Do you prefer to do your master's at an internationally renowned school or at a lesser-known school with world-famous star architects?
Non Sequitur
Oct 2, 21 2:25 pm
Depends, which one costs lest? Pick that one.
Aaron_
Oct 2, 21 2:34 pm
It's a similar level, and it's not a burden at all. I'm just worried about the reputation and the faculty.
natematt
Oct 5, 21 3:57 am
Agreed with NS, but if it's not an issue, I'd 100% say go with the school with the better reputation. For the little it's worth, it will likely be more meaningful in experience and reputation. More so the further apart the schools are in quality. Unless you think you're going to be able to get some really specific connections out of the starchitect, but I think that's unlikely, and extremely hard to predict.
citizen
Oct 2, 21 2:46 pm
If money's not a burden at all, why not do both? Two masters is not unheard of.
Aaron_
Oct 2, 21 7:43 pm
visa problem..
..
randomised
Oct 3, 21 8:29 am
Just keep in mind that the most famous architects don’t necessarily make for the best educators...if you’ll have studios with starchitects you’ll be most likely taught by their staff with them showing up only for the final crit or so to take all the credit ;)
TIQM
Oct 3, 21 2:01 pm
The last thing I’d be concerned about when hiring someone out of school is whether there were world-famous star architects teaching at their school.
archanonymous
Oct 4, 21 9:24 am
Starchitect faculty will miss lots of studio days and frequently lack the depth of technical knowledge that seasoned professors of practice have.
Do you want to learn to be a good architect, or do you want to make connections with starchitects?
Miles Jaffe
Oct 4, 21 9:40 am
I would choose actual experience over continuing the BS 'education'
Chad Miller
Oct 5, 21 3:22 pm
Education isn't BS by default Miles. Go take your Flowmax and calm down.
reallynotmyname
Oct 4, 21 12:29 pm
If you are going to study in the US, know that most of your education in an architecture school will be complete bullshit. Focus on building a good portfolio of things that look like buildings and as much work experience in architects' offices as your schedule will permit. In the end, employers are going to be focused on what you can actually produce and not who taught you or where you studied.
monosierra
Oct 4, 21 1:26 pm
One weird trick I've seen students using is to disguise their studio under a starchitect as an "internship". Say Koolhaas or Toyo Ito takes his studio to Rotterdam/Tokyo and have them work on an exhibition fulltime as their studio project. Setting aside the fact that you're paying to work for OMA/AMO, you could play it fast and loose and label that 3 months as a job experience in the vague hope of grabbing someone's attention. That is, if you didn't impress OMA staffers enough for them to hire you to continue the exhibition work over the summer.
will galloway
Oct 4, 21 4:22 pm
wouldnt a school filled with star architects be famous, at least in its own context? My uni in Japan is not world famous but has 3 pritzkers connected to it and is for all intents and purposes an ivy league school in Japan. Anyone who goes there will usually do very well. My classmates from U of Tokyo are certainly doing pretty well (almost 15 years later), as are my students from Keio. YMMV but yeah the doors that get opened by who you study with can be quite useful over the long run.
short term is harder to say it matters as much. Still, as far as the technical knowledge and all that...its baffling that anyone would think a star-architect doesnt know that kind of thing cold. More than that my experience with the star-architects I have worked with is they often know what it means to do large and complicated projects, and they have some serious soft skills that are impressive to see in motion, if you get the chance. Admittedly that is not always the case, but it takes a lot of careful work to not learn from the kinds of projects that a typical pritzker laureate has going on.
Parlaying that experience into the future you want is another question altogether. Since the schools you are weighing seem to be equal but different in kind, I would think about what you want out of it and go from there.
It is true though that the star architects often are not treating the studio as their first job. The people I worked with were not just there for first and last class, but it is not uncommon that they miss half the sessions. For myself I thought that was a fair trade since we also got to conduct the studios in their office, and that too was an education...
archanonymous
Oct 5, 21 10:59 am
This is a great and accurate explanation.
I will, however, dispute Will's assertion about starchitect's technical knowledge. Typically those "soft skills" he mentions help them rocket so quickly into leadership of large and complex projects (and then onwards to having their own firms) that they don't get nearly as much time and experience on technical aspects of projects. Of course, this is arguably the least important part of school - you have your whole career to learn that stuff from the grizzled old vets at whatever firm you end up at.
Also very true that if you don't study with the stars, you have a slim chance of ever working for or with them.
midlander
Oct 4, 21 9:52 pm
there is a reason some architects are widely known and respected in the profession, and if you never spend time working closely with them you will never understand why they achieve what they do.
not all such architects are "starchitects" but some are. you should certainly choose a school with faculty and studio instructors you admire who do work you respect.
archanonymous
Oct 5, 21 11:03 am
"You should certainly choose a school with faculty and studio instructors you admire who do work you respect." very well put.
To OP - have you been on front page of Archinect or ArchDaily or Dezeen lately? It's hard to find a published project these days that isn't well-planned, well-designed and well executed, if not drop-dead gorgeous. Starchitects don't have an exclusive lock on producing good architecture, but for whatever reason they get the most press and attention. I think recent Pritzker picks have been a refreshing change from that though.
