First of all, I know a lot of people don't like these kinds of posts, so feel free to ignore it if it bothers you but I do value the community's insight. I've spoken to multiple professors about this topic but they don't know everything so I'm reaching out on this forum.
I'm a fourth year architecture student and in the process of refining my list of schools for M.Arch. I have a long-list at the moment, but I'm not sure it's completely finished yet, so I'm here for suggestions. Otherwise I'm pretty close to narrowing it down and creating a short-list of the schools I will apply to (5 or 6 schools - mix of top and mid tier).
For context, I'm interested in remaining in academia as a professor, teaching studios and history courses. Though my design work is very strong, I have little interest in professional practice. I'll probably do it for a few years anyway, but I don't want to make a career out of it. With that said, after M.Arch I'd like to do a PhD in History and Theory.
So, as I narrow down my schools, I realize that where I go to receive my M.Arch will likely be where I make my connections and potentially do a PhD in History and Theory. I realize this isn't the exact case 100% of the time, but I do realize it's something I need to seriously consider. So as I look at the M.Arch programs, I also look at the school's History and Theory PhD programs. (This isn't completely necessary but it's very important to me. You'll notice a few schools on my list don't have this.)
Here are a few other things that I am considering:
no schools in California or NYC (NY state is fine)... I have my reasons
I'd like to do a master's thesis
Not looking at schools outside of North America
I would absolutely love to attain a teaching assistant-ship during grad school... not just for the funding but for the experience
Master's program leaning more towards theoretical work with a openness towards history and theory in studio settings
Potential for funding is very important to me. I don't want to apply to places where I'm unlikely to get funding or I will be put into a mass amount of debt... that said, if I had no other choice, I'd take the hit.
Travel is extremely valuable to me, so if the M.Arch program has opportunities for study abroad, it's very attractive to me
Now onto the list:
MIT
McGill
University of Toronto
UPenn
Princeton
Rice
Harvard
Yale
Syracuse
WUSTL
Cornell
Based on my context, opinions on these schools? They're all on the list for a reason but I could very well be missing something. It's not cheap to apply so I want to be really intentional with where I send my applications to. I keep tossing these schools back and forth and am having a very difficult time narrowing it down. If you have schools you think I should also consider that are not on this list, please let me know.
Thanks everyone! Please only helpful comments, I watch people get unnecessarily bashed all of the time on these types of threads.
Non Sequitur
Jul 3, 18 4:34 pm
Take UofT off your list. Add Waterloo if you want the very best in the great white north... McGill is an acceptable 2nd place.
Besides that, take the cheapest option. No M.arch is worth the debt kiddies are jumping into these days.
jl2496
Jul 3, 18 4:51 pm
Thank you! I'm completely unaware of most universities in Canada, so this is helpful. I'm only aware of McGill because of connections I have. So thanks for the suggestion.
archinet
Jul 3, 18 5:20 pm
No do not listen to Sequitur. He always slags U of T like a Russian troll!! He has personal reasons for hating U of T. Waterloo has a good undergraduate program and is good at producing designers. U of T is faaaar better for your specific purposes. It has some very strong HTC people there, that can help you get into top notch phd programs. Also I would replace Syracuse with Berkeley to your list.
Non Sequitur
Jul 3, 18 6:20 pm
Hilarious. UofT Is still the butt of many academic jokes. Looks like someone is trying hard to convince themselves their March is on par with others.
archinet
Jul 4, 18 4:07 am
Whoah chill out Troglodytarum- I did not see the no California bit
archinet
Jul 4, 18 4:12 am
I did not study at U of T, but I do know of some HTC profs at U fo T that are really good and know of people who did get into good phd programs because of them.
archinet
Jul 4, 18 4:30 am
@ Non Sequltor, do you have a phd? are you an academic? or teaching? Because your advice sounds like hearsay, and not grounded on specific concrete reasons of why an M.arch at U of T would hinder someone´s chances to get into a good school afterwords for a phd in History and Theory. So U of T is the butt of academic jokes said by whom? And if there are jokes being said about a school (I have heard jokes being said about any school really) you would use that as an form to evaluate a school ? @jl2496 , do not takes Non Sequltor´s advice about U of T. I personally know people who went there, to then move on to good phd programs. If I were you I would go to U of T´s website and take a look at their faculty profile´s specifically the historian´s profiles.
