Arizona State is not "Arizona"

wow, really bad - rather than saying 'just do a search in a cataglogue' if you put parameters on it such as 'in the last 10 years' you would realize that most of your ranking is foul - in fact you have a secretary from the AA listing in the rankings!! first names of at least 5 people i know were wrong -

just getting a listing isnt a valid metric measure of research output - buildings, drawings, exhibitions etc. -

there are a few dinosaurs from chicago and the AA who i know havent produced on ounce of research in the last 20 years yet they are ranked 80-90% --

once again how flawed science can deceive under the wrong guidance - perhaps we should get garry a job at CNBC!

bullshit, this is bullshit! i just did a quick search and a prof on that list taught me, and aside form being a great educator, his recent output is high and interesting, this is the kind of bullshit that infuriates me

stanley saitowitz doesn't teach at berkeley anymore and hasn't for some time. shit like this helps keep old, stagnant blood around.

Just to re-affirm how dated this is: saw at least two faculty members from Texas A&M who are no longer with the school. Taeg Nishimoto and Guillermo Vasquez

i think hooper was just trying to present a different way of looking at the situation, regardless of how current it is. but if you really want to know what schools are good, knowing who is who and where is where combined with simple word of mouth and a visit to check out the student work are pretty much it. the whole ranking thing just serves the egos of the students and faculty. everyone knows that.

I don't think people are trying to take stabs at jhooper, more like taking stabs at the person responsible for the report which was released March 2008. The faculty members I mentioned had already changed institutions prior to 2008.
I'm not claiming other ranking methods to be great, and indeed I formed a list of my own top schools.
The point I am (and i think the others too) trying to make is that this one can't possibly have any relevance due to the fact that it is only based on faculty, and we must assume a large percent of the faculty listed have uprooted.

the uk speeds lots of energy in qualifiying what is research via RAE assessments every 4 years where faculty submit research outputs to a panel and they are assessed for quality -- the ranking of the school based on faculty then is a factor on higher education funding to the university -

when it comes to design practice ; research it is very difficult to put metrics on it - they just finished the last http://submissions.rae.ac.uk/results/qualityProfile.aspx?id=30&type=uoa if your interested in seeing how complex the system is - my new school where i just got a great FT teaching gig isnt even listed in that panel as our research is under Design [we are in a facutly with a great arts / material basis] UCL where i do my phd is very highly ranked, has lots of PhD profs who contribute lots to the discourse - probably my biggest complaint about where they are at is that they are in a faculty of the built environment and much of the faculty iterest would be better served if we were with others in the uni.

what is more flaw in garrys premise is that no one should choose a uni for an individual only - you should look at the body of collectivity that goes on there - most who apply because someone teaches there will find out that that person is either not available to them when they arrive or whose current idealogy has changed radically from how we percieved them

the best measure for those applying is to again, go visit the school -- dont go at open houses go when there is a conference or symposum to see what the faculty is really about

Hi All:

Apologies for a response almost a year later, but that's surgery rehab times for you. The 2010 rankings are now available.

TED, fays.panda, MArch n' unemployed: Your posts are borderline illiterate. I know that the literacy standards of architecture schools are notoriously poor, but you have managed to sink below the literacy level of a 13-year old, which I consider the baseline for graduation from an architecture school. And have you heard of something called a "capital letter". I can only assume that your left-hand is too slippery from stroking your dicks to get to the Shift key.

le bossman: "Arizona" was a shorthand code, you idiot, not a description.

TED: All names were compiled from the school's websites. You will no doubt be amazed to hear this, but we assumed the websites were accurate. Don't complain to us, complain to the hooplehead school. You also say 'no one should choose a uni for an individual only'. No shit, Sherlock. Did I say otherwise? God help architectural research if a dimwit such as yourself is granted a PhD (Did I mention the capital letter thing? Remember to include one or two in your thesis, so you don't look a complete fool)

fays.panda: We don't claim to measure teaching. And our output measures are very accurate. Your favourite prof's output is probably in crap places, a vanity publishing unrecorded by our sources.

Roarkschach: You aren't very bright, are you? We make very plain when our data was collected. Clearly you were too stupid to read those portions. To say it is "outdated" is irrelevant, since the publication date was given. In the unlikely event you can actually read complex prose, I suggest you check out my latest rankings.

Are you for real??

Wow, Dr. Garry. After all of your (self) purported degrees and wide-ranging education, what a waste of time your life / career has become. Nice work. Keep it up, idiot.

PHD...Piled Higher and Deeper

I wonder what the ROA on all of those necessary degrees really is? Financially of course, not the inflated ego and sense of entitlement.

