Last year MArch student here, and let me tell you, it doesn’t get better—just clearer how disappointing architecture school really is. I entered with no architecture background and had to teach myself everything, from design approaches to software. The instructors, mostly relics, hold pointless desk crits three times a week without bothering to teach or prepare lectures. They seem to believe that their years in the field somehow qualify as knowledge that can be passed on purely through “critiquing.” Bear in mind, most of them haven’t even practiced architecture!
Best, A thoroughly disappointed student from your prestigious Canadian architecture school
newbie.Phronesis
Nov 1, 24 6:15 pm
...that's a Masters though? Your entry / foundation year they should have actually taught you, but afterwards studio is highly self-directed with those critiques nudging you in the right direction.
Tbf professors without actual work experience are iffy, but that's where your cohort helps out...
BeamMeOut
Nov 3, 24 2:08 pm
Then there are the midterms and finals, where they feel free to crap all over your project just because your style doesn’t fit their personal vibe. And it’s always the same instructor who “nudged” you in the “right direction” who’s the first to join the pile-on, acting like they’re some visionary critic. “Self-directed” learning? Just their excuse to do the absolute bare minimum. What direction? Why is everyone so okay with this lazy, vague teaching style that turns students into neurotic perfectionists and borderline alcoholics?
newbie.Phronesis
Nov 4, 24 5:29 pm
Yeah, for that type of instructor we'd just politely nod and smile at before avoiding as much as possible. Same as graphemic wrote, really just appreciate and learn whatever you can, and enjoy a respite from the professional world for a while.
Non Sequitur
Nov 1, 24 6:16 pm
Hey, at least you did not waste 100k like your American colleagues. But to be fair, if you thought 3x week desk crits were pointless, I think the problem is with the student.
BeamMeOut
Nov 3, 24 1:55 pm
It seems like you believe the ancient structure of the architecture school is still valid, right? so every aspect of the profession needs to be progressive except the training?
BeamMeOut
Nov 3, 24 1:55 pm
No the problem is the instructor who's not trained to give proper
feedback.
OddArchitect
Nov 4, 24 1:38 pm
What do you consider to be proper feedback?
sameolddoctor
Nov 1, 24 6:29 pm
Dont worry, it will get even worse when you are in the profession.
Non Sequitur
Nov 1, 24 6:32 pm
...and double worse if they go into teaching
BeamMeOut
Nov 3, 24 2:00 pm
Non Sequitur- Teaching at architecture school ?feels like the easiest gig, especially for those who have nothing worthwhile to offer the field beyond spouting their shallow, worn-out socialist views. Sure, some instructors genuinely put love and effort into their work—but let’s be honest, plenty are just coasting.
BeamMeOut
Nov 3, 24 2:02 pm
Sameolddoctor- Honestly, I have professional experience, and I’ve met some genuinely respectful and professional people in the field. Maybe I’ve just been lucky with the firms I've worked at.
sameolddoctor
Nov 4, 24 1:01 pm
Once you have "enough" professional experience you will understand lol
Non Sequitur
Nov 4, 24 1:05 pm
applied to 3y programs in 2021... claims to have work experience in more than one firm... not much room in there for real experience.
OddArchitect
Nov 4, 24 10:29 am
BeamMeOut wrote:
"Last year MArch student here, and let me tell you, it doesn’t get better—just clearer how disappointing architecture school really is"
May I ask what you where expecting out of a two year masters program when you have no previous experience or education in architecture and design?
"I entered with no architecture background and had to teach myself everything, from design approaches to software. "
You entered a two year M.Arch with no previous design experience. What did you expect?
Typically, it takes four years to be taught the foundation of design. While a typical architecture education has a lot of instruction it also has a lot of self-learning. This is typical for architecture. Both in acidemia and in real world practice.
"The instructors, mostly relics, hold pointless desk crits three times a week without bothering to teach or prepare lectures. They seem to believe that their years in the field somehow qualify as knowledge that can be passed on purely through “critiquing.”"
That’s normally how desk crits work.
Your design work is reviewed, discussed, and commented on. Since you don’t have any background or instruction in design, I suspect that your teachers may view you a ‘lost cause’. This isn’t your fault. It seems like your professors aren’t very good. I personally think offering an M.Arch to students that don’t have an undergrad in architecture is foolish.
"Bear in mind, most of them haven’t even practiced architecture!"
It sounds like you’re attending a bad program. I think most M.Arch’s that accept students without and an undergrad in architecture are like that.
I'm sorry you're going though this. It's going to be harder for you in actual practice so I'd suggest you really research the firms you're hoping to work with and find one that will mentor you.
BeamMeOut
Nov 4, 24 11:12 am
1. THREE year program not two
Non Sequitur
Nov 4, 24 11:17 am
3y is typical for those without a related arch undergrad. Results are really hit and miss on that one because far too many applicants have hard to break fluffy expectations of what architecture is... and act like victims when it does not pan out.