Non Sequitur
Jul 4, 18 6:26 am
^ Strange, I’ve know many students and faculty at UofT and have never seen or heard anything that suggests the school is anything other than mediocre. Sure, every program has superstars that move on to real programs, but since I live and practice in Ontario, the folios that come our way remain underwhelming regardless of how many clueless defendants the school amasses. The OP claims not to know anything about academics in Canada. I pointed to the best program for March research thesis.
archinet
Jul 4, 18 6:48 am
Portfolio´s for a job in a office in Ontario is 100% a completely different thing then building up academic work to get into a phd program. Or are these portfolio´s coming your way for phd positions? And you are on some admissions committee for academic appointments somewhere in Ontario?? I would know the difference of a portfolio for a job in an office vs one for a phd position bc I am doing a phd. Masters of Architecture thesis work that is gearing up for a phd is different then one that is only design focused. From what I know U of T can give you a decent shot of creating the academic ground work for a portfolio for a phd. Furthermore I have taught in North America and from what I can tell U of T is known, Waterloo is not, not outside of Ontario that is. Also there are a couple of historians at U of T that are very damn good- I would know because I have read some of their work, and some of them are editors of major academic journals. Have not heard of anything coming out of Waterloo- and nobody would know bc they do not even have a website. And no I did not go to U of T, nor do I think it is the "best", but its not a bad middle ground if the OP does not get into an ivy league school for their masters. They would still have a shot at an ivy league phd with a U of T degree- I have friends that did this.
Non Sequitur
Jul 4, 18 7:22 am
I know people who have done this too and many of them who hated the program. The Op can set his/her bar as low as they want.
Academia is already saturated with mediocre PhD prospective wankers with little practical experience anyways, so what’s the harm of a few more? Hopefully you see my angle here.
archinet
Jul 4, 18 7:58 am
@Non Sequltur- you are not making much sense because you are not answering my questions above on what makes you the ultimate judge of what is a "good" portfolio or school, it does not seem you are working in academia but are judging a school solely based on the portfolio´s you receive in your office. Which is different than a portfolio for a phd. Furthermore what makes you think you are receiving the best portfolio´s from U of T to your office. Sounds like you want the OP to go to Waterloo (a school I never heard of) to get practical experience? Rather then go to U of T to build up a portfolio for a phd in history and theory? Because you, yourself see no value in pursuing a phd since the market for phd´s is oversaturated? Well that is your problem not the OP´s. If that is the case @jl2496 do not take Non Sequltur´s advice seriously.
Non Sequitur
Jul 4, 18 8:18 am
I tried. If you've never heard of Waterloo, then you have no opinion of worth on the current status of Canadian schools. UofT's March is fed mostly by it's terrible undergrad general arts "design" degree with a few sprinkles of higher caliber applicants due to it's popular location (ie. Toronto). It is not an institution with a history of quality research nor does it foster critical thinking among it's student body. Again, if you knew a thing or two about the schools here, this would be obvious. You say you're a phd student? talk about low entry standards.
(edit) One cannot teach architecture if one has no practical experience. Even if teaching fluffy design.
archinet
Jul 4, 18 9:47 am
1) I just looked up waterloo on the university website and looked into its phd faculty and it does not hold up to what U of T has.
Non Sequitur
Jul 4, 18 9:51 am
you're delusional.
archinet
Jul 4, 18 10:17 am
@Non Squltur your arrogance is telling of what kind of advice you are giving and the fact that you won´t answer if you have a phd- is telling me you do not have one, so then why should your advice be worth more then others? And who are you to address me in such a rude manner? As for the quality of research being done by the HTC faculty at University of Toronto it´s pretty good and they are publishing, editing and lecturing quite a-lot. Never heard or read anything interesting in terms of HTC coming from Waterloo.
