A one year M Arch II, although it sounds do-able, does not sound like very much fun. I wouldn't recommend it unless your circumstances require you to finish that quickly.

Can't help you with the schools. I would say most M Arch programs give you lots of room to specialize -- I'd keep that in mind before you chose.

Michigan is supposed to have a good program but its cold there. Chose a school with good winter weather. Seriously it will make the experience much more enjoyable. It may be petty to think like that but its the truth.

There is also lots of great design coming out of LA these days. I wouldn't recommend going there because the urban environment is pretty awful but it seems to be a happening place. To that end I would recommend Sci-Arc and UCLA.

- Lucas Gray
www.talkitect.com

Jetty, post your m.arch II portfolio...?

Hi Jetty, I am also an international applicant and I was also admitted to the UCLA MArch II where i will end up going. In my opinion it will be a strong, intense program with some interesting faculty, a futuristic approach with Lynn as the "director" of the MArch and Abe, Lee and others there as well. I choose it because i believe it suits what I want for a Post Professional degree, that is something you need to analize carefully. In my opinion 1 year is fine since it is an intense course directed to students that already have a degree in architecture (I did a 5year B.Arch) . Too tough? I hope so. I guess that is the idea since it should be a demanding program for people interested in developing their skills further. A 2 year post professional program in my opinion suits better those who are finishing their 4+2 undergrad+grad education.
I don't know about th other schools you applied to but I ended up choosing UCLA over Upenn,Pratt, the AA and the Bartlett also because of the cost of the education, it is half of what the others cost and I believe I will learn as much as I would (or maybe more) than any of them. Good luck!

Thanks.

I probably have posted this elsewhere on the 'nect, but here's my take:
I went the the M.Arch II program at UCLA back in '01-'02.
Yes, the one year close is quite grueling (and this might be the understatement of the century), and at times it gets really tough. Especially the winter quarter, where the studios offered were challenging, as well as the critical theory courses and the tech seminars.
We bitched and moaned quite a lot about the way the course was laid out and how everything was so fast-tracked. Actually our batch was the first M.Arch II with a Summer Quarter.

To come of think of it now, that was the year that was probably the most important in my professional career. The whole compressed timeframe forces one to think in a very focused manner, and reinforce the 'big idea'. Even these days, working on projects with extremely tight deadlines, it is the M.Arch II experience that helps the most - from generating come quick concepts to the actual presentation - very similar to the every-monday crits at UCLA.

One last thing - it is not for the weak of heart (and body!)

I am eyeing on attending the UCLA M.Arch 2 (Suprastudio) next year 2011. I am currently attending the Postprof degree in SCAD. Any thoughts on what to expect?

Is UCLA M.Arch 2 a tough program to get into?

Unless I am mistaken, Tom Mayne is in charge of suprastudio this year. It changes every year. Greg Lynn was in charge last year. So if Tom Mayne's approach interests you, UCLA would be a good fit.