I hope you are applying to more than one school to begin with.*  They are not the only game in town.

I think the public aspect is tacky.  If they viewed them on a big screen in closed chambers, that would be preferable.  In a way, this change is a poor reflection on them.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when these committees are going over the portfolios of applicants, particularly those without architecture backgrounds.  It probably can get really pissy and catty.  After all, it's architecture.

* crap, I ended a sentence with a preposition.

Joke:  a new undergrad is wandering around the Harvard Quad looking for the library and stops an apparent upperclassman for directions.

Freshman:  "Excuse me, can you tell me where the library is at?"

Upperclassman:  "We at 'Hahvahd' do not end sentences with prepositions."

Freshman:  "Ok then, can you tell me where the library is at, ass hole?"

Older than dirt, but still funny.

I would have loved to have seen this process as well, but i do think I would have disliked the idea of them doing that with my portfolio. Then again, I didn't apply to Harvard for a reason.

Just be a Bush or a Kennedy and you can buy your way in. Be the village idiot, child rapist, alcoholic, whatever, doesn't matter.

I don't understand the dramatic panic over how they view the portfolio.  It's their prerogative and if they want to print out my portfolio and look at it while scuba diving, so be it.  I feel that if one has a strong portfolio they'd be excited to have it viewed in a public forum.  

^  That's not the point.  School admissions, even at the undergraduate level and in any curricula, have a baseline of privacy out of basic decency and respect.  The only people who are privy to what's going on are admissions officers, faculty members and administrators involved in committees and/or making the decision, and, to some extent, the applicant, who is often kept in the dark.  Screw HUCAD.  It's a trespass on their part.  Very douchey.

There will be plenty of opportunity to be publicly ridiculed, or lauded, if admitted and under way in their program.

I like your scuba diving idea. They should do that.

Forget the big screens, they should turn portfolio review process into reality TV and broadcast it to the nation.  Then we could hear all the nasty things they say about some of the really shitty work that some applicants submit.

I think the reality TV show is a good idea.  However, as to whether stuff is junk or not, that's variable.  Artsy-fartsy schools won't like stuff that's too tight.  Tight schools won't like stuff that's too artsy-fartsy.  However, at HUCAD, their 3+ year graduate program is their dominant program.  You know ... people with different life stories under one roof with, on average, some 4 to 5 years of the real world after earning an undergraduate degree.  That is a veritable sitcom ... or drama.  If they can pull off a show on the med school or law school grind, they can definitely do a show on the weirdness that transpires in M.Arch.  There's no prototypical student.  There's a much bigger spread of personalities in those admitted than there is in law or med school.  In law school, there's that reported one upmanship and chasing after the alphabet soup of slick firms and 6 digit incomes.  In med school, stressed out students on lengthy rotations do the deed on unoccupied gurneys in the E.R.   In a-school, it's "hissssssssss, my statement is bigger than yours." 

@SpatialSojourner

I agree, but I'd go even further; you shouldn't even be applying if you don't have enough confidence to stand behind a public display of your portfolio. I have no idea where this expectation of privacy with regard to application materials comes from. 

Making the process public is a quite forward-thinking move in my opinion. The entire community of a graduate school community should at least have some knowledge (if not actual input on admissions decisions) on what sort of candidates might be joining them.

but I'd go even further; you shouldn't even be applying if you don't have enough confidence to stand behind a public display of your portfolio.

There is both truth and inaccuracy in this statement, imo.  If a person is coming from a BA/BS in architecture, then they have been assimilated into that world for M.Arch. 2 or advanced standing, so their skills should be honed and they have had 4 years to develop a frame of reference as to what is good design.  If a person is coming from a different background, the nature of what's in the portfolios is all over the map, and in altogether different media. 