Non Sequitur
Jul 4, 18 10:26 am
I don't have a phd. It was recommended to me when I defended my master's thesis however, I wanted to build, not teach snotty kids. I address you in such a way since you only pop up to comment on my Waterloo posts.
archinet
Jul 4, 18 2:58 pm
That´s bc you describe U of T as the worst school on the planet (which is hard to believe looking at their htc faculty) and then do this strange thing of claiming Waterloo is the best school in the universe- effectively making any post about U of T about Waterloo. Also there is a big difference of being recommended to do a phd, and actually going about researching schools, building up a portfolio of publications and winning fellowships in order to get in somewhere to do one. Let alone making academic connections via your alma matter. I am sorry but to say that Waterloo is better then U of T (which I find doubtful in terms of htc) is one thing, but then to go and tell someone not to bother applying to U of T based on the portfolio´s you get in your office and hearsay is wrong- plain and simple. Never mind the aggression with which you address people that say anything remotely positive about the school. I just think in this particular case your opinion is dead wrong where the OP is interested in doing a phd later on in history and theory. U of T has George Baird, John Harwood and Zeynep Celik-Alexander to name of few of its htc faculty. All are revered academics that have published acclaimed books and articles, so to then read your posts that U of T is the worst because that´s what you heard from so and so and that the portfolio´s that come into your office are not up to scruff to get an entry level position is unconvincing advice for this particular OP.
Non Sequitur
Jul 4, 18 3:01 pm
Yawn...
Anon_grad2.0
Jul 3, 18 4:44 pm
McGill/Syracuse not known for “creating” professors. If cross them off your list too.
thatsthat
Jul 3, 18 4:50 pm
A majority of students don't do their PhD where you got a Masters. It's more of a stepping stone to the PhD.
Go to some of these school websites and see if you can check out some of the student bios. MIT HTC publishes student bios. The students in these programs are typically stellar. See what kinds of students these schools accept and if you fit into that idea.
jl2496
Jul 3, 18 4:52 pm
McGill is on my list because of connections I have and their strong History and Theory PhD program. Syracuse only because I need to apply to some mid-tier lol
jl2496
Jul 3, 18 5:31 pm
Also, I could use mid-tier recommendations!! No one ever talks about mid-tier but I'd like to apply to 2.
Scott Deisher
Jul 4, 18 11:48 am
Michigan might have what you're looking for, it's a huge program (both M.Arch and PhD) with a lot of opportunities for connections. Claire Zimmerman heads the PhD department and is great, and Dean Massey has a PhD from Princeton and I think is putting a lot of energy into the doctoral program. One of my classmates is heading to Penn in the fall for a PhD after finishing his M.Arch from Michigan.
archinet
Jul 4, 18 2:58 pm
Yes good advice.
jl2496
Jul 9, 18 1:04 pm
I've heard from people who are at and people who went to Michigan to not even apply. Their graduate program has become extremely inflated and the teacher-student ratio is horrible.
Scott Deisher
Jul 9, 18 1:32 pm
It's a big program, but studios are still 11-12 students per professor. Not trying to convince you to apply if you don't think its right for you, but it does seem to meet your requirements (plenty of speculative work coming from studios and practices from professors, gives lots of scholarship $, has TA positions which give full tuition remission + solid stipend, bunch of travel courses during summer, funded student research opportunities). Also be mindful that the schools on your list vary in terms of how long it will take you to complete the program; some of them will not give out advanced standing very easily and could be up to 3.5 years, while others will just be 2 (UMich if you have a B.S. Arch).
jl2496
Jul 9, 18 2:51 pm
It does sound appealing... Which schools are you referring to that will not give out advanced standing very easily?
Scott Deisher
Jul 9, 18 3:14 pm
You’ll have to check your own list to learn more about this. To some schools, a B.S. Arch automatically qualifies you for a 2 year program. To others, the same degree allows you to apply for Advanced Standing if you’re a standout applicant. Those two are not exactly the same thing. The admissions pages for each school should make this clear enough.
jl2496
Jul 9, 18 3:20 pm
Thank you!