There's so many small and mid size local and regional firms doing amazing work. Many of these practitioners are also professors, and I think they have just as much to teach about the actual practice of architecture. Just depends if you want that entry into the starchitect world or not, which again, I would argue doesn't mean better work, just different work.
sameolddoctor
Oct 5, 21 3:37 pm
From the OP's posts it seem that they have dough, and that they are international.
If they wanna go back to their country after the master's, id choose the school with more reputation, there is a better chance people overseas will know it...
Do you prefer to do your master's at an internationally renowned school or at a lesser-known school with world-famous star architects?
Depends, which one costs lest? Pick that one.
It's a similar level, and it's not a burden at all. I'm just worried about the reputation and the faculty.
Agreed with NS, but if it's not an issue, I'd 100% say go with the school with the better reputation. For the little it's worth, it will likely be more meaningful in experience and reputation. More so the further apart the schools are in quality. Unless you think you're going to be able to get some really specific connections out of the starchitect, but I think that's unlikely, and extremely hard to predict.
If money's not a burden at all, why not do both? Two masters is not unheard of.
visa problem..
..
Just keep in mind that the most famous architects don’t necessarily make for the best educators...if you’ll have studios with starchitects you’ll be most likely taught by their staff with them showing up only for the final crit or so to take all the credit ;)
The last thing I’d be concerned about when hiring someone out of school is whether there were world-famous star architects teaching at their school.
Starchitect faculty will miss lots of studio days and frequently lack the depth of technical knowledge that seasoned professors of practice have.
Do you want to learn to be a good architect, or do you want to make connections with starchitects?
I would choose actual experience over continuing the BS 'education'
Education isn't BS by default Miles. Go take your Flowmax and calm down.
If you are going to study in the US, know that most of your education in an architecture school will be complete bullshit. Focus on building a good portfolio of things that look like buildings and as much work experience in architects' offices as your schedule will permit. In the end, employers are going to be focused on what you can actually produce and not who taught you or where you studied.
One weird trick I've seen students using is to disguise their studio under a starchitect as an "internship". Say Koolhaas or Toyo Ito takes his studio to Rotterdam/Tokyo and have them work on an exhibition fulltime as their studio project. Setting aside the fact that you're paying to work for OMA/AMO, you could play it fast and loose and label that 3 months as a job experience in the vague hope of grabbing someone's attention. That is, if you didn't impress OMA staffers enough for them to hire you to continue the exhibition work over the summer.
wouldnt a school filled with star architects be famous, at least in its own context? My uni in Japan is not world famous but has 3 pritzkers connected to it and is for all intents and purposes an ivy league school in Japan. Anyone who goes there will usually do very well. My classmates from U of Tokyo are certainly doing pretty well (almost 15 years later), as are my students from Keio. YMMV but yeah the doors that get opened by who you study with can be quite useful over the long run.
short term is harder to say it matters as much. Still, as far as the technical knowledge and all that...its baffling that anyone would think a star-architect doesnt know that kind of thing cold. More than that my experience with the star-architects I have worked with is they often know what it means to do large and complicated projects, and they have some serious soft skills that are impressive to see in motion, if you get the chance. Admittedly that is not always the case, but it takes a lot of careful work to not learn from the kinds of projects that a typical pritzker laureate has going on.
Parlaying that experience into the future you want is another question altogether. Since the schools you are weighing seem to be equal but different in kind, I would think about what you want out of it and go from there.
It is true though that the star architects often are not treating the studio as their first job. The people I worked with were not just there for first and last class, but it is not uncommon that they miss half the sessions. For myself I thought that was a fair trade since we also got to conduct the studios in their office, and that too was an education...
This is a great and accurate explanation.
I will, however, dispute Will's assertion about starchitect's technical knowledge. Typically those "soft skills" he mentions help them rocket so quickly into leadership of large and complex projects (and then onwards to having their own firms) that they don't get nearly as much time and experience on technical aspects of projects. Of course, this is arguably the least important part of school - you have your whole career to learn that stuff from the grizzled old vets at whatever firm you end up at.
Also very true that if you don't study with the stars, you have a slim chance of ever working for or with them.
there is a reason some architects are widely known and respected in the profession, and if you never spend time working closely with them you will never understand why they achieve what they do.
not all such architects are "starchitects" but some are. you should certainly choose a school with faculty and studio instructors you admire who do work you respect.
"You should certainly choose a school with faculty and studio instructors you admire who do work you respect." very well put.
To OP - have you been on front page of Archinect or ArchDaily or Dezeen lately? It's hard to find a published project these days that isn't well-planned, well-designed and well executed, if not drop-dead gorgeous. Starchitects don't have an exclusive lock on producing good architecture, but for whatever reason they get the most press and attention. I think recent Pritzker picks have been a refreshing change from that though.
There's so many small and mid size local and regional firms doing amazing work. Many of these practitioners are also professors, and I think they have just as much to teach about the actual practice of architecture. Just depends if you want that entry into the starchitect world or not, which again, I would argue doesn't mean better work, just different work.
From the OP's posts it seem that they have dough, and that they are international.
If they wanna go back to their country after the master's, id choose the school with more reputation, there is a better chance people overseas will know it...