It's good that in some programs, real life experience does count.

Waterloo is a funny situation - they're program isn't 'worth' any more than any other, and most other programs allow non-arch-undergrads to do their M.Arch in 3.5 or 4 years. I'm not saying that one wouldn't benefit from a proper arch undergrad education, but that's potentially (and likely) a lot of debt and time invested, when other schools do just as well without forcing incoming students to do another 3 or 4 years of school. Aside from their co-op program, I'm not sure what makes them so special. (BTW - Waterloo was my first choice because it was 45 minutes from where I lived last year, but I didn't meet their requirements. I'm happy for that decision, because I'm having a great time out west.)

if it was a choice between carleton and ryerson for undergrad architecture...

what would the vote be?

On paper Carleton should be better (stricter admission, bit more prestigious for arch.) but others have mentioned the great differences in the styles of learning at the various schools. Carleton, in short, is more creative, focused on the art aspects. Ryerson has a lot of focus on technical aspects (building technology, etc.).

Ryerson is in downtown Toronto, which is a big plus, I think. Carleton has co-op though, which is VERY useful. Ignoring the fact that I live in Toronto, and would come out a lot less poorer if I went to Ryerson, I would probably go to Carleton. Of course, you need to choose based on what you like, and your needs.

You're still waiting on a reply from Carleton, though, aren't you rarch16?

thats funny you consider manitoba out west slantsix. i always think "west" is bc...

accreditation is every 5 years i think...? UM is going to have fun this time round cuz they changed the program radically, basing it on the bartlett in the UK from what i understand...i don't think there is another program like it in canada now, and the school must be wondering how the new setup is gonna go down with the powers that be... hope all is well. i like most/all the staff at um who started the change process and would hate to see them get blasted for what they are trying to do...

Yes, I'm still waiting on a reply from Carleton, hopefully i'll hear soon. Right now i'm just thankful I was accepted to Ryerson this year, because last year i applied to 2 architecture schools and i didn't get in, so at least now i will have a back up.

jump, I'm absolutely having the time of my life. Yes there have been some minor troubles (mostly with scheduling) but the overall experience has been incredible. I really like the direction we seem to be going. I just hope that the accreditation people aren't too close-minded.

It's funny about the technical stuff. Besides one drawing class in first term (and studio), all of our classes are technical: structures, material and processes, building science, CAD......

I just found out today that I am supposed to hand in all my work from this year for accreditation. What a pain in the ass.

has anyone heard from waterloo yet?

I doubt that anyone has heard from waterloo yet, last year I didn't receive a response from them until the 18th of May

they seem to be the last ones to release their decisions

waterloo said they were reviewing the mail-in portfolios and interviews on monday and sending the final decisions on wednesday. you'll get an e-mail as well as a confirmation letter.

jenjen: you are 100% sure right? that means the decisions are coming out TOMORROW!!! im so nervous...

everyone post up their decisions here 2mr!!

2mr ??

Is that anything like a tumor?

If so, I don't want one.

(Kids these days... etc etc)

gosh. u can't be that old not to know "2mr"!!
and yes, im still a kid

xgracyx, that's what they said last week when i went for my interview. and fyi, they're choosing 72 students out of 500 interviews and 125 mail-in portfolios...pretty scary...

But I'm personaly hoping to go to Carleton more than Waterloo, and its taking forever!! did anybody get a response from carleton? mine has been «Decision made»/«Late decision required» since a month now

Same here, jenjen. «Decision made»/«Late decision required» ever since they got my portfolio. Just another week, I'm pretty sure...

Where are you guys seeing the status of the Carleton decisions? I've got one of those accounts for Ryerson and right now it still says mine is 'under review - non academic requirements'... those who have heard from ryerson already when abouts did you hear? and did you get a letter or told online?

Another question, if you dont get in do they tell you that right away? For example, waterloo is sending out emails today, will they send one out telling people that they didnt get in, or do people who dont get in just not hear anything? Do the schools HAVE to give you a reply?

Also, when are we getting back our portfolios from Carleton, does anyone know?

You can check your application status on Carleton Central under «Review Application Submission» (or something like that).

I've just received an email from waterloo asking me to log onto «UW forum for ADMITTED students»...anybody else got that email?? does it mean I'm officially admitted?? seems kinda weird to announce a decision like that lol.

I think i made a user id and pin for carleton but forget what it is, oh well.

And you're right that is weird from waterloo. When they accepted me to their honours mathematics the subject was 'Congratulations!You've received an Offer ofr Admission to UW'. but the email does say that the next step is to check out the page for admitted students so maybe they have admitted you, if so congrats!

waterloo definitively said they'd be sending out letters for both accepted and refused students.