Sitting Duck
Jul 4, 18 3:59 pm
Current student at WUSTL. Love the school, and the funding they provide students is phenomenal. It was cheaper for me to go to WUSTL than some of the public schools I applied to, so don't let the tuition price throw you. There are plenty of opportunities to travel on research stipends while the timing has never been right for me, my peers have done it (some more than once). There are also student research positions based in St. Louis research as well through the Divided-Cities Initiative, apart from research positions offered through professor's personal research.
However, if you are looking for a Theory / Architecture PHD, we only have the Sustainable Urbanism doctoral program. That being said, I do know of more than a couple of students who went on from here with great recommendations from professors here to get their PHD at Colombia, MIT, etc. Most likely any of the "top 10" schools will provide great connections for moving into PHD.
jl2496
Jul 9, 18 1:03 pm
Are there research opportunities for graduate students within the university that involve history and theory? Are there faculty-led study abroads within the college of architecture? Is the thesis route any good there?
Volunteer
Jul 4, 18 3:59 pm
If you plan to work as an architect after you get your PhD your degree will be several years old (and stale) when you start trying to get a job in academia. Better to work after your Masters and before your terminal degree. Also employers may be reluctant to hire anyone with a PhD for entry level work and you will not have any experience for anything more.
jl2496
Jul 9, 18 12:58 pm
I don't think I will seek licensure, though I do think I will work in an office through graduate school and after graduate school before getting a PhD. I've heard the same thing from others as well
Marc Miller
Jul 8, 18 10:12 pm
Here's a question- What are you interesting researching?
Eg. I'd look at UVa before Cornell if my research was leaning towards American Vernacular and preservation.
Topics of interest matter and should drive your selection.
jl2496
Jul 9, 18 12:56 pm
Tough question because since I'm only entering my fourth year, I haven't developed very specific interests when it comes to research, I only know for sure that I'd like to involve myself in researching in the realm of history and theory. My only experience when it comes to research is some funded undergraduate research I've been doing this summer involving phenomenology. I do enjoy it! But I imagine my interests will narrow through graduate school.
thatsthat
Jul 9, 18 7:56 am
Any thoughts on getting a PhD after licensure in order to expand into teaching+practice route? (In lieu of practice only.)
jl2496
Jul 9, 18 12:50 pm
From what I understand, if you want to teach you can go either the licensure route or the PhD route, you don't need both to teach at most schools, you only need one. So if you're licensed and you want to teach I don
jl2496
Jul 9, 18 12:52 pm
whoops, prematurely pressed enter. -- So if you're licensed and you want to teach, I don't think you need to go for a PhD unless you just really want to get a PhD. You can still find opportunities teaching with just your license as qualification
eeayeeayo
Jul 9, 18 3:02 pm
It depends where and what you want to teach. For studio and most technical subjects the M.Arch is considered the terminal degree in the field. For history and theory it depends on the university: it's become increasingly difficult to get on the tenure track without a doctorate - though some architecture programs have no or nearly no tenured faculty in the first place. But look at nearly any architecture program at any university and you'll probably find some faculty teaching those subjects with only an M.Arch or masters in some other subject - though it depends on the school as to whether that's the norm, or whether they're an exception based on the length of time they've been doing that or their name recognition/significance in the field, or both. In some universities you can teach for a certain length of time as an adjunct, with lesser academic requirements than for tenure track faculty, but you can only do so for a set number of semesters due to union agreements... It's all very school-specific. If your ultimate long-range goal is to teach history or theory in an architecture program then a doctoral program would make sense, but for anything else it may not.
Hi everyone!
First of all, I know a lot of people don't like these kinds of posts, so feel free to ignore it if it bothers you but I do value the community's insight. I've spoken to multiple professors about this topic but they don't know everything so I'm reaching out on this forum.
I'm a fourth year architecture student and in the process of refining my list of schools for M.Arch. I have a long-list at the moment, but I'm not sure it's completely finished yet, so I'm here for suggestions. Otherwise I'm pretty close to narrowing it down and creating a short-list of the schools I will apply to (5 or 6 schools - mix of top and mid tier).
