Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
University of Southern California (USC)
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
Kansas State University
MIT vs Princeton M. Arch I
Do you guys have any thoughts about the programmes? At first glance, they are dissimilar, but on the other hand, they are both small programmes that are somewhat distinct from the rest of the east coast schools.
I know one of MIT's strengths is its ability to interface with DUSP, engineering schools, business school and its centre for real estate. This may be a stereotype of MIT, but it seems like its also very comfortable with advances in technology -- both computational and building. It seems like it has the resources / synergies of a large programme but the size of a small one.
Again, maybe a stereotype, but traditionally Princeton's strength is its PhD programmes, its history and theory faculty, visual arts, and research.
Ideally, I would want to attend a small school that has both of these strengths. So I guess my question to what degree does Princeton's programme work with technology and are there opportunities to explore the practice of architecture as well (given that there is no business school or centre for real estate). Also how has the programme changed with AZP being appointed Dean? Conversely, to what degree does MIT address theory and history issues, is there too much emphasis on technology for the sake of tech, etc.
Congratulations.
I think your stereotypes are mostly true. The choice might depend on your own interest and how you see yourself after graduation.
Regarding MIT's history and theory, don't forget you might be able to cross-register for courses offered at Harvard while you are in MIT.
Congratulations!
It is very interesting that I often hear two contradicting sayings about MIT architecture. Some say that MIT is so much about technology and is weak at theory, while others say that MIT has long been theory-based and they finally started to bring more practical stuffs into teaching a few years ago. I just visited MIT's open house last week as an admitted student, and I talked to many faculty members there. One of the studio teachers who just graduated from Princeton couple years ago compared these two schools when talking to me and two other students. He said that Princeton and MIT are the best two at theory in the country at all time. Princeton does have the best phd program. However, Princeton may not be the best place for design training, especially for those who have no architectural background. The studio instructors would not carefully lead you through the entire design process, like revising something in your plans.
According to my own observation, MIT has really good diversity. On one hand, the theory classes are very serious. Students have over a hundred pages of required readings every week, and many students actually suffer from them. If you look at the resumes of the faculty, many of them have done some really good theory works. On the other hand, the school really wants the students to know about the making of architecture. For example, one option studio this year is designing a brick house. Students are required to do lots of researches on precedents to know how bricks are utilized. They also made large-scale models to simulate the process of building brick structure in real life. So the students could have a real understanding about this type of building technology before they start to design. I think that this kind of diversity is very rare.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.