I posted about this some time ago, and a nice user named Stephanie answered all those questions pretty well. Here is the link:

http://archinect.com/forum/thread/82218131/royal-danish-academy-of-fine-arts-feasable

Thanks for you answer Roshi. Ill check it out right now!

If someone else can answer too i would really appreciate more comments!!! Thanks in advance! 

:)

I was also considering the "MA: Urbanism and Societal Change".

About the Royal Danish Academy of  Fine Arts:
what can be distilled from the student work and the website is a bias towards 'art-itecture' and highly design-oriented educational agenda. What I have heard about the school confirms this preconception as well as the mentality and atmosphere which comes with it. While being in an art-school might be the right spot for some, I am not sure how well such environment feeds the more analytical research studio.

At the same time, some other sources indicate that actually the academy is quite respected in terms of research which comes out of it.

About MA: Urbanism and Societal Change:
At first glance it looks like a highly intriguing studio, which tries to explore seemingly uncharted overlaps between architecture, planning and research. It looks like the right kind of spot for those who are interested in alternative ways of operating within the profession.

However, I am a bit unsure about the studio leadership. Essentially both of the directors are architects/urbanists. Apart from the fact that one of them is a co-director of an office which is primarily known for small , luxury residential projects ( http://www.powerhouse-company.com/ ), I think that an ambition to research 'societal change' requires much more competency and expertise than architecture/urbanism background can offer.

My concern is exemplified by this project (http://vimeo.com/82118155, co-authored by one of the studio directors). Similarly to the narrative in the video, I imagine the outcome of the studio would be an essentially a beautifully crafted, yet a very dumbed-down story/proposal of a very complex issue. While it might be an OK result for some, I question the real value of such projects outside of the circles of the very same architects/urbanists. In the end, is it something more than TED-talk-like amusement for the final review jury and a final exhibition?

This touches upon the more general trend of some architects/urbanists, who are hypnotized by the google-based pseudo-research as a potential exit from the crisis of the profession. There are many instances where they undertake projects dealing with complex, large issues extending far beyond their competence, eventually presenting an orgy of vague Illustrator diagrams, 3d rendered 'visions and overcomplicated axonometric drawings. All that mostly with no input from experts of other disciplines.

Moreover, the references mentioned in the studio outline (Strelka, AMO, Rotor, et. al.) are essentially very different kinds of organizations/institutions, with very different methodologies, agendas and products. Therefore, it kind of seems that they are yet to define what exactly MA: Urbanism and Societal Change is about, and which trajectory would it take.

Skepticism aside, my impression is that this is a new studio, which will run this year for the first time. If that is the case, before investing money and two years of one's life, perhaps it makes sense to give it a year or two to see what kind of work actually comes out of it. I believe the studio has got a potential, but at its current state it seems to be a bit of a risky venture. Not just in terms of what might come out of it, but also where to apply that kind of knowledge after graduation. 

For similar research-oriented courses which are more established, I would suggest trying TU Delft's Design as Politics (but not the Why Factory, also not sure about the Berlage in its current condition), or Strelka Institute.  

Hello! Q5gasrc2!!! 

I appreciate you time! Thanks for you answer! You helped me a lot! 

Got a quick question, whats wrong with the TU DELFT why factory?