For context, I'm interested in remaining in academia as a professor, teaching studios and history courses. Though my design work is very strong, I have little interest in professional practice. I'll probably do it for a few years anyway, but I don't want to make a career out of it. With that said, after M.Arch I'd like to do a PhD in History and Theory.
So, as I narrow down my schools, I realize that where I go to receive my M.Arch will likely be where I make my connections and potentially do a PhD in History and Theory. I realize this isn't the exact case 100% of the time, but I do realize it's something I need to seriously consider. So as I look at the M.Arch programs, I also look at the school's History and Theory PhD programs. (This isn't completely necessary but it's very important to me. You'll notice a few schools on my list don't have this.)
Here are a few other things that I am considering:
Now onto the list:
Based on my context, opinions on these schools? They're all on the list for a reason but I could very well be missing something. It's not cheap to apply so I want to be really intentional with where I send my applications to. I keep tossing these schools back and forth and am having a very difficult time narrowing it down. If you have schools you think I should also consider that are not on this list, please let me know.
Thanks everyone! Please only helpful comments, I watch people get unnecessarily bashed all of the time on these types of threads.
Take UofT off your list. Add Waterloo if you want the very best in the great white north... McGill is an acceptable 2nd place.
Besides that, take the cheapest option. No M.arch is worth the debt kiddies are jumping into these days.
Thank you! I'm completely unaware of most universities in Canada, so this is helpful. I'm only aware of McGill because of connections I have. So thanks for the suggestion.
No do not listen to Sequitur. He always slags U of T like a Russian troll!! He has personal reasons for hating U of T. Waterloo has a good undergraduate program and is good at producing designers. U of T is faaaar better for your specific purposes. It has some very strong HTC people there, that can help you get into top notch phd programs. Also I would replace Syracuse with Berkeley to your list.
Hilarious. UofT Is still the butt of many academic jokes. Looks like someone is trying hard to convince themselves their March is on par with others.
Whoah chill out Troglodytarum- I did not see the no California bit
I did not study at U of T, but I do know of some HTC profs at U fo T that are really good and know of people who did get into good phd programs because of them.
@ Non Sequltor, do you have a phd? are you an academic? or teaching? Because your advice sounds like hearsay, and not grounded on specific concrete reasons of why an M.arch at U of T would hinder someone´s chances to get into a good school afterwords for a phd in History and Theory. So U of T is the butt of academic jokes said by whom? And if there are jokes being said about a school (I have heard jokes being said about any school really) you would use that as an form to evaluate a school ? @jl2496 , do not takes Non Sequltor´s advice about U of T. I personally know people who went there, to then move on to good phd programs. If I were you I would go to U of T´s website and take a look at their faculty profile´s specifically the historian´s profiles.
^ Strange, I’ve know many students and faculty at UofT and have never seen or heard anything that suggests the school is anything other than mediocre. Sure, every program has superstars that move on to real programs, but since I live and practice in Ontario, the folios that come our way remain underwhelming regardless of how many clueless defendants the school amasses. The OP claims not to know anything about academics in Canada. I pointed to the best program for March research thesis.
Portfolio´s for a job in a office in Ontario is 100% a completely different thing then building up academic work to get into a phd program. Or are these portfolio´s coming your way for phd positions? And you are on some admissions committee for academic appointments somewhere in Ontario?? I would know the difference of a portfolio for a job in an office vs one for a phd position bc I am doing a phd. Masters of Architecture thesis work that is gearing up for a phd is different then one that is only design focused. From what I know U of T can give you a decent shot of creating the academic ground work for a portfolio for a phd. Furthermore I have taught in North America and from what I can tell U of T is known, Waterloo is not, not outside of Ontario that is. Also there are a couple of historians at U of T that are very damn good- I would know because I have read some of their work, and some of them are editors of major academic journals. Have not heard of anything coming out of Waterloo- and nobody would know bc they do not even have a website. And no I did not go to U of T, nor do I think it is the "best", but its not a bad middle ground if the OP does not get into an ivy league school for their masters. They would still have a shot at an ivy league phd with a U of T degree- I have friends that did this.
I know people who have done this too and many of them who hated the program. The Op can set his/her bar as low as they want.
