I thought many schools have stopped requiring it (as it is utterly useless)....look at the schools prereq's.

I think it seems useless too but all of the programs I applied to require it

Yeah. Useless, unlike those design courses where we find ways of making buildings out of the shapes of kitchen utensils.

My quess would be that it is or should be a pre req. Without it you are not qulified to enter a masters program. Just a guess though.

I think a better idea at this point is to strip out anything of substance from the architecture programs. Hell, we are halfway there anyhow. We probably don't need statics or dynamics. Those should definatly go.

You can probably take it at a community college before you enroll in the fall. Don't you need calculus to enroll in physics pre-reqs? Calculus was a pre-req for my physic course in college.

You need a calculus background for structures courses for things like shear and moment diagrams.

ask the admissions officer or chair of the school you are applying/accepted to. it will vary from school to school. if the school wants you, it generally will not get in the way of your enrollment, but they will more than likely require you to take it before you graduate.

I may be alone here, but I strongly believe that being able to find the areas and volumes of complex geometries, to be able to do (as opposed to think about doing) structural analysis, and to be able to understand mathematically complex issues like building thermodynamics, storm-water handling capacity, etc., without recourse to often incorrect analysis from primitive modelilng tools is a good thing. Architects should be able to do higher math.

But what's that go to do with calculus? Geometry and trig, sure, but calculus?! I did very well in my precalc and calc classes, but have never, ever, even used the most rudimentary knowledge in anything with architecture, accounting or business (or anything at all, for that matter).

I was fairly sure UCLA no longer required it, but don't really know.

I called up most of the schools. Not having completed a prerequisite will not affect admissions but if you are accepted you will have to take it the summer before and in some cases, before the first year. Call the admissions people, they will probably say the same thing. My teacher was admitted to Princeton a few years back with out the physics prerequisite and graduated without ever taking it.

Some schools only require knowledge of algebra to do your structural calcs - but some require calculus for these. As far as I know, it can be done either way. Unless the firm you eventually work with employs really cutting edge structural analysis, i.e. Burge Dubai or whatever they've now named it, software will manage designing and specifying beams, columns, etc.

But if you want THAT SCHOOL, and they want THAT CLASS, then you have no choice but to comply.

Trace, it depends on what you want to do. Sure, simply structural analysis can be done with analysis, but you can't understand how water behaves across curved surfaces, or how to optimize face thermal characteristics or building energy use, calculate the area under a complex, non-Euclidean curve, or even just understand how your sub-d modeller really works with just algebra.

sorry.. meant to type "facade thermal characteristics" above.. and "with algebra" not "with analysis"

in my class, some people who came from non-arch undergrad degrees that didnt require calculus just had to take it while there

It didnt effect them being accepted in the program, it was just an added class or 2 that they had to take


I imagine it depends on the school though

I think it is a basic class to require if one is going to get a Masters degree
I dont see the big deal for it to be a requirement

oh, and they didnt have to wait a semester or anything to start the M.Arch program

Urbanist,

This is just a pet peave of mine, but I'm pretty sure you are using the term Non-Euclidean incorrectly. Euclidean doesn't mean only straight lines, It has to do with the plane of reference. When you talk about the bending of lines over a curved surface, such as the planet earth, you are talking about non-Euclidean, A line simply being curvy and irregular doesn't make it non-Euclidean.

Anyhow, I still agree with your general point, Calculus is needed to calculate areas and volumes of complex forms. Mathematics are good.

Much of what is taught in school is material that you won't directly employ in your everyday work, but sometimes having an understanding of and appreciation for how things work is still important. You might have a studio where you build a model house and learn to frame a stud wall or pour a foundation. You personally won't be building houses like this in the future, but it still helps to know something about what the other parties in the process are doing.

Synergy,
Hm... actually, I think we are talking about the same thing. wiki's definition is pretty good, I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

Basically, as long as one uses parallel geometries based on the basic Euclidean postulates, non-continuous toolis like plane geometry (with some trig and algebra thrown in for good measure) are sufficient for approximating most decisions at architectural scale But you can't explain forms based on non-Euclidean systems with the postulates only (such as most of the things you can do by playing with Digital Product ona bad day) and therefore need at least an understanding of the higher maths to manipulate spatial decisions along curves propagated between dimensional planes (most architecturally complex geometries). It's been a long time, but I think we're both right.

As someone who is about to finish their B.A. in Mathematics with an emphasis in geometry, and applying to M. Arch programs, I may be a bit biased. I couldn't agree more that higher mathematics have a place in architecture, not only in applied calculation like situations but also in architectural theory. Of course math isn't for everyone, but I believe everyone in any even semi-technical field should experience at least first-semester Calculus if they can handle it.

As far as the non-Euclidian thing goes, it was used incorrectly, but in proper spirit! It's correct that the plane geometry postulates aren't sufficient for approximating (even discussing, really) curvy forms we see in architecture, but it is wrong to say that a curvy, even blobby form is non-Euclidian. In fact, anything you make in any computer design software, is conceived of and created in a Euclidian world. Everything you see in regular calculus courses is Euclidian, even when dealing with different coordinate systems like spherical or cylindrical coordinates.

Here is the difference: If you view a segment of great circle on a sphere as a curve, then you are talking Euclidian geometry. If you view a segment of great circle on a sphere as a line, then you are talking spherical geometry, which is a non-Euclidian geometry.

Most never see any non-Euclidian geometry in their lives, including mathematics majors. The closest that calculus students get, is learning the formulas for hyperbolic geometry trigonometric functions, cosh and sinh, and never learning what they actually represent.

Hm.

B.arch + 2 m.archs but no calc so far. I was taking it 1 st yr of b. Arch but dean suggested I drop it.