<p>Interesting article -- especially when discussing the focus of various top Arch schools, such as Harvard vs. Cal Poly:
<a href="http://www.archdaily.com/450367/are-ivy-league-schools-really-offering-the-best-architectural-education/">http://www.archdaily.com/450367/are-ivy-league-schools-really-offering-the-best-architectural-education/</a></p>
<p>
Wow! :)</p>
<p>I think the survey has a value. It gives you the general perception of architecture programs around the country. However I think it is stretching it a bit to make a broad judgement about a school based on rankings in the sub-categories. I’m sure USC is a fine school, but I doubt it is better rounded than some of the other top schools.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>Actually, I think it’s the sub-categories that are more interesting than the overall category because those categories are nuanced, and that’s where the data clearly show how schools might focus on one aspect over another. It’s also interesting that the results are based on opinions from hiring professionals rather than academics. What supports your statement of doubt, @rick12?</p>
<p>I think it’s true that the architecture programs can vary in their emphasis on practical and theoretical. Although the top rated programs endeavor to be comprehensive and balanced, different schools channel their resources into different areas. The top programs are, however, more balanced than this Arch Daily article suggests, and schools that rate highly in design are not unaware of the importance of teaching to construction, collaboration and sustainability. Conversely, architecture is still a creative field and even the schools with a more practical tech or engineering bent, have to keep up the quality of their studios. </p>
<p>These various facets overlap and converge so it’s difficult to compartmentalize specific strengths without considering overall strength. The important take-aways from this survey are that students should make an effort learn about individual cultures when they make their application lists, and that good schools can be found all over the country.</p>
<p>What’s a bit misleading in this article is that the Ivy League schools referenced – Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton – only offer the M.Arch. (Cornell the only Ivy League school with the B.Arch isn’t mentioned.) USC and some of the other schools mentioned offer both the B.Arch and the M.Arch, and although Design Intelligence rates undergraduate and graduate programs separately, it’s not clear in this article how these sub-category votes were grouped.</p>
<p>This differentiation is important because most M.Arch students will have some architecture undergraduate experience. Thus the M.Arch focus on theory at the expense of practicality may be more valid than it would be in undergraduate programs where students are being exposed to architecture for the first time.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what exactly Arch Daily considers a “worrying trend.” Is it that the top rated schools are too design oriented and their graduates are not prepared to function in the real world? Is it that sustainability isn’t getting enough attention? Is it that students under-appreciate the collaborative nature of architecture? All are interesting and valid points of discussion, but despite the Design Intelligence poll, I think these issues already have a high level of visibility among architecture school leadership. </p>
<p>An interesting corollary to the design-construction dichotomy is the schools’ lack of emphasis on the licensing process. Few schools teach to the specific exams, and consequently many students don’t fully comprehend the amount of time, expense and energy that the licensing process entails. Once graduates enter the workforce they will understand the importance of licensing to their career advancement, and in many cases their firms will mentor them through the process, but the whole transition from student to intern to licensed architect seems less transparent than it could be.</p>
<p>NCARB has recently announced that they would like to see more coordination between the colleges and the licensing process. <a href=“http://www.ncarb.org/en/News-and-Events/News/2014/05-BODendorsesLTF.aspx”>http://www.ncarb.org/en/News-and-Events/News/2014/05-BODendorsesLTF.aspx</a>
The impact of such a move on architecture curricula would be significant, and I think a positive. </p>
<p>By comparison LEED certification is fairly simple to obtain. I don’t see a lack of interest in securing LEED certification as reflection of the school’s understanding of the importance of including sustainability in their curriculum, but rather a low level of information about the process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The blurring of lines between graduate and undergraduate programs might have to do with the methodology of not targeting academics but employers (who might not have made the distinction themselves, but noted specific qualities in their hires.) That’s just conjecture, though. I do find value in any attempt to highlight the differences between schools, because that’s not always obvious when applying.</p>
<p>The things that gives me pause about the survey are just my personal experiences. I probably have more personal school experience than most professionals since I like to recruit and am very familiar with the work of five or six schools that have consistently produced the best students for us. </p>
<p>When I get to the survey and have to rank 20 schools, beyond the 6-10 I really know, I am just going on reputation and word of mouth. Now you are asking me about sub-categories, and beyond the top 1 or 2 schools with a particular emphasis I am just pulling names from the air. If you rank Harvard the best for communications is that because they teach it, or because so many of their students have a liberal arts undergraduate degree and love to argue?</p>
<p>The other thing that gives me pause is that as the importance of this survey has increased, so have efforts to game it. I now get letters from the deans of two of my schools urging me to vote for our school on the survey so they can get a higher ranking.</p>
<p>I still think it has value, but I would use it broadly to gauge the general respect of a program, but not as a substitute for a visit and deeper research.</p>
<p>rick</p>