Academia is already saturated with mediocre PhD prospective wankers with little practical experience anyways, so what’s the harm of a few more? Hopefully you see my angle here.
@Non Sequltur- you are not making much sense because you are not answering my questions above on what makes you the ultimate judge of what is a "good" portfolio or school, it does not seem you are working in academia but are judging a school solely based on the portfolio´s you receive in your office. Which is different than a portfolio for a phd. Furthermore what makes you think you are receiving the best portfolio´s from U of T to your office. Sounds like you want the OP to go to Waterloo (a school I never heard of) to get practical experience? Rather then go to U of T to build up a portfolio for a phd in history and theory? Because you, yourself see no value in pursuing a phd since the market for phd´s is oversaturated? Well that is your problem not the OP´s. If that is the case @jl2496 do not take Non Sequltur´s advice seriously.
I tried. If you've never heard of Waterloo, then you have no opinion of worth on the current status of Canadian schools. UofT's March is fed mostly by it's terrible undergrad general arts "design" degree with a few sprinkles of higher caliber applicants due to it's popular location (ie. Toronto). It is not an institution with a history of quality research nor does it foster critical thinking among it's student body. Again, if you knew a thing or two about the schools here, this would be obvious. You say you're a phd student? talk about low entry standards.
(edit) One cannot teach architecture if one has no practical experience. Even if teaching fluffy design.
1) I just looked up waterloo on the university website and looked into its phd faculty and it does not hold up to what U of T has.
you're delusional.
@Non Squltur your arrogance is telling of what kind of advice you are giving and the fact that you won´t answer if you have a phd- is telling me you do not have one, so then why should your advice be worth more then others? And who are you to address me in such a rude manner? As for the quality of research being done by the HTC faculty at University of Toronto it´s pretty good and they are publishing, editing and lecturing quite a-lot. Never heard or read anything interesting in terms of HTC coming from Waterloo.
I don't have a phd. It was recommended to me when I defended my master's thesis however, I wanted to build, not teach snotty kids. I address you in such a way since you only pop up to comment on my Waterloo posts.
That´s bc you describe U of T as the worst school on the planet (which is hard to believe looking at their htc faculty) and then do this strange thing of claiming Waterloo is the best school in the universe- effectively making any post about U of T about Waterloo. Also there is a big difference of being recommended to do a phd, and actually going about researching schools, building up a portfolio of publications and winning fellowships in order to get in somewhere to do one. Let alone making academic connections via your alma matter. I am sorry but to say that Waterloo is better then U of T (which I find doubtful in terms of htc) is one thing, but then to go and tell someone not to bother applying to U of T based on the portfolio´s you get in your office and hearsay is wrong- plain and simple. Never mind the aggression with which you address people that say anything remotely positive about the school. I just think in this particular case your opinion is dead wrong where the OP is interested in doing a phd later on in history and theory. U of T has George Baird, John Harwood and Zeynep Celik-Alexander to name of few of its htc faculty. All are revered academics that have published acclaimed books and articles, so to then read your posts that U of T is the worst because that´s what you heard from so and so and that the portfolio´s that come into your office are not up to scruff to get an entry level position is unconvincing advice for this particular OP.
Yawn...
McGill/Syracuse not known for “creating” professors. If cross them off your list too.
A majority of students don't do their PhD where you got a Masters. It's more of a stepping stone to the PhD.
Go to some of these school websites and see if you can check out some of the student bios. MIT HTC publishes student bios. The students in these programs are typically stellar. See what kinds of students these schools accept and if you fit into that idea.
McGill is on my list because of connections I have and their strong History and Theory PhD program. Syracuse only because I need to apply to some mid-tier lol
Also, I could use mid-tier recommendations!! No one ever talks about mid-tier but I'd like to apply to 2.
Michigan might have what you're looking for, it's a huge program (both M.Arch and PhD) with a lot of opportunities for connections. Claire Zimmerman heads the PhD department and is great, and Dean Massey has a PhD from Princeton and I think is putting a lot of energy into the doctoral program. One of my classmates is heading to Penn in the fall for a PhD after finishing his M.Arch from Michigan.