OddArchitect
Nov 4, 24 11:47 am
BeamMeOut wrote:
"1. THREE year program not two"
That's still not enough time. As I stated previously, it normally takes four years to gain the foundation of knowledge to do M.Arch level of work. Even if you remove all non architectural coursework it's not possible to cram four years of architectural coursework into one year.
Hence why I said it's going to be harder for you when you move into the practice of architecture and why finding a good firm with a good mentor is vital.
Good luck. Feel free to DM me with any questions you may want advice on.
sameolddoctor
Nov 4, 24 2:15 pm
Hmm, a lot of M.Arch 1 programs are 3 years duration with a majority of the students with varying backgrounds, but with a portfolio strong enough to be admitted to the school. I think those programs are a bit more rigorous and are enough time to "understand" architecture at an academic level. I do not agree with the 4-5 year comment cuz it implies that architecture is way more difficult than it actually is.
Truth be told, you will have to unlearn 90% of what you did in school when in the profession anyways (so why waste too much time in school?)
OddArchitect
Nov 4, 24 3:47 pm
Most two year M.Arch programs I know of require an undergrad in arch and / or a solid portfolio. I don't know where you went to school SOD but I did not have to 'unlearn' 90% of what I was taught in school. I must of gone to a better school than you. I find it hard to believe since it was 'just' a state school in ND. ;)
sameolddoctor
Nov 4, 24 4:15 pm
Yeah I went to a fancy west coast school for my Masters and with a bachelor's outside the country. Even though said fancy west coast school taught me a lot in the way of "getting shit done" and creating cool graphics, there was almost nothing remotely buildable that was taught there - they said it was a "way of thinking" lol.
BeamMeOut
Nov 4, 24 11:32 am
OddArchitect -"Lost cause"? That's what comes to mind reading your uninformed comment. By your logic, 40% of my cohort must be a “lost cause.”
Let me be clear: I’m neither struggling nor failing. I’m simply pointing out how my tuition money is being wasted, as I end up teaching myself everything. Perhaps that’s why I’m so valued at work—they can see the results of my self-driven learning. Most colleagues are genuine people who’ve gone through similar programs. They understand and offer real support. If only the out-of-touch instructors were as invested…
Do your research.
OddArchitect
Nov 4, 24 1:26 pm
No, that's not what I meant or said. I said: Since you don’t have any background or instruction in design, I suspect that your teachers may view you a ‘lost cause’.
OddArchitect
Nov 4, 24 1:36 pm
BeamMeOut
How am I supposed to do any research on you or your situation? We don't know
who you are
what school you attend
what your undergrad was in
how you're doing at said school
where you're doing your student internship (or that you had one).
All we know about you is you don't like the quality of the education you're receiving.
Did you bother to do any research on the people who have responded to your post? If you had you would of found that many of the respondents have a great deal of experience in not only your situation but how new grads of various background handle getting into firms.
Good luck.
b3tadine[sutures]
Nov 4, 24 2:10 pm
I have to say, it's really strange that someone's approach to a Masters degree is seemingly dependent on being taught. I've not, but many times I've wanted, attempted the masters in architecture, but the one thing that excited me was the opportunity to explore in an independent manner a topic of my choosing. I've had a tough time focusing on one thing, My Big Question, but I always knew that it was going to be a challenge, and most, if not all was going to be me, learning and questioning. With an advisor continually prodding me.
As for the software. Suck it up. No one is going to teach you how to Revit. Grasshopper. Dynamo. Or whatever. That's all you, all you.
Perhaps the GSD summer program is where one should start if you are coming from another background
Cheers.
OddArchitect
Nov 4, 24 2:18 pm
I started out with a 5 year B.Arch. It took me six years due to an illness (see below for more info).
Our fifth year was our thesis project. End of your fourth year - write your thesis proposal. We only had a about three hours of instruction on how to write the proposal. First semester of the 5th year - write your thesis. We only had one class on how to write a thesis. Second semester of the 5th year was design your project. We had three people judge our thesis. Primary, Secondary, and Blind. We had weekly reviews from our Primary professor. Bi-weekly reviews from our Secondary professors. The Blind professor never saw our project until we presented it.
I unfortunately became wheelchair bound and had to hold off on my thesis. I stayed in school and the extra year of schooling granted me a M.Arch. My program had implemented but not yet offered the M.Arch program. I met all the academic requirements for an M.Arch so my program granted me the degree.
graphemic
Nov 4, 24 2:23 pm
I also went through a grief-processing stage after graduating because I tried so hard and had a lot of good faith in educators that did not deserve it. My biggest regret is not taking more control over my work and worrying so much about doing what was asked of me correctly.