I think the move is faulty.  It's not any of the general public's (students') business who is being admitted.  If you have been to these grad programs, you know how variable the skills can be, even upon completion.  It's sort of like the general population and their right to vote.  Some have the wherewithal to be really informed about a political candidate's performance in the political and economic context, while others are s.a.h. moms watching Oprah and slam dunking Oreos who can only say "Yeah, I think he's doing a good job" or "No, I don't think he's doing a good job."  It's too bad voting can't be rationed based on mental horsepower, but that would not be PC and highly controversial.  So is the idea of a Harvard grad student deciding on who to vote "off the island" from the very beginning.  Clearly, some portfolios will be really bad or simply not amenable to architecture, but that can be handled with more discretion and privacy.

I don't think we have enough information to objectively comment on their process. We have secondhand information with few details.

But in any case, I produced the best portfolio I could, and am proud of what I submitted because I think it accurately represents my spatial thinking abilities and approach to design problems. Who reviews it, how they review it, and what they think of it is up to them.

• "If a person is coming from a different background, the nature of what's in the portfolios is all over the map, and in altogether different media."

I feel like if anything this (very valid) point makes publicizing these portfolio submissions more valid. Personally, I think the non-background students often bring more exciting ideas to the table, than the ones with 4-year degrees, so why shouldn't the variety of experiences held by applicants be celebrated in the admissions process?

•  It's not any of the general public's (students') business who is being admitted.

Given that peer feedback often has substantially more effect than instructor feedback on design decisions, I disagree with this statement as well. Students comprise an integral portion of a program's culture, and as such they should have some amount of input as to who can positively contribute to that culture.

Your tremendously ignorant and misogynistic views on the political process speak for themselves and don't warrant a response, other than to say equating the members of an elite graduate program with the entirety of the country's voting population is never going to make an ounce of sense.

Your tremendously ignorant and misogynistic views on the political process speak for themselves and don't warrant a response, other than to say equating the members of an elite graduate program with the entirety of the country's voting population is never going to make an ounce of sense.

I used that example because my friends coined it.  It's highly visual, lending itself to a cartoon, if you will.  I could have said the white trash deadbeat dad watching a football game and guzzling beer just as easily.

One of our profs told us about people who dropped out of Harvard, where he did part of his schooling.  A lot of times the ritzy schools think that certain candidates, because they won some accolades in playing the cello or did something bold and avant garde on a volunteer mission to Africa, are "neato" and the collective mindset is "let's let them in."  Sometimes, there is little linkage between something "neato" about someone's background and the ability or, ultimately, the desire to be an architect.  Training architects just for the heck of it is stupid.  You don't train med students for a myriad of alternative career paths.  You want your graduating class to become physicians or medical researchers.  Whether they choose to be plastic surgeons to the rich in an urban area or provide family medicine services in a rural and underserved area is moot. Let's be real.

The opening up of this process just shows how much more broken an already broken profession can become.  Architects can't agree on anything.  And if the supposedly seasoned professors can't agree on and will pontificate about someone's portfolio to grandstand, as we've seen on some YouTubes posted here, then the students certainly should not be able to.  Don't think that every graduate of an Ivy League or private a-school is automatically good.  Like in med and law school, there will always be "the bottom of the class." The admissions committee has a good grip on the culture of a school such that they know what is a good marriage at least 90% of the time.

The notion that the non-architecture backgrounds "bring more exciting ideas to the table" is highly debatable and has been debated.  If anything, they bring diversity to the profession and a tilt toward their previous training in practice, be it engineering, commerce, or the arts.  In terms of design, faculty members and practitioners express that graduates of these programs can pick up the technical skills effectively, but that most, not all, lag behind in design skills because they have been pushed through a design sequence in an accelerated fashion.  It makes sense.  It's a lot like letting a tea bag steep.  What's your next criticism?  My equating a tea bag steeping to the training of architects in an elite graduate program?

• "I could have said the white trash deadbeat dad watching a football game and guzzling beer just as easily."

You certainly could have, and you would have displayed your ignorance (if not your misogyny) just as overtly.

This truly has nothing specific to do with the GSD or any other particular program, other than that the original poster was referring to Harvard. We disagree about the merit of allowing students in general to participate in the admissions process, so let's just leave it at that.

