I am a recent Canadian MArch grad who is interested in planning my next 5 years. I have three questions related to architectural education. I am planning on getting accredited in my home province and want to spend this time to also save money for my future educational aspirations. I want to go back to school because I enjoy doing research and while I'm currently interested in improving my practical knowledge, eventually I want to get back to theoretical questions. I also would love to work for one of the few firms which continues to design with more abstract principles. Ideally, I'd like to do Harvard's MArch II program or UCL Barttlett's Space Syntax MSc/MRes program. I love studying the spatial/cultural languages of cities/historic events and would be very drawn to this. So my questions are:
1) Will taking the time to get accredited effect my chances of getting accepted? I'm worried that schools will not be interested in a 35 year old student anymore. In my current degree there were tonnes of mature students with backgrounds in things extremely relevant to architecture, like architectural technologists and it just became laughable that they would be there, since they basically already knew everything.
2) What do second Master's programs look for on applications. I had a decent (but not amazing average) in my bachelor's degree. In my Master's degree, I had really great grades and even got some scholarships. I also had a strong thesis project. However, at my program for some reason the MArch program doesn't give GPAs, just letter grades (not sure how it is at other schools). So I'm wondering if it's even worth it to try to apply to Harvard (although I heard that their GPA's of acceptance are low for the design school).
3) Why do all of the Harvard projects published on their website and social media look so unimpressive? Do students not have time for more development or is it not that great of a program? How do Harvard's MArch II and UCL's non-MArch programs compare?
Thanks so much for your time!
Non Sequitur
Aug 12, 21 8:00 pm
Plenty of opportunities to do good work up in tfrozen Canada land. Don’t mortgage your future for a $100k 2nd degree.
AceofArch
Aug 12, 21 10:03 pm
Thanks, I'm not particularly tied to Canada, even if I do get accredited here...
Non Sequitur
Aug 13, 21 9:28 am
It's better up here... at least relative to m'erica land. Besides that, accreditation does not mean much if you don't do anything with it and since you find current top $chool projects bland and find your class mate's desires to become architects laughable, perhaps this is not the right course for you. You can hide forever in academia if you want, but only very few get to play fantasy architect rockstar theorists the others either work and design/build things, or lick their wounds as they pay down their student debts well into their 40s.
AceofArch
Aug 13, 21 12:50 pm
Lol glad to know you're at least a Canadian making fun of Canada and not an American.... Yeah everything is just an arbitrary milestone in this field if feels like as evidenced by how different and incompatible each Arch degree program is in Canada. Maybe people get genuinely happy by the fact that getting accredited means more responsibility (maybe, I'm not sure), or that maybe they can stop learning software programs and start commanding others people around to do that work or them, or that maybe they can start their own firms (not sure that's for me), or that they get more money (maybe?) ... none of those motivations speak to me too much I'll just do it because there equally no point in not doing it.... Also, what I think is laughable is a faculty deciding to put people who already know how to build houses into the same beginner's classes in tech or design as people who know nothing about architecture. As a person who didn't know architecture before my program, that really sucked for me because it was super hard to keep up. Literally not laughing at anyone else.... And I just wondering if other programs chose to not do that, or perhaps they are a little less money-grabbing. I also don't have fantasies about being a rockstar architect... I literally just like studying and doing research. I have too much social anxiety and would choose to stay anonymous. Also I currently am not in dept because I worked before going back to school, and that's my plan this time too, so I won't ever be going into dept. Everyone has their own priorities, and having kids or an unnecessarily large is not my cup of tea, so why not do what I like doing?
Jay1122
Aug 13, 21 2:22 pm
I want to be an arch school professor too after I see that Sci Arc professors gets paid 200K annual salary. Hmm, earns big bucks while criticizing student's Mars project. Fantastic. But I am pretty sure they hire people with successful records. Starchitects, Firm owners, big architectural writers, etc. People with simply a few extra master degrees are not likely to land the gig unless they got really good networking. Academic is more competitive than actual practice. Anyway, do what you enjoy doing. And I say go with Harvard. After many years, it really is down to just the reputation of schools. I never feel Arch schools teach much, they just set the environment for you to research and develop your own vision and skills. I wish I can get a master too. I always see them as a vacation. But I don't want to pay that tuition money. Too dumb to get a full ride.
AceofArch
Aug 13, 21 5:24 pm
I also want to say that I don't think that grades are a reflection of intelligence. There are different approaches when it comes to getting the grades. School is a massive time crunch and ultimately something must be sacrificed, sometimes it's depth of understanding your subject, sometimes is quality of representation, sometimes it's authenticity. Sometimes the people who get better grades are the one's who are willing to do something you weren't. It just depends on your personal values and how that lines up with grading schemes. I feel like I've been on both sides and have personally experienced getting good grades on a simple more figured out project and not the best on a well thought out yet to be fully panned out project.
