Hey, I'm applying for M.Arch programs this fall, and I'm having some trouble deciding. I did my undergrad at University of Cincinnati. It was a great school, but the masters program is three years, and I don't wanna be in school for that long.
Among a few other schools in other states (UT Austin, UW Seattle), two of the schools on my list are OSU and Kent State, both in Ohio where I can get in-state tuition. I was pretty impressed with OSU when I visited, my only concern is that it may be theoretical to the point of not even being really that helpful with getting a job after. I heard someone say a couple years ago that employers don't like OSU grads because they aren't prepared to work in firms. Does anyone know if this is really the case?
Kent looked like a fairly solid program as well when I visited, and is the cheapest option on my list, especially because I could live at home and save money on housing. My concern with the school is that they don't seem to really have much of a reputation outside the Cleveland area, and I'm wondering if that would be detrimental to my employment options after graduation. Does anyone have any experience that may say otherwise? Does Kent have a reputation that I just was unable to find online? What do employers outside of Cleveland think of Kent State grads?
Am I thinking of choice in school as too much of a branding exercise? Does it really matter where I go?
Thanks in advance!
Driko
Dec 14, 16 10:39 am
I think ranking/reputation each school holds matters. You see alot of sci arc grads working in design frims because they are better designers than your average arch school. On a side note i think "arch theory" is total trash. You can learn this by your self, pick up some books and apply that in projects/competition work. There you have free theory and a way to incorporate it in your portfolio.
I'd say Ohio is a solid choice and i would choose that over Kent. Ohio will help you get noticed when applying to jobs. I know university is not everything but if you have GSD (strong in design and theory) on your resume you could apply for any position and some one will see HARVARD and take a look at your application. SOOO OHIO doesnt hold the same weight as Harvard so people dont get confused but it does hold more weight than Kent.
as for not being prepared for work after school thats the firms decision. If they have noticed they dont like architects from a cretin school they wont hire you. on the flip side there are people who will hire you just because you went to a school. Think of all those law frims that will only hire out of yale to hold a reputation where harvard, stanford, and princeton are just as good, but they only hire yale.
I think UT Austin and U washington hold just as much weight as Ohio, so i still pick ohio over those other two. Austin and washington may be less theory focused but not enough to make a difference.
A school i would look at is University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. They have a "structures option" for grad school. Total 2 years with the option and at the end you will be qualified to obtain your structual engineering license in the mid west. I went to this school so im biased but all my friends that took this option in grad school ended up with great jobs upon graduation.
good luck!
jonlwilk
Dec 14, 16 11:47 pm
I'm in agreement with Driko. Even if the degree result is the same, I suspect a graduate experience at Kent will position you for a job in Cleveland, and OSU could lead to opportunities both within and outside Ohio. Though I'm not as familiar with Kent's program, I visited Knowlton at OSU and had a really positive overall impression. Ther facilities seem to be top notch and they had some notable visiting critics this year.
If you haven't done so already, look at student work from both schools and see which program you might align with better. As for your concern about a theory oriented curriculum, I think this just a part of a typical graduate experience. From my conversations with current students, many graduate programs push theory and history much further than your undergrad might. However, a school like Austin or Washington will probably push sustainability and construction. Both are pretty analog schools, and in this way, a degree from OSU might give you better technical skills to be useful in an office.
It sounds like you're taking a pretty thoughtful approach to your choices, and I suspect that often the cost is what influences a final decision more than applicants like to admit. Apply to both; you don't need to decide until you get in.
Hey, I'm applying for M.Arch programs this fall, and I'm having some trouble deciding. I did my undergrad at University of Cincinnati. It was a great school, but the masters program is three years, and I don't wanna be in school for that long.
Among a few other schools in other states (UT Austin, UW Seattle), two of the schools on my list are OSU and Kent State, both in Ohio where I can get in-state tuition. I was pretty impressed with OSU when I visited, my only concern is that it may be theoretical to the point of not even being really that helpful with getting a job after. I heard someone say a couple years ago that employers don't like OSU grads because they aren't prepared to work in firms. Does anyone know if this is really the case?
Kent looked like a fairly solid program as well when I visited, and is the cheapest option on my list, especially because I could live at home and save money on housing. My concern with the school is that they don't seem to really have much of a reputation outside the Cleveland area, and I'm wondering if that would be detrimental to my employment options after graduation. Does anyone have any experience that may say otherwise? Does Kent have a reputation that I just was unable to find online? What do employers outside of Cleveland think of Kent State grads?
Am I thinking of choice in school as too much of a branding exercise? Does it really matter where I go?
Thanks in advance!
I think ranking/reputation each school holds matters. You see alot of sci arc grads working in design frims because they are better designers than your average arch school. On a side note i think "arch theory" is total trash. You can learn this by your self, pick up some books and apply that in projects/competition work. There you have free theory and a way to incorporate it in your portfolio.
I'd say Ohio is a solid choice and i would choose that over Kent. Ohio will help you get noticed when applying to jobs. I know university is not everything but if you have GSD (strong in design and theory) on your resume you could apply for any position and some one will see HARVARD and take a look at your application. SOOO OHIO doesnt hold the same weight as Harvard so people dont get confused but it does hold more weight than Kent.
as for not being prepared for work after school thats the firms decision. If they have noticed they dont like architects from a cretin school they wont hire you. on the flip side there are people who will hire you just because you went to a school. Think of all those law frims that will only hire out of yale to hold a reputation where harvard, stanford, and princeton are just as good, but they only hire yale.
I think UT Austin and U washington hold just as much weight as Ohio, so i still pick ohio over those other two. Austin and washington may be less theory focused but not enough to make a difference.
A school i would look at is University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. They have a "structures option" for grad school. Total 2 years with the option and at the end you will be qualified to obtain your structual engineering license in the mid west. I went to this school so im biased but all my friends that took this option in grad school ended up with great jobs upon graduation.
good luck!
I'm in agreement with Driko. Even if the degree result is the same, I suspect a graduate experience at Kent will position you for a job in Cleveland, and OSU could lead to opportunities both within and outside Ohio. Though I'm not as familiar with Kent's program, I visited Knowlton at OSU and had a really positive overall impression. Ther facilities seem to be top notch and they had some notable visiting critics this year.
If you haven't done so already, look at student work from both schools and see which program you might align with better. As for your concern about a theory oriented curriculum, I think this just a part of a typical graduate experience. From my conversations with current students, many graduate programs push theory and history much further than your undergrad might. However, a school like Austin or Washington will probably push sustainability and construction. Both are pretty analog schools, and in this way, a degree from OSU might give you better technical skills to be useful in an office.
It sounds like you're taking a pretty thoughtful approach to your choices, and I suspect that often the cost is what influences a final decision more than applicants like to admit. Apply to both; you don't need to decide until you get in.
sup jon lol