• "If anything, they bring diversity to the profession and a tilt toward their previous training in practice, be it engineering, commerce, or the arts."

There are many other relevant backgrounds that can inform an architecture student's perspective. Does this really need to be stated? Philosophy, political science, communication, geography, various cultural studies, natural sciences, and countless others can all be hugely relevant to a designer's development.

You certainly could have, and you would have displayed your ignorance (if not your misogyny) just as overtly.

Oh, sorry if I pushed a button.  You seem to be very confident in what determines ignorance.  Lots of intelligent listeners followed shock jock Tom Leykis, hence the s.a.h. mom comment.  These guys don't like overweight, uneducated, single moms who watch daytime TV and are on the prowl for their next human meal ticket, which is one of Leykis's platforms.  It has nothing to do with intelligence/ignorance or misogyny.  They just know what they don't like. 

Oh, come on, you're sounding ivory tower.  A studio professor said that a different background adds to a person's ability to be an architect only by a small degree.  Rather, it colors their general approach more so than it affects their ability and skill level.  The graduate route is just the vehicle for someone who either figured it out later or wanted to major in something else prior to a-school.  There's not much more to it than that.  There's no need for this flowery eloquence to make it sound like they are RAND think tanks of collaboration and cross-fertilization.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

I think broad generalizations are dehumanizing and without merit. You clearly disagree, and the fact that you reference a disgusting human being like Tom Leykis speaks volumes about your credibility. 

That's all I have to say to you.

I think broad generalizations are dehumanizing and without merit. You clearly disagree, and the fact that you reference a disgusting human being like Tom Leykis speaks volumes about your credibility.

Whoa.  Do you belong to the female of the species?  Are you a feminist?  Probably affirmative to both.  If Leykis is disgusting, then wouldn't Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and Stern also be disgusting?  And why so?  Because they don't agree with your agenda? Are you an Ivy League alum(na), student, or applicant that you are so passionate about defending a change in a process that has been confidential for at least a century?

As for credibility, I could easily see Wharton MBAs listening to Leykis on their way home from their investment banks and laughing about his comments with their colleagues, not that having gone to Wharton makes them any better.  However, they are usually more affluent than either a Penn or Harvard M.Arch.  Your credibility argument is chock full of holes.

Big screens plus a public crowd means the nature of this evaluation process has transformed and become more demonstrative and rhetorical. Doesn't that even has anything to do with how you would like to prepare your portfolios? This change in format can be destructive to the narrative structures of an applicant's intention. Traditionally, an applicant is aware of the fact that he/she speaks to an individual through the medium of portfolio, and the admission committee can deal with the material at his/her own pace, going back and forth to form a clearer image of the integrity of the applicant. A portfolio is not a movie, it requires active concentration rather than spontaneous reactions. The evaluation of portfolios is not a contest of seductive imagery but a conversation culminating with a deep understanding of an applicant's mechanism toward design. 

so is this even true to begin with? lots of bullshit has been wasted if this is not even a real thing. you guys been hanging out with FOX too much, you don't even blink, just react to rumor as if true?  Your training as American consumers is apparently complete. Welcome to the dark side ;-)

Mr Galloway, are you troll-phobe？ This message came from current GSD MLA student to whom I have been consulting recently, and at least its an issue.

will, if the world of architecture can come up with something horrid like IDP, then HUCAD could decide to differentiate themselves by doing something like this.  Since you are an educator at least part of the time, then you are at least aware of the variability of architecture curricula in North America that is more of a statement than it is of benefit to anyone.

The GSD academic calendar states January "Wed 22 - Portfolio reviews in AM"

So, does this mean that I can get someone to lobby for me?

^ A Kennedy or a Bush would do. 

its dr galloway actually.  will is also perfectly fine (preferred even)

there should be more wailing and gnashing on this thread. and other vapid statements about the end of education and how rich people are stupid. definitely need more of that. cuz that will help make the points all the more convincing. boehner told me thats how he has worked things so far and look how well that's worked for america. facts are for fools, right?

