The big names may not be some of the better places to work. They have some of the bigger egos but may not be places where you enjoy the teaching and your colleagues. Your mileage may vary.

This was a huge concern for me as well. The short answer is that a degree from Sci Arc will not ruin your teaching opportunities outright. In the last ten years some Sci Arc alumni have attained excellent teaching positions. Sci Arc could be lumped in with the other schools you mention, but there are huge differences in discourse in each school. Sci Arc is probably more esoteric than Harvard and Yale, and more similar to the AA. It is a younger school, it attracts a lot of B list faculty and students, and the discursive legitimation behind the studio briefs is generally less rigorous than in the best Ivy league schools, etc.

Go to Cornell , nothing beats five years of freezing cold pure determination.

switch -

the teaching landscape changes frequently and, consequently, so do the fortunes of schools. all wax and wane in power and influence but the schools you mention have all largely held a fairly consistent place at the top of the heap in terms of attracting the best and brightest in the field. at the end of the day this is the most important aspect of these schools: who are you meeting? what influence do they have? how are you making the kinds of social (most importantly) and professional connections that will help you along the way? because, in the end, any school is just an accumulation of the people and resources available at any given time.

does that mean sci-arc is passe? no, but it may not hold the same clout 10 years from now (for better or worse) as it does now. i'd argue it's influence has certainly waned from 10 years ago.

like it or not, the ivies you cite also carry a certain cache within the industry and a lot more without. you don't have to explain who harvard is to that museum board you're interviewing with, know what i mean?

that said, as far as teaching and the media machines of this profession are concerned, where you got the degree from matters less than establishing a clear 'voice' or trajectory within your professional career. originality counts for more than any degree from any institution. focusing on your research is the most important thing - the rest is allowing others to help open doors for you. (but i'm not going to lie - having columbia or princeton on your resume may open the door a little wider than usc or sci-arc).

outed, i think the last point you cite was the pretty appropriate.

to me, it's kind of like a chicken and egg game. teacher first? or architect first? one seems to lead to the other if you want it.

in chicago, it seems like every respectable (interesting) practice's principal got scooped up by a school to teach a studio. (especially with the rapid growth in the programs and the art institute's program taking off)

though, a lot of practices are fueled by their ability to explore within the school environment. which provides and opportunity for them to attract jobs.

though, i think the top tier school name helps with getting both or either. sorry, that probably didn't help much switch. good luck.

on the chicken and egg note -

it seems that those who start principally in academia most of the time never really manage to properly launch their practice work. it's lots of competitions, refurbs, fitouts and generally mostly either speculative or bread and butter stuff. often worked on by their (unpaid) students which is the only way the venture can stay afloat.

now i really like a lot of the work that comes out of this sort of practices so no disrespect intended. i would personally not expext too much proper and steady building activity in my practice if i was doing it on the side of teaching (which, as anyone who's tried it will know, tends to take up all of your awake hours even more than architecture in general already does.)

able practitioners that get into teaching on the other hand seem to have a much stronger position in terms of dividing their time in a resonable and productive way.

on the note of what's in a name -

more than getting you in to places on the names themselves, these institutions usually serve as networking incubators, so that when you get out you're already friends with half the people who pull any academic weight in that area beacuse they work in that school, and half those who do interesting practice work as they will have tutored/consulted you during your studies since you're at the prestigious school. can't really speak for the us schools but at least that's how the aa works in my experience.

just my 2c

keep in mind SCI-Arc is only 25 and didn't exist for the older generation of architectural educators (60+) and was not really established for the next generation (50+). Hitoshi Abe (chair at UCLA), i think is the most distinguished alumnus (in terms of education) and i think he is in his late 30s or early 40s.

SCI-Arc doesn't have the political clout as does Harvard, Columbia, or Yale, but I think you will see more young educators with a SCI-Arc in the near future, especially as more progressive architectural work becomes focused in the Pacific rim.

also, one of neil leach's books has an introduction that gives a pretty good contemporary genealogical history of the education network that most of us are exposed to. it highlights influential educators, their agenda, and how their agenda was spread through their students from key schools.

just out of curiosity, why do you want to teach?

by the time you finish grad school and establish your firm, the university hiring freezes may be over.

how can there be hiring freezes when presumably almost every post grad program receives more applications from all those that can't find a job?

because the endowments at almost all universities have been impacted by the economic crisis that's how.

if a post grad program recieves more applications, they dont necessarily have to increase the number of professors

you can have a hiring freeze and have rising number of students
all you need to do is make the classes a little larger

instead of 12 students in your studio, you now have 15-20

And just because they have a rising number of applications doesn't mean they're obligated to admit an increased number of students.

but back to the original question, i think if your actual work isnt exactly groundbreaking or all that innovative (not meant to be insulting), then having an ivy league degree along with the contacts that come with it would definitely be a bonus when applying for teaching positions


if you come from a lesser known or "name" school, to get your foot in the door, it would seem you would need something to catch their attention

a certain specialty you have worked on and been very successful
a certain topic? sustainable design? etc
a project that was so well publicized, people will know your name and that will draw interest to the university for whatever class you would teach


so i guess it all depends

vado - there's always affiliate associate prof positions available - although, you get paid in parking vouchers, and you have to sleep with someone in the program.

oh - my advice:

befriend someone in academia and get invited to be a guest critic. if you seem smart and offer good advice, you'll get invited back and may eventually be recommended for a position. it's a lot of networking with the right people (hence the benefit of the ivies).

as for grad school: become a TA and/or lecturer. even if your school is non-ivy-league - this is your first step in understanding what it takes to run a class or studio.

also - as long as you budget for submitting to competitions and articles, it won't matter where you end up. the ivies may help somewhat, but it just takes time to get noticed. be prepared for a lot of disappointment, though...