I really hope this is all a joke but the pictures make it all too real.

Wow!

While I wouldn't mimic Dr. Garry's rhetorical flourishes (he must be tenured already), his cranky impatience with some of the offhand critiques above is accurate.

His site (yes, you may have to click on a few pages, and read a few paragraphs) details his project's assumptions and methodology, and disabuses the (careful) reader of any claims about broader implications.

The ranking is about research, not teaching. It's drawn from widely available published sources, not deep digging at each school. It has limitations, and he's not shy about acknowledging them.

He's also as pissed off as some of his critics, for which I don't blame him.

See, I thought Dr. Garry's response was completely out of hand. While I agree that he does explain his method on the site and probably shouldn't get so much criticism for it, being that it is one method of measurement out of a dozen or more that one might use and explained as such, his response is offensive. A person with a Ph.D should understand that attacking a critic instead of attacking their criticism is the ploy of those with no ground to stand on, and actually makes himself look weaker as a result.

I do have to say, there is a difference between Arizona and Arizona State: "Arizona" is usually used to refer to the University of Arizona. I know this is most common in sports commentary, but really why get so defensive when someone points it out?

what on earth does a research s?core of 0 mean? No faculty does any research (definitely not true.. I can definitely source research papers from at least half a dozer of those "0" schools off the top my head)? Heck, I mean even know a couple Woodbury faculty members who publish decent research. Does it mean Garry doesn't like their research? They do their research with invisible ink? The dog ate their research?

Yes, possibly over-the-top. But, again, matching in tone some of his critics.

dr. garry can only exist in the weird weird world of the internets, a thomas bollay of academic inquiry. reviewing the list of academics, it seems merely a tool to shame those professors who are not as well published. given dr. garry's cantankerous response, i think that may have been the point. far from actually being useful...

This guy is a joke. For someone to have a Ph.D, assuming he actually has one, and respond to criticism that way is absurd. Quite frankly if you look over his website the whole thing is a joke degrading architects and architecture.

Personally after looking at his site I can't imagine there is any validity to his research. Even in his bio on Archinect here he states he stays around just to irritate people in the profession.

A waste time from what seems to be someone who clearly couldn't hack it in the profession and the real world.

I'm not on Dr. Garry's payroll, but to be fair, the site is largely about architectural research. This forum's frequent (and understandable) focus on design studios for future practitioners at architecture schools misses the fact that they are also places where academic research takes place. Historians, engineers, computer scientists, and others occupy those faculty offices, and are responsible for winning grants and training students interested in scholarly research.

Part of that process and subculture in academic departments (including architecture) emphasizes the doctrine of "publish or perish"--get published (in academic journals, not just in professional ones), or get out. Academic colleagues in one's own department can be the most bitter and harsh critics imagineable. That website's quantification and ranking represents NOTHING that doesn't already go on in faculty meetings and department politics.

The ArchSoc website referenced above is run by disgruntled ex-academic Garry Stevens. His unprofessional comments are littered across the site. It has no credibility as a ranking of architecture schools and academics.

His quantitative criteria to rank the "Best Architecture Schools" is to count up the number of publications by academics held in libraries such as the RIBA. This limited and arbitrary measure will tell a prospective student next to nothing about the quality of teaching and research in any particular school.

Counting up publication holdings in libraries doesn't address discipline specific modes of design research such as creative works, exhibitions and curation that are currently counted in national research audits such as the RAE in the UK, the ERA in Australia or the PRBF in New Zealand.

The ArchSoc site is unreliable as a guide and should be avoided. Prospective students deciding which Architecture school to apply for should carefully investigate the research culture and teaching outcomes of any particular school they are interested in.

The Cramer Report: America’s World-Class Schools of Architecture

We at DesignIntelligence are frequently pulled into discussions and get questions from university faculty, firm leaders, students, and administrators about the quality of those programs that might be just below the top 20 ranked architecture programs. As a trial analysis to celebrate the 10th annual DesignIntelligence schools rankings, we have assembled a list of architecture programs that have distinguished themselves over the years by virtue of several important criteria.

This report uses multidimensional rankings that are based on five criteria: current rankings by professional practices; historic 10-year rankings by professional practices; rankings by academic department deans and chairs; overall campus environment and student evaluations; and program accreditation. (See methodology notes on the next page for more detail.) The maximum possible score is 485, and the top scores ranged from 435 to 477 to be included on this list.

We recognize that some of the schools that didn’t make the world-class distinction are, in fact, the preferred recruiting locations of some professional practices. Such schools tend to be smaller, newer, or more remote geographically, and therefore receive less attention by our survey respondents.

