Hi--

They are certainly very different programs. I am currently a 3rd year grad at RISD; I too looked at Columbia when I was applying. Although I can't say anything about Columbia beyond my experience visiting, I have found RISD's program to be very self-motivated; to get the most out of your time here, you have to put a lot into it. There are some inconsistencies in the program, classes or studios that are kind of duds, but this can easily be avoided.

What I think is awesome is that the professors are always there for you, and are really dedicated to teaching. I think this might be one of the strongest differences, beyond the obvious computer-CAD//art-handdrafting duality. I think the professors at RISD are often teachers first and architects second; I think this relationship is inverted at Columbia. The faculty is extraordinarily diverse, as are the students.

Another major difference is that RISD is "vertically integrated" which means that you take classes with undergrads. Which can be infuriating if you, i.e., have an art history degree from undergrad and are taking architectural history with a bunch of kids who have barely ever written a paper. But in studios, the undergrads are actually awesome to have around. They have an unjaundiced view of the world and approach to design that tends to eschew convention.

I have been really happy here... we may not have 15 laser cutters, but we have a nice woodshop and 1 laser cutter. We also just got a huge CNC router. And RISD, as a whole, offers tons of other equipment in other departments, you just have to be industrious about seeking them out.

Good luck and I hope this maybe helps a little.

"I think the professors at RISD are often teachers first and architects second; I think this relationship is inverted at Columbia" is a false statement. The diversity of curriculum that Columbia offers is it's strongest quality. Critics range from fully functioning practitioners to the writer/theoretician/historian.

I've had a critic who has taught at both RISD and Columbia and she says that RISD is much more of an art school than it is an architecture school - more is being done at RISD in the way of making and material fabrication. This is not to say that Columbia is stuck in the paperless studio digitally-driven design methodologies of the 90's - there is still plenty of fabrication, detailing, and model-making in the program. I believe there is more of an opportunity at Columbia to shape your own curriculum as you move through the program because there is a wide range of possibilities.

I am really glad I came to Columbia, and I've learned a lot over the last few years even with a background in architecture. The energy is what sold me when I took a tour of the school. If you work hard you can make a ton of connections at Columbia, particularly international ones if you are interested in traveling.

You should just visit because I think they're much different programs...

^ oh no its my bizzaro

Hi guys thanks for posting. I have a few more questions if you don't mind:

liznieve:
When you say that some studios are duds, which ones are they and why?
Also, considering you are graduating soon, what is your outlook on prospective jobs and has RISD offered enough through their career services or even through "connections" to help you in finding positions?

m.arch n' almost employed:
When your former professor says "that RISD is much more an art school than it is an architecture school" compared to Columbia, what makes it more of an "architecture school"? Is it more technological/construction courses? Is it less theory?

i would say that a good architecture school should offer a wide array of building technology courses and history/theory courses. columbia definitely offers both, and you get to choose your focus - whichever you find to be more suitable for your work and future career goals.

now i'm not sure what kind of courses RISD offers in the way of technology and history/theory but what my professor meant is that they offer more 'artsy' courses there like glass blowing. it's more difficult here at columbia to take fine arts classes that are integrated with architecture. even if you take a look at the brochures from each school, you should notice that students at RISD are actually making more things with their hands. this is not to say that you cannot make things at columbia - they offer a good number of fabrication classes as part of the 'visual studies' sequence. i've also personally taken professors who require model building/material studies as part of their agenda. part of of the reason why model building is not happening everywhere here is the limited space that new york offers. have you visited? the desks are tiny, but i've managed just fine somehow.

like i said, i think columbia's strength is their diversity in curriculum/students/faculty and also the connections you can make there...

some would say what RISD lacks in contiguous theory curriculum it makes up for in the resources to make almost anything you can imagine. As a grad student I believe you can take part in wintersession, a winter trimester where you can, literally, make bongs for 6 weeks, travel to mexico, take photography, or take one of the excellent history/theory classes offered at this time.

wintersession is one of the most amazing programs offered by any school in the whole world. Imagine being able to stop everything in your major and indulging a fantasy for 6 weeks. This includes independent studies.

I believe studying (art)theory with a bunch of artists might be helpful to an architect, also some of the theory teachers (Christopher Ho) are artists as well.

Of course the connections at RISD are pathetic compared to Columbia, but this probably changes a little every year.

m.arch n' almost employed-
I just visited the U of Houston grad school, which also goes according to this building and hand-crafting models as part of their design process.

Do you believe that making beautiful models all along that process is key to ending up with sound architecture? Or do you feel computer modelling suffices?

Personally, I imagine I'd find it a pain in the butt to constantly be making and revising models, but maybe doing something in 3-D can't be replaced by computers. Whaddya think?

sbeth85-

i believe there can be a combination of both happening. there are new 3d modeling techniques which can inform a new method of construction/detailing. likewise, there are old construction techniques which can inform new 3d modeling techiniques - i.e. gaudi and nurbs modeling.

for me, the beautiful model doesn't just happen at the end, nor does it exist simply for the sake of being beautiful. i find satisfaction in the discovery of construction methods, spatial experiences, and material behavior by making things at the beginning of a design project. oftentimes i'll end up with something that stays in a computer, but it's the experimentation at the beginning of the process which stimulates my intentions.

i found RISD to be really lacking in theory, history and building construction/ technology classes -- anything other than studio is not taken too seriously. the school seems really overpriced for what it has to offer in terms of resources (tiny woodshop, old computers, very few plotters). using other departments' resources is possible, but it really depends on the TAs - the ID department next door will not let you use their shop at all. students didn't seem to have much of a voice inside the school, as the administration answers any concerns with banalities like "maybe this is not the right school for you." (it obviously wasn't, so i transferred to UT Austin. much better program for half the price.) if you visit though, ask about the drop-out rate among grads...

i have seen great students coming out from both of these schools. i have to agree with dmc on this one about the lack of a diverse curriculum.

i did spend 1 year at the risd arch program during my undergrad a couple years ago. i told myself i will come back to it later in my life when i was ready. now i am attending one of columbia ivy peer schools and i can tell you the resources are vast in caparison to risd, in terms of facilites, faculty, classes, and networks. from what i see from my friends who attended columbia its an amazing school allowing students to pursue their own focus.

I dont' think taking a class with an undergrad should be an issue although i can understand the concerns for some grad students. at the same time i saw several grad students who couldn't design for nothing. the facilites at risd are really limited they do have 1 laser cutting lab with 1 machine, 1 wood shop, and 2 plotters i think (i stand to be corrected). as dmc mentioned earlier good luck trying to use the industrial design shops, for such a expensive school you would think you can use their different shops. although winter sessions are awesome,but think about what school will make you a better architect not an artist.

"now i'm not sure what kind of courses RISD offers in the way of technology and history/theory but what my professor meant is that they offer more 'artsy' courses there like glass blowing"

RISD is an art school but do not get misled into thinking the architecture projects are "artsy" or "sculptural". I think theres more wild form making coming out of columbia.

the general emphasis at risd is on tectonics and materials...although there are a variety of teachers who push there own agendas; and given that its a small school there is a suprisingly diverse set of studios offered each semester.

...and you can take classes at brown

MArch/MSRED at Columbia. That decides it (although I must say I loved my summer at RISD, wonderful place and superb intro to architecture).

Congrats trace! I loved my time there and wish I could go back for more architorture.