One of the advantages of having the Ivy League degree is the network that comes with it and the doors that opens. If you chose to attend a school that is not one of the big names you will have to force those doors open yourself through hard work and a whole lot of luck.

This doesn't just go for teaching, it also is applicable to jobs.

My degree is from Tulane, which is not a school to sneer at, but it has not done me any favors in finding work in the DC area. If I wanted to teach it might have a little more pull, but not likely.

Also, if your end goal is to teach, make sure you do not take a 5-year MArch program. This degree (which i hold) is not a teaching Masters and if you want to work in academia you will need to go back for a second Masters, a D.Des or a PhD.

Preparation for teaching starts the minute you begin as a student in any graduate program. The most effective line to becoming a professor is to focus on an area of study that interests you and becoming an expert in that area. It is very important to focus on a well rounded design education will simultaneously developing a talent in an area that may not be well explored yet at your institution or an area that the school is looking to persue in the future. Get to know the key faculty, the ones who have been there the longest and who may have say over who the school hires to teach in the future. Most of this is networking and getting to know the right people which takes time and can be done most effectively from within while you're a student.

Finally, when you graduate, prepare a proposal on a course you want to teach in the school you just graduated from. Usually it will be a secondary course (it's unlikely you'll get hired to teach studio right out of school). Its no secret that all these Ivies that you mention hire from within. Former students flip around and start teaching within two to four semesters after graduation if they have made connections with the right people and developed a skill they can offer the school and the students. Many times, faculty at these schools will refer you to their friends who teach at other schools nearby and opportunities start to open up. It is true that when applying for a teaching position, name recognition on your diploma goes a long way...not just because the prestigious schools are respected in academia, but also because they are persuing cutting edge design and hiring top faculty to teach the soon to be teachers. Good luck, its a long road with lots of leg work but if you're smart about it and network correctly it can all work out.

well i'm not talking about adjunct professor jobs that pay you four grand a semester, you might be able to scare one of those up if you know someone. i can tell you for a fact though that a friend of mine with a phd from one of the best uni's in the world with published work and with teaching experience watched at least eight tenure track english teaching positions she applied to shelved due to cutbacks.

vado is right. academia is not an easy world.

if you want to be famous architect who teaches best thing to do is become brilliant. and then wait 20 years.

amen to jump's comment - academia is, by far, more petty, backstabbing, and generally dysfunctional than most offices. at least in my experience. no way would i want a full time teaching gig...

that said, the pay for being a superstar teaching adjunct (as the original post suggested) is incredible. even a typical state school is going to have to shell out 50K+ per semester to get someone like peter eisenman. and that's just for studio. if you're talking someone like h&dm or rem... forget it. they're only going to go to an ivy and they'll command somewhere closer to 80K a semester. it's a racket at that level, for sure...

Getting a teaching gig cold after years of being out of school is extremely difficult. Most architecture programs want at least 5 years previous teaching experience (see ads for Assistant Professors at Pratt Institute for reference) You have to strike while the iron is hot right when you get out of school. Become an adjunct and work your way up to teaching a studio. I have seen this happen and it is not impossible...full time professorships pay very poorly at top schools unless you are a signature but that doesn't mean you shouldn't go for them. Some people string many teaching jobs together and manage to pull a salary out of it. Take it from someone who is teaching right now.

otis151 - great advice... getting teaching experience is very important.

I'm of the opinion that you don't have to be "brilliant" to be a good prof - there is an abundance of really poor teaching in higher ed, and if you can be happy teaching at a decent program (not a top program), then focus on being a great teacher. If you are looking for fame, please, for the sake of the future generation of architects, don't go into teaching.

some schools need to research the applicants that have 'masters'....not all 'masters' are teaching (2-3year) masters and are just bluffs....

thank you for all the responses, very informative.

i assure you i'm not in it 'for the fame.' i simply want to teach at top schools because they tend to attract top students. from my experience teaching dance, teaching dedicated and talented people is the most fun.

man-hole cover: i'm not exactly sure what you meant from your last post? are you referring to people teaching with a M.Arch I as opposed to M.Arch II?

i now realize that comment could come off as sounding like people who aren't at the ivies arent dedicated and talented. i don't mean it that way. i just mean there are probably less people at the top schools who AREN'T dedicated, then say, a less prestigious school that is much easier to get into.