Actually, will, I see a combo such as Harvard + architecture = toxic.  My 2 cents.  A school with a legacy of elitism and field with a penchant for stars ... together.  We had enough weird people and a modicum of tension in a conventional a-school but, damn, it was nice to just attend to your schooling without any accompanying hype.

I bring this up because I have a friend who went to an Ivy League b-school who I had lunch with (sentence ending with preposition).  He stepped off "the treadmill" onto something more low-key as an occupation/employer.  He came from working class roots.  I asked him if the Ivy League mystique is something that one is implicitly obligated to carry around.  He begrudgingly admitted that it was.  What an albatross.  No thanks.

I don't mind what they are doing. If you cannot stand behind your work, for the good or for the bad, you chose the wrong profession. At the end of the day you will get in, or you will not. The people who do get in will most likely be the same individuals that would have regardless if one person or one hundred people evaluate your portfolio.

Can we stop with the Ivy League bullshit? The generalizations you make are quite wholesale and seem pretty baseless. All schools [good, bad, and in-between] produce plenty of good, bad, and in-between students. Period.

My aunt told me the next big thing in Architecture must be vinyl siding. 

*Enter Ancient Aliens Guy* 

"The Public" 

i think if someone asks to view your portfolio, there is likely an implied agreement that they will be reviewing it on their own, or in the case of admissions it will be with committee.  unless they stated they would be making your work public, i think it's a breach of the implied agreement.

i suppose as an analogy, if i send work samples to firm 'x' to look over since i might want to work for them, i don't think they should assume they have a right to share that with firm 'y,' or especially with the public at large.  the work in my portfolio is still mine, and i have a right to exercise a certain amount of control as to how that information is presented/marketed.

rich people are stupid.  sorry, but necessity is the mother of invention, and when you take that away from someone, their incentive to be creative goes with it.  they're not stupid because they're rich, that's an inaccurate correlation.  however, if someone has always had everything handed to them , it will be difficult for them to learn how to take care of themselves and be productive.

Newsflash: most Ivy League students aren't rich. These schools give more financial aid than any others and really do accept students regardless of financial need.

Can we stop with the Ivy League bullshit? The generalizations you make are quite wholesale and seem pretty baseless. All schools [good, bad, and in-between] produce plenty of good, bad, and in-between students.

Well, you're right.  However, if this is indeed a public process, as were public hangings or lynchings yesteryear that people went to out of curiosity, I would find it vulgar.  And I'm sure there are many others who would agree.  This isn't a venue with which to be avant garde.

i suppose as an analogy, if i send work samples to firm 'x' to look over since i might want to work for them, i don't think they should assume they have a right to share that with firm 'y,' or especially with the public at large.  the work in my portfolio is still mine, and i have a right to exercise a certain amount of control as to how that information is presented/marketed.

Your application to a school, and its appendages, is only slightly less sacred to me than is your medical record.

^ Handsum, I saw this post and it got my mind going.

When in high school, I took this class called "Intro to Art and Architecture."  Between a bizarre teacher and the extreme diversity of a bizarre urban setting, there's some shit that was so funny I can't describe on here because I'd get the hand on the hip accompanied by a shaking finger and hearing "that's not nice."

At any rate, the modern art part preceded the architecture part.  There were those painters like Jackson Pollock and Frank Stella who did "strange" work.  Students were saying that they could sit on the edge of a large canvas and fling paint, Cheerios, or screws just as easily as Pollock or Stella did.  The teacher got mad.  I thought, "Meh, maybe they have a certain verve or panache when they fling that stuff."

Either way, why doesn't someone put together a portfolio with sculptures created with dog turds, and then spray paint them or something to hide the actual raw materials?  How is that any different than throwing paint on a canvas?  That's what immediately came to mind when I read "donkey shit crazy portfolio."

Wow. This thread has gone way overboard.