We offer this list of world-class U.S. architecture programs to stimulate conversation about the pursuit of excellence in higher education and to celebrate and recognize programs we believe to be world-class. We welcome ideas about improving this analysis. For example, should Architect Registration Exam pass rates be a criterion? Alumni evaluations? DesignIntelligenceis committed to continuous improvement our rankings. Please e-mail feedback to jcramer@di.net

The total score achieved by each school is noted after its name.

WITH HIGHEST DISTINCTION
[Schools in this category received scores of 468 to 477.]

Auburn University (471)
Calif. Polytechnic State U., San Luis Obispo (474)
Carnegie Mellon University (468)
Columbia University (477)
Cornell University (474)
Harvard University (477)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (474)
Princeton University (468)
University of Cincinnati (469)
University of Michigan (471)
University of Texas at Austin (474)
University of Virginia (471)
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State U. (477)
Washington University in St. Louis (468)
Yale University (477)

WITH HIGH DISTINCTION
[Schools in this category received scores of 455 to 467.]

Arizona State University (456)
Boston Architectural College (455)
Clemson University (455)
Cooper Union (459)
Georgia Institute of Technology (456)
Iowa State University (455)
Kansas State University (464)
Pratt University (458)
Rhode Island School of Design (466)
Rice University (466)
Syracuse University (467)
Texas A&M University (461)
University of California, Berkeley (464)
University of Minnesota (456)
University of Oregon (459)
University of Pennsylvania (463)

WITH NOTABLE DISTINCTION
[Schools in this category received scores of 441 to 453.]

Illinois Institute of Technology (448)
Mississippi State University (441)
North Carolina State University (453)
Ohio State University (441)
Oklahoma State University (441)
Pennsylvania State University (453)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (444)
Southern Calif. Institute of Architecture (441)
University of Arizona (451)
University of Arkansas (441)
University of California, Los Angeles (446)
University of Florida (441)
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (445)
University of Kansas (453)
University of New Mexico (443)
University of Notre Dame (453)
University of Southern California (453)
University of Washington (450)
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (443)

WITH DISTINCTION
[Schools in this category received scores of 435 to 440.]

Ball State University (435)
California College of the Arts (438)
California State Polytechnic U., Pomona (438)
Florida A&M University (435)
Howard University (435)
Montana State University (435)
New Jersey Institute of Technology (435)
North Dakota State University (436)
Parsons The New School for Design (438)
Savannah College of Art and Design (440)
Texas Tech University (440)
Tulane University (435)
University of Hawaii (436)
University of Houston (435)
University of Maryland (435)
University of Miami (435)
University of Nebraska (440)
University of Oklahoma (435)
University of Tennessee-Knoxville (435)
University of Texas at Arlington (435)
Washington State University (438)

so... if one were to have degrees from two of the 'highest' distinction schools, does this guarantee success in the profession?

(it's a rhetorical question...)

Hi All:

IamGray: I know I am real. I don' t know if you are. You can find my full name, phone number, and address on my website. How about you post yours?

mojorisin: Another coward: I give the same challenge to you as to IamGray. And all my degrees are real. As opposed to yours. So why not tell us your real name and your degrees? As I do on my website.

citizen: You've got it in one. Good on you.

copper_top: I take your point. But I disagree: my response is far less offensive than the barrage of crap that anonymous cowards on this site are flinging at me. When I fling crap, I put my real name to it. I don't hide behind a pseudonym.

won williams: Dimwit. My rankings measure publicatiions, so of course they will punish academics who do not publish. And your problem is? And, no, I am not an academic (professor). Stupid of you not to work that out.

mugged: I really think you should extract that Field Marshall's baton from out of your arse. It must be getting painful by now. Yes, I really do have a PhD. That means I've actually one read one book in my life. Have you? Didn't think so.. you keep being distracted by the pretty pictures, don't you?

rankled: I am certainly not disgruntled. My gruntles are perfectly intact. And what do you mean by 'unprofessional comments'? Amidst the adolescent cods in you response, you make one good point: that I do not measure "discipline specific modes of design research such as creative works, exhibitions, and curation". Yup, you're right. I don't measure those things and I do not claim to. And your point is?

Dr Garry

Dr. Gerry,
Thanks for ranking my college,
Keep rocking man, and keep pissing people off!
When are you going to take on the Ncarb or Aia? maybe you have already.

Dr Garry oops misspelled

Hi there DisplacedArchitect:

I refer to NCARB and the AIA here:

http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/RegulatingUS.html