lol, Dustin.

i actually lived in halifax and was accepted to TUNS back when it was still on its own. but moved to manitoba to take degree instead after visiting the school. i think things are different now and this was a looong time ago, but in general i found nova scotia to be brilliant place to live but not very good place to make a living.

the reason i went back to the prairies (where i was born) was because the program was wild as hell back then, whereas dal students were pointedly practical. my impression after recent visit is that UM has become more obviously theoretical since then but is actually more staid than when i was a student. we were learning from opera singers, abstract expressionist painters, as well as architects. nowadays it is all about a kind of "branded" theory coming from the bartlett ( i think) that if you don't like might be disturbing to you. creativity is very definitely channeled in specific direction of wackiness, while it used to be any wackiness was open for inspection - which was much much more productive in my opinion. but that is just me talking as someone who thinks he knows what should be taught at school and not as a student.

anyway. as far as rep goes i would say UM is well-known for its theoretical bent, while dal is known for being practical.

the work experience will help you to find a job later on, but like dustin says manitoba is currently still ok. i would not expect that to last if USA continues to do poorly, but nova scotia has in my memory NEVER been on top, so as prospects go manitoba is quite alright.

i also know for a fact that there are a few very interesting office in winnipeg now and they seem to be building (fingers crossed that remains the case). i know this because said offices are run by former classmates, and they are honestly brilliant.

Thanks for the replies =)
I am accepted to the undergrad level (the 2-year arch masters preparation program)
About the work experience, I was thinking that if I go to U of M and find work on my own during the summers, i could make my own coop kind of thing, but I'm not sure if things work that way and if it'll be hard to find work on your own while still in school. (like if the coop program at Dal will have types of jobs/connections that aren't accessible if you're not in the program).

I was also wondering, how big are the classes at manitoba? I know that Dal accepts around 60 every year, but couldn't find anything like that for U of M

Thanks!

teapot, I just finished the 2-year preprofessional program that you're talking about, and I'm starting my M.Arch this coming semester.

Here's how it works at UofM.... you will be one of about 10 to 15 PM1 students accepted (PM = pre-master). At the beginning of the year, all the profs offering studio will make their presentations, and you interview with them in the following days to get a spot with them. You will be asked for 3 choices, and hopefully you find a good fit with one of them. There's a wide range of studio topics (which rarely seem to stay on topic anyway).

I assume you know what we're talking about when we say 'studio' - it's the basis of your arch education and where you'll be spending 80% of your time. Your education is based VERY heavily on your performance in studio, so it always gets priority. Anyway, the studios at UofM are 'vertical,' meaning that you'll be in a studio with final-year undergrads, PM1 and PM2 students, M1 students, and thesis (M2) students. There are some issues with this but generally I've found this to be a really interesting way to work. Studios last year were limited to 13 students, but most had 11 or 12. Some had as few as 8.

Class sizes for required topics are about 100 students, and for elective/choice classes, for me it's ranged from 5 to 20.

JUMP - you raise some valid points. Obviously I wasn't at UofM during your time there so I can't comment on the culture of the school at that time. Your point about the influence of the Bartlett, at least from what I can see and understand, is absolutely correct, and the department head would probably tell you this is the case. No secret there, and I think that's okay. Interestingly, the faculty consists of many former Carleton profs, and we seem to be recruiting more, much to the chagrin of many of the other profs. I wouldn't say that the faculty is divided in their approaches to architecture, but at times the dissension has been palpable.

Having said all that, there is a wide variety of studio profs, all exploring different topics. Theoretical? Most of the good work is, for sure, but there's a new (or maybe reinstated) requirement that a technical portfolio be produced to support all studio work, so that buildability is never far from the periphery of what we're exploring. Many many many students got incomplete grades this past year because their technical portfolios were lacking, so I think that issue is being addressed head-on.

jump, I'm curious to know who you went to school with out here! There's certainly a lot of work happening and I'm sure I know/know of some of the people involved....

thanks dustin!