You could sneak in the plans for Auschwitz under another name and see what the boyz at GSD have to say.

they should review the portfolios on bjarke.

Lol.  Just take a series of photos of your asshole and do some photoshop filters on them.  Be some funny shit if you ended up getting in. 

Sick but funny.  Lol

This is funny.  The notion has become what sort of random stuff can the non-architecture applicant come up with, explain in flowery terms, and pass off as creative, spatial, and avant garde to be weighed in concert with "meh" academic and GRE performance to fetch them an acceptance letter from an Ivy League a-school.

I was thinking about this today - IMO, if the portfolio pages don't have your name, then screening them publicly doesn't seem to be a problem. Competition entries are frequently posted publicly with no identifying features.

I also remember an example of someone having to get permission from their firm (a note of some sort) to allow some of their professional work in their portfolio, since a lot of professional drawings are, obviously, confidential. I imagine this note allows a certain party to view these drawings/renderings (understood to be the Admissions Committee).

Of-course, I also think the GSD would give a heads up to this person that their work might be viewed publicly if this "written consent" came into play. Otherwise someone might be suing.

so this was confirmed as the actual process, or are we still just pretending to be FOX news and getting worked up about a non real thing that we wish were true?

hypothetically speaking  if it were true, not sure where it is implied or that there is a deal that the work is not to be made public. 

The work from other offices thing is kind of an interesting dilemma.  We often get portfolios with work in progress from star-architects that is crazy awesome but also clearly confidential. That being made public could be more of a problem if someone scooped it and put it online before the architects and their clients wanted it out there.

In which case yeah not nice. 

But potential students work being open to the current student body as part of process is just a step up from having student reps on the selection committee (which is normal).  Its not so strange. But then it depends on how public this public thing really is. Without definition of this point the entire discussion is just pissing in the wind sort of nonsense.

Is this thing even a thing?

if i hired a professional to take a photograph of a building i worked on, the photographer would hold the copyright, right?  i would have license to use it for publicity and marketing and whatnot (with credit to the photographer maybe?) but surely there is a point where i am not allowed to make that photographer's work public.

if i take my own picture, wouldn't it be assumed i have the same rights as that photographer?  so if i said to a selection committee, you can use this photograph as needed for your selection process, then wouldn't it be a bit presumptuous of the selection committee to offer that photograph to the public?

you're certainly right though, that it depends on the degree of publicity.  since i've never actually witnessed this event, i consider it a thought exercise or a hypothetical rather than real outrage.  if they're showing these portfolios in a controlled studio or auditorium environment, especially if it's only opened to selected groups and if there is only a single viewing/rounds of viewing of the portfolios, then it's not really public.  it's just a big selection committee with a tv.

But potential students work being open to the current student body as part of process is just a step up from having student reps on the selection committee (which is normal).  Its not so strange. But then it depends on how public this public thing really is.

The point is that students have their biases, as if the faculty admissions committee members don't have enough of them.  And students, without having completed their education and/or having become licensed practitioners, should not be judging someone else while in their formation.  The tight will like the tight and the loose will like the loose.  It always works that way.  The only way this could work is if the portfolio work is completely stripped of any identifiers and the remainder of the application packet was kept completely separate, only to be merged by the admissions committee.  Students can enter comments privately on anonymous work, which the committee can then consider or discard.  A HUGE problem is when an applicant has a friend in the program who is instructed to cheer louder when he or she sees (description of specific portfolio items) on display.  This thing needs to be shelved, unless it's simply a pilot for which the input will in no way be used and used as a psychology experiment.   Also, the school needed to have informed the applicant pool that such a methodology would be used, and this would have kept potential applicants out of the pool, and not because they aren't proud of their achievements, but because it's a major point of departure in terms of organizational culture.

My hypothesis is that the OP's current-student friend saw the academic calendar entry, which may very well be a "portfolio review" for current students who have to complete a portfolio requirement. Maybe someone can confirm for us and save us some energy.