Hi! I'm actually coming from a similar background (bs engineering in civil) anddd I am choosing between Michigan, UCLA, and SciArch. So I can't offer any perspective on UT Austin, but I'd be interested in talking with you about Michigan...

As far as Michigan and money: with a civil engineering background you could probably be a TA in one of the structural classes. Tuition would be waived and additionally you would get a stipend.

I really liked the program at Michigan, I actually talked with the structures professor at the open house. From talking with him, I feel that Michigan's curriculum is the most progressive in terms of integrating structural engineering in the design classroom. Also, from what I could tell from models around the building, they seem to incorporate new structural forms well in the curriculum.

I really feel like I would succeed at Michigan: I think I would have the freedom to study what I wanted, and to make the most out of my education. I'm just worried about the fact that it isn't that cutting edge. Also I would like the students around me to inspire me, and I'm just not sure about how I feel about the caliber of students at Michigan. I feel like they have a tough time getting the best students because of location/lack of international reputation, ect. What do you think?

I'm also having difficulty deciding if I want to build on my undergraduate degree, or do something complimentary (such as UCLA's digitally driven curriculum). Why are you so against UCLA and SCI-Arch?

So I don't know if what I've said is at all any help! Good luck making your decision. We have 4 days left!

I went to the open house at u of m and got to meet a lot of the faculty. A lot who were actually from SCI_arch. I think what u of m is trying to do right now is catch up to the progressive abstract and diversity to be able to compete with the ivys. So just be forewarned that there is a lot of SCI_arch style at u of m right now.

Have you also looked at living expenses between the two, because that amount may widely differ between the two cities as well so make sure you factor that into your financial decision. I know U of M offers tuition reimbursement for gsi's but to get in is quite competitive.

I also don't know much about UT-Austin but I can tell you I went to a "practical" school for undergrad and found a few great faculty members that taught me about "out of the box" architecture. So don't put all of UT-Austin's reputations on one side, there still may be opportunity to see the abstract side of architecture there.

Just remember that your education is what you make of it so no matter where you go it's up to you to find the resources and approach you are looking for. Good luck with your decision!

I did my undergraduate at Michigan and just completed my graduate at Harvard. The new dean, Monica Ponce de Leon at Michigan is an amazing teacher with great ideas as to where to take the design field in the future. I heard that she is creating new alignments between design and other fields while maintaining excellence in design. If you want your background to be respected, learn something about digital design but pursue whatever you like, you can not go wrong with Michigan!

I did my undergrad at Michigan and am now at UCLA for my masters. Both are excellent schools, both are a bit misunderstood. Michigan absolutely does not put engineering first. However, this could be a good thing for you since that is your background. Tom has brought in many, many SCI-arc professors over the years...and they're fantastic. UCLA has a more 'pre-practice' education format...as in, it balances the theory side with the technical side in preparation for real life practice. This is why I chose it over Michigan, Princeton, and a few other schools on the east coast. All in all, I recommend both UCLA and Michigan...it just depends on what you're looking for. Best of luck!

Sunshy, I think you already picked your school (UT? Did we already talk about this?), but regarding your concerns about UT faculty, a cursory search of their bios came up with Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, UPenn, etc, et al. And that was in a quick 30 second skim.

hi all, I have chosen Umich for my graduate study. So far I think it is a great program. But we seem to be very digital this summer semester. We have been taught to use Rhino to build models and illustrator to draw the plan and section. Also we have requirements for building physical models. It is good but really exausting!

Say hi to Tom for me! Ahhh, Ann Arbor...how I miss thee

sunshy: summer courses are the only involuntary technical courses you'll receive. you're on your own after that in deciding which direction you'd like to go all the way leading up to thesis, be it theory, technical, etc. michigan has a solid diverse program, but you do need to know your interest just so you don't get lost. i think monica is making the program stronger than ever and you went in at the right time. good luck and have fun!

gambit: are you chris?