Having had this experience, and having been on the teaching end of things too, I will say that this is a broader phenomenon that I think has more to do with higher education. Students are enormously burdened by the requirement to have a degree, and institutions are happy to attract the highest spenders by offering essentially a product. Students, by no fault of their own, have been positioned as customers to be serviced. It leaves no one happy but the chancellors.
So, OP, please don't worry too much. It's an enormous privilege to go through even shitty architecture school in the grand scheme of things. Appreciate what you can. Move on. The world is also shitty, but again, you can only do your best.
sameolddoctor
Nov 4, 24 3:00 pm
I like your positivity, graphemic - with all the "serious" stuff in the world, architecture school, even though its tough is an island of respite...
BeamMeOut
Nov 4, 24 5:40 pm
Thanks for sharing that. It's spot on about how schools operate these days. But you're right, it's tough and moving forward is key. Appreciate the insight!
Last year MArch student here, and let me tell you, it doesn’t get better—just clearer how disappointing architecture school really is. I entered with no architecture background and had to teach myself everything, from design approaches to software. The instructors, mostly relics, hold pointless desk crits three times a week without bothering to teach or prepare lectures. They seem to believe that their years in the field somehow qualify as knowledge that can be passed on purely through “critiquing.” Bear in mind, most of them haven’t even practiced architecture!
Best,
A thoroughly disappointed student from your prestigious Canadian architecture school
...that's a Masters though? Your entry / foundation year they should have actually taught you, but afterwards studio is highly self-directed with those critiques nudging you in the right direction.
Tbf professors without actual work experience are iffy, but that's where your cohort helps out...
Then there are the midterms and finals, where they feel free to crap all over your project just because your style doesn’t fit their personal vibe. And it’s always the same instructor who “nudged” you in the “right direction” who’s the first to join the pile-on, acting like they’re some visionary critic. “Self-directed” learning? Just their excuse to do the absolute bare minimum. What direction? Why is everyone so okay with this lazy, vague teaching style that turns students into neurotic perfectionists and borderline alcoholics?
Yeah, for that type of instructor we'd just politely nod and smile at before avoiding as much as possible. Same as graphemic wrote, really just appreciate and learn whatever you can, and enjoy a respite from the professional world for a while.
Hey, at least you did not waste 100k like your American colleagues. But to be fair, if you thought 3x week desk crits were pointless, I think the problem is with the student.
It seems like you believe the ancient structure of the architecture school is still valid, right? so every aspect of the profession needs to be progressive except the training?
No the problem is the instructor who's not trained to give proper feedback.
What do you consider to be proper feedback?
Dont worry, it will get even worse when you are in the profession.
...and double worse if they go into teaching
Non Sequitur- Teaching at architecture school ?feels like the easiest gig, especially for those who have nothing worthwhile to offer the field beyond spouting their shallow, worn-out socialist views. Sure, some instructors genuinely put love and effort into their work—but let’s be honest, plenty are just coasting.
Sameolddoctor- Honestly, I have professional experience, and I’ve met some genuinely respectful and professional people in the field. Maybe I’ve just been lucky with the firms I've worked at.
Once you have "enough" professional experience you will understand lol
applied to 3y programs in 2021... claims to have work experience in more than one firm... not much room in there for real experience.
BeamMeOut wrote:
"Last year MArch student here, and let me tell you, it doesn’t get better—just clearer how disappointing architecture school really is"
May I ask what you where expecting out of a two year masters program when you have no previous experience or education in architecture and design?
"I entered with no architecture background and had to teach myself everything, from design approaches to software. "
You entered a two year M.Arch with no previous design experience. What did you expect?
Typically, it takes four years to be taught the foundation of design. While a typical architecture education has a lot of instruction it also has a lot of self-learning. This is typical for architecture. Both in acidemia and in real world practice.
"The instructors, mostly relics, hold pointless desk crits three times a week without bothering to teach or prepare lectures. They seem to believe that their years in the field somehow qualify as knowledge that can be passed on purely through “critiquing.”"
That’s normally how desk crits work.
Your design work is reviewed, discussed, and commented on. Since you don’t have any background or instruction in design, I suspect that your teachers may view you a ‘lost cause’. This isn’t your fault. It seems like your professors aren’t very good. I personally think offering an M.Arch to students that don’t have an undergrad in architecture is foolish.
"Bear in mind, most of them haven’t even practiced architecture!"
It sounds like you’re attending a bad program. I think most M.Arch’s that accept students without and an undergrad in architecture are like that.
I'm sorry you're going though this. It's going to be harder for you in actual practice so I'd suggest you really research the firms you're hoping to work with and find one that will mentor you.
1. THREE year program not two
3y is typical for those without a related arch undergrad. Results are really hit and miss on that one because far too many applicants have hard to break fluffy expectations of what architecture is... and act like victims when it does not pan out.