AceofArch
Aug 13, 21 3:08 pm
Jay, it's too bad you're not Canadian, then you wouldn't have to worry too much about the cost of schooling as our tuition is manageable. It's never too late to change your mind just agree that Canada is better than the USA, and join the team ;) . Everyone makes mistakes. Yeah maybe my perspective will change after a few years of working and explorations in the abstract won't make me happy...
Jay1122
Aug 13, 21 4:52 pm
Just curious. Do you have experience working in traditional practice firms? Or is it straight school and School.
Your specific statement "Why do all of the Harvard projects published on their website and social media look so unimpressive?" makes me laugh. Makes me wonder what kind of work you think is impressive.
AceofArch
Aug 13, 21 5:19 pm
I have worked at two firms, both of them were really good, not to say that did anything impressive there myself hehe. I know that actual design work is very direct and doesn't do a lot of deep analysis of culture/landcape, which is why I like school. I guess I made the comment about the Harvard project because I felt there didn't seem to be a depth of understanding of design conditions (not all). Like that they didn't break down what was happening and then manipulate those variables, they only seems to directly respond to one condition. Which is more like the work environment I guess. I wasn't shitting on Harvard, obvious the work the students do is great, but I know that different school have different time allotments for different subjects. Maybe some are more focuses on technology why others give more time to design. This is why I was asking the questions, essentially, does Harvard give the opportunity to develop long deep projects? Or maybe I'm not looking at the correct school for myself. I feel like I was more impressed with Bartlett student work for design development/exploration.
TED
Aug 13, 21 3:13 pm
If you're interested in so-called research, do a frick'n PhD.
AceofArch
Aug 13, 21 3:26 pm
Do you think that they look more at your work as opposed to your schooling for PhD applications? Not sure why but that's what I always felt.
TED
Aug 14, 21 10:32 am
At 35, yes to your work-professional achievements > schooling for any incoming academic direction. What is the big question you want your research to answer? "The world would be much better if ___________ and I propose _________ as my hypothesis and will put forth to test it through (case study, action-based research, visual methodology, archival research, etc.) and evolve a systematic process that will benefit ________. In the UK a PhD is 3 years, US is 5 years. Coming in as a mature student and assuming you have some good experience under your belt you should base your return to education as to take some aspect to the next level. If you just want to putz around and do design then do a 1 year post-professional degree. The post professional degrees are not hand-cuffed to NCARB criterial and therefor are much more innovative with freedom to do what you want.
Hello Arch community,
I am a recent Canadian MArch grad who is interested in planning my next 5 years. I have three questions related to architectural education. I am planning on getting accredited in my home province and want to spend this time to also save money for my future educational aspirations. I want to go back to school because I enjoy doing research and while I'm currently interested in improving my practical knowledge, eventually I want to get back to theoretical questions. I also would love to work for one of the few firms which continues to design with more abstract principles. Ideally, I'd like to do Harvard's MArch II program or UCL Barttlett's Space Syntax MSc/MRes program. I love studying the spatial/cultural languages of cities/historic events and would be very drawn to this. So my questions are:
1) Will taking the time to get accredited effect my chances of getting accepted? I'm worried that schools will not be interested in a 35 year old student anymore. In my current degree there were tonnes of mature students with backgrounds in things extremely relevant to architecture, like architectural technologists and it just became laughable that they would be there, since they basically already knew everything.
2) What do second Master's programs look for on applications. I had a decent (but not amazing average) in my bachelor's degree. In my Master's degree, I had really great grades and even got some scholarships. I also had a strong thesis project. However, at my program for some reason the MArch program doesn't give GPAs, just letter grades (not sure how it is at other schools). So I'm wondering if it's even worth it to try to apply to Harvard (although I heard that their GPA's of acceptance are low for the design school).
3) Why do all of the Harvard projects published on their website and social media look so unimpressive? Do students not have time for more development or is it not that great of a program? How do Harvard's MArch II and UCL's non-MArch programs compare?
Thanks so much for your time!
Plenty of opportunities to do good work up in tfrozen Canada land. Don’t mortgage your future for a $100k 2nd degree.
Thanks, I'm not particularly tied to Canada, even if I do get accredited here...
It's better up here... at least relative to m'erica land. Besides that, accreditation does not mean much if you don't do anything with it and since you find current top $chool projects bland and find your class mate's desires to become architects laughable, perhaps this is not the right course for you. You can hide forever in academia if you want, but only very few get to play fantasy architect rockstar theorists the others either work and design/build things, or lick their wounds as they pay down their student debts well into their 40s.