Yes good advice.
I've heard from people who are at and people who went to Michigan to not even apply. Their graduate program has become extremely inflated and the teacher-student ratio is horrible.
It's a big program, but studios are still 11-12 students per professor. Not trying to convince you to apply if you don't think its right for you, but it does seem to meet your requirements (plenty of speculative work coming from studios and practices from professors, gives lots of scholarship $, has TA positions which give full tuition remission + solid stipend, bunch of travel courses during summer, funded student research opportunities). Also be mindful that the schools on your list vary in terms of how long it will take you to complete the program; some of them will not give out advanced standing very easily and could be up to 3.5 years, while others will just be 2 (UMich if you have a B.S. Arch).
It does sound appealing... Which schools are you referring to that will not give out advanced standing very easily?
You’ll have to check your own list to learn more about this. To some schools, a B.S. Arch automatically qualifies you for a 2 year program. To others, the same degree allows you to apply for Advanced Standing if you’re a standout applicant. Those two are not exactly the same thing. The admissions pages for each school should make this clear enough.
Thank you!
Current student at WUSTL. Love the school, and the funding they provide students is phenomenal. It was cheaper for me to go to WUSTL than some of the public schools I applied to, so don't let the tuition price throw you. There are plenty of opportunities to travel on research stipends while the timing has never been right for me, my peers have done it (some more than once). There are also student research positions based in St. Louis research as well through the Divided-Cities Initiative, apart from research positions offered through professor's personal research.
However, if you are looking for a Theory / Architecture PHD, we only have the Sustainable Urbanism doctoral program. That being said, I do know of more than a couple of students who went on from here with great recommendations from professors here to get their PHD at Colombia, MIT, etc. Most likely any of the "top 10" schools will provide great connections for moving into PHD.
Are there research opportunities for graduate students within the university that involve history and theory? Are there faculty-led study abroads within the college of architecture? Is the thesis route any good there?
If you plan to work as an architect after you get your PhD your degree will be several years old (and stale) when you start trying to get a job in academia. Better to work after your Masters and before your terminal degree. Also employers may be reluctant to hire anyone with a PhD for entry level work and you will not have any experience for anything more.
I don't think I will seek licensure, though I do think I will work in an office through graduate school and after graduate school before getting a PhD. I've heard the same thing from others as well
Here's a question- What are you interesting researching?
Eg. I'd look at UVa before Cornell if my research was leaning towards American Vernacular and preservation.
Topics of interest matter and should drive your selection.
Tough question because since I'm only entering my fourth year, I haven't developed very specific interests when it comes to research, I only know for sure that I'd like to involve myself in researching in the realm of history and theory. My only experience when it comes to research is some funded undergraduate research I've been doing this summer involving phenomenology. I do enjoy it! But I imagine my interests will narrow through graduate school.
Any thoughts on getting a PhD after licensure in order to expand into teaching+practice route? (In lieu of practice only.)
From what I understand, if you want to teach you can go either the licensure route or the PhD route, you don't need both to teach at most schools, you only need one. So if you're licensed and you want to teach I don
whoops, prematurely pressed enter. -- So if you're licensed and you want to teach, I don't think you need to go for a PhD unless you just really want to get a PhD. You can still find opportunities teaching with just your license as qualification
It depends where and what you want to teach. For studio and most technical subjects the M.Arch is considered the terminal degree in the field. For history and theory it depends on the university: it's become increasingly difficult to get on the tenure track without a doctorate - though some architecture programs have no or nearly no tenured faculty in the first place. But look at nearly any architecture program at any university and you'll probably find some faculty teaching those subjects with only an M.Arch or masters in some other subject - though it depends on the school as to whether that's the norm, or whether they're an exception based on the length of time they've been doing that or their name recognition/significance in the field, or both. In some universities you can teach for a certain length of time as an adjunct, with lesser academic requirements than for tenure track faculty, but you can only do so for a set number of semesters due to union agreements... It's all very school-specific. If your ultimate long-range goal is to teach history or theory in an architecture program then a doctoral program would make sense, but for anything else it may not.