BeamMeOut wrote:
"1. THREE year program not two"
That's still not enough time. As I stated previously, it normally takes four years to gain the foundation of knowledge to do M.Arch level of work. Even if you remove all non architectural coursework it's not possible to cram four years of architectural coursework into one year.
Hence why I said it's going to be harder for you when you move into the practice of architecture and why finding a good firm with a good mentor is vital.
Good luck. Feel free to DM me with any questions you may want advice on.
Hmm, a lot of M.Arch 1 programs are 3 years duration with a majority of the students with varying backgrounds, but with a portfolio strong enough to be admitted to the school. I think those programs are a bit more rigorous and are enough time to "understand" architecture at an academic level. I do not agree with the 4-5 year comment cuz it implies that architecture is way more difficult than it actually is.
Truth be told, you will have to unlearn 90% of what you did in school when in the profession anyways (so why waste too much time in school?)
Most two year M.Arch programs I know of require an undergrad in arch and / or a solid portfolio. I don't know where you went to school SOD but I did not have to 'unlearn' 90% of what I was taught in school. I must of gone to a better school than you. I find it hard to believe since it was 'just' a state school in ND. ;)
Yeah I went to a fancy west coast school for my Masters and with a bachelor's outside the country. Even though said fancy west coast school taught me a lot in the way of "getting shit done" and creating cool graphics, there was almost nothing remotely buildable that was taught there - they said it was a "way of thinking" lol.
OddArchitect -"Lost cause"? That's what comes to mind reading your uninformed comment. By your logic, 40% of my cohort must be a “lost cause.”
Let me be clear: I’m neither struggling nor failing. I’m simply pointing out how my tuition money is being wasted, as I end up teaching myself everything. Perhaps that’s why I’m so valued at work—they can see the results of my self-driven learning. Most colleagues are genuine people who’ve gone through similar programs. They understand and offer real support. If only the out-of-touch instructors were as invested…
Do your research.
No, that's not what I meant or said. I said: Since you don’t have any background or instruction in design, I suspect that your teachers may view you a ‘lost cause’.
BeamMeOut
How am I supposed to do any research on you or your situation? We don't know
All we know about you is you don't like the quality of the education you're receiving.
Did you bother to do any research on the people who have responded to your post? If you had you would of found that many of the respondents have a great deal of experience in not only your situation but how new grads of various background handle getting into firms.
Good luck.
I have to say, it's really strange that someone's approach to a Masters degree is seemingly dependent on being taught. I've not, but many times I've wanted, attempted the masters in architecture, but the one thing that excited me was the opportunity to explore in an independent manner a topic of my choosing. I've had a tough time focusing on one thing, My Big Question, but I always knew that it was going to be a challenge, and most, if not all was going to be me, learning and questioning. With an advisor continually prodding me.
As for the software. Suck it up. No one is going to teach you how to Revit. Grasshopper. Dynamo. Or whatever. That's all you, all you.
Perhaps the GSD summer program is where one should start if you are coming from another background
Cheers.
I started out with a 5 year B.Arch. It took me six years due to an illness (see below for more info).
Our fifth year was our thesis project. End of your fourth year - write your thesis proposal. We only had a about three hours of instruction on how to write the proposal. First semester of the 5th year - write your thesis. We only had one class on how to write a thesis. Second semester of the 5th year was design your project. We had three people judge our thesis. Primary, Secondary, and Blind. We had weekly reviews from our Primary professor. Bi-weekly reviews from our Secondary professors. The Blind professor never saw our project until we presented it.
I unfortunately became wheelchair bound and had to hold off on my thesis. I stayed in school and the extra year of schooling granted me a M.Arch. My program had implemented but not yet offered the M.Arch program. I met all the academic requirements for an M.Arch so my program granted me the degree.
I also went through a grief-processing stage after graduating because I tried so hard and had a lot of good faith in educators that did not deserve it. My biggest regret is not taking more control over my work and worrying so much about doing what was asked of me correctly.
Having had this experience, and having been on the teaching end of things too, I will say that this is a broader phenomenon that I think has more to do with higher education. Students are enormously burdened by the requirement to have a degree, and institutions are happy to attract the highest spenders by offering essentially a product. Students, by no fault of their own, have been positioned as customers to be serviced. It leaves no one happy but the chancellors.
So, OP, please don't worry too much. It's an enormous privilege to go through even shitty architecture school in the grand scheme of things. Appreciate what you can. Move on. The world is also shitty, but again, you can only do your best.
I like your positivity, graphemic - with all the "serious" stuff in the world, architecture school, even though its tough is an island of respite...
Thanks for sharing that. It's spot on about how schools operate these days. But you're right, it's tough and moving forward is key. Appreciate the insight!