I was recently accepted to all three of the above schools, and was wondering what you could tell me about the strength of their programs. I am having a very difficult time deciding between them. I know that a lot of it depends on the student, but any input is appreciated! Please no criticism of my chosen path of study :)
Any input is greatly appreciated!!
Wood Guy
Apr 6, 16 9:17 am
Tufts' program is "architectural studies," not an accredited program. It's a good primer if you plan to go on to grad school for architecture, civil engineering, planning, preservation, or other related fields. It's an excellent liberal arts and sciences education (I completed it 20 years ago) but not so great if you want to get a license without going to grad school.
UVa's program used to have a good reputation. No idea about WashU.
WaffleMan22
Apr 6, 16 11:25 am
@WoodGuy I do intend to go to grad school. Thanks for your response!
Wood Guy
Apr 7, 16 9:42 am
Waffleman, you're welcome. A few more notes about the Tufts program:
It's pretty intense and diverse; with just a few additional classes you can get a full double major in art history and civil engineering. You will have very few free-choice electives, and few opportunities to build a portfolio through classwork, so if you choose their program take advantage of opportunities at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts, which is affiliated with Tufts, to build a good portfolio. Many of my classmates did the summer program at the Harvard GSD, partly to build their portfolio and partly so they could make sure they really wanted to pursue architecture. Many of my classmates went to Rice University for their M.Arch, which they were usually able to complete in two years (rather than three years typical of non-B.Arch programs) due to the intense nature of Tufts' architectural studies program.
Tufts is interesting in that professors are required to teach their own classes. My physics 101 class was taught by a Nobel prize winning scientist. The science classes are fairly intense, as a large percentage of your classmates are pre-med, so they make it challenging to weed out the stragglers. If I could do it over again I would probably just get a B.Arch at an accredited school, but I can't imagine a better or more diverse liberal arts and sciences education than the Tufts A.S. program.
WaffleMan22
Apr 7, 16 8:07 pm
@WoodGuy, your input is much appreciated! I am visiting WashU on Sunday and Monday, and contacted the head of the architecture department at Tufts, so I guess that I will hear what they have to say!
If I were 100% sure that I wanted to do architecture, I definitely would have gone the B.Arch route, but I am not certain yet that it is what I want to do (although probably more than 95% sure). Thanks again!
Hello everyone,
I was recently accepted to all three of the above schools, and was wondering what you could tell me about the strength of their programs. I am having a very difficult time deciding between them. I know that a lot of it depends on the student, but any input is appreciated! Please no criticism of my chosen path of study :)
Any input is greatly appreciated!!
Tufts' program is "architectural studies," not an accredited program. It's a good primer if you plan to go on to grad school for architecture, civil engineering, planning, preservation, or other related fields. It's an excellent liberal arts and sciences education (I completed it 20 years ago) but not so great if you want to get a license without going to grad school.
UVa's program used to have a good reputation. No idea about WashU.
@WoodGuy I do intend to go to grad school. Thanks for your response!
Waffleman, you're welcome. A few more notes about the Tufts program:
It's pretty intense and diverse; with just a few additional classes you can get a full double major in art history and civil engineering. You will have very few free-choice electives, and few opportunities to build a portfolio through classwork, so if you choose their program take advantage of opportunities at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts, which is affiliated with Tufts, to build a good portfolio. Many of my classmates did the summer program at the Harvard GSD, partly to build their portfolio and partly so they could make sure they really wanted to pursue architecture. Many of my classmates went to Rice University for their M.Arch, which they were usually able to complete in two years (rather than three years typical of non-B.Arch programs) due to the intense nature of Tufts' architectural studies program.
Tufts is interesting in that professors are required to teach their own classes. My physics 101 class was taught by a Nobel prize winning scientist. The science classes are fairly intense, as a large percentage of your classmates are pre-med, so they make it challenging to weed out the stragglers. If I could do it over again I would probably just get a B.Arch at an accredited school, but I can't imagine a better or more diverse liberal arts and sciences education than the Tufts A.S. program.
@WoodGuy, your input is much appreciated! I am visiting WashU on Sunday and Monday, and contacted the head of the architecture department at Tufts, so I guess that I will hear what they have to say!
If I were 100% sure that I wanted to do architecture, I definitely would have gone the B.Arch route, but I am not certain yet that it is what I want to do (although probably more than 95% sure). Thanks again!