Lol glad to know you're at least a Canadian making fun of Canada and not an American.... Yeah everything is just an arbitrary milestone in this field if feels like as evidenced by how different and incompatible each Arch degree program is in Canada. Maybe people get genuinely happy by the fact that getting accredited means more responsibility (maybe, I'm not sure), or that maybe they can stop learning software programs and start commanding others people around to do that work or them, or that maybe they can start their own firms (not sure that's for me), or that they get more money (maybe?) ... none of those motivations speak to me too much I'll just do it because there equally no point in not doing it.... Also, what I think is laughable is a faculty deciding to put people who already know how to build houses into the same beginner's classes in tech or design as people who know nothing about architecture. As a person who didn't know architecture before my program, that really sucked for me because it was super hard to keep up. Literally not laughing at anyone else.... And I just wondering if other programs chose to not do that, or perhaps they are a little less money-grabbing. I also don't have fantasies about being a rockstar architect... I literally just like studying and doing research. I have too much social anxiety and would choose to stay anonymous. Also I currently am not in dept because I worked before going back to school, and that's my plan this time too, so I won't ever be going into dept. Everyone has their own priorities, and having kids or an unnecessarily large is not my cup of tea, so why not do what I like doing?
I want to be an arch school professor too after I see that Sci Arc professors gets paid 200K annual salary. Hmm, earns big bucks while criticizing student's Mars project. Fantastic. But I am pretty sure they hire people with successful records. Starchitects, Firm owners, big architectural writers, etc. People with simply a few extra master degrees are not likely to land the gig unless they got really good networking. Academic is more competitive than actual practice. Anyway, do what you enjoy doing. And I say go with Harvard. After many years, it really is down to just the reputation of schools. I never feel Arch schools teach much, they just set the environment for you to research and develop your own vision and skills. I wish I can get a master too. I always see them as a vacation. But I don't want to pay that tuition money. Too dumb to get a full ride.
I also want to say that I don't think that grades are a reflection of intelligence. There are different approaches when it comes to getting the grades. School is a massive time crunch and ultimately something must be sacrificed, sometimes it's depth of understanding your subject, sometimes is quality of representation, sometimes it's authenticity. Sometimes the people who get better grades are the one's who are willing to do something you weren't. It just depends on your personal values and how that lines up with grading schemes. I feel like I've been on both sides and have personally experienced getting good grades on a simple more figured out project and not the best on a well thought out yet to be fully panned out project.
Jay, it's too bad you're not Canadian, then you wouldn't have to worry too much about the cost of schooling as our tuition is manageable. It's never too late to change your mind just agree that Canada is better than the USA, and join the team ;) . Everyone makes mistakes. Yeah maybe my perspective will change after a few years of working and explorations in the abstract won't make me happy...
Just curious. Do you have experience working in traditional practice firms? Or is it straight school and School.
Your specific statement "Why do all of the Harvard projects published on their website and social media look so unimpressive?" makes me laugh. Makes me wonder what kind of work you think is impressive.
I have worked at two firms, both of them were really good, not to say that did anything impressive there myself hehe. I know that actual design work is very direct and doesn't do a lot of deep analysis of culture/landcape, which is why I like school. I guess I made the comment about the Harvard project because I felt there didn't seem to be a depth of understanding of design conditions (not all). Like that they didn't break down what was happening and then manipulate those variables, they only seems to directly respond to one condition. Which is more like the work environment I guess. I wasn't shitting on Harvard, obvious the work the students do is great, but I know that different school have different time allotments for different subjects. Maybe some are more focuses on technology why others give more time to design. This is why I was asking the questions, essentially, does Harvard give the opportunity to develop long deep projects? Or maybe I'm not looking at the correct school for myself. I feel like I was more impressed with Bartlett student work for design development/exploration.
If you're interested in so-called research, do a frick'n PhD.
Do you think that they look more at your work as opposed to your schooling for PhD applications? Not sure why but that's what I always felt.
At 35, yes to your work-professional achievements > schooling for any incoming academic direction. What is the big question you want your research to answer? "The world would be much better if ___________ and I propose _________ as my hypothesis and will put forth to test it through (case study, action-based research, visual methodology, archival research, etc.) and evolve a systematic process that will benefit ________. In the UK a PhD is 3 years, US is 5 years. Coming in as a mature student and assuming you have some good experience under your belt you should base your return to education as to take some aspect to the next level. If you just want to putz around and do design then do a 1 year post-professional degree. The post professional degrees are not hand-cuffed to NCARB criterial and therefor are much more innovative with freedom to do what you want.
Thank you, this is extremely helpful!